pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03128 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Cosmic Metallicities: The Role of Helium Star Progenitors

Abhishek Chattaraj , Jeff J. Andrews , Max Briel , Tassos Fragos , Seth Gossage , Vicky Kalogera , Philipp M. Srivastava , Elizabeth Teng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords double neutron starsdelay time distributionmetallicityhelium starsbinary evolutionr-process enrichmentshort gamma-ray bursts
0
0 comments X

The pith

Helium main-sequence radii set a minimum orbital size that pushes most double neutron star mergers to occur 80-250 million years after star formation.

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

The paper shows that metallicity shapes the delay time distribution of double neutron star mergers through the evolution of their helium star progenitors. At any given metallicity the radius reached on the helium main sequence fixes a lower limit on how close the two neutron stars can form, which in turn fixes a minimum time before gravitational waves can bring them together. Population synthesis across metallicities finds that mergers almost never happen before roughly 40 million years, peak strongly between 80 and 250 million years, and still leave more than 20 percent of systems merging after a billion years. These timescales are robust to changes in other binary physics and directly affect how quickly r-process elements can appear in young galaxies and how short gamma-ray bursts can occur in old ones.

Core claim

At a given metallicity the stellar radius during the helium main sequence sets a lower limit on the size of the DNS orbit at birth. Population synthesis then shows that the resulting delay time distribution is independent of other binary assumptions, with the majority of mergers occurring no earlier than about 40 Myr after star formation and peaking strongly between 80 and 250 Myr. Roughly 15 percent merge within 80 Myr while at least 20 percent take longer than 1 Gyr, and the distribution can develop a metallicity-dependent double-peaked shape when different formation channels dominate.

What carries the argument

The helium main-sequence radius at each metallicity, which imposes a firm lower bound on the initial orbital separation of the double neutron star binary and therefore on its gravitational-wave merger time.

If this is right

  • Roughly 15 percent of mergers within 80 Myr can supply r-process material in galaxies whose star formation lasts only a few tens of millions of years.
  • More than 20 percent of mergers after 1 Gyr can produce short gamma-ray bursts inside old, metal-poor galaxies.
  • The delay time distribution develops a double-peaked shape at some metallicities because the dominant formation channel shifts with metallicity.
  • Natal kicks large enough to produce very short delays require magnitudes and directions that are inconsistent with observed double neutron star systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same helium-radius limit could be checked by comparing predicted merger ages against the star-formation histories of host galaxies for known double neutron star systems.
  • Very short-delay events would demand kick orientations that are statistically rare, offering a way to test kick models without assuming the radius limit itself.
  • The framework may apply to other compact-object binaries in which a helium star phase sets the final separation before the second compact object forms.

Load-bearing premise

The helium star radius on the main sequence supplies a hard lower limit on the initial separation of the two neutron stars at every metallicity.

What would settle it

A statistically significant population of double neutron star mergers with delay times well below 40 million years after star formation, or the absence of any double-peaked structure in the observed delay distribution at varying metallicities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03128 by Abhishek Chattaraj, Elizabeth Teng, Jeff J. Andrews, Max Briel, Philipp M. Srivastava, Seth Gossage, Tassos Fragos, Vicky Kalogera.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radiative opacity as a function of temperature in the interior of a ∼ 3M⊙ He star at core carbon exhaus￾tion, shown for two initial metallicities Z = Z⊙ (red) and Z = 10−4Z⊙ (blue). The larger opacity bumps for the Z = Z⊙ model are indicative of increased radial expansion and higher wind mass loss rates. The enhanced opacity at higher metallicity indicates envelope inflation (e.g., D. Sanyal et al. 2017; C… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radial expansion of a 2.3 M⊙ He star (representative mass) at different metallicities with a zoomed-in inset on the He main sequence phase. Although the radius remains nearly constant (note the y-axis range in the inset), its exact value varies with metallicity. We pick the maximum radius attained during this phase for each metallicity (red dots) and show the resulting trend on the right panel. The Z⊙ mode… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of a 2.9M⊙ He star and a 1.43M⊙ NS. (Left panel) Evolution of the binary separation for three different initial orbital periods (different linestyles) and at two metallicities: Z⊙ (red) and 10−4Z⊙ (blue). Horizontal gray lines show the inspiral times for a circular binary with two 1.4M⊙ NS components born at the corresponding separations. (Right panel) Mass transfer parameters for the binary with… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Top row) Distribution of post-SN orbital separations and eccentricities for a fixed pre-collapse He star mass M = 1.8M⊙ and a range of natal kick magnitudes, Vk = [0.1, 0.3, 0.5] Vorb (left to right). Black dotted lines indicate constant merger times. The distributions are confined within the analytic limits shown by the red lines (see discussion in Section 2.3), with high density regions near the boundar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of formation times (from ZAMS to DNS birth) for merging systems in MODEL01 at three metal￾licities. Formation times scale with the nuclear lifetimes of the H-burning primary stars, which are more massive at higher metallicities, explaining the shorter timescales. The double peak at intermediate metallicities results from the bi￾furcation of the standard CE formation channel into two sub￾ch… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The distribution of DNS delay times from population synthesis models are shown across eight metallicities (rows) and various binary physics treatments (columns). The gray dotted line marks tHubble = 13.8 Gyr. A bifurcation in the dominant CE formation channel (A. Chattaraj et al. 2026) produces a secondary peak at some metallicities (see view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of helium star wind mass-loss prescriptions for a binary with a ∼ 2.9M⊙ He star and a 1.43M⊙ NS, with an initial orbital period of 0.13 days, at metallicities Z = Z⊙ (red) and Z = 10−4Z⊙ (blue). (Top row) The wind mass-loss rates predicted by the T. Nugis & H. J. G. L. M. Lamers (2000) and J. S. Vink (2017) prescriptions differ by roughly one order-of magnitude at both metallicities, and exceed … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Metallicity can play a significant role in massive binary evolution through its impact on the opacity within stellar interiors and wind-driven mass loss. In this work, we investigate how the double neutron star (DNS) delay time distribution (DTD) is shaped by the metallicity-dependent evolution of the helium star$-$NS progenitor system. Drawing from insights rooted in single and binary star physics, we argue that at a given metallicity, the stellar radius during the helium main-sequence sets a lower limit on the size of the DNS orbit at birth. We then perform population synthesis with the detailed binary evolution code POSYDON to illustrate the resulting DTD across a range of metallicities. Our results indicate that, independent of binary physics assumptions, the majority of DNS mergers across metallicities occur typically no earlier than $\simeq 40\,\rm{Myr}$ after star formation and peaks strongly between $80-250\,\rm{Myr}$. Roughly $15\%$ of DNSs merge within 80 Myr, which may explain $r$-process enrichment in environments with brief star formation histories, while $\gtrsim 20\%$ merge on delay times $>1$Gyr, providing an explanation for short gamma-ray bursts in old, metal-poor galaxies. The shape of the DTD can be complex, with a metallicity-dependent split in the dominant formation channel imprinting a characteristic double-peaked structure. Although ideally oriented natal kicks can produce very short merging DNS, we find that the required kick magnitudes are inconsistent with observations. Our work has implications for assessing the contribution of DNS mergers to $r$-process enrichment and gamma-ray bursts/kilonovae transients across cosmic time.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses population synthesis with the POSYDON binary evolution code to compute delay-time distributions (DTDs) for double neutron star (DNS) mergers across a range of metallicities. Drawing on single- and binary-star radius and Roche-lobe arguments, it posits that the helium main-sequence radius at fixed metallicity imposes a hard lower bound on the pre-second-supernova separation, yielding a minimum merger delay of ≃40 Myr, a strong peak between 80–250 Myr, ~15% of systems merging within 80 Myr, and ≳20% with delays >1 Gyr. The DTD shape is reported to be metallicity-dependent and potentially double-peaked due to shifts in dominant formation channels; the work discusses implications for r-process enrichment and short gamma-ray bursts.

Significance. If the claimed minimum delay and channel independence hold, the results would provide a physically motivated prior for DNS contributions to r-process sites and kilonova transients across cosmic time, particularly in short star-formation bursts and old metal-poor galaxies. The adoption of detailed, metallicity-dependent binary evolution via POSYDON is a clear methodological strength, moving beyond parameterized prescriptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (population synthesis setup): the central claim that the DTD minimum of ≃40 Myr and overall shape are 'independent of binary physics assumptions' is load-bearing yet rests on the assertion that He-MS radius sets a universal lower bound on post-second-SN separation. The manuscript must explicitly demonstrate (via channel-by-channel fractions or an additional run) that common-envelope evolution prior to the helium-star phase contributes negligibly to the short-delay tail; otherwise the independence statement does not follow from the POSYDON grid.
  2. [§4] §4 (results on DTD): the reported fractions (15% within 80 Myr, ≳20% >1 Gyr) and the double-peaked structure are presented without error bars, convergence tests against initial binary parameter distributions, or sensitivity to natal-kick prescriptions. These omissions directly affect the quantitative statements used to link DNSs to r-process enrichment and GRB hosts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure 3 (or equivalent DTD plots): axis labels and legend entries should explicitly state the metallicity grid values and whether the curves are normalized per unit star formation or per DNS formed.
  2. [§2] §2 (theoretical lower-limit argument): the transition from single-star He-MS radius to binary Roche-lobe constraint is sketched but would benefit from an explicit inequality relating radius, orbital period, and mass ratio at the onset of the second supernova.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and provide point-by-point responses below, along with indications of revisions to be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] the central claim that the DTD minimum of ≃40 Myr and overall shape are 'independent of binary physics assumptions' is load-bearing yet rests on the assertion that He-MS radius sets a universal lower bound on post-second-SN separation. The manuscript must explicitly demonstrate (via channel-by-channel fractions or an additional run) that common-envelope evolution prior to the helium-star phase contributes negligibly to the short-delay tail; otherwise the independence statement does not follow from the POSYDON grid.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration strengthens the independence claim. The physical argument is that the helium main-sequence radius at a given metallicity provides a hard lower limit on the orbital separation immediately prior to the second supernova, independent of prior evolutionary history. Common-envelope evolution before the helium-star phase typically leads to tighter orbits initially, but subsequent evolution and mass transfer adjust the separation such that the helium star's radius still enforces the minimum post-SN separation. To address the referee's request, we have added channel-by-channel fractions in a revised §3, showing that pre-helium CE channels contribute negligibly to the short-delay population (<80 Myr), as these systems often merge or disrupt earlier or result in longer delays. This supports that the DTD shape is robust. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] the reported fractions (15% within 80 Myr, ≳20% >1 Gyr) and the double-peaked structure are presented without error bars, convergence tests against initial binary parameter distributions, or sensitivity to natal-kick prescriptions. These omissions directly affect the quantitative statements used to link DNSs to r-process enrichment and GRB hosts.

    Authors: We acknowledge these omissions in the original manuscript. In the revised version, we have incorporated error bars on the fractions using bootstrap resampling of the simulated populations to account for statistical uncertainties. We have also added convergence tests by varying the initial mass function, binary mass ratios, and orbital separations within observational ranges, confirming that the reported fractions and double-peaked structure are robust. For natal kicks, we performed additional runs with different kick velocity distributions, showing that the overall DTD features remain consistent. These results are now presented in §4 with a new figure and discussed in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; DTD obtained via forward modeling

full rationale

The central result (DNS DTD shape and minimum delay time) is produced by running the POSYDON population-synthesis code on metallicity-dependent binary tracks. The helium-main-sequence radius argument is introduced as an independent physical lower bound drawn from single/binary stellar structure, not as a fitted parameter or self-referential definition. No load-bearing self-citation chain, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present in the provided text; the simulation outputs are not forced by construction to match any input data or prior claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard assumptions of binary stellar evolution and the capabilities of the POSYDON population synthesis code. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption At a given metallicity, the stellar radius during the helium main-sequence sets a lower limit on the size of the DNS orbit at birth.
    Drawn from insights rooted in single and binary star physics as stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5639 in / 1481 out tokens · 60131 ms · 2026-05-08T17:25:58.953919+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 112 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 892, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2020

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 4332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2530

    Anand, N., Shahid, M., & Resmi, L. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4332, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2530

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2530 2018

  5. [5]

    J., & Mandel, I

    Andrews, J. J., & Mandel, I. 2019, ApJL, 880, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ed1

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab2ed1 2019

  6. [6]

    J., & Zezas, A

    Andrews, J. J., & Zezas, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 3213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1066 14Chattaraj et al

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1066 2019

  7. [7]

    2025 , note =

    Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., Briel, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adfb78 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboratio...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adfb78 2025

  8. [8]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f

    Bandyopadhyay, A., Ezzeddine, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6f0f 2024

  9. [9]

    S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fryer, C

    Behroozi, P. S., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Fryer, C. L. 2014, ApJ, 792, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/123

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/792/2/123 2014

  10. [10]

    A Comprehensive study of binary compact objects as gravitational wave sources: Evolutionary channels, rates, and physical properties

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., & Bulik, T. 2002, ApJ, 572, 407, doi: 10.1086/340304

    work page doi:10.1086/340304 2002

  11. [11]

    2006, ApJ, 648, 1110, doi: 10.1086/505169

    Belczynski, K., Perna, R., Bulik, T., et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1110, doi: 10.1086/505169

    work page doi:10.1086/505169 2006

  12. [12]

    2018a, A&A, 615, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732428

    Belczynski, K., Askar, A., Arca-Sedda, M., et al. 2018a, A&A, 615, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732428

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732428

  13. [13]

    2018b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.10065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.10065

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Olejak, A., et al. 2018b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.10065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1812.10065

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.10065

  14. [14]

    2016, ApJL, 829, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L13

    Beniamini, P., Hotokezaka, K., & Piran, T. 2016, ApJL, 829, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/L13

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l13 2016

  15. [15]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 4089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2903

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4089, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2903

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2903 2016

  16. [16]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4847, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1589

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1589 2019

  17. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

    Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2024, ApJ, 966, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad32cd 2024

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Berger, E., Fox, D. B., Price, P. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1000, doi: 10.1086/518762

    work page doi:10.1086/518762 2007

  19. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2554

    Bonetti, M., Perego, A., Dotti, M., & Cescutti, G. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 296, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2554

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2554 2019

  20. [20]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1677 2022

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Cantiello, M., Langer, N., Brott, I., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 279, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911643

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911643 2009

  22. [22]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157, doi: 10.1086/153315

    work page doi:10.1086/153315 1975

  23. [23]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1862

    Cehula, J., & Pejcha, O. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1862

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1862 2023

  24. [24]

    J., Bavera, S

    Chattaraj, A., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2026, ApJ, 997, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f93

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f93 2026

  25. [25]

    S., & Siegel, D

    Chen, H.-Y., Landry, P., Read, J. S., & Siegel, D. M. 2025, ApJ, 985, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add0af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add0af 2025

  26. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 2937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2923

    Chruslinska, M., Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., & Benacquista, M. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 2937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2923

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2923 2018

  27. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2882 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al

    Chu, Q., Yu, S., & Lu, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2882 Cˆ ot´ e, B., Eichler, M., Arcones, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 875, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab10db

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2882 2022

  28. [28]

    N., & Tabor, J

    Cox, A. N., & Tabor, J. E. 1976, ApJS, 31, 271, doi: 10.1086/190383 De Santis, A. L., Ronchini, S., Santoliquido, F., &

    work page doi:10.1086/190383 1976

  29. [29]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13391

    Branchesi, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.13391, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.13391

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.13391 2026

  30. [30]

    J., & Thomas, H

    Delgado, A. J., & Thomas, H. C. 1981, A&A, 96, 142

    1981

  31. [31]

    Dewi, J. D. M., & Pols, O. R. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 629, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06844.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06844.x 2003

  32. [32]

    Heuvel, E. P. J. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 1027, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05257.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05257.x 2002

  33. [33]

    Disberg, P., Gaspari, N., & Levan, A. J. 2024, A&A, 689, A348, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450790

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450790 2024

  34. [34]

    Disberg and I

    Disberg, P., & Mandel, I. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.22102, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.22102

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.22102 2025

  35. [35]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 2012

  36. [36]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    work page doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  37. [37]

    Implications of low neutron star merger rates for gamma-ray bursts, r-process production and Galactic double neutron stars

    Fishbach, M., Ji, A. P., Fong, W.-f., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05059. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    P., & van den Heuvel, E

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

    1975

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJ, 769, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/56

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Chornock, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/56

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/56 2013

  40. [40]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1 2023

  41. [41]

    Gallegos-Garcia, M., Berry, C. P. L., & Kalogera, V. 2023, ApJ, 955, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace434 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., & Groh, J. H. 2017, A&A, 608, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730472 G¨ otberg, Y., Drout, M. R., Ji, A. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace434 2023

  42. [42]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 4461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1112

    Guo, Y.-L., Wang, B., Chen, W.-C., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1112

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1112 2024

  43. [43]

    T., Simon, J

    Hansen, T. T., Simon, J. D., Marshall, J. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa634a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa634a 2017

  44. [44]

    2013, A&A, 558, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321471

    Hao, J.-M., & Yuan, Y.-F. 2013, A&A, 558, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321471

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321471 2013

  45. [45]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  46. [46]

    E., Gerasimov, R., & Kirby, E

    Henderson, L. E., Gerasimov, R., & Kirby, E. N. 2025a, ApJL, 992, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4a Double Neutron Star Delay Times Across Metallicities15

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0a4a 2041

  47. [47]

    2025, ApJ, 983, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe7d Hern´ andez-Mart´ ınez, L., & Pe˜ na, M

    Gerasimov, R., & Manwadkar, V. 2025b, ApJ, 983, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbe7d

  48. [48]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020434

    Hill, V., Plez, B., Cayrel, R., et al. 2002, A&A, 387, 560, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020434

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020434 2002

  49. [49]

    Gallazzi, S

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x 2005

  50. [50]

    M., & Andrews, J

    Holmbeck, E. M., & Andrews, J. J. 2024, ApJ, 963, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e52

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e52 2024

  51. [51]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420051

    Hotokezaka, K., Beniamini, P., & Piran, T. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, doi: 10.1142/S0218271818420051

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271818420051 2018

  52. [52]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  53. [53]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1991, ApJ, 371, 408, doi: 10.1086/169902

    work page doi:10.1086/169902 1991

  54. [54]

    A., Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., Rogers, F. J., & Wilson, B. G. 1992, ApJ, 397, 717, doi: 10.1086/171827

    work page doi:10.1086/171827 1992

  55. [55]

    J., et al

    Im, M., Yoon, Y., Lee, S.-K. J., et al. 2017, ApJL, 849, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9367

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9367 2017

  56. [56]

    Taam, R. E. 2003, ApJ, 592, 475, doi: 10.1086/375578

    work page doi:10.1086/375578 2003

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Janka, H.-T. 2017, ApJ, 837, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa618e 2017

  58. [58]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  59. [59]

    P., Frebel, A., Chiti, A., et al.\ 2016, , 531, 610

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Chiti, A., & Simon, J. D. 2016a, Nature, 531, 610, doi: 10.1038/nature17425

    work page doi:10.1038/nature17425

  60. [60]

    P., Frebel, A., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Frebel, A., Simon, J. D., & Chiti, A. 2016b, ApJ, 830, 93, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/93

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/830/2/93

  61. [61]

    P., Simon, J

    Ji, A. P., Simon, J. D., Roederer, I. U., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acad84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acad84 2023

  62. [62]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 115022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad8d1b

    Jiang, L., Xu, K., Zha, S., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 115022, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ad8d1b

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad8d1b 2024

  63. [63]

    , keywords =

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

    work page doi:10.1086/177974 1996

  64. [64]

    2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, Nature, 551, 80, doi: 10.1038/nature24453

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24453 2017

  65. [65]

    1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    1994

  66. [66]

    N., Ji, A

    Kirby, E. N., Ji, A. P., & Kovalev, M. 2023, ApJ, 958, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf309

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf309 2023

  67. [67]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    Kobayashi, C., Mandel, I., Belczynski, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acad82

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acad82 2023

  68. [68]

    Wide Jets or Low Rates: Reconciling Short GRB and Gravitational-Wave Neutron Star Merger Rates

    Kunnumkai, K., Palmese, A., O’Connor, B., Farah, A., & Magana Hernandez, I. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.05046. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05046

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    , keywords =

    Lattimer, J. M., & Schramm, D. N. 1974, ApJL, 192, L145, doi: 10.1086/181612

    work page doi:10.1086/181612 1974

  70. [70]

    P., Naidu, R

    Limberg, G., Ji, A. P., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2512, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae969

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae969 2024

  71. [71]

    , year = 1994, month = may, volume =

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

    work page doi:10.1038/369127a0 1994

  72. [72]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08630, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08630

    Maoz, D., & Nakar, E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.08630, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.08630

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.08630 2024

  73. [73]

    2021, A&A, 650, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040227

    Matsuno, T., Hirai, Y., Tarumi, Y., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040227

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040227 2021

  74. [74]

    S., Zheng, Z., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    McCarthy, K. S., Zheng, Z., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5220, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3206

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3206 2020

  75. [75]

    W., Sneden, C., & Searle, L

    McWilliam, A., Preston, G. W., Sneden, C., & Searle, L. 1995, AJ, 109, 2757, doi: 10.1086/117486

    work page doi:10.1086/117486 1995

  76. [76]

    Metzger, B. D. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.05931, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.05931

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1710.05931 2017

  77. [77]

    J., Lucas, P

    Metzger, B. D., Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, G., Darbha, S., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2650, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x 2010

  78. [78]

    P., Ji, A

    Naidu, R. P., Ji, A. P., Conroy, C., et al. 2022, ApJL, 926, L36, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5589 2022

  79. [79]

    2025, MNRAS, 543, 233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1397

    Nair, A., & Stevenson, S. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1397 2025

  80. [80]

    Nakar, E., Gal-Yam, A., & Fox, D. B. 2006, ApJ, 650, 281, doi: 10.1086/505855

    work page doi:10.1086/505855 2006

Showing first 80 references.