pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27579 · v1 · pith:HU3JED6Dnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Hydrodynamic Response of Mildly Evolved Common Envelope Donors in Luminous Red Novae

Tenley Hutchinson-Smith , Angela Twum , Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords common envelope evolutionluminous red novaehydrodynamic simulationsmass ejectionstellar density concentrationbinary star interactionsenvelope ejection
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ratio of central to mean density in the donor star sets the inspiral morphology and mass-ejection timeline in common-envelope events.

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

The paper uses three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations to show that mildly evolved donor stars in common-envelope interactions follow paths determined primarily by their central concentration, expressed as the ratio of central density to average density. Donors sharing similar values of this ratio produce matching inspiral shapes and ejection sequences even when their total masses and radii differ substantially. Lower-concentration donors undergo fast plunges powered by direct orbital-energy release at the companion's location, while higher-concentration donors enter longer phases in which envelope-wide shocks and flows spread the deposited energy and angular momentum, allowing the envelope itself to sustain mass loss after the initial rapid phase ends. These findings indicate that the timing of mass ejection, not only its total amount, shapes the observed properties of luminous red novae and conflicts with models that treat envelope removal as nearly instantaneous.

Core claim

Three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of mildly evolved donors interacting with embedded companions demonstrate that hydrodynamic evolution is strongly regulated by the donor central concentration, parameterized by the ratio ρ_c/ρ_bar. Donors with similar values of ρ_c/ρ_bar exhibit similar inspiral morphologies and mass-ejection histories despite substantial differences in stellar mass and radius. Systems with relatively modest central concentration undergo rapid inspiral dominated by local orbital-energy deposition, while more centrally concentrated donors develop prolonged expansion-driven phases in which shocks and large-scale envelope motions redistribute deposited energy and angul

What carries the argument

The ratio ρ_c/ρ_bar, which parameterizes the donor's central concentration and thereby controls whether inspiral proceeds via rapid local energy deposition or via extended envelope-wide redistribution of energy and angular momentum.

If this is right

  • Donors sharing the same ρ_c/ρ_bar value produce comparable inspiral paths and ejection histories regardless of differences in total mass or radius.
  • Modest central concentration produces rapid inspiral driven by localized orbital-energy release near the companion.
  • Higher central concentration produces extended expansion phases in which envelope shocks and bulk motions continue to drive mass loss after the initial plunge slows.
  • The envelope itself remains dynamically active in mass ejection well after the rapid-inspiral stage, altering the temporal structure of the outflow.
  • Semi-analytic models that assume nearly instantaneous envelope ejection do not capture the diversity arising from different central concentrations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Population-synthesis calculations of luminous red novae should treat central concentration as an explicit input parameter rather than deriving it solely from mass and radius.
  • Light-curve fitting of individual events could be used to back out the progenitor donor's ρ_c/ρ_bar and thereby test the simulated regimes against real systems.
  • The same density-ratio dependence may govern mass-loss timing in other common-envelope transients whose donors occupy the mildly evolved structural range.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen range of mass ratios and central density concentrations in the simulations adequately captures the internal structures of real mildly evolved donors that produce observed luminous red novae.

What would settle it

If two observed luminous red novae whose donor stars can be inferred to have nearly identical ρ_c/ρ_bar values nevertheless display clearly different light-curve timescales or ejecta-velocity distributions, the claim that this single ratio dominates the hydrodynamic outcome would be falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27579 by Angela Twum, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, Tenley Hutchinson-Smith.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Binary interactions involving unstable mass transfer obtained from the binary population synthesis calculations of Twum et al. (2026). Panel a: Distribution of mildly evolved (Zone I) donors in the mass-radius plane. Panel b: Distribution of the ratio of central to average density, ρc/ρ¯, across the mass-radius plane for the mildly evolved donor population. In panels a and c, symbols indicate the subset of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Time evolution of the mid-plane density for the two representative q = 0.1 simulations. The more centrally concentrated 2.14M⊙ donor (top panels) with ρc/ρ¯ = 962 evolves over tens of dynamical timescales and settles into a quasi-stationary orbit while the donor envelope undergoes substantial expansion. Mass loss continues throughout this extended phase for hundreds of dynamical timescales, ultimately lead… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time evolution, in units of the dynamical timescale of the donor, representative q = 0.1 simulations for the moderately concentrated 18M⊙ donor with ρc/ρ¯ = 251 (left) and the high-central-concentration 2.14M⊙ donor with ρc/ρ¯ = 962 (right). The top panels show the cumulative ejected mass, normalized to the initial donor mass, together with the evolution of the enclosed-mass response parameter Ψ. Horizonta… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the moderately concentrated 18M⊙ donor with ρc/ρ¯ = 251 for companion mass ratios spanning q = 0.1–0.4. The panels show the cumulative ejected mass, enclosed-mass response parameter Ψ, and orbital separation as functions of time in units of the donor dynamical timescale. All models exhibit qualitatively similar inspiral evolution, with the embedded companion rapidly inspiraling toward the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of the high-central-concentration 2.14M⊙ donor with ρc/ρ¯ = 962 for companion mass ratios spanning q = 0.1– 0.4. The panels show the cumulative ejected mass, enclosed-mass response parameter Ψ, and orbital separation as functions of time in units of the donor dynamical timescale. In all models, the inspiral undergoes an initial dynamical contraction phase followed by a transition to prolonge… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the total ejecta mass obtained from the hydrodynamical simulations and the predictions of the standard α￾formalism assuming α = 1. The left panel shows the moderately concentrated donor suite, while the right panel shows the high-central￾concentration donor suite. The moderately concentrated donors broadly follow the orbital-energy scaling expected from the inspiral, although the simulat… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison simulations involving donors with similar central density contrasts but substantially different masses and evolutionary states. Top panels show the orbital separation evolution normalized by the donor radius, while bottom panels show the cumulative unbound mass fraction normalized by the total donor mass as a function of time normalized by the donor dynamical timescale. Despite significant diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Initial donor masses and radii adopted in previous global common-envelope simulations compared to the donor models studied in this work (blue circle symbols). Literature simulations primarily probe evolved RGB, AGB, and red-supergiant donors with large radii, while the present models occupy a distinct regime of mildly evolved progenitors with intermediate central concentration. The masses and radii of ecli… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Luminous red novae trace unstable binary interactions in which common-envelope evolution can produce either a stellar merger or a surviving binary following envelope ejection. Recent population studies suggest that a substantial fraction of these systems originate from mildly evolved donors whose structures occupy an intermediate regime between simplified polytropic envelopes and highly stratified giant stars. We present a suite of three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of mildly evolved donors interacting with embedded companions spanning a range of mass ratios and central density concentrations. We show that the hydrodynamic evolution is strongly regulated by the donor central concentration, parameterized by the ratio $\rho_c/\bar{\rho}$. Donors with similar values of $\rho_c/\bar{\rho}$ exhibit similar inspiral morphologies and mass-ejection histories despite substantial differences in stellar mass and radius. Systems with relatively modest central concentration undergo rapid inspiral dominated by local orbital-energy deposition, while more centrally concentrated donors develop prolonged expansion-driven phases in which shocks and large-scale envelope motions redistribute deposited energy and angular momentum throughout the star. In this regime, the envelope itself becomes dynamically important in driving continued mass loss long after the rapid plunge-in phase slows. These results challenge semi-analytic models of luminous red novae that assume nearly instantaneous envelope ejection and suggest that their observed diversity may depend not only on total ejecta mass, but also on the temporal structure of the outflow.

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 presents a suite of three-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations of common-envelope interactions between mildly evolved stellar donors and embedded companions across a range of mass ratios and central density concentrations. The central claim is that hydrodynamic evolution—including inspiral morphologies and mass-ejection histories—is strongly regulated by the donor central concentration parameterized by ρ_c/ρ_bar. Donors with similar values of this ratio exhibit similar behaviors despite differences in stellar mass and radius: lower-concentration systems undergo rapid inspiral dominated by local orbital-energy deposition, while more concentrated donors develop prolonged expansion-driven phases in which shocks and envelope motions redistribute energy and angular momentum, making the envelope dynamically important for continued mass loss. These results challenge semi-analytic models assuming nearly instantaneous envelope ejection and suggest that LRN diversity depends on the temporal structure of the outflow.

Significance. If the simulation results hold under scrutiny, the work would be significant for binary evolution and luminous red novae studies. It bridges the gap between simplified polytropic and highly stratified giant-star models by focusing on the intermediate regime of mildly evolved donors, which population studies indicate are relevant for a substantial fraction of LRNs. The finding that ρ_c/ρ_bar organizes the outcomes offers a potentially useful organizing principle for generalizing across stellar structures, and the emphasis on prolonged, envelope-driven mass loss phases provides a concrete mechanism that could explain observed diversity in LRN light curves beyond total ejecta mass alone.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (Numerical Setup): The central claim that evolution is 'strongly regulated' by ρ_c/ρ_bar and that similar ratios produce similar morphologies rests on the 3D simulation suite, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative validation metrics, convergence tests with varying resolution, or error analysis on the reported inspiral times, mass-loss rates, or morphological classifications. This is load-bearing for the reliability of the similarity statements.
  2. [§4] §4 (Results): The assertion that 'donors with similar values of ρ_c/ρ_bar exhibit similar inspiral morphologies and mass-ejection histories despite substantial differences in stellar mass and radius' is presented qualitatively; specific quantitative comparisons (e.g., overlap integrals on mass-loss curves, tabulated decay timescales, or statistical measures across matched ρ_c/ρ_bar pairs at different total masses) are needed to substantiate the claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The mean density in the ratio ρ_c/ρ_bar should be explicitly defined on first use (e.g., as the volume-averaged density within the stellar radius) for readers unfamiliar with the parameterization.
  2. [§5] §5 (Discussion): The manuscript could usefully add a brief comparison table or figure overlaying the simulated mass-ejection histories against predictions from existing semi-analytic LRN models to make the challenge to those models more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive report. The comments correctly identify that the central claims regarding regulation by central concentration would be strengthened by additional quantitative support. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (Numerical Setup): The central claim that evolution is 'strongly regulated' by ρ_c/ρ_bar and that similar ratios produce similar morphologies rests on the 3D simulation suite, yet the manuscript supplies no quantitative validation metrics, convergence tests with varying resolution, or error analysis on the reported inspiral times, mass-loss rates, or morphological classifications. This is load-bearing for the reliability of the similarity statements.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript currently presents the results through qualitative descriptions supported by figures rather than explicit quantitative validation. In the revised version we will expand §3 to include resolution convergence tests performed on representative models from each central-concentration regime. These tests will report the variation in inspiral timescale and total ejected mass with grid resolution, together with estimated uncertainties on the key quantities. The added material will directly underpin the reliability of the morphological classifications and the organizing role of ρ_c/ρ_bar. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results): The assertion that 'donors with similar values of ρ_c/ρ_bar exhibit similar inspiral morphologies and mass-ejection histories despite substantial differences in stellar mass and radius' is presented qualitatively; specific quantitative comparisons (e.g., overlap integrals on mass-loss curves, tabulated decay timescales, or statistical measures across matched ρ_c/ρ_bar pairs at different total masses) are needed to substantiate the claim.

    Authors: The present text relies on visual side-by-side comparisons of evolutionary tracks. To provide a more rigorous basis we will add, in the revised §4, a table of inspiral timescales, characteristic decay times, and mass-loss rates for all models, grouped by ρ_c/ρ_bar. We will also compute and report overlap integrals (or equivalent correlation measures) between the cumulative mass-loss histories of models sharing similar central concentrations but differing in total mass. These quantitative metrics will be discussed in the text to substantiate the similarity statement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports results from direct 3D hydrodynamic simulations of common-envelope interactions. The central claim—that inspiral morphologies and mass-ejection histories are regulated by the parameter ρ_c/ρ_bar—is presented as an empirical outcome of those integrations across a suite of models. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are invoked in the abstract or stated claim structure that would reduce the reported similarities to a definitional identity or to a prior result by the same authors. The derivation is therefore self-contained; external-validity questions about representativeness of the chosen models do not constitute internal circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the standard equations of hydrodynamics and the assumption that the chosen initial stellar profiles adequately sample the mildly evolved donor population; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • mass ratio q
    Varied across simulations to explore parameter space; values chosen by authors rather than derived.
  • central concentration ρ_c/ρ_bar
    Primary organizing parameter; specific values selected to span the mildly evolved regime.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Three-dimensional hydrodynamics governed by the Euler equations with self-gravity accurately captures the envelope response on dynamical timescales.
    Implicit foundation of all 3D hydrodynamic simulations described.
  • domain assumption Initial stellar models for mildly evolved donors can be constructed with the chosen central concentrations and remain stable until companion insertion.
    Required to initialize the suite of simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5774 in / 1365 out tokens · 40578 ms · 2026-07-01T15:59:42.619069+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

77 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2021, A&A, 653, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140525

    Blagorodnova, N., Klencki, J., Pejcha, O., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A134, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140525

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140525 2021

  2. [2]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/107

    Blagorodnova, N., Kotak, R., Polshaw, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/107

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/107 2017

  3. [3]

    E., Henden, A., Levay, Z

    Bond, H. E., Henden, A., Levay, Z. G., et al. 2003, Natur, 422, 405, doi: 10.1038/nature01508

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01508 2003

  4. [4]

    C., Wu, S

    Bush, R. C., Wu, S. C., Everson, R. W., et al. 2025, ApJL, 990, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adefde

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adefde 2025

  5. [5]

    Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al

    Cai, Y . Z., Pastorello, A., Fraser, M., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936749 De Marco, O., Sandquist, E. L., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2003, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936749 2019

  6. [6]

    2023, ApJ, 954, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced97

    Dori, N., Bear, E., & Soker, N. 2023, ApJ, 954, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced97

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced97 2023

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad595e

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024, ApJ, 971, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad595e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad595e 2024

  8. [8]

    W., MacLeod, M., De, S., Macias, P., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Everson, R. W., MacLeod, M., De, S., Macias, P., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, ApJ, 899, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba75c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba75c 2020

  9. [9]

    W., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Everson, R. W., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, ApJL, 979, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ada0ae

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ada0ae 2025

  10. [10]

    2015, A&A, 577, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425191

    Falanga, M., Bozzo, E., Lutovinov, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425191 2015

  11. [11]

    2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    Fryxell, B., Olson, K., Ricker, P., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273, doi: 10.1086/317361

    work page doi:10.1086/317361 2000

  12. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/25 2013

  13. [13]

    2009, ApJ, 705, 844, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/844

    Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Rosswog, S., & Kasen, D. 2009, ApJ, 705, 844, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/844

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/1/844 2009

  14. [14]

    W., Twum, A

    Hutchinson-Smith, T., Everson, R. W., Twum, A. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad88f3 2024

  15. [15]

    2017, MNRAS, 464, 4028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2569

    Iaconi, R., De Marco, O., Passy, J.-C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2569

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2569 2017

  16. [16]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 3409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty825

    Iaconi, R., De Marco, O., Reichardt, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty825

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty825 2018

  17. [17]

    J., & Livio, M

    Iben, I. J., & Livio, M. 1993, PASP, 105, 1373, doi: 10.1086/133321

    work page doi:10.1086/133321 1993

  18. [18]

    2011, ApJL, 731, L36, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L36

    Ivanova, N., & Chaichenets, S. 2011, ApJL, 731, L36, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/L36

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l36 2011

  19. [19]

    L., & Lombardi, J

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Avendano Nandez, J. L., & Lombardi, J. C. 2013a, Science, 339, 433, doi: 10.1126/science.1225540

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1225540

  20. [20]

    2013b, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013b, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Red novae, their progenitors, and remnants

    Kaminski, T., & Blagorodnova, N. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.17005. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    G., & Chruslinska, M

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Chruslinska, M. 2021, A&A, 645, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038707

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 2021

  24. [24]

    R., Ofek, E

    Kulkarni, S. R., Ofek, E. O., Rau, A., et al. 2007, Natur, 447, 458, doi: 10.1038/nature05822

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05822 2007

  25. [25]

    A., Pessev, P., Tomov, T., et al

    Kurtenkov, A. A., Pessev, P., Tomov, T., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526564

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526564 2015

  26. [26]

    Lau, M. Y . M., Hirai, R., Price, D. J., & Mandel, I. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac049

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac049 2022

  27. [27]

    2019, ApJL, 882, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab379a

    Law-Smith, J., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJL, 882, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab379a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab379a 2019

  28. [28]

    2017, ApJ, 841, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 841, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6ffb 2017

  29. [29]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc489 2020

  30. [30]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b 2025

  31. [31]

    1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419

    Livio, M., & Soker, N. 1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419

    work page doi:10.1086/166419 1988

  32. [32]

    2017a, ApJ, 838, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017a, ApJ, 838, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117

  33. [33]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c31

    MacLeod, M., De, K., & Loeb, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c31 2022

  34. [34]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134 14 HUTCHINSON-SMITH ET AL

    MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 757, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/134 14 HUTCHINSON-SMITH ET AL

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/134 2012

  35. [35]

    2017b, ApJ, 835, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/282

    MacLeod, M., Macias, P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2017b, ApJ, 835, 282, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/282

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/282

  36. [36]

    C., & Stone, J

    MacLeod, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 863, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacf08

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacf08 2018

  37. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/41

    MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2015, ApJ, 803, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/41

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/803/1/41 2015

  38. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02316

    Mandel, I., Riley, J., Boesky, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.02316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.02316

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.02316 2025

  39. [39]

    M., Tomaney, A., et al

    Martini, P., Wagner, R. M., Tomaney, A., et al. 1999, AJ, 118, 1034, doi: 10.1086/300951

    work page doi:10.1086/300951 1999

  40. [41]

    Matsumoto, T., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6269

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6269 2022

  41. [42]

    2002, A&A, 389, L51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020715

    Munari, U., Henden, A., Kiyota, S., et al. 2002, A&A, 389, L51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020715

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020715 2002

  42. [43]

    Nandez, J. L. A., & Ivanova, N. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3992, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1266

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1266 2016

  43. [44]

    Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, J. C. 2015, ApJ, 806, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/170

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/170 2015

  44. [45]

    T., R¨opke, F

    Ohlmann, S. T., R¨opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., Springel, V ., & M¨uller, E. 2016, ApJL, 816, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L9 OpenAI. 2025, Introducing Codex. https://openai.com/index/introducing-codex/

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/l9 2016

  45. [46]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, 75

    1976

  46. [47]

    L., et al

    Passy, J.-C., De Marco, O., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/52

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/1/52 2012

  47. [48]

    2019b, A&A, 630, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935999

    Pastorello, A., Mason, E., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2019b, A&A, 630, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935999

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935999

  48. [49]

    Pavlovskii, K., Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., & Van, K. X. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2786

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2786 2017

  49. [50]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  50. [51]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Giant Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  51. [52]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Binaries, Pulsations, and Explosions

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  52. [53]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  53. [54]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and Massive Star Explosions

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  54. [55]

    2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol

    Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. 2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 264, The Influence of Binaries on Stellar Population Studies, ed. D. Vanbeveren, 355, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9723-4 26

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9723-4 2001

  55. [56]

    N., Covarrubias, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Quinteros, K. N., Covarrubias, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1770, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02736-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02736-y 2025

  56. [57]

    A., & Livio, M

    Rasio, F. A., & Livio, M. 1996, ApJ, 471, 366, doi: 10.1086/177973

    work page doi:10.1086/177973 1996

  57. [58]

    A., Marco, O

    Reichardt, T. A., Marco, O. D., Iaconi, R., Chamandy, L., & Price, D. J. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 5333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa937

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa937 2020

  58. [59]

    A., Marco, O

    Reichardt, T. A., Marco, O. D., Iaconi, R., Tout, C. A., & Price, D. J. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3485

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3485 2019

  59. [61]

    M., & Taam, R

    Ricker, P. M., & Taam, R. E. 2012, ApJ, 746, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/74

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/74 2012

  60. [62]

    W., et al

    Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c R¨opke, F. K., & De Marco, O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 9, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c 2022

  61. [63]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84ee

    Rosselli-Calderon, A., Yarza, R., Murguia-Berthier, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad84ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad84ee 2024

  62. [64]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012

  63. [65]

    L., Taam, R

    Sandquist, E. L., Taam, R. E., & Chen, X. 2000, New Astronomy, 4, 313, doi: 10.1016/S1384-1076(99)00076-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s1384-1076(99)00076-4 2000

  64. [66]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 909, doi: 10.1086/305774

    Burkert, A. 1998, ApJ, 500, 909, doi: 10.1086/305774

    work page doi:10.1086/305774 1998

  65. [67]

    E., Dyk, S

    Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Dyk, S. D. V ., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw219

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw219 2016

  66. [68]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620

    1997

  67. [69]

    2015, ApJ, 800, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/114 —

    Soker, N. 2015, ApJ, 800, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/114 —. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 33, doi: 10.3390/galaxies12040033

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/2/114 2015

  68. [70]

    2003, ApJL, 582, L105, doi: 10.1086/367759

    Soker, N., & Tylenda, R. 2003, ApJL, 582, L105, doi: 10.1086/367759

    work page doi:10.1086/367759 2003

  69. [71]

    2017, Nature Communications, 8, 14906, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14906

    Stevenson, S., Vigna-G´omez, A., Mandel, I., et al. 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 14906, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14906

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms14906 2017

  70. [72]

    D., Taddia, F., Fraser, M., et al

    Stritzinger, M. D., Taddia, F., Fraser, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038019

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038019 2020

  71. [73]

    E., Bodenheimer, P., & Ostriker, J

    Taam, R. E., Bodenheimer, P., & Ostriker, J. P. 1978, ApJ, 222, 269, doi: 10.1086/156142

    work page doi:10.1086/156142 1978

  72. [74]

    X., & Swesty, F

    Timmes, F. X., & Swesty, F. D. 2000, ApJS, 126, 501, doi: 10.1086/313304

    work page doi:10.1086/313304 2000

  73. [75]

    Twum, A. A. G., Vigna-G´omez, A., MacLeod, M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.10211, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10211

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10211 2026

  74. [76]

    2011, A&A, 528, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016221

    Tylenda, R., Hajduk, M., Kami´nski, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016221

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016221 2011

  75. [77]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    work page doi:10.1086/161701 1984

  76. [78]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf48

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, ApJ, 901, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaf48

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaf48 2020

  77. [79]

    B., Murguia-Berthier, A., et al

    Yarza, R., Razo-L´opez, N. B., Murguia-Berthier, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbdfc

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