pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23786 · v1 · pith:6Y3WDHRGnew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

A Collapsar-Disk Origin for GW190814

Vishal Baibhav , Brian D. Metzger , Lam Hui This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 07:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords GW190814collapsar diskblack hole mergerstandard sirenstripped-envelope supernovagravitational wavesHubble constantaccretion disk fragment
0
0 comments X

The pith

GW190814 originated when a fragment from a neutrino-cooled collapsar disk merged with the central black hole, linked to supernova SN2019npv as precursor.

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

The paper proposes that the unusual gravitational-wave event GW190814, a merger between a 23-solar-mass black hole and a 2.6-solar-mass compact object, formed through the merger of a disk fragment with the central remnant in a collapsing star. This channel accounts for the extreme mass ratio that isolated-binary and dynamical channels have difficulty producing. The scenario predicts a stripped-envelope supernova occurring weeks before the merger, and identifies the Type Ib candidate SN2019npv as a possible match inside the event's localization volume roughly 60 days earlier. Treating this supernova as the host association converts the merger into a standard siren, yielding a Hubble constant measurement of 70.5 km/s/Mpc.

Core claim

We propose that GW190814 originated from such a collapsar-disk fragment merging with the central BH. A key prediction of this scenario is a temporal association with a stripped-envelope supernova preceding the GW event, and we identify the Type Ib supernova candidate SN2019npv, which occurred inside the GW190814 credible volume approximately 60 days before coalescence, as a possible electromagnetic precursor. Although this delay is too long for a conventional kilonova counterpart, we show that three-body interactions among disk fragments can excite some compact objects to wide orbits and naturally produce merger delays of weeks to months. Finally, treating SN2019npv as the host makes GW19081

What carries the argument

Neutrino-cooled collapsar disks that become gravitationally unstable and fragment into compact objects capable of merging with the central black hole after three-body scattering delays.

If this is right

  • Three-body interactions among disk fragments naturally produce merger delays ranging from weeks to months.
  • Future delayed mergers in this channel could produce luminous transients through shocks between merger ejecta and preceding supernova ejecta.
  • The model supplies an origin for other extreme mass-ratio black-hole mergers that standard channels struggle to explain.
  • Association with an identifiable supernova host converts the event into a standard siren for cosmology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other asymmetric gravitational-wave events could be tested for similar supernova precursors in archival data.
  • The contribution of collapsar-disk fragments to the overall merger rate could be bounded by the observed frequency of stripped-envelope supernovae overlapping gravitational-wave sky maps.
  • If the channel operates, some future events might show electromagnetic emission on month-long timescales even without a kilonova.
  • The scenario predicts that the secondary object in such mergers should often be a low-mass black hole rather than a neutron star.

Load-bearing premise

SN2019npv is the associated stripped-envelope supernova occurring inside the GW190814 credible volume approximately 60 days prior to coalescence.

What would settle it

A redshift for SN2019npv that places its distance outside the GW190814 localization volume or inconsistent with the inferred luminosity distance would rule out the proposed link.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23786 by Brian D. Metzger, Lam Hui, Vishal Baibhav.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mass ratio of GW190814 compared with predictions from conventional binary–black-hole formation channels. The teal violin is the GW190814 posterior on q = m2/m1; the right-hand violins show theoretical distributions for common-envelope evolution at efficiencies α = 0.2 and α = 5.0 (CE), chemically homogeneous evolution (CHE), globular-cluster dynamics (GC), and stable mass transfer (SMT). The shaded band at… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution of the orbital semi-major axis a for the two disk fragments in the surviving-companion family, in which CO1 and CO2 do not merge with each other and one is instead captured by the central BH. The fragments are labeled by their eventual fate: CO1, which plunges into the BH first (orange), and CO2, the surviving outer companion that merges later and is the GW190814 progenitor (purple). Shaded bands… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panels: joint distribution of post-first-event semi-major axis a and eccentricity e, with marginal histograms. The surviving outer companion (1g CO2 +BH; colored density) traces a high-eccentricity, large-a ridge with e → 1 and a ∼ 103 – 104 Rg, while the second-generation product (2g CO +BH; gray) clusters at a ≲ few ×102 Rg with modest eccentricity. Bottom panel: distribution of merger delays between… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior on H0 from GW190814 alone (assuming SN2019npv hosts the merger; orange), from the GW170817 chain alone (black dashed; Abbott et al. 2017), and from the joint measurement (black). The GW190814 posterior is tighter and more sym￾metric than GW170817’s, which carries a long tail past 90 km s−1 Mpc−1 , despite having smaller signal-to-noise ratio. Distance sets ∼ 97% of the H0 variance and pecu￾liar v… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic timeline of a delayed compact-object merger embedded inside the ejecta of a preceding stripped-envelope supernova. Left: Core collapse forms a central BH surrounded by a massive, fragmenting accretion disk. One or more disk fragments collapse into compact objects and undergo gravitational scattering in the potential of the central BH. Middle: After a delay tm, one compact object merges with the B… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted local rate of GW190814-like mergers, RGW190814 = fm RLGRB (Eq. A1), for fm = 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 (top three rows), compared with the measured LVK rate for GW190814 (bottom). The shaded band marks the mea￾sured 90% interval (1–23 Gpc−3 yr−1 ) and the dashed line its median (7 Gpc−3 yr−1 ; Abbott et al. 2020); predicted rates use RLGRB = 79+57 −33 Gpc−3 yr−1 (Ghirlanda & Salvaterra 2022). The fm =… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

GW190814 was a remarkable gravitational-wave (GW) event: a merger between a 23 solar-mass black hole (BH) and a 2.6 solar-mass compact object, with an extreme mass ratio that is difficult to reproduce through standard isolated-binary or dynamical formation channels. Recent work has shown that neutrino-cooled collapsar disks can become gravitationally unstable and fragment, producing neutron stars (NSs) or low-mass BHs in orbit around the newly formed central BH. These fragments may subsequently interact, scatter, merge with one another, or inspiral into the central remnant. We propose that GW190814 originated from such a collapsar-disk fragment merging with the central BH. A key prediction of this scenario is a temporal association with a stripped-envelope supernova preceding the GW event, and we identify the Type Ib supernova candidate SN2019npv, which occurred inside the GW190814 credible volume approximately 60 days before coalescence, as a possible electromagnetic precursor. Although this delay is too long for a conventional kilonova counterpart, we show that three-body interactions among disk fragments can excite some compact objects to wide orbits and naturally produce merger delays of weeks to months. While GW190814 itself was not expected to produce detectable tidal-disruption-powered emission, future delayed mergers in this channel could generate luminous transients through either reprocessed kilonova heating or shocks driven as merger ejecta collide with the preceding supernova ejecta. Finally, treating SN2019npv as the host makes GW190814 a bright standard siren and yields H_0 = 70.5 (+9.2, -6.4) km/s/Mpc.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that GW190814 originated from the merger of a central black hole with a low-mass compact-object fragment formed via gravitational instability in a neutrino-cooled collapsar accretion disk. It identifies the Type Ib supernova SN2019npv, located inside the GW190814 credible volume and occurring ~60 days prior to coalescence, as a possible electromagnetic precursor. Three-body interactions among disk fragments are invoked to explain the delay, and treating SN2019npv as the host yields a standard-siren Hubble constant of H_0 = 70.5 (+9.2, -6.4) km/s/Mpc.

Significance. If the SN2019npv association and the collapsar-disk fragment channel are validated, the work would introduce a new formation pathway for extreme mass-ratio mergers and supply an independent H_0 constraint. The significance is currently limited by the lack of quantitative support for fragment survival, merger-delay statistics, and the false-association probability, which are required to elevate the scenario beyond a post-hoc identification.

major comments (3)
  1. [abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: The central claim that GW190814 originated in a collapsar-disk fragment and the derived H_0 value both rest on identifying SN2019npv as the associated supernova. The manuscript provides no calculation of the chance-coincidence probability (using the supernova rate, localization area, and 60-day time window), no posterior odds, and no false-association rate. This is load-bearing because the spatial-temporal link must be shown to be improbable under the null hypothesis before the scenario or the standard-siren result can be considered robust.
  2. [three-body interactions discussion] Discussion of three-body delays (section describing fragment interactions): The manuscript states that three-body interactions can excite fragments to wide orbits and produce merger delays of weeks to months, yet supplies no quantitative modeling of fragment survival probabilities, scattering cross-sections, or resulting delay-time distributions. Without these, the mechanism remains qualitative and does not rescue the prior probability of the SN2019npv association.
  3. [final paragraph] H_0 derivation (final paragraph): The quoted H_0 = 70.5 (+9.2, -6.4) km/s/Mpc is obtained by treating SN2019npv as the host. The reported uncertainties do not include the systematic uncertainty arising from the unquantified probability that the supernova is a random interloper rather than the true host; this omission directly affects the reliability of the standard-siren result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract claims 'we show that three-body interactions... can naturally produce merger delays,' but the full text should clarify whether this is a new calculation or a reference to existing literature on three-body dynamics in disks.
  2. Notation for the fragment masses (2.6 M_⊙ compact object) and the central BH (23 M_⊙) should be introduced with explicit symbols early in the text for consistency with later equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report. The comments correctly identify that quantitative support for the SN2019npv association and the three-body delay mechanism would strengthen the manuscript. We address each point below and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: The central claim that GW190814 originated in a collapsar-disk fragment and the derived H_0 value both rest on identifying SN2019npv as the associated supernova. The manuscript provides no calculation of the chance-coincidence probability (using the supernova rate, localization area, and 60-day time window), no posterior odds, and no false-association rate. This is load-bearing because the spatial-temporal link must be shown to be improbable under the null hypothesis before the scenario or the standard-siren result can be considered robust.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative estimate of the chance-coincidence probability is required. In the revised manuscript we will compute this probability using the local Type Ib/c supernova rate, the GW190814 localization area, and the 60-day temporal window. The calculation will also yield an estimate of the false-association rate and the posterior odds ratio under the null hypothesis, allowing the robustness of the association to be assessed directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [three-body interactions discussion] Discussion of three-body delays (section describing fragment interactions): The manuscript states that three-body interactions can excite fragments to wide orbits and produce merger delays of weeks to months, yet supplies no quantitative modeling of fragment survival probabilities, scattering cross-sections, or resulting delay-time distributions. Without these, the mechanism remains qualitative and does not rescue the prior probability of the SN2019npv association.

    Authors: The three-body discussion is presented as a plausibility argument rather than a full statistical model. We acknowledge the referee's point and will add order-of-magnitude estimates for scattering cross-sections, fragment survival fractions, and the resulting delay-time distribution using standard three-body scattering theory and typical collapsar-disk parameters. Full N-body or hydrodynamical simulations lie beyond the scope of this work and will be flagged as future work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [final paragraph] H_0 derivation (final paragraph): The quoted H_0 = 70.5 (+9.2, -6.4) km/s/Mpc is obtained by treating SN2019npv as the host. The reported uncertainties do not include the systematic uncertainty arising from the unquantified probability that the supernova is a random interloper rather than the true host; this omission directly affects the reliability of the standard-siren result.

    Authors: We agree that the quoted H_0 uncertainties should incorporate the possibility of a false association. In the revision we will either report the H_0 value conditional on the association or augment the error budget with a systematic term derived from the false-association probability calculated in response to the first comment. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper proposes a collapsar-disk fragment origin for GW190814 and conditionally identifies SN2019npv to enable a standard-siren H0 calculation. The H0 result follows from applying established luminosity-distance methods to the assumed host redshift and does not reduce to any fitted parameter or self-definition within the paper's own equations. The three-body interaction argument explains a possible delay after the association is posited but is not used to derive the association probability or force the result. No self-citation chains, ansatzes smuggled via citation, or renamings of known results appear as load-bearing steps in the provided text. The central claim remains a physical scenario whose validity hinges on external association probability (not analyzed here) rather than internal circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model depends on the possibility of disk fragmentation (from cited recent work) and the post-hoc supernova association; no new free parameters are explicitly fitted beyond the H0 derivation, but the fragment survival and delay mechanism rest on unquantified assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • merger delay timescale
    Produced via three-body interactions among fragments; specific weeks-to-months range is stated without derivation or fitting details.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Neutrino-cooled collapsar disks can become gravitationally unstable and fragment into NSs or low-mass BHs
    Invoked in the opening paragraph as the basis for producing the 2.6 Msun object.
invented entities (1)
  • collapsar-disk fragments as surviving compact objects capable of delayed merger no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for the secondary in GW190814 and the observed delay
    Postulated to explain the event; no independent evidence such as a predicted observable signature outside this scenario is provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5836 in / 1445 out tokens · 31000 ms · 2026-06-26T07:05:23.136334+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

81 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  2. [2]

    2020 b , Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020, ApJL, 896, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2020

  3. [3]

    2023 a , Physical Review X, 13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  4. [4]

    2020, A&A, 643, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037669

    Ackley, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 643, A113, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037669

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037669 2020

  5. [5]

    A.A.Ponomareva,M.A.W.Verheijen,R.F.Peletier,andA.Bosma.MNRAS,469(2):2387–2400, Aug

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  6. [6]

    J., Palmese, A., Douglass, K., et al

    Amsellem, A. J., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J., 1001, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b37

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4b37 2026

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 890, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a1b

    Andreoni, I., et al. 2020, ApJ, 890, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a1b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab6a1b 2020

  8. [8]

    R., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al

    Antoniadis, J., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 657, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142322

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142322 2022

  9. [9]

    Arnett, W. D. 1982, ApJ, 253, 785, doi: 10.1086/159681

    work page doi:10.1086/159681 1982

  10. [10]

    Barnes, J., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJL, 939, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b41

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac9b41 2022

  11. [11]

    B., Modjaz, M., Hicken, M., et al

    Bianco, F. B., Modjaz, M., Hicken, M., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 19, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/19

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/19 2014

  12. [12]

    Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes[J/OL]

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 179, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  13. [13]

    and Stevenson, Simon and Thrane, Eric

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E. 2022, ApJ, 938, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879 2022

  14. [14]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/110

    Bromberg, O., Nakar, E., Piran, T., & Sari, R. 2012, ApJ, 749, 110, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/110

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/2/110 2012

  15. [15]

    , year = 1996, month = feb, volume =

    Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., & Boss, A. P. 1996, Icarus, 119, 261, doi: 10.1006/icar.1996.0019

    work page doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0019 1996

  16. [16]

    B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F

    Chatterjee, S., Ford, E. B., Matsumura, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 580, doi: 10.1086/590227

    work page doi:10.1086/590227 2008

  17. [17]

    Chen, H.-Y., Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2018, Nature, 562, 545, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0 2018

  18. [18]

    Chen, W.-X., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2007, Astrophys. J., 657, 383, doi: 10.1086/508923

    work page doi:10.1086/508923 2007

  19. [19]

    Chen, Y.-X., & Metzger, B. D. 2025, ApJL, 991, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae045d

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae045d 2025

  20. [20]

    and Soderberg, Alicia M

    Drout, M. R., Soderberg, A. M., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/97

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

  21. [21]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/23 2014

  22. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 926, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3978

    Essick, R., Farah, A., Galaudage, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3978

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3978 2022

  23. [23]

    2020, Astrophys

    Essick, R., & Landry, P. 2020, Astrophys. J., 904, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd3b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbd3b 2020

  24. [24]

    Fishbach, M., Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2020, Astrophys. J. Lett., 899, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6 2020

  25. [25]

    B., & Rasio, F

    Ford, E. B., & Rasio, F. A. 2008, ApJ, 686, 621, doi: 10.1086/590926

    work page doi:10.1086/590926 2008

  26. [26]

    2012, PhRvD, 86, 124007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007

    Foucart, F. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 124007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.124007 2012

  27. [27]

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

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91

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

  28. [28]

    2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    Ghirlanda, G., & Salvaterra, R. 2022, ApJ, 932, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6e43 2022

  29. [29]

    2023, Astrophys

    Gottlieb, O., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Lowell, B., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 952, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace779 12

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ace779 2023

  30. [30]

    , keywords =

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Issa, D., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 993, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d81

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d81 2025

  31. [31]

    T., Flynn, C., et al

    Gourdji, K., Deller, A. T., Flynn, C., et al. 2026

    2026

  32. [32]

    2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    Guetta, D., & Della Valle, M. 2007, ApJL, 657, L73, doi: 10.1086/511417

    work page doi:10.1086/511417 2007

  33. [33]

    Electromagnetic Follow-up of the Sub-Solar Mass Gravitational Wave Candidate S251112cm: Kilonova Constraints and a Coincident IIb Supernova

    Hall, X. J., Ahumada, T., Gassert, J., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.10940, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.10940

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.10940 2026

  34. [34]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Phinney, E. S., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473 2019

  35. [35]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0fcb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0fcb 2021

  36. [36]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Holz, D. E., & Hughes, S. A. 2005, ApJ, 629, 15, doi: 10.1086/431341

    work page doi:10.1086/431341 2005

  37. [37]

    2019, Nature Astron., 3, 940, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

    Hotokezaka, K., Nakar, E., Gottlieb, O., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 940, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0820-1 2019

  38. [38]

    2026, Phys

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 083020, doi: 10.1103/fzhd-hcpp

    work page doi:10.1103/fzhd-hcpp 2026

  39. [39]

    2024, Astrophys

    Tchekhovskoy, A. 2024, Astrophys. J., 961, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0 Juri´ c, M., & Tremaine, S. 2008, ApJ, 686, 603, doi: 10.1086/590047

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f0 2024

  40. [40]

    M., Ahumada, T., Stein, R., et al

    Kasliwal, M. M., Ahumada, T., Stein, R., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L59, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2000

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2000 2025

  41. [41]

    D., et al

    Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac23c6 2021

  42. [42]

    Laskar, J., & Petit, A. C. 2017, A&A, 605, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630022

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201630022 2017

  43. [43]

    C., & Ofengeim, D

    Lerner, Y., Stone, N. C., & Ofengeim, D. D. 2026, MNRAS, 545, staf1835, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1835

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1835 2026

  44. [44]

    Liang, E., Zhang, B., Virgili, F., & Dai, Z. G. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111, doi: 10.1086/517959

    work page doi:10.1086/517959 2007

  45. [45]

    MacFadyen, A., & Woosley, S. E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262, doi: 10.1086/307790

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/307790 1999

  46. [46]

    L., & Hogan, C

    MacLeod, C. L., & Hogan, C. J. 2008, PRD, 77, 043512, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.043512 Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., & Breivik, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.043512 2008

  47. [47]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Rev. Rel., 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  48. [48]

    Mandel, I., & de Mink, S. E. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw379

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw379 2016

  49. [49]

    Rapid Stellar and Binary Population Synthesis with COMPAS: Methods Paper II

    Mandel, I., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 280, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adf8d0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adf8d0 2025

  50. [50]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume =

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 2016

  51. [51]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039992 2021

  52. [52]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01 2019

  53. [53]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4088, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2681

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2681 2020

  54. [54]

    D., Hui, L., & Cantiello, M

    Metzger, B. D., Hui, L., & Cantiello, M. 2024, ApJL, 971, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6990

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad6990 2024

  55. [55]

    , keywords =

    Metzger, B. D., Martinez-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

  56. [56]

    2008, AJ, 135, 2398, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2398

    Mikkola, S., & Merritt, D. 2008, AJ, 135, 2398, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2398

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2398 2008

  57. [57]

    P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W

    Mooley, K. P., Anderson, J., & Lu, W. 2022, Nature, 610, 273, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05145-7 2022

  58. [58]

    , year = 2016, month = sep, volume =

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315 2016

  59. [59]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 063508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063508

    Palmese, A., Kaur, R., Hajela, A., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063508

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063508 2024

  60. [60]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3420 2019

  61. [61]

    2014─2017 core-collapse supernovae and their subtypes

    Pessi, T., Desai, D. D., Prieto, J. L., et al. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 703, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556799

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556799 2025

  62. [62]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  63. [63]

    L., & Pfahl, E

    Piro, A. L., & Pfahl, E. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1173, doi: 10.1086/511672

    work page doi:10.1086/511672 2007

  64. [64]

    A., & Ford, E

    Rasio, F. A., & Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274, 954, doi: 10.1126/science.274.5289.954

    work page doi:10.1126/science.274.5289.954 1996

  65. [65]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934L...7R 934, L7

    Riess, A. G., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022

  66. [66]

    Schutz, B. F. 1986, Nature, 323, 310, doi: 10.1038/323310a0

    work page doi:10.1038/323310a0 1986

  67. [67]

    2024, Phys

    Sekiguchi, Y. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 043051, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.043051

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.043051 2024

  68. [68]

    W., & Lissauer, J

    Smith, A. W., & Lissauer, J. J. 2009, Icarus, 201, 381, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2008.12.027 2009

  69. [69]

    2018, A&A, 609, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844

    Taddia, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 609, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730844

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730844 2018

  70. [70]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd555

    Tagawa, H., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd555

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd555 2021

  71. [71]

    2015, ApJ, 807, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/157

    Tremaine, S. 2015, ApJ, 807, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/157

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/807/2/157 2015

  72. [72]

    2020, Astrophys

    Vasylyev, S., & Filippenko, A. 2020, Astrophys. J., 902, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb5f9 2020

  73. [73]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab917d

    Vieira, N., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab917d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab917d 2020

  74. [74]

    A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al

    Villar, V. A., Guillochon, J., Berger, E., et al. 2017, ApJL, 851, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 A collapsar-disk origin for GW19081413

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c84 2017

  75. [75]

    M., et al

    Watson, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa161

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa161 2020

  76. [76]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359

    work page doi:10.1086/172359 1993

  77. [77]

    E., & Bloom, J

    Woosley, S. E., & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558 2006

  78. [78]

    R., Vu, N

    Wu, J., Most, E. R., Vu, N. L., et al. 2026

    2026

  79. [79]

    2019, Astrophys

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3 2019

  80. [80]

    S., Fong, W.-f., Kremer, K., et al

    Ye, C. S., Fong, W.-f., Kremer, K., et al. 2020, ApJL, 888, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5dc5

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5dc5 2020

Showing first 80 references.