Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 82 references

A semi-analytical model reconstructs the mass-transfer history of merging binaries from years-long supernova precursor light curves and temperatures.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:49 UTC pith:O4PQDUHR

load-bearing objection A useful and honest semi-analytical framework for SN precursors, but the 'mass-transfer history inference' is really a fit to an assumed two-stage shape until synthetic-data validation shows otherwise. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20599 v1 pith:O4PQDUHR submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Semi-analytical Light Curve Model for Transients Preceding Binary Mergers. I: Supernova Precursor Emission from Compact Object Companions

Daichi Tsuna , Morgan Macleod , V. Ashley Villar This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords supernova precursorsbinary mergersunstable mass transferaccretion powercompact object companionslight curve modelingwind reprocessingtransient surveys
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the long-rising precursor emission seen before some interacting supernovae is accretion-powered light reprocessed by a quasi-spherical, optically thick wind launched by a compact object companion during unstable mass transfer. It constructs a semi-analytical model that turns the observed luminosity and temperature into a time-resolved mass-transfer rate, assuming the rate stays constant for a while and then rises as a power law toward merger. Applied to three events, the model recovers mass-transfer rates of order 0.1–1 solar masses per year in the final years, favors evolved giant donors with black hole or neutron star companions, and shows that temperature data are what break the degeneracy between mass-loss rate and accretion efficiency. If correct, this gives a direct way to watch the last years of a merging binary and to identify a population of merger-driven explosions in upcoming wide-field surveys.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that years-long supernova precursors are powered by unstable mass transfer onto a compact object, and that the light curve is the emission of an optically thick wind reprocessing accretion power. Solving the wind shell by shell shows luminosity is set at the trapping radius; temperature is set at the thermalization radius. Because temperature traces mass-transfer rate divided by wind velocity while luminosity traces their product, the pair breaks the degeneracy between them. Applied to three real precursors, the model recovers mass-transfer histories that rise toward merger with total masses matching the inferred circumstellar material.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quasi-spherical optically thick wind. Two radii set the emission: the trapping radius, where the diffusion time equals expansion time and most luminosity escapes, and the thermalization radius, where radiation and gas decouple (found with a bound-free/free-free absorption opacity with a recombination cutoff); the observed temperature is the wind temperature at the larger radius. The mass-transfer history is prescribed as a constant rate followed by a power-law rise (t_m - t)^(-δ), with δ tied to the donor's envelope structure, and dust reddening is added through a sublimation radius. This maps observed luminosity and temperature to the binary's mass-transfer ra

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the erupted material forms a roughly spherical, opaque wind whose flow rate stays flat for years and then surges as a single steepening curve right up to the moment of merger; if the flow is lumpy, lopsided, or ramps up differently early on, every inferred mass-transfer history and donor property would be off.

What would settle it

The model predicts that a precursor's color temperature should fall as the wind becomes denser (constant or rising luminosity with falling temperature). A precursor whose multi-band photometry shows temperature rising alongside luminosity, or whose radio-inferred mass-loss rate differs from the model-reconstructed Mdot by much more than the factor of a few the paper already attributes to asymmetry in SN 2023fyq, would contradict the quasi-spherical, optically thick wind assumption.

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

If this is right

  • Precursor light curves of interacting supernovae can be inverted to recover the mass-transfer history of the pre-merger binary, giving the mass-loss rate and total mass shed in the final years.
  • Temperature information (multi-band photometry or spectroscopy) is what breaks the degeneracy between mass-transfer rate and accretion efficiency; bolometric-only fits leave the mass-loss history poorly constrained.
  • The three fitted events favor evolved, giant-like donors with black hole companions for the Type IIn cases and a low-mass helium star with a neutron star for the Type Ibn case.
  • The double-peaked morphology shared by these events is explained as a delay between the compact object's plunge-in and the final explosion, with a prediction of at most two well-separated peaks.
  • The model applies directly to the large sample of precursors expected from next-generation sky surveys, where dimmer events with lower-mass donors or neutron star companions should be far more numerous.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: if the assumed two-stage mass-transfer law is generic, the shape of the late rising light curve directly measures the donor envelope's polytropic index (δ = 1 + 2/(2n+1)), turning a survey of precursors into a population-level measurement of donor structure.
  • Editorial: the model's dust treatment implies a sharp drop in optical dust optical depth as the precursor brightens near merger—an infrared signature that could be tested with targeted follow-up observations of future precursors.
  • Editorial: the same wind-reprocessing framework could be adapted to other long-rising transients (e.g., luminous red novae), but for those the donor's own emission and gas pressure would need to be included, as the authors themselves note.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript constructs a semi-analytical model for long-rising optical precursors of binary mergers with compact-object accretors. The model assumes a quasi-spherical, optically thick wind reprocessing accretion power; the mass-transfer history is parameterized as a constant plateau followed by a power-law divergence (Eq. 6). It includes dust extinction and computes luminosity and temperature, with eight free parameters. The model is fit via MCMC to three observed SN precursors (SN 2023zkd, 2023fyq, 2021qqp), yielding reconstructed mass-transfer histories and progenitor interpretations. The code is publicly available.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: interpreting a growing sample of long-rising precursors of interacting SNe as unstable mass transfer onto compact objects. Its strengths include a transparent, semi-analytical formalism; a public implementation; joint use of luminosity and temperature to break the Mdot-epsilon degeneracy; and honest confrontation with external data (e.g., CSM mass for 2023zkd; radio mass-loss estimates for 2023fyq). If the inference is robust, this is a valuable framework for LSST-era events. The principal caveat is that the 'inferred mass-transfer history' is a projection onto the assumed functional form of Eq. (6), and no synthetic-data test demonstrates recovery of other shapes. This is addressable and does not invalidate the model as a forward model.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (6); §5] The central claim of the abstract and §5 — that the method infers the mass-transfer history — is conditioned on the assumed two-stage form of |Mdot(t)| in Eq. (6). The MCMC only explores the parameters of this prescribed curve, so the reconstructed Mdot(t) is not a free-form inference. This matters because §4.4 uses the reconstructed Mdot in Eq. (7) to derive donor properties (e.g., R*~100 Rsun, M*~10s Msun for the Type IIn events; He-star+NS for 2023fyq). No synthetic-data experiment is shown in which an Mdot(t) with a different early-time behavior is injected and recovered. I recommend either adding such a validation (e.g., injecting a two-plateau or exponential-rise history and checking posteriors) or explicitly limiting the claim in the abstract and §5 to 'constraining parameters within the assumed family.' This is the most load-bearing point.
  2. [§4.1, Table 2, Figure 5] For SN 2023zkd, the fit uses five blackbody epochs (Figure 5; ten scalar measurements) against eight free parameters (Table 2). The corner plot (Figure 10) shows weak constraints on tMT (-19.3 +7.6/-5.8 yr) and broad posteriors on several parameters. The reconstructed history in Figure 6 is therefore strongly influenced by the prior shape of Eq. (6). A cross-validation check, an information criterion, or a statement of effective degrees of freedom would make the 'capability' claim more convincing. This is related to Major Comment 1 and could be addressed in the same validation.
  3. [§2.3–2.4, §3.3] The luminosity-temperature mapping assumes a quasi-spherical wind, but §3.3 acknowledges that the L2 outflow may be equatorial and that the light curve could then be two-component. The current version does not quantify how much an asymmetric geometry biases the inferred Mdot(t) or the donor properties in §4.4. Because the abstract claims a general capability, the authors should either add a simple anisotropy study or qualify the claim in the abstract and §5 to the quasi-spherical case.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4] Duplicate 'our' in 'our our light curve model'.
  2. [§5] Typo: 'currect model' should be 'current model'.
  3. [Table 2] The prior range for tMT appears as '[-104 days, first detection]'; should read '[-10^4 days, first detection]'.
  4. [Eq. (25)] Kramer's opacity' should be 'Kramers' opacity' for consistency with §2.6.
  5. [Figure 9] The g-band residuals near t≈-1.8 yr are attributed to weighting toward the many ramp-up points; showing the weights or residuals explicitly would improve transparency.
  6. [Eq. (33)] The inverse formula uses the positive branch of the square root; the authors should state the range of color over which this branch is valid.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a conditional inverse-modeling analysis, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

I checked the derivation chain. The mass-transfer history is introduced as an assumed parametric form in Eq. (6), |Mdot*(t)| = Mdot0[1 + ((tm-t0)/(tm-t))^delta], and the MCMC fits its parameters to external Lobs/Tobs data. The reconstructed histories in Figures 6, 8, and 9 are posterior draws from that same parametric family, so the inference is conditional on the model; but this is standard model-based inference and not a circular reduction, because the data genuinely constrain the parameters and the paper explicitly frames the work as an inverse problem (§5: 'our work has been limited to an inverse problem approach') with forward modeling deferred. The luminosity-temperature mapping (§2.3–2.4) follows the external framework of Piro & Lu (2020) with opacity and dust inputs; it is not derived from the assumed Mdot shape. External consistency checks are also made, e.g. the CSM mass for SN 2023zkd is 'not imposed in our model' (§4.1), and the radio-based mass-loss estimate for SN 2023fyq is compared and its discrepancy discussed (§4.2). Self-citations to Tsuna et al. (2024) motivate the scenario and expected parameter ranges (§3.1) but are not used as a uniqueness theorem, ansatz source, or load-bearing derivation step; the power-law mass-transfer divergence is cited to Webbink (1977) and Pejcha (2014). The lack of synthetic-data validation against alternative Mdot(t) shapes is a validation limitation, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central inference is a fit of eight parameters per event to sparse photometry; the mass-transfer history is assumed, not derived from first principles. The remaining model choices are standard wind/dust physics.

free parameters (8)
  • log10 Mdot0 (M_sun/yr) = -1.29 / -1.57 / -1.59 (SN2023zkd/2023fyq/2021qqp)
    Base mass-transfer rate before dynamical phase; fitted to observed light curves.
  • tMT (yr) = -19.3 / -16.0 / -17.5
    Start time of mass transfer; fitted.
  • t0 (yr) = -6.36 / -0.17 / -4.11
    Onset of dynamically unstable mass transfer; fitted.
  • tm (day) = -51.8 / -7.8 / -18.2
    Time of binary merger; fitted.
  • delta = 1.50 / 1.51 / 1.45 (posterior medians)
    Power-law index of runaway mass-transfer rate; bounded to [13/11,2] by prior, fitted within.
  • log10 rin (cm) = 12.67 / 12.86 / 12.69
    Wind launching radius; fitted.
  • log10 eps_acc,0 = -3.68 / -4.07 / -3.75
    Initial accretion-to-radiation efficiency; fitted.
  • n_acc = -0.18 / -0.30 / -0.28
    Power-law index of efficiency vs Mdot; fitted.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Mass-transfer rate follows Eq. (6): constant Mdot0 before t0, then ∝(t_m - t)^-delta
    Motivated by RLOF theory, but adopted as the functional form for all inference; the 'reconstructed' Mdot history inherits this shape.
  • domain assumption Outflow is quasi-spherical, optically thick wind launched at radius r_in with half the accretion power in internal energy
    From Piro & Lu (2020); geometry uncertainty acknowledged in §3.3.
  • ad hoc to paper Accretion efficiency follows eps_acc = eps_acc,0 (|Mdot|/Mdot0)^n_acc with constant n_acc
    Parametrization introduced in Eq. (10); central to mapping luminosity to mass-loss rate.
  • ad hoc to paper Kramers opacity with sharp cutoff beta=15 at recombination temperature Tc
    Eq. (25); chosen to mimic recombination; affects temperature (and hence T_obs) inference.
  • domain assumption Dust sublimation and color-temperature conversion via Eq. (32) fitted to SNEC tables
    Standard dust treatment; conversion fit parameters are not physics-free.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26652 in / 12512 out tokens · 97223 ms · 2026-08-01T09:49:13.335286+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A binary undergoing dynamically unstable mass transfer could rapidly shrink its orbit and lead to a merger, with the whole process often observable in human timescales. We construct a semi-analytical light curve model of binary systems composed of a star and a compact object accretor, that would display long-rising accretion-powered emission prior to a final merger-driven explosion. We apply the model to the precursors of interacting supernovae (SNe) that display long-rising light curves of years, SN 2023zkd, 2023fyq and 2021qqp, demonstrating the model's capability of inferring the mass-transfer history and constraining the progenitor binary system. The model and the parameter inference framework, encapsulated in a publicly-released script, can be applied to existing long-rising precursors of SNe as well as many SN precursors to be discovered by surveys like those from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20599 by Daichi Tsuna, Morgan MacLeod, V. Ashley Villar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Example density (left) and temperature (right) profiles of the wind, for three cases of M˙ w at 1 year before merger. Due to the increasing M˙ w in the dynamical phase (inset of left panel), the outer part of the wind steepens from the standard r−2 density profile, shown as dashed lines in the left panel. Dotted lines on the right panel show the wind’s outermost radius rout, trapping radius rtr (dots), a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Relation between color B − V and blackbody temper￾ature Tbb. Dashed line shows the fitting formula in equation (32) used in our model for dust correction. dense (large M˙ w/vw; e.g., Kochanek 2011), and expands to a large radius where dust can condense. From the bolometric light curve Lrad, we estimate the radius out to which dust sublimates (e.g., Waxman & Draine 2000) rsub ≈  LradQabs/em 4πacT4 con 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — Inner wind (accretion) power Lin as a function of the mass-transfer rate |M˙ ∗| and binary separation abin, under the model outlined in Section 3. We consider a NS (BH) accretor with mass 1.4 (10) M⊙, accreting from a 5 (30) M⊙ donor with composition being H-rich (X = 0.7, Y = 0.28, Z = 0.02) or H-poor (X = 0, Y = 0.98, Z = 0.02). Overall, the model predicts Lin ≈ 1040–1042 erg s−1 and ϵacc ∼ 2Lin/|M˙ ∗|… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Calculated accretion efficiency ϵacc ≈ 2Lin/|M˙ ∗c 2 | as a function of |M˙ ∗|, with a range given by variations of abin over the same range as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Reconstructed light curves and temperature evolution from 100 random posterior draws, for the case of SN 2023zkd. The five data points from the blackbody fit of Gagliano et al. (2025b) are used for the MCMC fit. merger between a partially stripped massive star and a BH companion. We specifically fit their blackbody estimates (Lobs, Tobs) at the precursor phase (see their Fig￾ure 13), from day −1527 to da… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Reconstructed mass transfer history for SN 2023zkd, showing two cases where both luminosity and temperature evolution were used for fitting as done in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — The reconstructed mass-transfer rates and evolution of the V -band optical depth for SN 2023fyq. The sharp rise in luminosity near merger leads to dust sublimation and a drop in the dust optical depth. signal is attenuated by free-free absorption, and mass￾loss estimates can be sensitive to asymmetry in the CSM. The radio emission and reprocessed optical emission re￾spectively probe low-density regions a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Multi-band light curves fits and reconstructed mass-transfer histories for SN 2021qqp. The data points in the left panel are ZTF data compiled by Hiramatsu et al. (2024), up to ≈ 65 days before the optical peak. ture estimates. We extract the g- and r-band light curves from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), up to 65 days before the first r-band peak. Hiramatsu et al. (2024) de￾fines this last epoch as… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Parameter estimation for SN 2023zkd. Hiramatsu, D., Matsumoto, T., Berger, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854 Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412 Hong, X., Sun, N.-C., Shao, Y., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16526, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.16526 Inoue, A. K., Hashimoto, T., Chihara, H., & Koike, C. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1577, doi: … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Parameter estimation for SN 2023fyq. MacLeod, M., Ostriker, E. C., & Stone, J. M. 2018, ApJ, 863, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacf08 Maeda, K., Kuncarayakti, H., Nagao, T., et al. 2026, PASJ, 78, L1, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaf140 Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab240 Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59 Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Parameter estimation for SN 2021qqp. Pavlovskii, K., & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv619 Pejcha, O. 2014, ApJ, 788, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/22 Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016a, MNRAS, 461, 2527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1481 —. 2016b, MNRAS, 455, 4351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2592 Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., Tyles, J. G., & Tomida, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 59, doi… view at source ↗

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

82 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 161101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.161101 2018

  2. [2]

    J., Bavera, S

    Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., Briel, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 3, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adfb78

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adfb78 2025

  3. [3]

    J., N., Jacobson-Gal´ an, W., et al

    Baer-Way, R., A. J., N., Jacobson-Gal´ an, W., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, L49, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1cb8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1cb8 2025

  4. [4]

    Begelman, M. C. 1979, MNRAS, 187, 237, doi:10.1093/mnras/187.2.237

    doi:10.1093/mnras/187.2.237 1979

  5. [5]

    L., et al

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1217, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1217

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

  6. [6]

    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

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

  7. [7]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 433, doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    doi:10.1093/mnras/179.3.433 1977

  8. [8]

    J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al

    Brennan, S. J., Sollerman, J., Irani, I., et al. 2024, A&A, 684, L18, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449350

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449350 2024

  9. [9]

    2026, ApJ, 1004, L37, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae734e

    Cai, Y.-Z., Pastorello, A., Chiba, R., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1004, L37, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae734e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae734e 2026

  10. [10]

    Chevalier, R. A. 2012, ApJ, 752, L2, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/l2 2012

  11. [11]

    S., Narayan, R., Su, K.-Y., & Natarajan, P

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Narayan, R., Su, K.-Y., & Natarajan, P. 2025, ApJ, 995, 122, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1fdb

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1fdb 2025

  12. [12]

    S., Su, K.-Y., Narayan, R., & Natarajan, P

    Cho, H., Prather, B. S., Su, K.-Y., Narayan, R., & Natarajan, P. 2024, ApJ, 977, 200, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9561 De Marco, O., & Izzard, R. G. 2017, PASA, 34, e001, doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9561 2024

  13. [13]

    J., & Kuncarayakti, H

    Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., & Kuncarayakti, H. 2022, A&A, 658, A130, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142436

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142436 2022

  14. [14]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    Dong, Y., Tsuna, D., Valenti, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 254, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8de6 2024

  15. [15]

    A., et al

    Dong, Y., de Soto, K., Villar, V. A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, L8, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1837

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1837 2025

  16. [16]

    Draine, B. T. 2011, Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 2011

  17. [17]

    2024, A&A, 685, A58, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 —

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 —. 2025, A&A, 696, A103, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347646 2024

  18. [18]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 20, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab218a

    Faran, T., Goldfriend, T., Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2019, ApJ, 879, 20, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab218a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab218a 2019

  19. [19]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi:10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  20. [20]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac317

    Fuller, J., & Lu, W. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3951, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac317

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac317 2022

  21. [21]

    2019, ApJ, 881, L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, ApJ, 881, L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b 2019

  22. [22]

    A., et al

    Gagliano, A., Berger, E., Villar, V. A., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 978, 110, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9748

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9748

  23. [23]

    A., Matsumoto, T., et al

    Gagliano, A., Villar, V. A., Matsumoto, T., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 989, 182, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea38

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea38

  24. [24]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40 G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., & Groh, J. H. 2017, A&A, 608, A11, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730472

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/40 2015

  25. [25]

    M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Kim, C.-G. 2024, ApJ, 973, 141, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fe7 2024

  26. [26]

    M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V

    Guo, M., Stone, J. M., Quataert, E., & Springel, V. 2025, ApJ, 987, 202, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add1da

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add1da 2025

  27. [27]

    Henneco, J., Schneider, F. R. N., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 682, A169, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347893 16 Tsuna et al. log M0 [M /yr] = 1.29+0.60 0.56 25 20 15 10 5 tMT [yr] tMT [yr] = 19.28+7.58 5.76 24 18 12 6 t0 [yr] t0 [yr] = 6.36+4.43 8.42 120 90 60 30 tm [day] tm [day] = 51.79+35.27 41.49 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 = 1.50+0.32 0.21 9.0 10.5 12.0 13.5 log rin [c...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347893 2024

  28. [28]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 181, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854

    Hiramatsu, D., Matsumoto, T., Berger, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 181, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2854 2024

  29. [29]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi:10.1086/165412

    doi:10.1086/165412 1987

  30. [30]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16526, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605.16526

    Hong, X., Sun, N.-C., Shao, Y., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.16526, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605.16526

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16526 2026

  31. [31]

    K., Hashimoto, T., Chihara, H., & Koike, C

    Inoue, A. K., Hashimoto, T., Chihara, H., & Koike, C. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1577, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1203

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1203 2020

  32. [32]

    2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59, doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59, doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  33. [33]

    M., & Davis, S

    Jiang, Y.-F., Stone, J. M., & Davis, S. W. 2014, ApJ, 796, 106, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/106

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/106 2014

  34. [34]

    K., & Kasen, D

    Khatami, D. K., & Kasen, D. N. 2024, ApJ, 972, 140, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad60c0 2024

  35. [35]

    2025, MNRAS, 541, 3748, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1241

    Ko, T., Kinugawa, T., Tsuna, D., Hirai, R., & Takei, Y. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 3748, doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1241 2025

  36. [36]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2011, ApJ, 743, 73, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/73

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/73 2011

  37. [37]

    2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 47, doi:10.1007/s12036-017-9467-4

    Konar, S. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 47, doi:10.1007/s12036-017-9467-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12036-017-9467-4 2017

  38. [38]

    E., Justham, S., & Farmer, R

    Laplace, E., G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., & Farmer, R. 2020, A&A, 637, A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937300

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 2020

  39. [39]

    2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi:10.1086/375492

    Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220, doi:10.1086/375492

    doi:10.1086/375492 2003

  40. [40]

    2024, ApJ, 960, 82, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af

    Lowell, B., Jacquemin-Ide, J., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Duncan, A. 2024, ApJ, 960, 82, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad09af 2024

  41. [41]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3621 2023

  42. [42]

    2020a, ApJ, 893, 106, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab822e —

    MacLeod, M., & Loeb, A. 2020a, ApJ, 893, 106, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab822e —. 2020b, ApJ, 895, 29, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab89b6 Model for Transients Preceding Binary Mergers 17 log M0 [M /yr] = 1.57+0.05 0.05 25 20 15 10 5 tMT [yr] tMT [yr] = 16.03+7.27 7.62 0.40 0.32 0.24 0.16 0.08 t0 [yr] t0 [yr] = 0.17+0.04 0.05 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 tm [day] tm [day] = 7.7...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab822e

  43. [43]

    C., & Stone, J

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacf08 2018

  44. [44]

    2026, PASJ, 78, L1, doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf140

    Maeda, K., Kuncarayakti, H., Nagao, T., et al. 2026, PASJ, 78, L1, doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf140

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psaf140 2026

  45. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 3385, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab240

    Matsumoto, T., & Piran, T. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 3385, doi:10.1093/mnras/stab240

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab240 2021

  46. [46]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59 2022

  47. [47]

    C., Lamb, F

    Miller, M. C., Lamb, F. K., Dittmann, A. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, L28, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac089b 2021

  48. [48]

    L., Renzo, M., et al

    Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 63, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/63 2015

  49. [49]

    A., & Ofek, E

    Murase, K., Thompson, T. A., & Ofek, E. O. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2528, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu384

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu384 2014

  50. [50]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 2539, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2087

    Poutanen, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2539, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2087

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2087 2015

  51. [51]

    2017, A&A, 605, A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629906

    Nyholm, A., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629906

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629906 2017

  52. [52]

    2020, A&A, 637, A73, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936097

    Nyholm, A., Sollerman, J., Tartaglia, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A73, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936097

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936097 2020

  53. [53]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi:10.1086/430728

    Ohsuga, K., Mori, M., Nakamoto, T., & Mineshige, S. 2005, ApJ, 628, 368, doi:10.1086/430728

    doi:10.1086/430728 2005

  54. [54]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, 75 Paczy´ nski, B., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1972, Acta Astron., 22, 73

    1976

  55. [55]

    2023, A&A, 671, A158, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244684 18 Tsuna et al

    Pastorello, A., Valerin, G., Fraser, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A158, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244684 18 Tsuna et al. log M0 [M /yr] = 1.59+0.25 0.24 25 20 15 10 tMT [yr] tMT [yr] = 17.47+7.12 6.93 24 18 12 6 t0 [yr] t0 [yr] = 4.11+2.12 3.84 60 45 30 15 tm [day] tm [day] = 18.19+12.86 19.74 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 = 1.45+0.30 0.19 10 11 12 13 log rin [cm] log rin...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244684 2023

  56. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619

    Pavlovskii, K., & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv619 2015

  57. [57]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 22, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/22

    Pejcha, O. 2014, ApJ, 788, 22, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/22

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/788/1/22 2014

  58. [58]

    D., & Tomida, K

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016a, MNRAS, 461, 2527, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1481 —. 2016b, MNRAS, 455, 4351, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2592

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1481

  59. [59]

    D., Tyles, J

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., Tyles, J. G., & Tomida, K. 2017, ApJ, 850, 59, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa95b9 2017

  60. [60]

    L., & Lu, W

    Piro, A. L., & Lu, W. 2020, ApJ, 894, 2, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab83f6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab83f6 2020

  61. [61]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    1986

  62. [62]

    C., & Tchekhovskoy, A

    Sadowski, A., Narayan, R., McKinney, J. C., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 503, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2479

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2479 2014

  63. [63]

    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

    doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012

  64. [64]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1337, doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02610-x

    Sana, H., Shenar, T., Bodensteiner, J., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1337, doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02610-x

    doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02610-x 2025

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf067 —

    Scherbak, P., Lu, W., & Fuller, J. 2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf067 —. 2026, PASP, 138, 034206, doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae453c Schrøder, S. L., MacLeod, M., Loeb, A., Vigna-G´ omez, A., &

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf067 2025

  66. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 13, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7014

    Mandel, I. 2020, ApJ, 892, 13, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7014

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7014 2020

  67. [67]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  68. [68]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620, doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9703016 1997

  69. [69]

    2019, MNRAS, 484, 4972, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz364

    Soker, N., Grichener, A., & Gilkis, A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4972, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz364

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz364 2019

  70. [70]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, 72, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad06b6 Model for Transients Preceding Binary Mergers 19

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad06b6 2024

  71. [71]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 6000, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3431

    Podsiadlowski, P. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 6000, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3431

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3431 2020

  72. [72]

    2024, Dust to Dust: Probing the Survival of Cold Dust, New Hot Dust Formation, and Mass-Loss History of the Nearest Type Ibn Supernova, JWST Proposal

    Taggart, K., Auchettl, K., Davis, K., et al. 2024, Dust to Dust: Probing the Survival of Cold Dust, New Hot Dust Formation, and Mass-Loss History of the Nearest Type Ibn Supernova, JWST Proposal. Cycle 2, ID. #6659

    2024

  73. [73]

    D., Pols, O

    Temmink, K. D., Pols, O. R., Justham, S., & Blagorodnova, N. 2025, A&A, 703, A121, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556333

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556333 2025

  74. [74]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 84, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add158

    Tsuna, D., & Lu, W. 2025, ApJ, 986, 84, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add158

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add158 2025

  75. [75]

    C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y., & Piro, A

    Tsuna, D., Wu, S. C., Fuller, J., Dong, Y., & Piro, A. L. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 82, doi:10.33232/001c.123897

    doi:10.33232/001c.123897 2024

  76. [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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016221 2011

  77. [77]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 3906, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1038

    Wang, Q., Goel, A., Dessart, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3906, doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1038

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1038 2024

  78. [78]

    Waxman, E., & Draine, B. T. 2000, ApJ, 537, 796, doi:10.1086/309053

    doi:10.1086/309053 2000

  79. [79]

    Webbink, R. F. 1977, ApJ, 211, 881, doi:10.1086/154998

    work page doi:10.1086/154998 1977

  80. [80]

    Woosley, S. E. 2019, ApJ, 878, 49, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41 2019

Showing first 80 references.