Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 88 references

A Diverse Distribution of Black Hole Spins from Stable Mass Transfer

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Binaries that shrink through stable mass transfer can form black holes with moderate spins, with the outcome set by the mass-transfer case the donor experiences.

desk verdict A forward-modeled prediction that stable mass transfer can produce a diverse BBH spin distribution via two new tidal spin-up pathways, whose quantitative high-spin branch depends on an unquantified angular momentum transport switch. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11311 v1 pith:PCUOGCN5 submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qc

Linhao Ma , Jakub Klencki , Eliot Quataert , Lieke van Son This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords blackholespinsstablemasstransferdynamicaltidestidalspin-upbinaryholesgravitationalwavescaseBGW190412
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to overturn the usual expectation that binaries whose orbits shrink through stable mass transfer produce only slowly spinning black holes. Using detailed binary evolution models with a first-principles treatment of dynamical tides, it argues that the spin of the second-born black hole is set mostly by which mass-transfer case the donor star experienced. Donors that go through only case B mass transfer keep a puffy, partially stripped hydrogen envelope in which tides are strongly excited, allowing effective spins $0.1 \lesssim \chi_{\rm eff} \lesssim 0.3$ and even higher dimensionless spins up to $\sim 0.45$ at the source. If the claim holds, the spins of merging binary black holes become a diagnostic of their mass-transfer history, linking the spin distribution to the mass-ratio distribution in a way that existing gravitational-wave data can already begin to test.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the tidal torque exerted on the donor star by the point-mass companion, computed from the linear excitation and radiative damping of internal gravity waves (dynamical tides). Far from the compact orbit the torque is evaluated with the Zahn traveling-wave fitting formula; once the binary tightens, the torque is summed mode by mode from non-adiabatic oscillation solutions, a parameter-free prescription applied in post-processing to a grid of binary evolution models that treat stable mass transfer self-consistently. This machinery is what converts a stellar-structure detail, whether the post-transfer donor keeps a residual hydrogen envelope or is fully stripped, into a quantitative prediction for the angular momentum of the collapsing helium core and hence the black hole spin.

What would settle it

A decisive calculation is to rerun the same grid of binaries with the rigid-rotation assumption relaxed, letting the core and envelope rotate independently, and check whether the $0.1 \lesssim \chi_{\rm eff} \lesssim 0.3$ peak survives. If it disappears, the headline population depends entirely on angular momentum coupling; observationally, a future gravitational-wave catalog showing negligible effective spin in the high-mass-ratio ($q \lesssim 0.5$) population would contradict the predicted anti-correlation, while moderate spins concentrated at low mass ratios would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that stable mass transfer is not a low-spin factory but a machine that sorts spins by history. A donor that undergoes only case B mass transfer is only partially stripped; its residual hydrogen envelope keeps the star puffy (roughly $7 R_\odot$ for a $30 M_\odot$ donor), so during core helium burning the tidal torque, mediated by internally excited gravity waves, is strong enough to spin the star up, and the black hole inherits a moderate spin up to $\sim 0.45$. A donor that undergoes only case A mass transfer can be left super-synchronized at detachment, producing spins up to $\sim 0.2$. A donor that goes through case A and then case AB is fully stripped to a compact helium core, the tidal torque collapses, and the resulting black hole spin is negligible ($a \lesssim 0.1$). Because the case B and case A only histories occur preferentially in binaries with smaller initial companions, the channel predicts an anti-correlation between black-hole spin and final mass ratio, and it can reproduce the moderate effective spin of the unequal-mass merger GW190412.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the donor star's core and envelope stay rigidly coupled throughout its evolution, so the angular momentum tides deposit in the envelope reaches the helium core before collapse; if internal angular momentum transport is slower, the core can decouple, and the paper itself shows that in $30\,M_\odot$ case B donors an additional case C mass transfer phase can then drain the core's spin, potentially erasing the moderate-spin population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, the stable mass transfer channel produces a broad black-hole spin distribution from 0 up to $\chi_{\rm eff}\sim 0.3$–$0.5$, with the high-spin tail coming almost entirely from case B only and case A only systems.
  • The channel predicts an anti-correlation between black-hole spin and final mass ratio, because the spinning histories require initially unequal mass ratios and wide orbits; this is consistent with a trend seen in current gravitational-wave catalogs.
  • Fully stripped helium-star binaries formed via stable mass transfer cannot reach orbital periods below about one day, so they contribute only negligible spins; previous low-spin predictions for this channel apply only to the case A plus case AB systems.
  • If case C mass transfer follows in $30\,M_\odot$ case B systems under rigid rotation, the core loses its tidally acquired angular momentum and the black hole spin drops to negligible; $50\,M_\odot$ donors avoid case C, so more massive black holes are the more likely to retain moderate spin.
  • The event GW190412, with effective spin $\chi_{\rm eff}\approx 0.22$ and mass ratio about 0.31, can be explained by this channel without invoking hierarchical mergers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is real, the same case-dependent tidal spin-up should operate in binaries whose first compact object is a neutron star, so a study of X-ray binaries formed through stable mass transfer might reveal the predicted puffy-envelope spin-up signature.
  • The super-synchronization found at case A detachment suggests that the post-detachment donor should be observationally distinguishable by rapid rotation; measuring the projected rotation speed of a partially peeled star in a known post-mass-transfer binary could test this branch of the picture.
  • The anti-correlation between $\chi_{\rm eff}$ and mass ratio is a sharp, falsifiable population statement: if future catalogs show a flat or positive correlation in the equal-mass neighborhood, the case B channel would be disfavored as a dominant contributor.
  • A natural extension is to fold these spin predictions into a full population synthesis with a realistic distribution of initial mass ratios and periods, converting the qualitative anti-correlation into a quantitative event-rate prediction for future gravitational-wave observing runs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether stable mass transfer can produce spinning black holes in merging binaries, using MESA binary models of 30 and 50 solar-mass donors with a point-mass black hole companion and post-processing the tidal spin-up of the donor. The tidal torque is computed with a mode-decomposition treatment of dynamical tides, switching to a traveling-wave fitting formula before peak mass-transfer rate. The authors find that case B mass transfer can leave a puffy residual hydrogen envelope that experiences strong tides, producing black hole effective spins up to roughly 0.3; case A only systems can become super-synchronized and retain moderate spin; and case A plus case AB systems are mostly stripped and produce negligible spins. They further predict an anti-correlation between black hole spin and mass ratio, and suggest that their case B models can explain GW190412. The paper is transparent about numerical convergence and about the main physical uncertainties, including case C mass transfer and internal angular momentum transport.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is an important result: it changes the expected spin distribution of black holes formed through stable mass transfer, provides a physical mechanism for moderate effective spins that is distinct from common-envelope followed by tidal spin-up of naked helium stars, and offers a testable prediction of a mass-ratio/spin anti-correlation that can be compared with gravitational-wave catalogs. The strengths of the paper are the use of a parameter-free mode-decomposition tidal torque formalism developed in earlier work, the detailed binary evolution grid with self-consistent mass transfer, and the honest discussion of limitations. The qualitative conclusion that mass transfer history controls black hole spin is well supported by the modeling. However, the quantitative spin distribution, especially the 30 solar-mass case B branch that produces the highest spins and the strongest anti-correlation, is contingent on an unquantified assumption about internal angular momentum transport after core-helium depletion, so the significance of the quantitative predictions is provisional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.4 / Section 2.3] The headline spin distribution for the 30 solar-mass case B branch is not robust to the internal angular momentum transport assumption, and the paper's own Section 4.4 demonstrates this: if rigid rotation is maintained after core-helium depletion, the case C mass transfer in these systems removes most of the core angular momentum and drives the spins to negligible values, while if there is no transport the Section 2.3 predictions remain unchanged. Because the Section 2.3 integration assumes rigid rotation to distribute tidally deposited angular momentum into the helium core before He depletion, the 30 solar-mass moderate-spin branch survives only under an unquantified switch from efficient coupling before He depletion to inefficient coupling afterward. The authors acknowledge this with a gray arrow in Figure 4, but the branch contributes the largest spins (chi_eff up to about 0.3) and the strongest mass-ratio/spin anti-correlation in Figure 5, so the central quantitative claim depends on this switch. The manuscript should either model the core-envelope coupling timescale explicitly (for example with a two-zone model or a published transport prescription) and show that the moderate-spin branch persists, or restrict the headline claim to the 50 solar-mass and case A only populations for which the case C ambiguity does not erase the signal.
  2. [Section 2.3] The post-processing treatment ignores tidal back-reaction on the orbit, with the argument that Delta Omega_orb ~ (I_spin/I_orb) Delta Omega_spin is much smaller than Omega_orb. This estimate is not quantified for the puffy case B envelopes that produce the largest spins: near Roche-lobe contact R/a can be of order 0.3 to 0.5, making I_spin/I_orb of order 0.04 to 0.1, and the tidal torque in Equation (2) scales as (R*/a)^6 so a few percent change in orbital separation changes the torque by tens of percent. Moreover, the mass transfer history itself depends on the Roche lobe radius through Equation (6), so the orbital feedback could affect which systems remain in the case B branch. The authors should provide a quantitative bound on the orbital change over the spin-up integration, or justify with an explicit calculation that the post-processing approximation is valid for the models that produce the highest predicted spins.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 / Figure 1] The color bar in Figure 1 saturates at 0.4 while the text quotes spins up to 0.45 for 30 solar-mass donors; please extend the color scale or state explicitly that the color scale is capped, so that the maximum predicted spins are visible in the figure.
  2. [Section 2.2] The switch from Equation (3) to Equation (2) at the peak of the case B mass-transfer rate is a post hoc prescription; the paper should state whether the two torque formulae agree near the switch point, since the post-peak evolution starts from the spin state at the moment of the switch.
  3. [Section 4.1] The final paragraph of Section 4.1 appropriately notes that the grid is uniform in initial mass ratio and orbital period and should not be compared directly with the GWTC population, but the abstract and conclusions present the anti-correlation as a channel prediction without this caveat; please qualify the claim in the abstract or include a schematic population weighting for the initial conditions.
  4. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says data are available on reasonable request; for reproducibility and to enable quantitative comparisons with future population synthesis and gravitational-wave analyses, the MESA inlists, grid outputs, and the spin-integration code should be deposited in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: tidal torques are computed from first-principles inputs, and the spin outcomes are forward-modeled rather than fitted to data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central predictions—a diverse spin distribution from case A and case B mass transfer, an anti-correlation between black hole spin and mass ratio, and consistency with GW190412—are produced by forward modeling: MESA binary models supply stellar structures and mass-transfer histories, while tidal torques are computed from non-adiabatic g-mode solutions (Equation 2) or the traveling-wave formula (Equation 3), neither of which is calibrated to the resulting spins. The spin integration (Equation 4) and spin conversion (Equation 5) are standard angular-momentum bookkeeping. The high-spin case B branch follows from the structural outcome that partially stripped donors retain a puffy hydrogen-rich envelope and therefore feel stronger tides; the anti-correlation follows from the selection of mass-transfer histories across the initial mass-ratio/period grid, not from any inversion of spin data. The GW190412 comparison is an a posteriori consistency check, not a fit. The paper explicitly identifies its main uncertainties—case C mass transfer, internal angular momentum transport, nonlinear tides, and the threshold for unstable mass transfer—and Section 4.4 presents two limiting cases rather than a hidden fitted parameter. The Ma & Fuller self-citations implement a parameter-free tidal method with stated assumptions and are independent of the spin predictions in the sense required here, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spin predictions rest on a specific stellar physics model: MESA binary models with the Marchant et al. (2021) mass transfer prescription, post-processed with the Ma & Fuller (2023, 2024) tidal torque method. The free parameters are the mass transfer stability threshold, the single metallicity, the torque formula prefactor, the initial donor spin, and the torque formula switch criterion. The axioms are dominated by assumptions about internal angular momentum transport, direct collapse of the helium core, neglect of rotation in the binary models, and orbital back-reaction. These are standard in the field but are not all independently verified; the paper's own discussion of case C mass transfer shows that one of them (rigid rotation) can change the headline result.

free parameters (5)
  • Mass transfer stability threshold = 1 Msun/yr
    Chosen as the boundary between stable mass transfer and common envelope. Sets the lower edge of the banana region in Figure 1, which contains the highest-spin case B systems. The authors note changing it does not alter the qualitative trends but does shift which systems are classified as SMT (Section 4.6).
  • Initial metallicity = Z = 0.0017 (10% solar)
    A single metallicity is used for all models (Section 2.1). Partial envelope stripping in case B systems is metallicity dependent, so the spin predictions may not transfer to other metallicities without recalculation.
  • Kushnir et al. torque prefactor beta = not stated; robust to 0.1-5x scaling
    Equation 3 is a fitting formula containing a dimensionless prefactor beta^2, whose value is not given. The authors test scaling by 0.1-5.0 and find final spins unchanged (Section 2.2), so the central claim is insensitive to this coefficient.
  • Torque formula switch point = time of peak case B mass transfer rate
    In case B systems, Equation 3 is used until the case B mass transfer rate peaks, then Equation 2 is used. This hand-chosen switch affects the torque history, though the size of its effect is not tested.
  • Initial donor spin angular momentum = 0
    The spin integration starts from J_spin = 0 at ZAMS (Section 2.3). The authors argue that earlier angular momentum is lost with the envelope, but this is an assumed initial condition, not measured.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The donor star rotates rigidly, i.e., internal angular momentum transport is efficient.
    Invoked in Section 2.3 to derive Omega_spin from J_spin and to compute the core spin at collapse. Section 4.4 shows that if transport is inefficient, the core decouples and the predicted spins can change dramatically. This is load-bearing for the quantitative claims.
  • domain assumption The helium core of the donor collapses directly into a black hole that conserves its angular momentum.
    Section 2.3 states this assumption and Equation 5 uses it to convert J_He_core into the dimensionless spin. It ignores fallback, supernova kicks, and late-stage mass loss before collapse.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar rotation is turned off in the binary evolution models; tides are applied only in post-processing.
    Section 2.1: 'we turned off stellar rotation... this naturally causes some inconsistencies.' This is a deliberate compromise required by the post-processing tidal method and could affect mass transfer rates and envelope structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The orbital frequency is taken from binary models computed without tidal back-reaction.
    Section 2.3: 'we take the orbital frequency from the binary models as if there were no tides acting on the orbit.' The authors argue I_spin << I_orb makes this negligible, but it is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Dynamical tides are described by Equations 2 and 3, with the torque direction reversed by a step function for super-synchronous rotation.
    Section 2.2 and 2.3: Equations 2 and 3 assume linear, non-rotating modes, and the sign(Omega_orb - Omega_spin) term approximates the super-synchronous case. Section 4.5 and 4.6 discuss nonlinear tides and rotational effects as limitations.
  • domain assumption Mass transfer is treated with the Marchant et al. (2021) prescription with a 1 Msun/yr instability threshold.
    Section 2.1. This determines which binaries undergo stable mass transfer and the boundaries of the parameter space that produce the spinning black hole populations.
  • domain assumption A single metallicity Z = 0.0017 is representative of merging BBH progenitors.
    Section 2.1. The partial envelope stripping and wind mass loss that shape the case B population depend on metallicity; the paper does not vary it.
  • domain assumption Mass lost from the system carries the specific angular momentum of the accretor region or the outer Lagrangian point Lout.
    Section 2.1 and the Soberman et al. (1997) prescription. Section 4.6 notes L2 outflows may form circumbinary disks and change orbital evolution, so this assumption could alter the results quantitatively.
  • domain assumption The first-born black hole has zero spin, and the spin of the donor is aligned with the orbit when computing the effective spin.
    Used to construct chi_eff in Figure 5 and the GW190412 comparison. Misaligned spins, natal kicks, or a spinning primary could change the inferred correlation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Diverse Distribution of Black Hole Spins from Stable Mass Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PCUOGCN5

@misc{pith2026260811311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Diverse Distribution of Black Hole Spins from Stable Mass Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PCUOGCN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11311}
}
abstract

Gravitational wave observations have found over 300 merging binary black holes, yet their origins remain uncertain. Recent work showed that many may come from isolated stellar binaries whose orbits shrink through stable mass transfer. If true, their spins may help to distinguish this channel from other formation pathways. We investigate the tidal spin up of black hole progenitor stars with detailed modeling of binaries undergoing stable mass transfer. We calculate the tidal torques by solving tidally excited oscillation modes and predict the resulting black hole spins. We find a diverse spin distribution strongly affected by the mass transfer histories of the progenitors. Binaries can form black holes with moderate spins ($0.1\lesssim\chi_\mathrm{eff}\lesssim0.3$) if they only go through case A or case B mass transfer. In the former case, they can become super-synchronized upon detachment, while in the latter case, the donor is usually only partially stripped, leaving a puffy envelope where strong tides are excited. If both case A and case AB mass transfer occur, the resulting black hole spins are almost always negligible. As the mass transfer history is jointly determined by mass ratio and initial binary period, our results predict an anti-correlation between black hole spins and mass ratio, consistent with limited evidence from data. Our results can also potentially explain the case of GW190412, a moderately-spinning binary with a high mass ratio. We discuss the limitations of our methods and additional physics (e.g., nonlinear tides, case C, and L2 mass transfer) that need to be incorporated in future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of black hole spin calculations in the 𝑞i − log(𝑃orb,i) space, for binaries that form through stable mass transfer and merge in a Hubble time. The spins are derived from Equation 5 at core helium depletion. We see that binaries with a 30 𝑀⊙ donor can only go through case B mass transfer (filled circles), or case A with a following case AB mass transfer phase (plus signs). The donor in the former case can bec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the tidal spin-up history between one model that only went through case A mass transfer (blue lines) and another that went through case A + AB mass transfer (red lines). The left, middle, and right sections show different quantities zoomed in during the later stage of main￾sequence, between main-sequence and core-helium ignition, and during the core-helium burning phase, respectively. We see that while… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. A flow chart summarizing our findings. Different initial mass ratios and donor masses can cause different cases of mass transfer (MT), with strong or weak tides on the donor resulting in a diverse distribution of black hole spins. If there is strong core-envelope coupling due to internal angular momentum transport before core collapse, an additional case C (also referred as case BB by some authors) mass transfer pha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BBH effective spins and mass ratios derived from our results, for the 𝑀∗ = 30 𝑀⊙ donor and the 𝑀∗ = 50 𝑀⊙ donor. The mass ratio is defined as the ratio between the less massive black hole (secondary) to the more massive one (primary). We see that binaries that only wen…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Second-born black hole spins compared to the results calculated from naked helium star progenitors in previous works, as a function of final binary orbital periods. The orange dashed line shows an upper limit of black hole spins by assuming tidal locking (Belczynski et…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott R., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhRvD.102d3015A 102, 043015

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043015 2020

  2. [2]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvX..13a1048A 13, 011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  3. [3]

    D., Thrane E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...13A 958, 13

    Adamcewicz C., Lasky P. D., Thrane E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...958...13A 958, 13

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf763 2023

  4. [4]

    M., Chattopadhyay D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/nxnr-pdyx , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.112f3040A 112, 063040

    Antonini F., Callister T., Dosopoulou F., Romero-Shaw I. M., Chattopadhyay D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1103/nxnr-pdyx , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PhRvD.112f3040A 112, 063040

    doi:10.1103/nxnr-pdyx 2025

  5. [5]

    Banerjee S., Olejak A., Belczynski K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdd59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953...80B 953, 80

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acdd59 2023

  6. [6]

    J., Ogilvie G

    Barker A. J., Ogilvie G. I., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19322.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.417..745B 417, 745

    arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..97B 635, A97

    Bavera S. S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..97B 635, A97

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 2020

  8. [8]

    S., Zevin M., Fragos T., 2021a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ac053c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5..127B 5, 127

    Bavera S. S., Zevin M., Fragos T., 2021a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ac053c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RNAAS...5..127B 5, 127

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ac053c

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    S., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.153B 647, A153

    Bavera S. S., et al., 2021b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039804 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.153B 647, A153

    doi

  2. [10]

    E., Bulik T., O'Shaughnessy R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature18322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.534..512B 534, 512

    Belczynski K., Holz D. E., Bulik T., O'Shaughnessy R., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature18322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.534..512B 534, 512

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Belczynski K., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936528 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...636A.104B 636, A104

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Boccioli L., Roberti L., 2024, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe10030148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Univ...10..148B 10, 148

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

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

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    M., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202659298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...710A.379B 710, A379

    Briel M. M., et al., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202659298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...710A.379B 710, A379

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Stevenson S., Thrane E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...45B 938, 45

    Broekgaarden F. S., Stevenson S., Thrane E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938...45B 938, 45

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Haster C.-J., Ng K

    Callister T. A., Haster C.-J., Ng K. K. Y., Vitale S., Farr W. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ccc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922L...5C 922, L5

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Chen G., Breivik K., van Son L. A. C., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2606.26262 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260626262C p. arXiv:2606.26262

    2026 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    G., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., Izzard R

    Detmers R. G., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., Izzard R. G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...484..831D 484, 831

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Berti E., Bulik T., Mandel I., O'Shaughnessy R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...52D 759, 52

    Dominik M., Belczynski K., Fryer C., Holz D. E., Berti E., Bulik T., Mandel I., O'Shaughnessy R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...759...52D 759, 52

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    Dutta D., Klencki J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.215D 687, A215

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    P., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    Eggleton P. P., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    1983 doi

  14. [22]

    Cambridge University Press

    Eggleton P., 2006, Evolutionary Processes in Binary and Multiple Stars . Cambridge University Press

    2006

  15. [23]

    J., Stanway E

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

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Fuller J., Lai D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3488F 444, 3488

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Fuller J., Ma L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881L...1F 881, L1

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Gallegos-Garcia M., Berry C. P. L., Marchant P., Kalogera V., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..110G 922, 110

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Eldridge J

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

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2605.23083

    Godfrey J., van Son L., Farr B., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.23083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260523083G p. arXiv:2605.23083

    2026 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    P., Vink J

    Gr \"a fener G., Owocki S. P., Vink J. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...538A..40G 538, A40

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    J., 1996, in Holt S

    Grevesse N., Noels A., Sauval A. J., 1996, in Holt S. S., Sonneborn G., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 99, Cosmic Abundances. p. 117

    1996

  23. [31]

    R., Tout C

    Hurley J. R., Tout C. A., Pols O. R., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.329..897H 329, 897

    2002

  24. [32]

    Inayoshi K., Hirai R., Kinugawa T., Hotokezaka K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.5020I 468, 5020

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    Jermyn A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...15J 265, 15

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251009745K p

    Klencki J., Metzger B. D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.09745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251009745K p. arXiv:2510.09745

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    G., Chruslinska M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..54K 645, A54

    Klencki J., Nelemans G., Istrate A. G., Chruslinska M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..54K 645, A54

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Klencki J., Istrate A., Nelemans G., Pols O., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142701 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..56K 662, A56

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    E., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250508860K p

    Klencki J., Podsiadlowski P., Langer N., Olejak A., Justham S., Vigna-G \'o mez A., de Mink S. E., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08860 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250508860K p. arXiv:2505.08860

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Kolb U., Ritter H., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...236..385K 236, 385

    1990

  31. [39]

    U., Tauris T

    Kruckow M. U., Tauris T. M., Langer N., Kramer M., Izzard R. G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.1908K 481, 1908

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    A., Waldman R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2146K 467, 2146

    Kushnir D., Zaldarriaga M., Kollmeier J. A., Waldman R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.2146K 467, 2146

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    E., Justham S., Farmer R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A...6L 637, A6

    Laplace E., G \"o tberg Y., de Mink S. E., Justham S., Farmer R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A...6L 637, A6

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Li Y.-J., Wang Y.-Z., Tang S.-P., Chen T., Fan Y.-Z., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/add535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987...65L 987, 65

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    Ma L., Fuller J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4338M 488, 4338

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Ma L., Fuller J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acdb74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...952...53M 952, 53

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Ma L., Fuller J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975....1M 975, 1

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Agrawal P., Breivik K., Zevin M., Renzo M., Rodriguez C

    Maclean D. B., Agrawal P., Breivik K., Zevin M., Renzo M., Rodriguez C. L., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2606.28506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260628506M p. arXiv:2606.28506

    2026 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    S., 2022, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022LRR....25....1M 25, 1

    Mandel I., Broekgaarden F. S., 2022, @doi [Living Reviews in Relativity] 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022LRR....25....1M 25, 1

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Mandel I., Farmer A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhR...955....1M 955, 1

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    D., eds, , Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy

    Mapelli M., 2021, in Bambi C., Katsanevas S., Kokkotas K. D., eds, , Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy. p. 16, @doi 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_16-1

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Mapelli M., Giacobbo N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.4391M 479, 4391

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Marchant P., Pappas K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia M., Berry C. P. L., Taam R. E., Kalogera V., Podsiadlowski P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.107M 650, A107

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    McKernan B., Ford K. E. S., Callister T., Farr W. M., O'Shaughnessy R., Smith R., Thrane E., Vajpeyi A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.514.3886M 514, 3886

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    Mennekens N., Vanbeveren D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.134M 564, A134

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    S., Soares-Furtado M., Townsend R

    Narayan R. S., Soares-Furtado M., Townsend R. H. D., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae7e89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1005L..35N 1005, L35

    2026 doi

  47. [55]

    Olejak A., Belczynski K., Ivanova N., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A.100O 651, A100

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Olejak A., Klencki J., Xu X.-T., Wang C., Belczynski K., Lasota J.-P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.305O 689, A305

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Paxton B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...10P 243, 10

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    C., 1964, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..136.1224P 136, 1224

    Peters P. C., 1964, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..136.1224P 136, 1224

    1964 doi

  55. [63]

    Picco A., Marchant P., Sana H., Nelemans G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347090 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...681A..31P 681, A31

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..28Q 616, A28

    Qin Y., Fragos T., Meynet G., Andrews J., S rensen M., Song H. F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A..28Q 616, A28

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aca4d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942L..32R 942, L32

    Renzo M., Zapartas E., Justham S., Breivik K., Lau M., Farmer R., Cantiello M., Metzger B. D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aca4d3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...942L..32R 942, L32

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab961d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896L..10R 896, L10

    Rodriguez C. L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab961d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...896L..10R 896, L10

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Romagnolo A., Klencki J., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Belczynski K., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.137R 693, A137

    2025 doi

  60. [68]

    Sander A. A. C., Lefever R. R., Poniatowski L. G., Ramachandran V., Sabhahit G. N., Vink J. S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..83S 670, A83

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    Santini A., Gerosa D., Cotesta R., Berti E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvD.108h3033S 108, 083033

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Takens R

    Savonije G. J., Takens R. J., 1976, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A&A....47..231S 47, 231

    1976

  63. [71]

    arXiv:2510.24127

    Scherbak P., Lu W., Fuller J., 2025a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2510.24127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251024127S p. arXiv:2510.24127

    doi arXiv

  64. [72]

    Scherbak P., Lu W., Fuller J., 2025b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...990..172S 990, 172

    doi

  65. [73]

    C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac441f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924L..11S 924, L11

    Schultz W. C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac441f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...924L..11S 924, L11

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdf50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..42S 951, L42

    Schultz W. C., Bildsten L., Jiang Y.-F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acdf50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...951L..42S 951, L42

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    B., Broekgaarden F., Levina S., Romagnolo A., Komandur M., Santiago M., Rocha K

    Smith T. B., Broekgaarden F., Levina S., Romagnolo A., Komandur M., Santiago M., Rocha K. A., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.21580 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260521580S p. arXiv:2605.21580

    2026 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    E., Phinney E

    Soberman G. E., Phinney E. S., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...327..620S 327, 620

    1997 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    Sun M., Townsend R. H. D., Guo Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb33a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...945...43S 945, 43

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    arXiv:2508.18082

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250818082T p. arXiv:2508.18082

    2025 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    arXiv:2605.27225

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al., 2026a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.27225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260527225T p. arXiv:2605.27225

    doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    arXiv:2605.27226

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al., 2026b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2605.27226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260527226T p. arXiv:2605.27226

    doi arXiv

  73. [81]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al., 2026c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae771e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026ApJ..1005L..51A 1005, L51

    doi

  74. [82]

    N., Arras P., Quataert E., Burkart J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751..136W 751, 136

    Weinberg N. N., Arras P., Quataert E., Burkart J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751..136W 751, 136

    2012 doi

  75. [83]

    arXiv:2512.20054

    Xu X.-T., Langer N., Klencki J., Wang C., Li X.-D., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2512.20054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv251220054X p. arXiv:2512.20054

    2025 doi arXiv

  76. [84]

    P., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....41..329Z 41, 329

    Zahn J. P., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....41..329Z 41, 329

    1975

  77. [85]

    P., 1977, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....57..383Z 57, 383

    Zahn J. P., 1977, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977A&A....57..383Z 57, 383

    1977

  78. [86]

    S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6f5d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...86Z 933, 86

    Zevin M., Bavera S. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6f5d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...933...86Z 933, 86

    2022 doi

  79. [87]

    van Son L. A. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b0a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..184V 940, 184

    2022 doi

  80. [88]

    van den Heuvel E. P. J., Portegies Zwart S. F., de Mink S. E., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471.4256V 471, 4256

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.