Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper argues that the Milky Way's recent white dwarf merger rate is a direct tracer of the number of LISA gravitational wave sources present in the Galaxy today.

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 ↗

New public mock catalogs of Milky Way white dwarf mergers show how rates of outcomes (AM CVn, R CrB stars, SNe Ia, neutron stars) vary with binary evolution assumptions.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful, well-documented resource paper: public Milky Way white-dwarf merger catalogs from COSMIC+FIRE-2, with outcomes and rates, though the headline LISA correlation is mostly a modeling consistency effect and needs softer framing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.05308 v2 pith:74AVIYHO submitted 2026-05-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

The diverse outcomes of binary white dwarf mergers and connections to Galactic LISA sources

Kyle Kremer , Katelyn Breivik , Claire S. Ye This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords white dwarf mergersLISAgravitational wavespopulation synthesisType Ia supernovaeAM CVn binariesR Coronae Borealis starsneutron star formation
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 reading

The paper constructs simulated catalogs of white dwarf binary mergers across the Milky Way's history, combining binary population synthesis with a star formation history from a simulated Milky Way-mass galaxy. It maps each merger to one of several possible outcomes — AM CVn binaries, R Coronae Borealis stars, single white dwarfs, Type Ia supernovae, or neutron stars — depending on the component masses and compositions. The central result is that the number of white dwarf mergers in the past 100 million years tracks the number of millihertz gravitational wave sources LISA should detect today. This matters because electromagnetic observations of merger products can then be used to test and refine predictions for LISA's source catalog before and after launch.

Core claim

We present mock catalogs of the Milky Way's white dwarf merger history and show that the recent white dwarf merger rate correlates directly with the number of LISA sources present in the Milky Way today. Across four binary evolution models, panels with more mergers consistently contain more binaries with gravitational wave frequencies above 10^-3 Hz, the rough threshold for individual LISA detection. The merger rate varies by more than an order of magnitude across models with different common-envelope efficiencies and mass-transfer stability assumptions, but the merger-rate-to-LISA-source-count relation persists. The paper deliberately remains agnostic about whether interacting white dwarf b

What carries the argument

The central object is the primary-mass versus secondary-mass plane for double white dwarf binaries, divided into six outcome regions (disk accretion, direct-impact accretion, sub-Chandrasekhar mergers, super-Chandrasekhar CO+CO mergers, ONe+CO mergers, and ONe+ONe mergers). The population synthesis pipeline assigns simulated binaries to star particles in a Milky Way-mass galaxy simulation using a metallicity-dependent binary fraction, then evolves them by gravitational wave emission to the present day. The key mechanism is the correlation between recent merger rate and the number of binaries currently emitting at fGW > 10^-3 Hz, which connects the present-day LISA source population to the pa

Load-bearing premise

The simulated Milky Way galaxy's star formation history, metallicity distribution, and assumed binary fraction must accurately represent the real Milky Way; if they do not, the absolute merger rates and LISA source counts shift, though the relative trends across models may persist.

What would settle it

Count the number of individually resolved double white dwarf binaries in LISA's first few years of data and compare it to the merger-rate-to-LISA-source-count relation predicted here; a mismatch far outside the factor-of-20 spread across models would falsify the central correlation, as would a survey-based census of R Cor Bor stars that deviates strongly from the predicted 100–1000 Galactic systems.

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

If this is right

  • Electromagnetic surveys of white dwarf merger products—R Cor Bor stars, AM CVn systems, young magnetic white dwarfs, and neutron stars—can directly constrain the number of LISA sources expected in the Milky Way.
  • The predicted rates of Type Ia supernovae from white dwarf mergers fall below the observed Galactic rate unless sub-Chandrasekhar detonations contribute, supporting the double-detonation channel.
  • Model variations in common-envelope efficiency change the total white dwarf merger rate by roughly a factor of 20, so LISA source counts can help pin down this uncertain binary evolution parameter.
  • The local population of mergers within 1 kpc reflects the global merger population, so nearby observations of merger remnants are representative of the whole Galaxy.
  • The predicted population of neutron stars born from white dwarf mergers, roughly 10^3 to 10^5 radio pulsars, provides a testable prediction for pulsar surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the merger-rate/LISA-source correlation holds, LISA's detected source count could serve as a prior on the birthrates of exotic remnants like millisecond magnetars and sub-Chandrasekhar supernovae, an implication the paper leaves implicit.
  • The paper's deliberate agnosticism about mass-transfer stability means the fraction of interacting systems that become AM CVn binaries is highly uncertain; a future search for 'reverse chirp' gravitational wave sources in LISA data would directly test which stability assumption is correct.
  • The same methodology could be applied to other simulated galaxies with different star formation histories to predict how white dwarf merger rates and LISA source populations vary across cosmic time and environment.
  • A testable extension is to use the kinematics of massive white dwarfs in Gaia, thought to be merger products, to independently estimate the recent merger rate and compare it with LISA's predicted source count.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a suite of mock catalogs of Milky Way double white dwarf (DWD) populations, constructed by combining the COSMIC binary population synthesis code with the metallicity-dependent star formation history of the m12i FIRE-2 Latte galaxy and Ananke stellar positions. Four model variants are considered (fiducial, alpha=0.25, alpha=5, qc=3), and the authors report total and recent (100 Myr) interaction/merger rates by white dwarf composition and by outcome region, along with delay-time and merger-time distributions. The outcome regions are based on literature criteria, and the paper discusses observable connections to AM CVn binaries, R Coronae Borealis stars, hot subdwarfs, single white dwarfs, SNe Ia, and neutron stars. The headline result, stated in Section 5.1 and the abstract, is that the recent DWD merger rate correlates directly with the number of LISA sources in the Milky Way today, so that electromagnetic observations of merger products can constrain LISA source counts. The catalogs and analysis scripts are publicly released.

Significance. If the central correlation claim held, the paper would provide a useful bridge between LISA's expected DWD census and the electromagnetic signatures of DWD mergers. The main strengths are the public release of the mock catalogs, the use of established COSMIC machinery with explicit model variations bracketing common-envelope efficiency and mass-transfer stability assumptions, and the fact that the rates are direct simulation outputs rather than fits to the observations with which they are compared. The outcome classification, though qualitative, gives a useful framework for interpreting future LISA and transient surveys. The principal weakness is that the key 'correlation' is between two quantities derived from the same population synthesis models, so its interpretation as an independent constraint needs either additional analysis or reframing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figures 5–6] The abstract and Section 5.1 claim that the recent DWD merger rate 'correlates directly with the number of LISA sources' and that EM observations of merger products 'directly constrain' LISA source counts. However, the LISA count is defined as the number of binaries with f_GW > 1e-3 Hz, a rough frequency proxy with no SNR or confusion-noise calculation, and both this count and the 100 Myr merger rate are integrals over the same COSMIC model output. Models that produce more DWDs will naturally produce more of both, so a positive correlation is expected by construction. The paper does not quantify the scatter around the correlation, the ratio of merger rate to LISA count, or whether an EM-inferred rate would select a model with useful predictive power for LISA. To support the stated claim, please add a LISA detectability model (or explicitly state that this is a consistency check within th
  2. [Section 2.2 and Table 2] The paper states in Section 2.2 that systems that may undergo stable mass transfer are not separated from those that merge, yet Table 2 and Figures 2–3 repeatedly label all Roche-lobe-contact events as 'mergers' (e.g., 'All mergers' in Table 2). Region 1 (disk accretion) and Region 2 (direct-impact accretion) include systems that, under the stable mass-transfer hypothesis, would survive as AM CVn binaries rather than merge. Consequently, the quoted rates for these regions are upper limits to true merger rates, and the comparisons in Section 4 to observed AM CVn, R CrB, and SN Ia populations are ambiguous. Please either relabel these consistently as 'interaction rates' throughout the text, or split the rates into stable and unstable branches to make the merger interpretation explicit.
  3. [Table 2, Section 2.1] The absolute rates in Table 2 are quoted to three significant figures without any uncertainty, and the entire Milky Way population rests on a single FIRE-2 galaxy realization (m12i). The paper uses these absolute rates to make statements such as 'of order 1–30 Galactic objects' and '10^3–10^5 radio pulsars' in Section 4. The Poisson uncertainty alone for the smallest rates is not negligible, and the systematic uncertainty from the galaxy's star formation history and metallicity distribution is likely larger. Please add at least Poisson/sampling uncertainties to Table 2 and a clear caveat that the absolute rates depend on the single m12i realization, even if the relative trends across model variations are robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] Typo: 'the mass transfer exepcted to be dynamically unstable' should read 'is expected to be dynamically unstable.' Also in Section 5.2, 'summarize two alternative here' should be 'two alternative channels here' or similar.
  2. [Section 3.2] The statement 't_insp ∝ m^{-3} for M1 = M2 = m' assumes fixed initial orbital separation. Since the delay time also depends on the separation at DWD formation, this scaling should be qualified to avoid overgeneralization.
  3. [Section 4.1] The direct-impact source-count estimate is quoted as 'anywhere from 10 to 10^4 sources present in the Galaxy today.' Using the stated rate range (5e-4 to 1e-2 yr^-1) and lifetime range (1e4 to 1e6 yr) gives 5 to 1e4, so the lower end of the quoted range appears inconsistent by a factor of two.
  4. [Figure 3] The caption says 'near Earth,' while the text defines the selection as within 1 kpc and within the last 100 Myr. Please make the caption consistent with the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; merger rates are direct forward-model outputs, and the LISA correlation is a model-internal consistency check rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's merger rates and outcome distributions are direct outputs of the COSMIC population synthesis forward model, normalized to FIRE-2 star particles via Eq. 1. No observed LISA source count or electromagnetic merger-product census is used as an input or fitting target, and the outcome classification in Figure 1 is imported from external literature (Marsh et al. 2004; Shen 2015; Pakmor et al. 2012; Schwab 2021) rather than fitted here. The 'key result' that the recent merger rate correlates with the number of f_GW > 10^-3 Hz binaries is indeed a relation between two quantities drawn from the same simulated catalog, and the paper itself labels the latter a 'rough proxy' for resolvable LISA sources; this makes the correlation a useful model-internal consistency check rather than an independent empirical test. However, this does not amount to circularity: the LISA proxy is defined by a frequency threshold, not by the merger rate, and the connection is a physical consequence of gravitational-wave inspiral (Peters 1964), not a fitted equality. Self-citations appear for stability boundaries, reverse-chirping sources, and multimessenger phenomenology, but these are peripheral, publicly available results and are not used to forbid alternatives or to justify the central rates. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes no new physical entities. Its load-bearing inputs are the adopted binary fraction prescription, the single FIRE-2 galaxy proxy, and the COSMIC evolution code, all of which are external tools or simplified assumptions. The free parameters alpha and qc are bracketed by model variations rather than fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • Common envelope efficiency alpha = 0.25, 1, 5 (varied)
    Chosen values bracket the uncertainty in common envelope ejection; directly change post-CE separations and merger rates (Table 1).
  • Critical mass ratio for stable mass transfer qc = 1.6 (fiducial, Claeys 2014/Hurley 2002); 3 (variation)
    Sets the boundary for stable vs unstable RLO; strongly affects the relative numbers of CO+CO vs He+CO systems (Table 1, Section 2.1).
  • Minimum secondary mass ratio qmin = 0.01
    Assumed lower limit on mass ratio for binary companions (Section 2.1).
axioms (5)
  • standard math Peters (1964) gravitational wave driven orbital decay governs inspiral after the double white dwarf forms
    Used throughout Sections 2.2 and 3 to compute merger times from fGW > 10^-3 Hz to Roche contact.
  • domain assumption Metallicity-dependent close binary fraction of Moe et al. (2019)
    Adopted to probabilistically set binarity and orbital periods in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption m12i FIRE-2 galaxy star formation history and metallicity distribution represent the Milky Way
    Used to assign weights and formation times to DWDs in Section 2.2; a single galaxy realization.
  • domain assumption COSMIC stellar/binary evolution prescriptions (Hurley et al. 2002; Breivik et al. 2020b) are correct for double white dwarf formation
    The simulation code is used without re-derivation; variations only change the CE and MT stability parameters listed in Table 1.
  • domain assumption Outcome classification in Figure 1 (Marsh et al. 2004; Shen 2015; Pakmor et al. 2012; Dan et al. 2014; Schwab 2021)
    Used to map each M1-M2 pair into six outcome regions; the paper explicitly labels the boundaries as qualitative.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The diverse outcomes of binary white dwarf mergers and connections to Galactic LISA sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74AVIYHO

@misc{pith2026260505308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The diverse outcomes of binary white dwarf mergers and connections to Galactic LISA sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74AVIYHO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.05308}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

In the coming decade, the millihertz gravitational wave observatory LISA will provide the best constraints yet on the tens of thousands of close white dwarf binaries in the Milky Way, yielding unprecedented insights into the most abundant class of compact object binaries. Following inspiral via gravitational wave emission, interacting white dwarf binary pairs can lead to a multitude of outcomes, including AM Canum Venaticorum (AM CVn) binaries, R Coronae Borealis stars, young, rapidly-spinning single white dwarfs, (millisecond) magnetars, and a variety of explosive transients, most notably Type Ia supernovae. Current and future electromagnetic observations of these various outcomes coupled with the forthcoming flood of data from LISA place us on the precipice of a significant advance in our understanding of the long-term fate of white dwarf binaries. In this paper, we present a suite of mock catalogs of the Milky Way's white dwarf merger history, created using the population synthesis code $\texttt{COSMIC}$ combined with a metallicity-dependent star formation history from FIRE-2 galaxy simulations. We summarize the various merger outcomes expected (based upon varying white dwarf masses and chemical compositions) and explore ways the rates of these outcomes may vary with model uncertainties pertaining to binary evolution. We publicly release these merger catalogs as a tool for facilitating connections between gravitational wave science and white dwarf binary astrophysics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05308 by Claire S. Ye, Katelyn Breivik, Kyle Kremer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Summary of outcomes of white dwarf mergers for various component masses, M1 and M2. The solid black lines denote the approximate boundaries between different white dwarf compositions: He (< 0.5 M⊙), CO (0.5 − 1.1 M⊙), and O/Ne (> 1.1 M⊙). The diagonal solid line denotes the Chandrasekhar limit : M1 + M2 = 1.4 M⊙. The two dashed curves mark the boundaries between disk and direct impact accretion (bottom cur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Secondary (M2) versus primary (M1) masses for all white dwarf mergers occurring throughout the full history of each of our Galactic population models. We mark the same six regions indicated in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Delay time distributions (time from star formation to Roche contact) for all white dwarf pair combinations (columns from left to right) and Galactic model assumptions (rows from top to bottom). For each panel, we separate all white dwarf mergers into five metallicity bins centered on [Fe/H] =[-2.05, -1.56, -1.06, -0.56, -0.07]. cial and q3 models. In the α = 5 variation, the second phase of mass transfer d… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Colored curves show merger time distributions (in units of absolute Cosmic time) for all white dwarf pair combinations (columns) and binary evolution assumptions (rows). The solid gray histogram in each panel shows the distribution of star formation times for each white dwarf merger. In the insets, we zoom in on the most recent 100 Myr of Galactic history. Colored curves in the insets show the number of me… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Including the metal-richer, triaxial GSE halo alters chirp-mass and distance distributions of LISA-resolved DWDs while leaving the DWD gravitational-wave foreground strength unchanged.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  2. [2]

    2014, MNRAS, 439, 1079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu039

    Amaro-Seoane, P. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 1079, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu039

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu039 2014

  3. [3]

    Gladstone, J. C. 2013, ApJ, 766, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/136

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/2/136 2013

  4. [4]

    Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Ruiter, A. J. 2005, ApJ, 629, 915, doi: 10.1086/431578

    doi:10.1086/431578 2005

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026 16

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  6. [6]

    L., Cameron, A

    Benz, W., Bowers, R. L., Cameron, A. G. W., & Press, W. H. . 1990, ApJ, 348, 647, doi: 10.1086/168273

    doi:10.1086/168273 1990

  7. [7]

    J., Weinberg, N

    Bildsten, L., Shen, K. J., Weinberg, N. N., & Nelemans, G. 2007, ApJL, 662, L95, doi: 10.1086/519489

    doi:10.1086/519489 2007

  8. [8]

    N., Gnedin, O

    Bregman, J. N., Gnedin, O. Y., Seitzer, P. O., & Qu, Z. 2024, ApJL, 968, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad498f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad498f 2024

  9. [9]

    2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23

    Breivik, K., Kremer, K., Bueno, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 2018

  10. [10]

    Breivik, K., Mingarelli, C. M. F., & Larson, S. L. 2020a, ApJ, 901, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abab99

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab99

  11. [11]

    2020b, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

  12. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568

    Brooks, J., Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9568 2017

  13. [13]

    P., Ferrario, L., Pakmor, R., et al

    Burmester, U. P., Ferrario, L., Pakmor, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1394

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1394 2023

  14. [14]

    B., Fuller, J., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y 2021

  15. [15]

    B., Tremblay, P.-E., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2023, Nature, 620, 61, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06171-9

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06171-9 2023

  16. [16]

    2014, A&A, 566, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323052

    Camacho, J., Torres, S., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323052

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323052 2014

  17. [17]

    J., Marsh, T

    Carter, P. J., Marsh, T. R., Steeghs, D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2143, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts485

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts485 2013

  18. [18]

    D., & M´ enard, B

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, ApJ, 886, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 2019

  19. [19]

    D., M´ enard, B., & Toonen, S

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., M´ enard, B., & Toonen, S. 2020, ApJ, 891, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c 2020

  20. [20]

    Verbunt, F. W. M. 2014, A&A, 563, A83, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322714

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322714 2014

  21. [21]

    Clark, G. W. 1975, ApJL, 199, L143, doi: 10.1086/181869

    doi:10.1086/181869 1975

  22. [22]

    Clayton, G. C. 1996, PASP, 108, 225, doi: 10.1086/133715

    doi:10.1086/133715 1996

  23. [23]

    2007, ApJ, 662, 1220, doi: 10.1086/518307

    Asplund, M. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1220, doi: 10.1086/518307

    doi:10.1086/518307 2007

  24. [24]

    M., Piotto, G., & King, I

    Cool, A. M., Piotto, G., & King, I. R. 1996, ApJ, 468, 655, doi: 10.1086/177723

    doi:10.1086/177723 1996

  25. [25]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    Coutu, S., Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9 2019

  26. [26]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Br¨ uggen, M., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 14, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1766 2014

  27. [27]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89 De Marco, O

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2011, ApJ, 737, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89 De Marco, O. 2009, PASP, 121, 316, doi: 10.1086/597765

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/89 2011

  28. [28]

    D., et al

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063, doi: 10.1086/503626

    doi:10.1086/503626 2006

  29. [29]

    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

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

  30. [30]

    H., & Clemens, J

    Dunlap, B. H., & Clemens, J. C. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. P. Dufour, P. Bergeron, & G. Fontaine, 547

    2015

  31. [31]

    A., & Hirata, C

    Fang, X., Thompson, T. A., & Hirata, C. M. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 4234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty472

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty472 2018

  32. [32]

    Ferrario, L., de Martino, D., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2015, SSRv, 191, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015

  33. [33]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R¨ opke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913892 2010

  34. [34]

    Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 872, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0214

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0214 2019

  35. [35]

    M., & Frank, J

    Gokhale, V., Peng, X. M., & Frank, J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 1010, doi: 10.1086/510119

    doi:10.1086/510119 2007

  36. [36]

    J., van Roestel, J., & Wong, T

    Green, M. J., van Roestel, J., & Wong, T. L. S. 2025, A&A, 700, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554925

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554925 2025

  37. [37]

    2004, A&A, 413, 257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031504

    Guerrero, J., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., & Isern, J. 2004, A&A, 413, 257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031504

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031504 2004

  38. [38]

    2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    Guillochon, J., Dan, M., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2010, ApJL, 709, L64, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/l64 2010

  39. [39]

    V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., et al

    Gvaramadze, V. V., Gr¨ afener, G., Langer, N., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 684, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1216-1

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1216-1 2019

  40. [40]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., & Eggleton, P. P. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.4.800

    doi:10.1093/mnras/272.4.800 1995

  41. [42]

    Hansen, B. M. S., Kalirai, J. S., Anderson, J., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature12334

    doi:10.1038/nature12334 2013

  42. [43]

    2025, ApJ, 986, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add32b

    He, W., Zhou, P., Gjergo, E., & Fu, X. 2025, ApJ, 986, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add32b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add32b 2025

  43. [44]

    2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 2016

  44. [45]

    F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al

    Hopkins, P. F., Wetzel, A., Kereˇ s, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1690

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1690 2018

  45. [46]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    arXiv 2002

  46. [47]

    1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    Iben, Jr., I. 1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    doi:10.1086/168609 1990

  47. [48]

    Iben, Jr., I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJS, 54, 335, doi: 10.1086/190932 —. 1985, ApJS, 58, 661, doi: 10.1086/191054 —. 1987, ApJ, 313, 727, doi: 10.1086/165011

    doi:10.1086/190932 1984

  48. [49]

    V., & Yungelson, L

    Iben, Jr., I., Tutukov, A. V., & Yungelson, L. R. 1997, ApJ, 475, 291, doi: 10.1086/303525

    doi:10.1086/303525 1997

  49. [50]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 984, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17497.x

    Justham, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Han, Z. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 984, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17497.x

    arXiv 2011

  50. [51]

    Katz, J. I. 1975, Nature, 253, 698, doi: 10.1038/253698a0

    doi:10.1038/253698a0 1975

  51. [52]

    J., Gianninas, A., et al

    Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., Gianninas, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L26, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt151 17

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt151 2014

  52. [53]

    R., Pringle, J

    King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2001, MNRAS, 320, L45, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04184.x

    arXiv 2001

  53. [54]

    2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    Kirsten, F., Marcote, B., Nimmo, K., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04354-w 2022

  54. [55]

    S., Janka, H.-T., & Hillebrandt, W

    Kitaura, F. S., Janka, H.-T., & Hillebrandt, W. 2006, A&A, 450, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054703

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054703 2006

  55. [56]

    Koester, D., & Kepler, S. O. 2019, A&A, 628, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935946

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935946 2019

  56. [57]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac415

    Korol, V., Hallakoun, N., Toonen, S., & Karnesis, N. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac415

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac415 2022

  57. [58]

    M., Groot, P

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1285

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1285 2017

  58. [59]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    doi:10.1086/108790 1962

  59. [60]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 3, Vol

    Kremer, K. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 3, Vol. 3, 458–472, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00103-6

    doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00103-6 2026

  60. [61]

    L., & Kalogera, V

    Kremer, K., Breivik, K., Larson, S. L., & Kalogera, V. 2017, ApJ, 846, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8557

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8557 2017

  61. [62]

    L., & Ransom, S

    Kremer, K., Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Ransom, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L22, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad088

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad088 2023

  62. [63]

    L., & Li, D

    Kremer, K., Piro, A. L., & Li, D. 2021a, ApJL, 917, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac13a0

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac13a0 2041

  63. [64]

    Z., Weatherford, N

    Kremer, K., Rui, N. Z., Weatherford, N. C., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 917, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4

  64. [65]

    2015, ApJ, 806, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/76

    Kremer, K., Sepinsky, J., & Kalogera, V. 2015, ApJ, 806, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/76

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/76 2015

  65. [66]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  66. [67]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2834

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2834 2019

  67. [68]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    Li, W., Chornock, R., Leaman, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1473, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18162.x

    arXiv 2011

  68. [69]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 1962

  69. [70]

    M., & Postnov, K

    Lipunov, V. M., & Postnov, K. A. 1988, Ap&SS, 145, 1, doi: 10.1007/BF00645692

    doi:10.1007/bf00645692 1988

  70. [71]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e 2023

  71. [72]

    1990, ApJL, 354, L53, doi: 10.1086/185721 Lor´ en-Aguilar, P., Isern, J., & Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E

    Livne, E. 1990, ApJL, 354, L53, doi: 10.1086/185721 Lor´ en-Aguilar, P., Isern, J., & Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E. 2009, A&A, 500, 1193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811060

    doi:10.1086/185721 1990

  72. [73]

    Lorimer, D. R. 2008, Living Reviews in Relativity, 11, 8, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2008-8

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-8 2008

  73. [74]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    Lu, W., Beniamini, P., & Kumar, P. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3500

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3500 2022

  74. [75]

    2012, PASA, 29, 447, doi: 10.1071/AS11052

    Maoz, D., & Mannucci, F. 2012, PASA, 29, 447, doi: 10.1071/AS11052

    doi:10.1071/as11052 2012

  75. [76]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  76. [77]

    R., Nelemans, G., & Steeghs, D

    Marsh, T. R., Nelemans, G., & Steeghs, D. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07564.x

    arXiv 2004

  77. [78]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a39

    Strader, J. 2021, ApJ, 923, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a39

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2a39 2021

  78. [79]

    1980, PASJ, 32, 303, doi: 10.1093/pasj/32.2.303

    Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., Yokoi, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1980, PASJ, 32, 303, doi: 10.1093/pasj/32.2.303

    doi:10.1093/pasj/32.2.303 1980

  79. [80]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 2017

  80. [81]

    M., & Badenes, C

    Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., & Badenes, C. 2019, ApJ, 875, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88 2019

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.