The initial mass-remnant mass relation for core collapse supernovae

A. Chieffi; C. Ugolini; M.Limongi; M. Spera; R. Schneider; U. N. Di Carlo

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

The initial mass-remnant mass relation for core collapse supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the heaviest black holes come from non-rotating, very metal-poor stars that directly collapse at about 87 solar masses, inside the theorized pair-instability mass gap, while rotation caps the maximum near 42 solar…

desk verdict A solid new remnant-mass grid and fitting formulas for population synthesis, but the headline ~87 Msun maximum BH is an extrapolation from an adopted PPISN threshold and a sparse grid, so the abstract overstates it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18689 v1 pith:FLFTL6LL submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

C. Ugolini , M.Limongi , R. Schneider , A. Chieffi , U. N. Di Carlo , M. Spera This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

keywords core-collapsesupernovaeblackholeremnantsinitial-finalmassrelationpulsationalpair-instabilitygapstellarrotationmetallicityandwindspopulationsynthesisprescriptions

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 maps the initial mass of a massive star to the mass of its compact remnant by exploding a homogeneous grid of 13--120 $M_\odot$ progenitors in 1D, for two rotation rates and four metallicities. Its central claim is that, once the explosion is calibrated to SN1987A and the onset of pulsational pair-instability is placed at a $33\,M_\odot$ carbon-oxygen core, non-rotating stars at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ directly collapse to black holes of about $87\,M_\odot$---inside the theorized pair-instability mass gap where theory had predicted black holes to be rare. It also finds that rotation removes the hydrogen envelope and lowers the ceiling to about $40$--$42\,M_\odot$, and that metallicity controls the ceiling through stellar winds. The paper packages the result as linear fallback prescriptions for population-synthesis codes and as a remnant-mass distribution for a million-star population. A sympathetic reader should care because the boundary of the mass gap is one of the few observationally accessible signatures of the supernova engine and of pulsational pair-instability physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the initial mass--remnant mass relation $M_{\rm rem}(M_{\rm ZAMS})$, assembled by exploding a homogeneous grid of 13--120 $M_\odot$ progenitors at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = 0,-1,-2,-3$, with and without 300 km s$^{-1}$ rotation. Explosions use the 1D radiation-hydrodynamics code HYPERION with a thermal-bomb setup calibrated to SN1987A (injected energy $E_{\rm inj}=2.0$ foe, with 1 foe = $10^{51}$ erg, spread over $dm_{\rm inj}=0.1\,M_\odot$ and $dt_{\rm inj}=0.01$ s); the outcome is a successful supernova or a direct collapse, defined as ejecting less than 10% of the pre-SN mass, and the remnant mass is the final mass coordinate that separates accreted from ejected material. Above the last pair-stable progenitor, remnant masses are stitched to the results of Woosley (2017) by interpolating on CO core mass, with the adopted onset threshold $M^{\rm PPISN}_{\rm CO}=33\,M_\odot$. The CO core mass is the ordering variable throughout: remnant masses track it, and it is linearly fitted against $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ (Eqs. 11--12) to locate the boundary where pulsational pair-instability begins.

What would settle it

Simulate a non-rotating, $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ star with $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ between 80 and 120 $M_\odot$ in a code that follows the full pulsational pair-instability phase, including $M_{\rm ZAMS} \approx 87\,M_\odot$; if that star loses more than a few solar masses to pulses or explodes instead of collapsing directly, the claimed gap-filling maximum fails. Alternatively, a gravitational-wave catalog showing no black holes above 60 $M_\odot$ from low-metallicity environments would argue that the adopted onset threshold is too high.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery, on the paper's own terms, is an initial mass--remnant mass relation for core-collapse supernovae that extends across the direct-collapse and pulsational pair-instability regimes. In the non-rotating $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ grid, the 80 $M_\odot$ model retains almost all its mass and directly collapses to an 80 $M_\odot$ black hole, while a 120 $M_\odot$ model is pair-unstable; linear fits of CO core mass versus initial mass (Eqs. 11--12) place the first pair-unstable progenitor at $M_{\rm ZAMS} = 87.01\,M_\odot$, with a pre-SN mass of $87.01\,M_\odot$, so the heaviest black hole formed is about $87\,M_\odot$ and lies inside the pair-instability mass gap. With 300 km s$^{-1}$ rotation the same threshold is reached at lower initial mass (about $65\,M_\odot$) and the maximum black hole mass falls to about $39.9$--$41.6\,M_\odot$ because the stars end as stripped helium stars. The paper further claims that non-rotating fallback fractions follow a linear dependence on pre-SN total energy, binding energy, or CO core mass, while rotating progenitors show no such monotonic relation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's heaviest black hole is not directly simulated: it comes from adopting an external threshold for the onset of pulsational pair-instability (a carbon-oxygen core of $33\,M_\odot$, taken from another study) and extrapolating a straight-line fit over a grid that skips most masses between 80 and 120 $M_\odot$; a different threshold moves the maximum between about 53 and more than 100 $M_\odot$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The pair-instability mass gap is not necessarily empty: single non-rotating stars at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} \approx -3$ can produce black holes of about $87\,M_\odot$, so gravitational-wave mergers could contain components inside the 60--120 $M_\odot$ range without invoking dynamical or binary-only channels.
Rotation changes the story: with 300 km s$^{-1}$ initial rotation, the maximum remnant mass drops to about $40$--$42\,M_\odot$, so the rotating fraction of a stellar population determines whether the gap is populated.
Metallicity sets the ceiling through winds: at solar and $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -1$, the heaviest black holes are about 28 and 42 $M_\odot$ respectively, meaning gap-filling black holes require low-metallicity, non-rotating environments.
The non-rotating fallback fits (fraction of mass ejected versus total energy, binding energy, or CO core mass) can be implemented directly in rapid population-synthesis codes to assign remnant masses; the same fits do not work for rotating progenitors.
The lower edge of the mass gap becomes a diagnostic of pulsational pair-instability physics: adopting the 41 $M_\odot$ carbon-oxygen core threshold from another study pushes the maximum above 100 $M_\odot$, so the observed gap boundary can select among PPISN prescriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

I read the discrepancy between the abstract's and Section 4.1's 87 $M_\odot$ and the concluding Section 5's about 91 $M_\odot$ as a summary-level inconsistency; Table C.1 gives 87.01 $M_\odot$ for the non-rotating $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$ maximum, and that table value is the quantitative claim.
The 87 $M_\odot$ number is an extrapolation rather than a simulated outcome: the grid contains no star between 80 and 120 $M_\odot$ at $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = -3$, so the location of the 33 $M_\odot$ carbon-oxygen core threshold rests on a sparse linear fit; a denser grid would directly test it.
If the claim survives, the pair-instability mass gap becomes a testable demographic: next-generation gravitational-wave detectors should see merging black holes in the 60--90 $M_\odot$ range preferentially from low-metallicity, slowly rotating progenitors, and the measured gap edge would pin down the PPISN threshold.
The comparison with other PPISN thresholds suggests that part of the scatter in the gap edge is due to the progenitor models themselves, not only the explosion physics, so population-synthesis codes should treat the maximum remnant mass as uncertain by tens of solar masses.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a useful new application of the HYPERION thermal-bomb to the LC18 grid, and the fitting formulas will get cited, but the headline 87 Msun maximum is an extrapolation plus an adopted threshold, not a directly simulated result.

What is actually new: they explode a homogeneous grid of rotating and non-rotating LC18 progenitors at four metallicities with HYPERION, calibrated to SN1987A, follow fallback to the final remnant mass, produce BH mass distributions from a Kroupa IMF, and give linear fits of fallback fraction versus binding energy, total energy, and CO core mass for non-rotating stars. The lower-mass remnant relation is coherent, the direct-collapse dynamics are clearly documented, and the calibration is transparent. The paper is also honest about the PPISN sensitivity and about the fact that dminj is not a best fit but a reasonable SN1987A match.

The soft spots are real but localized. The flagship number is fragile. The ~87 Msun BH from non-rotating [Fe/H]=-3 progenitors is not a simulation result: the grid jumps from 80 to 120 Msun at that metallicity, the 120 Msun model is already pair-unstable, and the PPISN boundary is located by linear interpolation plus the W17 threshold MCO = 33 Msun. Section 2.3 itself admits the CO-core threshold is only constrained to 30-50 Msun. As the paper shows in Figure 17 and Section 4.2, switching the threshold to Farmer et al. gives BHs above 100 Msun, and to Spera & Mapelli gives about 53 Msun. So "inside the upper mass gap" is a factor-of-two range, not a point estimate. On top of that, the abstract and Section 4.1 say ~87 Msun while Section 5 says ~91 Msun for the same quantity, and Table C.1 gives 87.01. That internal inconsistency is sloppy and should be fixed before anyone trusts the specific number. The universal thermal-bomb calibration and the arbitrary DC criterion (ejected mass < 10%) are acknowledged limitations; they do not undermine the lower-mass grid.

Who this is for: population synthesis modelers and anyone interpreting LVK or next-generation GW mass spectra. The fitting formulas and the new remnant grid are the real value, not the single maximum-mass claim.

Recommendation: send it to review. A serious referee can extract the useful parts, but the abstract and conclusions need reframing around the threshold-dependent nature of the maximum BH mass, and the 87/91 discrepancy must be resolved.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents a homogeneous grid of core-collapse supernova simulations using the HYPERION 1D hydrodynamics code, applied to Limongi & Chieffi (2018) progenitor models with metallicities [Fe/H] = 0, -1, -2, -3 and rotation velocities v = 0 and 300 km/s. The explosion is triggered by a thermal bomb calibrated to reproduce SN1987A's ejecta energy and 56Ni mass. The authors derive remnant masses as a function of MZAMS, focusing on the maximum black hole mass, and find that non-rotating [Fe/H] = -3 progenitors can produce BHs up to ~87 M_sun, inside the theoretical pair-instability mass gap. They also compute BH mass distributions from a Kroupa IMF population and provide analytic fitting formulas for the fallback fraction as a function of progenitor properties.

Significance. The paper has several strengths: it uses a homogeneous set of up-to-date stellar models, documents the calibration of the explosion parameters explicitly, and provides tabulated remnant masses and fitting formulas that are directly useful for population-synthesis codes. The lower-mass remnant grid and the systematic exploration of metallicity and rotation are valuable. The principal claim about the maximum BH mass, however, is conditional on an adopted PPISN threshold and an extrapolation beyond the simulated mass grid, and the paper itself shows that alternative thresholds change the maximum by a factor of two. As a result, the 'inside the mass gap' conclusion is not a robust prediction unless the threshold dependence is fully incorporated into the headline.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.3 / Table C.1 / Section 4.1] The maximum BH mass of ~87 M_sun for non-rotating [Fe/H] = -3 progenitors is not a direct simulation result: it is derived in Section 2.3 from the linear extrapolation in Equations (11)-(12), which uses only the MZAMS = 80 and 120 M_sun grid points, combined with the externally adopted threshold MPPISN_CO = 33 M_sun (Woosley 2017). Section 2.3 admits that the simulation grid constrains the threshold only to 30 < MCO < 50 M_sun, and Section 4.2 shows that adopting MPPISN_CO = 24 M_sun (Spera & Mapelli 2017) or MPPISN_CO = 41 M_sun (Farmer et al. 2019) changes the maximum BH mass to ~53 M_sun or >100 M_sun, respectively. Because the 'inside the pair-instability mass gap' conclusion hinges on this threshold choice and on an unverified extrapolation, the abstract and Section 4.1 should present the maximum BH mass as a range with an explicit caveat rather than as a single value.
[Section 5 vs Section 4.1 / Table C.1] There is an internal inconsistency in the quoted maximum BH mass for non-rotating [Fe/H] = -3 progenitors: Section 5 states 'The most massive BH has mass of ~91 M_sun', while Section 4.1 quotes ~87.0 M_sun and Table C.1 lists MPPISN_ZAMS = 87.01 M_sun (with MPPISN_preSN = 87.01 M_sun). The origin of the 91 M_sun value should be clarified and the text made consistent, since the reader cannot determine which value is the actual result.
[Section 4.3 / Figures 19-20] The population-synthesis mass distributions in Section 4.3 sample MZAMS up to 150 M_sun, but the simulated progenitor grid stops at 120 M_sun for non-rotating models and at 60 M_sun for rotating models at [Fe/H] = -2 and -3 (Tables C.2 and C.3). The paper does not state how the remnant-mass relation is continued above the simulated range, so the high-mass end of the distributions in Figures 19 and 20 is based on undocumented extrapolation; this should be stated explicitly, or the IMF range should be restricted to the simulated masses.

minor comments (7)

[Section 3.1] The sentence 'To illustrate the properties of a typical successful explosion in our simulations, we consider a typical successful explosion looks like in our simulations' is garbled and should be rewritten.
[Section 2.3] The phrase 'since the liming masses obtained' contains a typo; it should be 'limiting masses'.
[Figure 2] The y-axis label 'CO Core (M)' should read 'CO Core Mass (M_sun)' with the solar-mass subscript.
[Table C.3] The caption describes the table as 'non-rotating stellar progenitors', but the table lists rotating models (v = 300 km/s); the caption should be corrected.
[Table D.3] The first column header reads 'dtinj(M⊙)' but the entries are in seconds; the unit should be corrected to 'dtinj (s)'.
[Section 4.2] The phrase 'upper mass gap' is potentially confusing; the paper should refer to the 'pair-instability mass gap' throughout.
[Abstract] The formatting '[Fe/H]=-3' should be '[Fe/H] = -3' with spaces around the equals sign for consistency with the rest of the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the remnant masses come from independent HYPERION simulations calibrated to SN1987A, and the PPISN-dependent upper end is a transparently disclosed mapping of an external threshold, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The core remnant masses are produced by HYPERION explosion simulations of the LC18 progenitor grid, with the thermal-bomb parameters (Einj = 2.0 foe, dminj = 0.1 Msun, dtinj = 0.01 s) calibrated to reproduce the ejecta kinetic energy and 56Ni mass of SN1987A. This is an independent external benchmark, not a fit to the paper's own target remnant-mass relation, so the lower-mass grid and the fitting formulas are self-contained and falsifiable. The only extrapolated portion is the PPISN boundary: Section 2.3 explicitly states that the grid resolution only shows that 80 Msun progenitors are stable and 120 Msun progenitors are unstable, and that the code cannot simulate pair-instability phases. The paper then adopts the external Woosley (2017) threshold MCO_PPISN = 33 Msun and uses a linear fit (Eqs. 11-12, Table C.1) to obtain MZAMS_PPISN ~ 87 Msun for [Fe/H] = -3, v = 0. This is not circular: the threshold is an external physical input, not a parameter fitted to the headline BH mass, and the paper explicitly quantifies the sensitivity by showing that adopting S17 (24 Msun) yields ~53 Msun and F19 (41 Msun) yields >100 Msun (Section 4.2, Figures 17-18). The headline maximum BH is therefore a transparent re-expression of an adopted threshold through the authors' own stellar-evolution grid, with the dependence disclosed rather than hidden. The internal discrepancy between ~87 Msun in Section 4.1 and ~91 Msun in Section 5 for the same quantity is a correctness and robustness concern, not a circularity. Self-citations to LC18 and HYPERION represent normal use of the authors' progenitor models and code; no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation chain. Overall, no circular step is identifiable in the paper's derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several chosen parameters and domain assumptions: the calibrated thermal bomb, the adopted PPISN CO-core threshold, the linear extrapolation of the sparse grid, and the 10% direct-collapse criterion. These are flagged in the text but not all are tested for sensitivity; the maximum BH number is particularly sensitive to the PPISN threshold.

free parameters (6)

Einj (thermal bomb energy) = 2.0 foe
Injected thermal energy at the inner boundary; calibrated so the SN1987A ejecta kinetic energy is about 1 foe and the ejected 56Ni mass is about 0.07 M_sun, then held fixed for all progenitors.
dminj (thermal bomb mass shell) = 0.1 M_sun
Width of the mass shell receiving energy; one of several values consistent with SN1987A, chosen without calibrating on multiple supernova sources.
dtinj (thermal bomb duration) = 0.01 s
Chosen because it gives exactly 0.07 M_sun of 56Ni for SN1987A; remnant fallback may depend on this timescale.
PPISN CO-core threshold = 33 M_sun
Adopted from Woosley 2017 to mark the onset of pulsational pair-instability; directly sets MPPISN_ZAMS through a linear fit and therefore controls the maximum BH mass in non-rotating low-metallicity models.
DC classification threshold = dM/M < 0.10
Progenitors ejecting less than 10% of the pre-SN mass are labeled direct collapse; this arbitrary criterion affects the high-mass end of the remnant relation.
Fitting-formula coefficients and thresholds = aSN=0.26, bSN=-0.11, |Etot|DC=4.17 foe; cSN=0.06, dSN=0.04, Ebind,DC=15.9 foe; eSN=0.06, fSN=-0.03, MCO,DC=17.2 M_sun
Linear least-squares parameters for dM/M in non-rotating models; no uncertainties are given and two progenitors deviate from each fit.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The LC18 pre-SN stellar models accurately describe the structure and composition of massive stars across mass, metallicity and rotation.
All explosion simulations start from these published models, which are produced with the FRANEC code by two co-authors (Limongi and Chieffi).
ad hoc to paper A thermal bomb can reproduce the essential explosion dynamics and fallback relevant for remnant masses.
Energy is injected artificially over the innermost 0.8 M_sun; no neutrino-driven mechanism is simulated, so explosion success and fallback depend on this approximation.
domain assumption SN1987A is a valid calibration target for all progenitors in the grid.
The authors note Sk -69 202 may have formed from a merger (Podsiadlowski 1992; Menon and Heger 2017) but adopt it as the standard benchmark, following common practice in the field.
ad hoc to paper Woosley 2017 PPISN remnant masses can be applied to LC18 CO cores above 33 M_sun.
PPISN evolution is not simulated in this work; final remnant masses above the threshold are obtained by interpolating W17 results on the CO core mass.
domain assumption One-dimensional spherical hydrodynamics is sufficient to determine fallback and final remnant mass.
HYPERION is a 1D code; multi-dimensional effects such as convection, asymmetries, and neutrino-driven turbulence are neglected.
ad hoc to paper The linear relation between MCO and MZAMS from a sparse grid can be extrapolated to locate the PPISN threshold.
Equations 11 and 12 assume MCO and MpreSN scale linearly with MZAMS; the grid has few points in the key 80 to 120 M_sun interval, and the threshold mass is not resolved.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The initial mass-remnant mass relation for core collapse supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLFTL6LL

@misc{pith2026250118689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The initial mass-remnant mass relation for core collapse supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLFTL6LL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18689}
}

abstract

The first direct detection of gravitational waves in 2015 marked the beginning of a new era for the study of compact objects. Upcoming detectors, such as the Einstein Telescope, are expected to add thousands of binary coalescences to the list. However, from a theoretical perspective, our understanding of compact objects is hindered by many uncertainties, and a comprehensive study of the nature of stellar remnants from core-collapse supernovae is still lacking. In this work, we investigate the properties of stellar remnants using a homogeneous grid of rotating and non-rotating massive stars at various metallicities from Limongi and Chieffi 2018. We simulate the supernova explosion of the evolved progenitors using the HYdrodynamic Ppm Explosion with Radiation diffusION (HYPERION) code (Limongi and Chieffi 2020), assuming a thermal bomb model calibrated to match the main properties of SN1987A. We find that the heaviest black hole that can form depends on the initial stellar rotation, metallicity, and the assumed criterion for the onset of pulsational pair-instability supernovae. Non-rotating progenitors at $\big[\rm Fe/H \big]=-3$ can form black holes up to $\sim 87 M_\odot$, falling within the theorized pair-instability mass gap. Conversely, enhanced wind mass loss prevents the formation of BHs more massive than $\sim 41.6 M_\odot$ from rotating progenitors. We use our results to study the black hole mass distribution from a population of $10^6$ isolated massive stars following a Kroupa initial mass function. Finally, we provide fitting formulas to compute the mass of compact remnants as a function of stellar progenitor properties. Our up-to-date prescriptions can be easily implemented in rapid population synthesis codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18689 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Final kinetic energy of the ejecta as a function of the ejected mass of 56Ni obtained running various explosion tests (blue crosses) with different values of the initial explosion parameters, Einj, dminj, and dtinj. The red dot refers to the simulation of the explosion that best matches the properties of SN1987A (orange star). Finally, it is important to mention a significant caveat that may influence these results… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Mass at the pre-SN stage (top-row panels) and CO core mass (bottom-row panels) as a function of MZAMS for the non-rotating progenitors (left panels) and progenitors rotating with an initial velocity of 300 km/s (right panels). Different colors represent different initial metallicities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Velocity of the shock wave as a function of the mass coordinate at different times after the onset of the explosion: the end of the explosive nucleosynthesis (dotted blue line), the shock wave enters the CO core (dash-dotted orange line), the shock wave reaches the He/H interface (solid green line), 1000 s after the onset of the explosion (dashed red line), the formation of the compact remnant (long dashed purple li… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (15 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Temperature profile (solid red line) and mass density profile (dash-dotted black line) of the stellar progenitor at the pre-SN stage as a function of the mass coordinate. A zoom-in on the innermost region of the core, up to 5 M⊙, is highlighted in the lower right box …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Interior profiles of the kinetic energy (yellow line), the internal energy plus the gravitational energy (purple line), and the total energy (dashed light blue line) at various times during the explosion for a non-rotating stellar progenitor with MZAMS = 25 M⊙ with met…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Temperature profile (red line) and density profile (dash-dotted black line) at the pre-SN stage as function of the mass coordinate of a non-rotating stellar progenitor with MZAMS = 80 M⊙ and Fe/H] = −2. A zoom-in on the innermost region of the core, up to 5 M⊙, is high…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Remnant masses as a function of MZAMS for the progenitors with initial metallicity Fe/H] = 0 (dashed light blue line), Fe/H] = −1 (dash-dotted violet line), Fe/H] = −2 (orange solid line), and Fe/H] = −3 (dotted yellow line). We do not simulate the explosion of the st…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Pre-SN mass (dash-dotted light blue line), pre-SN mass extrapolated for MZAMS > 120M⊙ (dotted grey line), remnant mass (solid violet line), and the remnant mass for the stars which develop pair instabilities (dashed yellow line), as a function of MZAMS. The red points…

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Same of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Maximum BH mass as a function of the initial metallicity for the non-rotating stellar progenitors (red line) and the rotating stellar progenitors (blue line) for the non-rotating progenitors. the C/O ratio at the He core depletion plays a role in the onset of the PPI…

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: BH mass spectrum as a function of the CO core mass from various authors. Solid blue line: this work, non-rotating progenitors at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: BH mass spectrum as a function of the CO core mass for different PPISN prescriptions. Solid blue line: this work, non-rotating progenitors at Fe/H] = −3; dash-dotted orange line: F19 PPISN threshold (MPPISN CO = 41 M⊙) applied to the S17 pre-SN progenitors; dotted g…

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Normalized probability distribution of BH masses we obtain from a population of 106 stars whose mass follows a Kroupa (2001) mass function (dN/dMZAMS ∝ M−2.35 ZAMS, dashed magenta line in all the panels) in the range MZAMS ∈ [15 M⊙; 150 M⊙] for non-rotating stellar pr…

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png]

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Linear relation between the mass that falls back after the explosions and some structural properties of the stellar progenitors at the pre-SN stage, such as the absolute value of the total energy (top panels), the binding energy (central panels) and the CO core mass (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

The Stellar Winds Atlas II: Black Hole Formation at Solar Metallicity
astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Black hole masses at solar metallicity are set by whether a star becomes a Wolf-Rayet star before collapse, and cool supergiant winds control that split.
Assembling GW231123 in star clusters through the combination of stellar binary evolution and hierarchical mergers
astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Metal-poor star clusters can form GW231123-like black hole mergers, but matching its high spins requires assuming high natal spins for stellar-binary black holes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

204 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....
[3]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016 a , Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, ADS Bibcode: 2016PhRvL.116f1102A

2016
[4]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016 b , Physical Review D, 93, 122003, ADS Bibcode: 2016PhRvD..93l2003A

2016
[5]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2016, , 818, L22

2016
[6]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2019, , 882, L24

2019
[7]

2020, , 497, 4549

Agrawal , P., Hurley , J., Stevenson , S., Sz \'e csi , D., & Flynn , C. 2020, , 497, 4549

2020
[8]

Stripped-envelope stars in different metallicity environments. II. Type I supernovae and compact remnants

Aguilera-Dena , D. R., M \"u ller , B., Antoniadis , J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.00025

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 204 references

[9]

1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present

Arnett , D. 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis: An Investigation of the History of Matter from the Big Bang to the Present

1996
[10]

D., Bahcall, J

Arnett, W. D., Bahcall, J. N., Kirshner, R. P., & Woosley, S. E. 1989, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 27, 629

1989
[11]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481

2009
[12]

2017, , 467, 524

Banerjee , S. 2017, , 467, 524

2017
[13]

2018, , 473, 909

Banerjee , S. 2018, , 473, 909

2018
[14]

2021, , 500, 3002

Banerjee , S. 2021, , 500, 3002

2021
[15]

2010, , 402, 371

Banerjee , S., Baumgardt , H., & Kroupa , P. 2010, , 402, 371

2010
[16]

1967, , 18, 379

Barkat , Z., Rakavy , G., & Sack , N. 1967, , 18, 379

1967
[17]

2018, , 615, A91

Belczynski , K., Askar , A., Arca-Sedda , M., et al. 2018, , 615, A91

2018
[18]

E., Bulik , T., & O'Shaughnessy , R

Belczynski , K., Holz , D. E., Bulik , T., & O'Shaughnessy , R. 2016, , 534, 512

2016
[19]

E., et al

Belczynski , K., Klencki , J., Fields , C. E., et al. 2020, , 636, A104

2020
[20]

C., Benvenuto , O., & Hamuy , M

Bersten , M. C., Benvenuto , O., & Hamuy , M. 2011, , 729, 61

2011
[21]

Bethe , H. A. & Brown , G. E. 1998, , 506, 780

1998
[22]

Bethe , H. A. & Wilson , J. R. 1985, , 295, 14

1985
[23]

2000, , 532, 1132

Blinnikov , S., Lundqvist , P., Bartunov , O., Nomoto , K., & Iwamoto , K. 2000, , 532, 1132

2000
[24]

M., Mezzacappa, A., & DeMarino, C

Blondin, J. M., Mezzacappa, A., & DeMarino, C. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 584, 971

2003
[25]

2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 28

Bollig, R., Yadav, N., Kresse, D., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 28

2021
[26]

Bowman , D. M. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 70

2020
[27]

2012, , 427, 127

Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127

2012
[28]

S., Berger , E., Neijssel , C

Broekgaarden , F. S., Berger , E., Neijssel , C. J., et al. 2021, , 508, 5028

2021
[29]

E., Cantiello , M., et al

Brott , I., de Mink , S. E., Cantiello , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A115

2011
[30]

Brown , G. E. 1995, , 440, 270

1995
[31]

W., Lentz , E

Bruenn , S. W., Lentz , E. J., Hix , W. R., et al. 2016, , 818, 123

2016
[32]

Burrows , A., Hayes , J., & Fryxell , B. A. 1995, , 450, 830

1995
[33]

2019, , 485, 3153

Burrows , A., Radice , D., & Vartanyan , D. 2019, , 485, 3153

2019
[34]

2020, , 491, 2715

Burrows , A., Radice , D., Vartanyan , D., et al. 2020, , 491, 2715

2020
[35]

2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 68

Burrows, A., Vartanyan, D., & Wang, T. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 68

2023
[36]

Burrows, A., Wang, T., Vartanyan, D., & Coleman, M. S. B. 2024, A Theory for Neutron Star and Black Hole Kicks and Induced Spins

2024
[37]

2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 416, 1117

Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., et al. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 416, 1117

2004
[38]

& Zahn , J

Chaboyer , B. & Zahn , J. P. 1992, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 253, 173

1992
[39]

& Limongi , M

Chieffi , A. & Limongi , M. 2004, , 608, 405

2004
[40]

& Limongi, M

Chieffi, A. & Limongi, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 21, ADS Bibcode: 2013ApJ...764...21C

2013
[41]

& Woodward, P

Colella, P. & Woodward, P. R. 1984, Journal of Computational Physics, 54, 174

1984
[42]

2021, , 501, 4514

Costa , G., Bressan , A., Mapelli , M., et al. 2021, , 501, 4514

2021
[43]

de Jager , C., Nieuwenhuijzen , H., & van der Hucht , K. A. 1988, , 72, 259

1988
[44]

Dewi , J. D. M., Podsiadlowski , P., & Sena , A. 2006, , 368, 1742

2006
[45]

N., Giacobbo , N., Mapelli , M., et al

Di Carlo , U. N., Giacobbo , N., Mapelli , M., et al. 2019, , 487, 2947

2019
[46]

N., Mapelli , M., Bouffanais , Y., et al

Di Carlo , U. N., Mapelli , M., Bouffanais , Y., et al. 2020 a , , 497, 1043

2020
[47]

N., Mapelli , M., Giacobbo , N., et al

Di Carlo , U. N., Mapelli , M., Giacobbo , N., et al. 2020 b , , 498, 495

2020
[48]

N., Mapelli , M., Pasquato , M., et al

Di Carlo , U. N., Mapelli , M., Pasquato , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 5132

2021
[49]

L., Gil-Pons , P., Siess , L., & Lattanzio , J

Doherty , C. L., Gil-Pons , P., Siess , L., & Lattanzio , J. C. 2017, , 34, e056

2017
[50]

2012, , 759, 52

Dominik , M., Belczynski , K., Fryer , C., et al. 2012, , 759, 52

2012
[51]

2015, , 806, 263

Dominik , M., Berti , E., O'Shaughnessy , R., et al. 2015, , 806, 263

2015
[52]

Downing , J. M. B., Benacquista , M. J., Giersz , M., & Spurzem , R. 2011, , 416, 133

2011
[53]

J., Izzard , R

Eldridge , J. J., Izzard , R. G., & Tout , C. A. 2008, , 384, 1109

2008
[54]

T., Woosley, S

Ertl, T., Janka, H. T., Woosley, S. E., Sukhbold, T., & Ugliano, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 124, ADS Bibcode: 2016ApJ...818..124E

2016
[55]

T., & Timmes , F

Farag , E., Renzo , M., Farmer , R., Chidester , M. T., & Timmes , F. X. 2022, , 937, 112

2022
[56]

E., Marchant , P., & Justham , S

Farmer , R., Renzo , M., de Mink , S. E., Marchant , P., & Justham , S. 2019, , 887, 53

2019
[57]

W., Alexander, D

Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 585

2005
[58]

Fernández, R., Quataert, E., Kashiyama, K., & Coughlin, E. R. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2366

2018
[59]

2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 1436

Foglizzo, T., Scheck, L., & Janka, H.-T. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 652, 1436

2006
[60]

Fowler , W. A. & Hoyle , F. 1964, , 9, 201

1964
[61]

J., Bavera , S

Fragos , T., Andrews , J. J., Bavera , S. S., et al. 2023, , 264, 45

2023
[62]

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

Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 749, 91, publisher: American Astronomical Society

2012
[63]

Gallegos-Garcia , M., Berry , C. P. L., Marchant , P., & Kalogera , V. 2021, , 922, 110

2021
[64]

2020, , 495, L81

Graziani , L., Schneider , R., Marassi , S., et al. 2020, , 495, L81

2020
[65]

1989, , 210, L5

Hashimoto , M., Nomoto , K., & Shigeyama , T. 1989, , 210, L5

1989
[66]

& Langer, N

Heger, A. & Langer, N. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 544, 1016

2000
[67]

& Woosley, S

Heger, A. & Woosley, S. E. 2002, , 567, 532

2002
[68]

Heggie , D. C. 1975, , 173, 729

1975
[69]

R., Fryer , C

Herant , M., Benz , W., Hix , W. R., Fryer , C. L., & Colgate , S. A. 1994, , 435, 339

1994
[70]

Higgins , E. R. & Vink , J. S. 2019, , 622, A50

2019
[71]

2014, , 445, L99

Horiuchi , S., Nakamura , K., Takiwaki , T., Kotake , K., & Tanaka , M. 2014, , 445, L99

2014
[72]

1977, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report

Huebner, W., Merts, A., Magee, N., & Jr.Argo, M. 1977, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report

1977
[73]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 464, 943

1996
[74]

A., Rogers , F

Iglesias , C. A., Rogers , F. J., & Wilson , B. G. 1992, , 397, 717

1992
[75]

1983, , 273, 774

Itoh , N., Mitake , S., Iyetomi , H., & Ichimaru , S. 1983, , 273, 774

1983
[76]

2017, in Handbook of Supernovae (Springer International Publishing), 1095--1150

Janka, H.-T. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae (Springer International Publishing), 1095--1150

2017
[77]

2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 341

Janka, H.-T., Melson, T., & Summa, A. 2016, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 66, 341

2016
[78]

Janka , H. T. & Mueller , E. 1996, , 306, 167

1996
[79]

2011, , 410, 984

Justham , S., Podsiadlowski , P., & Han , Z. 2011, , 410, 984

2011
[80]

2023, Fate of supernova progenitors in massive binary systems

Kinugawa, T., Horiuchi, S., Takiwaki, T., & Kotake, K. 2023, Fate of supernova progenitors in massive binary systems

2023
[81]

2021, , 501, L49

Kinugawa , T., Nakamura , T., & Nakano , H. 2021, , 501, L49

2021
[82]

2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 971

Kotake , K., Sato , K., & Takahashi , K. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 971

2006
[83]

S., Rui , N

Kremer , K., Ye , C. S., Rui , N. Z., et al. 2020, , 247, 48

2020
[84]

2001, , 322, 231

Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231

2001
[85]

Kurucz , R. L. 1991, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 341, Stellar Atmospheres - Beyond Classical Models, ed. L. Crivellari , I. Hubeny , & D. G. Hummer , 441

1991
[86]

J., Bruenn , S

Lentz , E. J., Bruenn , S. W., Hix , W. R., et al. 2015, , 807, L31

2015
[87]

J., Mezzacappa, A., Messer, O

Lentz, E. J., Mezzacappa, A., Messer, O. E. B., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 73

2012
[88]

Levermore, C. D. & Pomraning, G. C. 1981, The Astrophysical Journal, 248, 321

1981
[89]

& Chieffi , A

Limongi , M. & Chieffi , A. 2003, , 592, 404

2003
[90]

& Chieffi , A

Limongi , M. & Chieffi , A. 2006, , 647, 483

2006
[91]

& Chieffi , A

Limongi , M. & Chieffi , A. 2018, , 237, 13

2018
[92]

& Chieffi , A

Limongi , M. & Chieffi , A. 2020, , 902, 95

2020
[93]

2000, , 129, 625

Limongi , M., Straniero , O., & Chieffi , A. 2000, , 129, 625

2000
[94]

& Woosley , S

Lovegrove , E. & Woosley , S. E. 2013, , 769, 109

2013
[95]

& Zahn , J.-P

Maeder , A. & Zahn , J.-P. 1998, , 334, 1000

1998
[96]

& Farmer , A

Mandel , I. & Farmer , A. 2022, , 955, 1

2022
[97]

& Fragos , T

Mandel , I. & Fragos , T. 2020, , 895, L28

2020
[98]

& M \"u ller , B

Mandel , I. & M \"u ller , B. 2020, , 499, 3214

2020
[99]

2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3432

Mapelli, M. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 3432

2016
[100]

2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 16

Mapelli , M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 16

2021
[101]

& Giacobbo , N

Mapelli , M. & Giacobbo , N. 2018, , 479, 4391

2018
[102]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 76, publisher: American Astronomical Society

Mapelli, M., Spera, M., Montanari, E., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, 76, publisher: American Astronomical Society

2020
[103]

2013, , 429, 2298

Mapelli , M., Zampieri , L., Ripamonti , E., & Bressan , A. 2013, , 429, 2298

2013
[104]

2019 a , , 484, 3219

Marassi , S., Graziani , L., Ginolfi , M., et al. 2019 a , , 484, 3219

2019
[105]

2019 b , , 484, 2587

Marassi , S., Schneider , R., Limongi , M., et al. 2019 b , , 484, 2587

2019
[106]

Marchant , P., Pappas , K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia , M., et al. 2021, , 650, A107

2021
[107]

K., Buonanno , A., Gair , J., et al

Mehta , A. K., Buonanno , A., Gair , J., et al. 2022, , 924, 39

2022
[108]

& Heger , A

Menon , A. & Heger , A. 2017, , 469, 4649

2017
[109]

& Maeder , A

Meynet , G. & Maeder , A. 1997, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 321, 465

1997
[110]

& Maeder , A

Meynet , G. & Maeder , A. 2000, , 361, 101

2000
[111]

Mezzacappa , A., Endeve , E., Messer , O. E. B., & Bruenn , S. W. 2020, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 6, 4

2020
[112]

E., et al

Mezzacappa, A., Marronetti, P., Landfield, R. E., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 107

2023
[113]

Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Bahramian , A., Orosz , J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046

2021
[114]

& Sigurdsson , S

Moody , K. & Sigurdsson , S. 2009, , 690, 1370

2009
[115]

2010, , 719, 1445

Moriya , T., Tominaga , N., Tanaka , M., et al. 2010, , 719, 1445

2010
[116]

L., Renzo, M., et al

Morozova, V., Piro, A. L., Renzo, M., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 63

2015
[117]

2015, , 453, 287

M \"u ller , B. 2015, , 453, 287

2015
[118]

2012, , 761, 72

M \"u ller , B., Janka , H.-T., & Heger , A. 2012, , 761, 72

2012
[119]

Nadezhin , D. K. 1980, , 69, 115

1980
[120]

2024, Three-dimensional Magneto-hydrodynamic Simulations of Core-collapse Supernovae: I

Nakamura, K., Takiwaki, T., Matsumoto, J., & Kotake, K. 2024, Three-dimensional Magneto-hydrodynamic Simulations of Core-collapse Supernovae: I. Hydrodynamic evolution and protoneutron star properties

2024
[121]

2001, , 555, 880

Nakamura , T., Umeda , H., Iwamoto , K., et al. 2001, , 555, 880

2001
[122]

J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Stevenson , S., et al

Neijssel , C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Stevenson , S., et al. 2019, , 490, 3740

2019
[123]

2006, , 777, 424

Nomoto , K., Tominaga , N., Umeda , H., Kobayashi , C., & Maeda , K. 2006, , 777, 424

2006
[124]

& Lamers , H

Nugis , T. & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2000, , 360, 227

2000
[125]

& Ott, C

O'Connor, E. & Ott, C. D. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 70, ADS Bibcode: 2011ApJ...730...70O

2011
[126]

Orosz, J. A. 2002, Inventory of Black Hole Binaries

2002
[127]

1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 267, 315

Paczynski, B. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 267, 315

1983
[128]

2003, , 399, 603

Palacios , A., Talon , S., Charbonnel , C., & Forestini , M. 2003, , 399, 603

2003
[129]

Patton , R. A. & Sukhbold , T. 2020, , 499, 2803

2020
[130]

A., Sukhbold , T., & Eldridge , J

Patton , R. A., Sukhbold , T., & Eldridge , J. J. 2022, , 511, 903

2022
[131]

Pavlovskii , K., Ivanova , N., Belczynski , K., & Van , K. X. 2017, , 465, 2092

2017
[132]

Piro, A. L. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 768, L14

2013
[133]

1992, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 104, 717

Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 104, 717

1992
[134]

Poelarends , A. J. T., Wurtz , S., Tarka , J., Cole Adams , L., & Hills , S. T. 2017, , 850, 197

2017
[135]

R., & Langer, N

Powell, J., Müller, B., Aguilera-Dena, D. R., & Langer, N. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 6070–6086

2023
[136]

& Shaviv , G

Rakavy , G. & Shaviv , G. 1967, , 148, 803

1967
[137]

2019, , 483, 1233

Rastello , S., Amaro-Seoane , P., Arca-Sedda , M., et al. 2019, , 483, 1233

2019
[138]

N., et al

Rastello , S., Mapelli , M., Di Carlo , U. N., et al. 2020, , 497, 1563

2020
[139]

N., et al

Rastello , S., Mapelli , M., Di Carlo , U. N., et al. 2021, , 507, 3612

2021
[140]

2024, , 270, 28

Roberti , L., Limongi , M., & Chieffi , A. 2024, , 270, 28

2024
[141]

L., Haster , C.-J., Chatterjee , S., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F

Rodriguez , C. L., Haster , C.-J., Chatterjee , S., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F. A. 2016, , 824, L8

2016
[142]

L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al

Rodriguez, C. L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al. 2015, Physical Review Letters, 115, 051101

2015
[143]

L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043027

2019
[144]

Rogers , F. J. 2001, Contributions to Plasma Physics, 41, 179

2001
[145]

J., Swenson , F

Rogers , F. J., Swenson , F. J., & Iglesias , C. A. 1996, , 456, 902

1996
[146]

N., Vink , J

Sabhahit , G. N., Vink , J. S., Sander , A. A. C., & Higgins , E. R. 2023, , 524, 1529

2023
[147]

L., Iliadis , C., Champange , A

Sallaska , A. L., Iliadis , C., Champange , A. E., et al. 2013, , 207, 18

2013
[148]

L., Taam , R

Sandquist , E. L., Taam , R. E., Chen , X., Bodenheimer , P., & Burkert , A. 1998, , 500, 909

1998
[149]

Schneider , F. R. N., Izzard , R. G., Langer , N., & de Mink , S. E. 2015, , 805, 20

2015
[150]

J., et al

Shen, Y., Guo, B., deBoer, R. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 41

2023
[151]

2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3732–3743

Shibagaki, S., Kuroda, T., Kotake, K., Takiwaki, T., & Fischer, T. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3732–3743

2024
[152]

& Nomoto , K

Shigeyama , T. & Nomoto , K. 1990, , 360, 242

1990
[153]

1988, , 196, 141

Shigeyama , T., Nomoto , K., & Hashimoto , M. 1988, , 196, 141

1988
[154]

& Hernquist , L

Sigurdsson , S. & Hernquist , L. 1993, , 364, 423

1993
[155]

& Phinney , E

Sigurdsson , S. & Phinney , E. S. 1995, , 99, 609

1995
[156]

& Mapelli , M

Spera , M. & Mapelli , M. 2017, , 470, 4739

2017
[157]

2015, , 451, 4086

Spera , M., Mapelli , M., & Bressan , A. 2015, , 451, 4086

2015
[158]

2019, , 485, 889

Spera , M., Mapelli , M., Giacobbo , N., et al. 2019, , 485, 889

2019
[159]

A., & Mencagli , M

Spera , M., Trani , A. A., & Mencagli , M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 76

2022
[160]

2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 430, 655

Spite, M., Cayrel, R., Plez, B., et al. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 430, 655

2005
[161]

1988, , 76, 157

Straniero , O. 1988, , 76, 157

1988
[162]

E., Brown, J

Sukhbold, T., Ertl, T., Woosley, S. E., Brown, J. M., & Janka, H.-T. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 38, publisher: IOP Publishing

2016
[163]

E., & Heger , A

Sukhbold , T., Woosley , S. E., & Heger , A. 2018, , 860, 93

2018
[164]

2016, , 825, 6

Summa , A., Hanke , F., Janka , H.-T., et al. 2016, , 825, 6

2016
[165]

2010, , 62, L49

Suwa , Y., Kotake , K., Takiwaki , T., et al. 2010, , 62, L49

2010
[166]

2013, , 764, 99

Suwa , Y., Takiwaki , T., Kotake , K., et al. 2013, , 764, 99

2013
[167]

A., Sutherland, P

Swartz, D. A., Sutherland, P. G., & Harkness, R. P. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 446, 766

1995
[168]

2018, , 863, 153

Takahashi , K. 2018, , 863, 153

2018
[169]

& Zahn , J

Talon , S. & Zahn , J. P. 1997, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 317, 749

1997
[170]

2021 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.01045

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , Abbott , R., et al. 2021 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.01045

2021 arXiv
[171]

2021 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03606

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , the KAGRA Collaboration , et al. 2021 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.03606

2021 arXiv
[172]

1990, , 349, 222

Thielemann , F.-K., Hashimoto , M.-A., & Nomoto , K. 1990, , 349, 222

1990
[173]

1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 408

Thielemann, F.-K., Nomoto, K., & Hashimoto, M.-A. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, 408

1996
[174]

Tutukov , A. V. & Yungelson , L. R. 1993, , 260, 675

1993
[175]

2012, , 757, 69

Ugliano , M., Janka , H.-T., Marek , A., & Arcones , A. 2012, , 757, 69

2012
[176]

& Nomoto , K

Umeda , H. & Nomoto , K. 2008, , 673, 1014

2008
[177]

1993, , 270, 249

Utrobin , V. 1993, , 270, 249

1993
[178]

Utrobin , V. P. 2005, Astronomy Letters, 31, 806

2005
[179]

Utrobin, V. P. 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 461, 233

2006
[180]

van den Heuvel , E. P. J. & De Loore , C. 1973, , 25, 387

1973
[181]

van den Heuvel , E. P. J., Portegies Zwart , S. F., & de Mink , S. E. 2017, , 471, 4256

2017
[182]

T., Cioni , M

van Loon , J. T., Cioni , M. R. L., Zijlstra , A. A., & Loup , C. 2005, , 438, 273

2005
[183]

van Son , L. A. C., De Mink , S. E., Broekgaarden , F. S., et al. 2020, , 897, 100

2020
[184]

Vartanyan, D., Burrows, A., Wang, T., Coleman, M. S. B., & White, C. J. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 103015

2023
[185]

J., Stevenson , S., et al

Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Neijssel , C. J., Stevenson , S., et al. 2018, , 481, 4009

2018
[186]

Vink, J., Higgins, E., Sander, A., & Sabhahit, G. N. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504

2021
[187]

S., Brott , I., Gr \"a fener , G., et al

Vink , J. S., Brott , I., Gr \"a fener , G., et al. 2010, , 512, L7

2010
[188]

S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 362, 295

2000
[189]

S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H

Vink , J. S., de Koter , A., & Lamers , H. J. G. L. M. 2001, , 369, 574

2001
[190]

2020, , 491, 2413

Wang , L. 2020, , 491, 2413

2020
[191]

2022, , 515, 5106

Wang , L., Tanikawa , A., & Fujii , M. 2022, , 515, 5106

2022
[192]

Winch , E. R. J., Vink , J. S., Higgins , E. R., & Sabhahitf , G. N. 2024, , 529, 2980

2024
[193]

Woosley, S. E. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 330, 218

1988
[194]

Woosley, S. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 244

2017
[195]

Woosley, S. E. & Weaver, T. A. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 101, 181

1995
[196]

2018, , 97, 043014

Wysocki , D., Gerosa , D., O'Shaughnessy , R., et al. 2018, , 97, 043014

2018
[197]

S., Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C

Ye , C. S., Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C. L., et al. 2022, , 931, 84

2022
[198]

R., Bourham, M

Zaghloul, M. R., Bourham, M. A., & Doster, J. M. 2000, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 33, 977

2000
[199]

Zahn , J. P. 1992, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 265, 115

1992
[200]

E., Izzard , R

Zapartas , E., de Mink , S. E., Izzard , R. G., et al. 2017, , 601, A29

2017
[201]

2021, , 656, L19

Zapartas , E., Renzo , M., Fragos , T., et al. 2021, , 656, L19

2021
[202]

S., Berry , C

Zevin , M., Bavera , S. S., Berry , C. P. L., et al. 2021, , 910, 152

2021
[203]

M., Mapelli , M., Branchesi , M., & Tormen , G

Ziosi , B. M., Mapelli , M., Branchesi , M., & Tormen , G. 2014, , 441, 3703

2014
[204]

Özel, F., Psaltis, D., Narayan, R., & McClintock, J. E. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 1918

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

[3] [3]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016 a , Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, ADS Bibcode: 2016PhRvL.116f1102A

2016

[4] [4]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016 b , Physical Review D, 93, 122003, ADS Bibcode: 2016PhRvD..93l2003A

2016

[5] [5]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2016, , 818, L22

2016

[6] [6]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2019, , 882, L24

2019

[7] [7]

2020, , 497, 4549

Agrawal , P., Hurley , J., Stevenson , S., Sz \'e csi , D., & Flynn , C. 2020, , 497, 4549

2020

[8] [8]

Stripped-envelope stars in different metallicity environments. II. Type I supernovae and compact remnants

Aguilera-Dena , D. R., M \"u ller , B., Antoniadis , J., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.00025

work page Pith review arXiv 2022