Binary neutron star populations across cosmic time: the impact of binary stellar evolution uncertainties

Irina Dvorkin; Mathieu Venet

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 101 references

Binary neutron star populations across cosmic time: the impact of binary stellar evolution uncertainties

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Despite large binary-evolution uncertainties, BNS formation efficiency shows two metallicity-dependent features tied to specific stellar phases, and all models yield a bimodal split of progenitor masses.

desk verdict A competent, honest 72-model COSMIC grid that is worth reading for its parameter maps and degeneracy analysis, but the two 'robust signatures' in the abstract are oversold and need quantitative support or softer wording. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27391 v1 pith:S3X7MXZG submitted 2026-07-29 astro-ph.HE

Mathieu Venet , Irina Dvorkin This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords binaryneutronstarspopulationsynthesiscommonenvelopenatalkicksmetallicitymergerrategravitationalwavesstellarevolution

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 asks whether any robust signatures of binary stellar evolution survive the large uncertainties in common-envelope physics, natal kicks, and mass-transfer stability. Using 72 population-synthesis models spanning 20 metallicities, it finds two metallicity fingerprints in the BNS formation efficiency: a sharp drop near Z~1.6e-4 to 1.9e-4 caused by the onset of first-giant-branch skipping, and a non-monotonic variation between Z=1e-3 and 7.5e-3 driven by the metallicity evolution of stellar radii. It also finds that every model produces a bimodal distribution of BNS progenitor masses, corresponding to a low-mass channel that largely avoids common-envelope evolution and explodes as electron-capture supernovae, and a high-mass channel that needs a common-envelope phase to become a neutron star. The common-envelope efficiency and natal-kick prescription dominate the spread in formation efficiencies and merger rates, which spans several orders of magnitude. Current gravitational-wave data can only exclude the least efficient models, and distinct parameter combinations can produce nearly identical merger-rate histories, so breaking these degeneracies will require larger samples and better constraints on cosmic metallicity evolution.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the population-synthesis model COSMIC, built on the SSE/BSE analytic stellar-evolution prescriptions. The argument rests on two specific pieces of that machinery: the first-giant-branch skip threshold M_FGB = 13.048(Z/0.02)^0.06 / (1+0.0012(0.02/Z)^1.27), which determines whether low-mass stars bypass the FGB and thereby avoid an early unstable mass-transfer phase; and the metallicity-dependent stellar radius tracks during late evolutionary phases, which set the conditions for Roche-lobe overflow and common-envelope evolution. The four tuned parameters—common-envelope efficiency (ALPHA), the critical mass ratio for unstable mass transfer (QCFLAG), the natal-kick pres

What would settle it

Recompute the same 72-model grid with an independent population-synthesis code built on different stellar radius tracks. If the sharp drop in formation efficiency between Z=1.6e-4 and 1.9e-4, or the non-monotonic variation between Z=1e-3 and 7.5e-3, disappears, then the claimed robust signatures are artifacts of the adopted stellar-evolution interpolation rather than physical fingerprints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, despite the vast uncertainties in binary stellar evolution, the BNS formation efficiency as a function of metallicity carries two reproducible signatures that can be traced to specific evolutionary processes. First, a sharp decrease between Z=1.6e-4 and 1.9e-4 marks the onset of first-giant-branch skipping for low-mass progenitors; stars that skip the FGB avoid early unstable mass transfer, shifting interactions to later phases and expanding the viable parameter space. Second, between Z=1e-3 and 7.5e-3 the formation efficiency varies non-monotonically because stellar radii during late evolutionary phases (FGB, CHeB, AGB, TPAGB) change sharply with metallici

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytic stellar-radius tracks and the first-giant-branch skip threshold implemented in the population synthesis code are physically reliable across the whole metallicity grid—especially the sharp low-mass radius evolution near Z~0.0025, which the paper itself says may be an interpolation artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the two metallicity features are real, the BNS merger rate as a function of redshift will carry a distinctive shape once the metallicity-redshift relation is known; the FGB-skip drop should produce a deficit of mergers from the lowest-metallicity, highest-redshift progenitors in some models.
The bimodal progenitor-mass distribution implies two formation channels that may be distinguishable in the observed mass distribution of merging neutron stars, with an underpopulated gap in progenitor mass around 6.8 to 10 solar masses.
Because common-envelope efficiency and natal-kick prescription dominate the spread, a measurement of the local merger rate mainly constrains these two parameters, not the details of mass-transfer stability or common-envelope kick timing.
Distinct parameter combinations can produce nearly identical merger-rate histories, so rate measurements alone cannot identify a unique model; complementary observables such as Galactic double neutron stars and r-process enrichment are needed.
Current gravitational-wave observations rule out only the least efficient formation scenarios, so the bulk of the parameter space remains consistent with data until third-generation detectors provide much larger samples.

Reading between the lines

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

If the FGB-skip feature is physical, the sharp transition metallicity could be used as a standard ruler to infer the cosmic metallicity-redshift relation from the redshift distribution of BNS mergers alone, assuming the stellar-evolution prescriptions are correct.
The suspected interpolation artifact near Z~0.0025 suggests the non-monotonic feature may not survive in a next-generation stellar-evolution code; however, the qualitative high-mass-progenitor trend (increasing core-helium-burning radius with metallicity) is expected to persist, so some version of the feature is likely robust.
The paper's framework implies a testable prediction: if the bimodality is real, future high-precision measurements of BNS component masses should reveal a deficit of systems whose progenitors fall in the intermediate mass gap, possibly visible as a feature in the chirp-mass distribution.
Combining the merger rate with the predicted ratio of low-mass to high-mass progenitors could break degeneracies; for instance, high-ALPHA, high-KICKFLAG models produce a high-mass-dominated population with short delay times, which could be probed by the cosmic-time evolution of the merger rate.

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

Bottom line: this is a useful parameter study, not a breakthrough, and the stress-test note lands. The paper is worth engaging with, but the headline claims about universal metallicity features should not be taken at face value.

What is actually new and good: the systematic 72-model grid over QCFLAG x ALPHA x KICKFLAG x CE_kickflag across 20 metallicity bins is a solid piece of exploration. CE_kickflag is not something I have seen varied this deliberately before. The custom tail-convergence criterion is sensible and described clearly. The LVK comparison is used honestly as an external benchmark rather than fit, which I appreciate. The bimodal progenitor-mass channel split is clearly argued and the parameter hierarchy (KICKFLAG and ALPHA dominate; QCFLAG and CE_kickflag matter less) is consistent with what I would expect. The degeneracy discussion and the point that current GW data only rule out the least efficient models are realistic.

Soft spots, in proportion to how soft they are. First, the claim that the non-monotonic feature between Z = 1e-3 and 7.5e-3 is present across all models is internally contradicted in Section 3.2.2, where the turnover is said to disappear for sufficiently large ALPHA in KICKFLAG=2 models, with ALPHA=3 as the example. That is not a tiny caveat; it is directly against the abstract's 'non-monotonic evolution' phrasing. The Discussion is more careful ("significant changes in slope"), but the paper should quantify the prevalence — say, the fraction of the 72 models with a local extremum — or explicitly restrict the claim to a parameter-space subset.

Second, the authors themselves flag that the abrupt low-mass radius behaviour near Z ~ 0.0025 may be an SSE interpolation artifact (Romagnolo 2022), and that the FGB-skip drop depends on the uncertain M_FGB prescription. That is honest, but it means both "characteristic features" are code-specific to a substantial degree. The word "robust" in the abstract is doing too much work.

Third, reproducibility is limited: they use a slightly modified, unreleased COSMIC 3.6, and they note that the periastron collision check can change BNS yields by more than an order of magnitude in some parameter regions. That does not invalidate the grid, but it makes the specific numbers harder to build on.

Who this is for: population-synthesis practitioners and people preparing forecasts for third-generation GW detectors. It gives a useful map of where the uncertainties sit and which parameter combinations are degenerate. It deserves a serious referee — I would send it out — but I would expect the referee to push for quantified feature prevalence, softer abstract language, and either code release or a fuller description of the modifications.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a systematic population-synthesis study of binary neutron star (BNS) formation using COSMIC v3.6. The authors evolve 72 binary evolution models over a 20-bin metallicity grid, varying four parameters: the critical-mass-ratio criterion for common-envelope onset (QCFLAG), the common-envelope efficiency (ALPHA), the natal kick prescription (KICKFLAG), and the treatment of supernovae during a common-envelope phase (CE_kickflag). They compute BNS formation efficiencies, merger fractions, delay-time distributions, and cosmological merger rates under three metallicity-redshift prescriptions, comparing local rates with the LVK BNS merger-rate range. The paper's central claims are that there exist robust metallicity-dependent 'fingerprints' in the formation efficiency — an onset of first-giant-branch skipping near Z ~ 1.6-1.9e-4 and a non-monotonic feature between Z = 1e-3 and 7.5e-3 — and that all models predict a bimodal progenitor-mass distribution. They also report that ALPHA and KICKFLAG dominate the model uncertainty, that the predicted rates span orders of magnitude, and that current LVK data only exclude the least efficient formation scenarios.

Significance. The work is potentially useful as a reference parameter-space exploration for BNS population synthesis. Its strengths include a documented 72-model grid, a dedicated tail-convergence criterion, the use of public codes (COSMIC, cosmoRate), an honest external comparison with the LVK rate, and a clear discussion of model degeneracies. If the robustness claims were quantitatively supported, the identified metallicity features could help guide interpretation of future third-generation gravitational-wave BNS samples and multi-observable analyses. However, as written, the central 'robust signature' claims are undermined by contradictions within the paper's own model grid and by admitted sensitivity to uncertain SSE interpolation. A separate normalization issue in the merger-rate equations also affects the LVK comparison. These are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (3)

[§3.2.2 and §4] The abstract and §3.2.2 assert that a non-monotonic η(Z) feature is 'present across all models' and that the FGB-skip drop is a characteristic feature. The same subsection, however, states that the turnover 'shifts towards lower metallicities as ALPHA increases for KICKFLAG = 2 models, and disappears entirely for sufficiently large values of ALPHA, as illustrated by the ALPHA = 3, KICKFLAG = 2 model'; the ALPHA = 7, KICKFLAG = 2 curve is described as 'rapidly decreasing' over Z = 1e-3 to 7.5e-3; and the low-Z feature is 'almost absent' for the ALPHA = 7 model. Section 4 further states that the bimodal distribution 'may still be absent from specific parameter combinations ... as observed for the high ALPHA models.' These internal statements directly falsify the universality language in the abstract. Please quantify the prevalence of each claimed feature across the 72 models (e.g., how man
[Eqs. (2), (4), (7); §3.3.2] There is a normalization inconsistency among the main merger-rate equations. Equation (4) defines η_merge(Z) = N_merge(Z)/M_star(Z), while Eq. (7) defines F(z',z,Z) = [N(z,Z)/N_TOT(Z)] p(z'|Z). Inserting these into Eq. (2), the merger efficiency and the fraction are not complementary: summing F over merger redshifts yields ε(Z) = N_merge/N_TOT, so the product behaves as η_merge(Z) ε(Z) = N_merge²/(M_star N_TOT), and the merger fraction enters twice. The correct combination is either η_merge × [N(z,Z)/N_merge(Z)] or the formation efficiency η = N_TOT/M_star × [N(z,Z)/N_TOT]. Because ε(Z) is model-dependent (Appendix G), this affects the absolute rates, the relative ranking of models, and the LVK comparison in §3.3.2. Please correct the definition of F or the efficiency used in Eq. (2), rerun the cosmological rate calculation, and update the quoted rates and conclusions.
[§3.2.2 and §4] The manuscript's own caveat paragraph states that both headline metallicity features 'strongly depend on the adopted SSE prescriptions and, in particular, on the interpolation methods,' that the Z ≈ 0.0025 radius spike for low-mass progenitors is 'suggested by Romagnolo (2022) to be an interpolation artefact that may not be physical,' and that the M_FGB relation is 'uncertain and actively debated.' The Discussion then concludes that 'the magnitude, slope, and even the existence of such features vary significantly between population-synthesis codes.' This is a serious limitation for the abstract's claim of 'characteristic features ... that arise from specific evolutionary processes.' As it stands, the paper establishes features of the Hurley et al. (2000)/SSE prescription implemented in COSMIC, not yet robust physical signatures. Please either include a quantitative sensitivity test again

minor comments (4)

[§2.1.2, Fig. 3] Variable naming is inconsistent: KICKFLAG and KICK_FLAG are used interchangeably, as are CE_kickflag and CE_KICKFLAG. Please standardize.
[§2.1.1] The convergence criterion is described as 'declared only if' the final population contains more than 1100 BNS systems and more than 80 merging systems. It would be useful to state explicitly that all 72 models satisfied this criterion, or to report any models that did not and how they were handled.
[Figs. 3 and 4] The nonlinear Z-axis, with each tick corresponding to one adopted metallicity bin, makes the quoted boundaries of the shaded features (e.g., Z = 1e-3 and 7.5e-3) difficult to read. A linear-scale inset or vertical markers at the relevant metallicities would improve verifiability.
[Throughout] There are several typos and stylistic inconsistencies, e.g., 'developped' in §2.1.2, 'redhisft' in §3.3.2, and the duplicate reference entries for Santoliquido et al. (2020) and Iorio et al. (2023). A careful copyedit is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all predictions are direct outputs of COSMIC population synthesis, and the LVK comparison is an external benchmark.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained as a parameter study. Section 2.1 adopts COSMIC/SSE/BSE (Hurley et al. 2000, 2002; Breivik et al. 2020) and varies four binary-evolution parameters (QCFLAG, ALPHA, KICKFLAG, CE_kickflag). The formation efficiency η(Z) and merger efficiency η_merge(Z) are direct simulation outputs (Eqs. 4–5), and the cosmological merger rate (Eq. 2) is an integral over these outputs using externally adopted SFR and metallicity-redshift relations (Madau & Fragos 2017; Belczynski et al. 2016; Gallazzi et al. 2008; De Cia et al. 2018). No parameter is fitted to the target result: the LVK BNS rate interval (5.1–154.7 Gpc^-3 yr^-1) is an external benchmark used only for posterior comparison, and reported exclusions are not used to adjust model inputs. The identified metallicity features are interpretations of simulation output; the M_FGB relation and SSE stellar radii are external inputs, not constructed from η(Z). The paper explicitly cautions in §3.2.2 that both features 'strongly depend on the adopted SSE prescriptions' and that the Z≈0.0025 radius evolution may be an interpolation artefact (Romagnolo 2022; Xin et al. 2022); this weakens the robustness claim but is a correctness/validation concern, not circularity. The internal tension between the 'all models' non-monotonic claim and the ALPHA=3/KICKFLAG=2 monotone behavior is also a consistency issue, not a circular one. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no known result merely relabeled.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's outputs are model predictions under adopted prescriptions. No parameter is fitted to the LVK merger rate, and no new physical entity is introduced. The main inherited assumptions are the SSE/BSE stellar physics, the alpha-lambda CE formalism, the adopted IMF and initial binary distributions, the Madau-Fragos SFR, and the three metallicity-redshift relations. The central claim inherits the accuracy of these external inputs, but there is no fitting-to-target circularity.

free parameters (6)

ALPHA (common-envelope efficiency) = Explored grid: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0
Six values chosen by hand to bracket CE efficiency; not fitted to data. This parameter is central to the spread in formation efficiency and merger rates.
sigma_CCSN and sigma_ECSN/USSN (KICKFLAG=1 kick dispersions) = 265 km/s; 20 km/s
Adopted as COSMIC defaults from Hobbs et al. 2005. Not fitted here, but the kick amplitude strongly controls the predicted BNS survival rate.
KICKFLAG=2 mass-scaling parameters = m_NS = 1.2 Msun, m_ej = 9 Msun
Adopted from Giacobbo & Mapelli 2020. These set the kick reduction in the second kick prescription and therefore affect the high-mass progenitor channel.
Metallicity dispersion sigma (log-normal p(z'|Z)) = 0.2
Assumed intrinsic dispersion in the metallicity distribution of star formation; directly shapes the cosmological merger rate.
M_FGB metallicity-scaling coefficients in Eq. (12) = 13.048, 0.06, 0.0012, 1.27
Fitted stellar-evolution relation from Hurley et al. 2000. The first metallicity feature (FGB-skip drop at Z ~ 0.00016-0.00019) relies entirely on this prescription.
Top-heavy IMF cutoff masses = m_cut = 20 Msun and 10 Msun
Chosen by hand to probe extreme low-metallicity IMF scenarios; alters formation efficiencies at the two lowest metallicity bins.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption SSE/BSE prescriptions (Hurley et al. 2000/2002) as implemented in COSMIC accurately model single and binary stellar evolution across metallicity, including radial evolution and FGB skip.
All metallicity features are derived from these prescriptions; the paper itself cites Romagnolo 2022 suggesting the radial interpolation at Z ~ 0.0025 may be an artifact.
domain assumption The alpha-lambda common-envelope energy formalism (Appendix A) describes the outcome of CE phases.
This is the framework in which ALPHA is defined and is central to the CE survival calculations.
domain assumption The Chabrier (2003) IMF and Sana et al. (2012) initial period/eccentricity distributions describe the initial binary population.
Used to generate all simulated populations; the top-heavy IMF is an alternative for the lowest two metallicity bins.
domain assumption The three adopted metallicity-redshift relations (linear, MandF2017, Belczynski analytical) bracket the true cosmic chemical evolution.
Merger rates depend strongly on which relation is used; the paper does not derive these from first principles.
domain assumption The Madau & Fragos (2017) cosmic star formation rate is correct.
Adopted in all merger-rate calculations and in the Belczynski analytical metallicity relation.
domain assumption The Fryer et al. (2012) delayed supernova remnant model determines whether a core collapse produces a neutron star or a black hole.
Remnant_flag = 4 is fixed; this determines which high-mass progenitors can form BNS systems.
ad hoc to paper COSMIC 3.6 with the periastron collision check is a more consistent treatment than later COSMIC versions.
The paper keeps a check that later versions deactivate; the authors explicitly note that identical parameters in different COSMIC versions yield significantly different BNS populations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binary neutron star populations across cosmic time: the impact of binary stellar evolution uncertainties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3X7MXZG

@misc{pith2026260727391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binary neutron star populations across cosmic time: the impact of binary stellar evolution uncertainties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3X7MXZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27391}
}

abstract

We investigate the impact of uncertainties in binary stellar evolution on the formation efficiency and cosmological merger rate of BNS systems. In particular, we aim to determine whether robust signatures of binary evolution can be identified across a broad range of metallicities. We perform a systematic exploration of 72 binary evolution models using the population synthesis code COSMIC. We vary four key parameters controlling the onset and efficiency of common-envelope evolution, the natal kick prescription, and the treatment of kicks during the common envelope phase. For each model, we compute the BNS formation efficiency and cosmological merger rate using several prescriptions for the cosmic metallicity-redshift relation. We identify characteristic features in the metallicity dependence of the BNS formation efficiency that arise from specific evolutionary processes. These include the onset of first-giant-branch skipping at low metallicity and a non-monotonic evolution between $Z=10^{-3}$ and $7.5\times 10^{-3}$. All models also predict a bimodal distribution of BNS progenitor masses associated with two distinct formation channels. The common envelope ejection efficiency and natal kick prescription remain the dominant sources of uncertainty, producing variations of several orders of magnitude in both the BNS formation efficiency and the cosmological merger rate. Finally, we show that different combinations of binary-evolution parameters can produce similar merger-rate histories, highlighting significant degeneracies among population-synthesis models. Current gravitational-wave observations can rule out only the least efficient formation scenarios. Breaking these degeneracies will require larger samples of BNS mergers expected from future third-generation gravitational-wave observatories, and improved observational constraints on the evolution of metallicity across cosmic time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27391 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Histograms of the 𝑑𝑁/𝑑𝑀 distribution as a function of the primary progenitor mass of BNS systems for 𝑍 = 0.001, QCFLAG = 5, CE_KICKFLAG = 2, and a Chabrier (2003) IMF. The top panel shows the evolution of the distributions for different ALPHA values with a fixed KICKFLAG = 2. The bottom panel presents similar distributions, this time highlighting the impact of different KICKFLAG prescriptions for a fixed value of AL… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Schematic representation of the typical differences be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Formation efficiency 𝜂(𝑍) as a function of metallicity 𝑍 for the selected models with a Chabrier IMF, QCFLAG = 5, and CE_kickflag = 2. Solid and dashed lines correspond to KICK_FLAG = 2 and KICK_FLAG = 1, respectively. Different colors indicate different values of the common-envelope efficiency parameter, with ALPHA = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 3, 5, 7 shown in blue, orange, green, red, purple, and brown, respectively. The sha… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Mean stellar radii across different evolutionary phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Histogrammes of the 𝑑𝑁/𝑑𝑀 distribution as a function of the primary progenitor mass of BNS systems for 𝑍 = 0.001, 0.0025, 0.005, and 0.014. All panels are extracted from models computed with the Chabrier (2003) IMF, QCFLAG = 5, and CE_KICKFLAG = 2. The top panel shows …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: BNS formation efficiency as a function of metallicity for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Cosmological merger rate as a function of redshift for three different methods described in Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Merger time-delay distributions of systems merging within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

[1]

P., Abbott , R., et al

Aasi , J., Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001

2015
[2]

2026, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2026, 081

Abac, A., Abramo, R., Albanesi, S., et al. 2026, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2026, 081

2026
[3]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2020 a , , 892, L3

2020
[4]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 a , , 848, L12

2017
[5]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 b , , 119, 161101

2017
[6]

Abbott , B. P. et al. 2020 b , Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3

2020
[7]

& Maeda, K

Ablimit, I. & Maeda, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 151

2018
[8]

2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

Acernese , F., Agathos , M., Agatsuma , K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

2015

Show all 101 references

[9]

2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101

Akutsu , T., Ando , M., Arai , K., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101

2021
[10]

J., Bavera , S

Andrews , J. J., Bavera , S. S., Briel , M., et al. 2025, , 281, 3

2025
[11]

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

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

2016
[12]

A., et al

Belczynski , K., Kalogera , V., Rasio , F. A., et al. 2008, , 174, 223

2008
[13]

& Piran , T

Beniamini , P. & Piran , T. 2016, , 456, 4089

2016
[14]

2014, , 52, 43

Berger , E. 2014, , 52, 43

2014
[15]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.02725

Boco , L., Bosi , M., Sgalletta , C., Romagnolo , A., & Mapelli , M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.02725

2026 arXiv
[16]

P., Broekgaarden , F

Boesky , A. P., Broekgaarden , F. S., & Berger , E. 2024, , 976, 23

2024
[17]

2023, , 2023, 068

Branchesi , M., Maggiore , M., Alonso , D., et al. 2023, , 2023, 068

2023
[18]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 71

Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 71

2020
[19]

2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

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

2012
[20]

M., Eldridge , J

Briel , M. M., Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Stevance , H. F., & Chrimes , A. A. 2022, , 514, 1315

2022
[21]

Broekgaarden , F. S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.28515

2026 arXiv
[22]

S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al

Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 5737–5761

2022
[23]

2003, , 115, 763

Chabrier , G. 2003, , 115, 763

2003
[24]

J., Bavera , S

Chattaraj , A., Andrews , J. J., Bavera , S. S., et al. 2026, , 997, 52

2026
[25]

J., Bavera, S

Chattaraj, A., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 997, 52

2026
[26]

R., Rossi , L

Chattopadhyay , D., Stevenson , S., Hurley , J. R., Rossi , L. J., & Flynn , C. 2020, , 494, 1587

2020
[27]

2016, , 823, 102

Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102

2016
[28]

2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 1557–1586

Chu, Q., Yu, S., & Lu, Y. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 1557–1586

2021
[29]

2022, , 509, 1557

Chu , Q., Yu , S., & Lu , Y. 2022, , 509, 1557

2022
[30]

Claeys , J. S. W., Pols , O. R., Izzard , R. G., Vink , J., & Verbunt , F. W. M. 2014, , 563, A83

2014
[31]

J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J

Cowan, J. J., Sneden, C., Lawler, J. E., et al. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93

2021
[32]

2018, , 611, A76

De Cia , A., Ledoux , C., Petitjean , P., & Savaglio , S. 2018, , 611, A76

2018
[33]

2011, , 411, 2277

De Marco , O., Passy , J.-C., Moe , M., et al. 2011, , 411, 2277

2011
[34]

2024, , 963, 80

Deng , Z.-L., Li , X.-D., Shao , Y., & Xu , K. 2024, , 963, 80

2024
[35]

E., Hall , P

Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482

2009
[36]

& Mandel, I

Disberg, P. & Mandel, I. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 989, L8

2025
[37]

X., Afle , C., et al

Evans , M., Adhikari , R. X., Afle , C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.09882

2021 arXiv
[38]

& Cen , R

Fang , T. & Cen , R. 2004, , 616, L87

2004
[39]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 18

Farrow, N., Zhu, X.-J., & Thrane, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 18

2019
[40]

Andrews, J., Bavera, S

Fragos, T., J. Andrews, J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 264, 45

2023
[41]

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

Fryer , C. L., Belczynski , K., Wiktorowicz , G., et al. 2012, , 749, 91

2012
[42]

Gallazzi , A., Brinchmann , J., Charlot , S., & White , S. D. M. 2008, , 383, 1439

2008
[43]

Gallegos-Garcia , M., Berry , C. P. L., & Kalogera , V. 2023, , 955, 133

2023
[44]

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

Ge , H., Webbink , R. F., Chen , X., & Han , Z. 2015, , 812, 40

2015
[45]

& Mapelli , M

Giacobbo , N. & Mapelli , M. 2018, , 480, 2011

2018
[46]

& Mapelli , M

Giacobbo , N. & Mapelli , M. 2020, , 891, 141

2020
[47]

2018, , 474, 2959

Giacobbo , N., Mapelli , M., & Spera , M. 2018, , 474, 2959

2018
[48]

2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 221–232

Grichener, A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 221–232

2023
[49]

2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094013

Hild , S., Abernathy , M., Acernese , F., et al. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094013

2011
[50]

Hjellming , M. S. & Webbink , R. F. 1987, , 318, 794

1987
[51]

R., Lyne , A

Hobbs , G., Lorimer , D. R., Lyne , A. G., & Kramer , M. 2005, , 360, 974

2005
[52]

R., Pols , O

Hurley , J. R., Pols , O. R., & Tout , C. A. 2000, , 315, 543

2000
[53]

R., Tout , C

Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., & Pols , O. R. 2002, , 329, 897

2002
[54]

2022, , 941, 208

Iacovelli , F., Mancarella , M., Foffa , S., & Maggiore , M. 2022, , 941, 208

2022
[55]

P., Chruslinska , M., Dorozsmai , A., & Toonen , S

Igoshev , A. P., Chruslinska , M., Dorozsmai , A., & Toonen , S. 2021, , 508, 3345

2021
[56]

2023, , 524, 426

Iorio , G., Mapelli , M., Costa , G., et al. 2023, , 524, 426

2023
[57]

2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 426–470

Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., Costa, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 426–470

2023
[58]

2013, , 21, 59

Ivanova , N., Justham , S., Chen , X., et al. 2013, , 21, 59

2013
[59]

U., Neunteufel, P

Kruckow, M. U., Neunteufel, P. G., Di Stefano, R., Gao, Y., & Kobayashi, C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 86

2021
[60]

U., Tauris , T

Kruckow , M. U., Tauris , T. M., Langer , N., Kramer , M., & Izzard , R. G. 2018, , 481, 1908

2018
[61]

2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1004, 31

Li, Z., Wei, D., Jia, S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1004, 31

2026
[62]

& Fragos , T

Madau , P. & Fragos , T. 2017, , 840, 39

2017
[63]

N., Hobbs , G

Manchester , R. N., Hobbs , G. B., Teoh , A., & Hobbs , M. 2005, VizieR Online Data Catalog: ATNF Pulsar Catalog (Manchester+, 2005) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: VII/245. Originally published in: 2005AJ....129.1993M

2005
[64]

2025, , 704, A54

Mestichelli , B., Mapelli , M., Santoliquido , F., et al. 2025, , 704, A54

2025
[65]

Metzger, B. D. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23

2019
[66]

2026, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3177, 012079

Muccillo, L., Patricelli, B., & Razzano, M. 2026, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3177, 012079

2026
[67]

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
[68]

& Tout , C

Nelemans , G. & Tout , C. A. 2005, , 356, 753

2005
[69]

R., & Portegies Zwart , S

Nelemans , G., Verbunt , F., Yungelson , L. R., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2000, , 360, 1011

2000
[70]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

2011
[71]

2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A283

Pellouin, C., Dvorkin, I., & Lehoucq, L. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 693, A283

2025
[72]

Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13

2016
[73]

2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002

Punturo , M., Abernathy , M., Acernese , F., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002

2010
[74]

X., Ballmer , S., et al

Reitze , D., Adhikari , R. X., Ballmer , S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 35

2019
[75]

M., Timmes, F

Ricker, P. M., Timmes, F. X., Taam, R. E., & Webbink, R. F. 2018, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 14, 449–454

2018
[76]

W., et al

Riley , J., Agrawal , P., Barrett , J. W., et al. 2022, , 258, 34

2022
[77]

2022, in EAS2022, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 1076

Romagnolo , A. 2022, in EAS2022, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 1076

2022
[78]

Safarzadeh , M., Berger , E., Ng , K. K. Y., et al. 2019, , 878, L13

2019
[79]

E., de Koter , A., et al

Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

2012
[80]

2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 152

Santoliquido, F., Mapelli, M., Bouffanais, Y., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 152

2020
[81]

2020, , 898, 152

Santoliquido , F., Mapelli , M., Bouffanais , Y., et al. 2020, , 898, 152

2020
[82]

Santoliquido , F., Mapelli , M., Giacobbo , N., Bouffanais , Y., & Artale , M. C. 2021, , 502, 4877

2021
[83]

2023, , 526, 2210

Sgalletta , C., Iorio , G., Mapelli , M., et al. 2023, , 526, 2210

2023
[84]

2025, , 698, A144

Sgalletta , C., Mapelli , M., Boco , L., et al. 2025, , 698, A144

2025
[85]

E., Phinney , E

Soberman , G. E., Phinney , E. S., & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 1997, , 327, 620

1997
[86]

2019, , 485, 889

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

2019
[87]

Stanway , E. R. & Eldridge , J. J. 2018, , 479, 75

2018
[88]

W., Keane , E

Stappers , B. W., Keane , E. F., Kramer , M., Possenti , A., & Stairs , I. H. 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 376, 20170293

2018
[89]

M., Kramer , M., Freire , P

Tauris , T. M., Kramer , M., Freire , P. C. C., et al. 2017, , 846, 170

2017
[90]

2025, , 280, 43

Team Compas , Mandel , I., Riley , J., et al. 2025, , 280, 43

2025
[91]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.27226

The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , the KAGRA Collaboration , et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.27226

2026 arXiv
[92]

& Dvorkin , I

Toubiana , A. & Dvorkin , I. 2026, , 711, A211

2026
[93]

2026, , 113, 083006

Toubiana , A., Gerosa , D., Mould , M., et al. 2026, , 113, 083006

2026
[94]

van Son , L. A. C., Roy , S. K., Mandel , I., et al. 2025, , 979, 209

2025
[95]

& Cator , E

Verbunt , F. & Cator , E. 2017, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 38, 40

2017
[96]

2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, L3

Vigna-Gómez, A. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 701, L3

2025
[97]

Vink , J. S. & de Koter , A. 2005, , 442, 587

2005
[98]

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

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

2001
[99]

2016, Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 1–15

Wang, J. 2016, Advances in Astronomy, 2016, 1–15

2016
[100]

Webbink , R. F. 2008, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 352, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. E. F. Milone , D. A. Leahy , & D. W. Hobill , 233

2008
[101]

Xin , C., Renzo , M., & Metzger , B. D. 2022, , 516, 5816

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Abbott , R., et al

Aasi , J., Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001

2015

[2] [2]

2026, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2026, 081

Abac, A., Abramo, R., Albanesi, S., et al. 2026, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2026, 081

2026

[3] [3]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2020 a , , 892, L3

2020

[4] [4]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 a , , 848, L12

2017

[5] [5]

P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017 b , , 119, 161101

2017

[6] [6]

Abbott , B. P. et al. 2020 b , Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3

2020

[7] [7]

& Maeda, K

Ablimit, I. & Maeda, K. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 151

2018

[8] [8]

2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

Acernese , F., Agathos , M., Agatsuma , K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

2015