Impact of convective overshooting on the single-degenerate model of Type Ia supernovae

Xiangcun Meng; Xinghuan Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Impact of convective overshooting on the single-degenerate model of Type Ia supernovae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Convective overshooting changes Type Ia supernova birth rates non-monotonically, and can boost the predicted circumstellar-interaction fraction from 4% to 23%.

desk verdict The qualitative expansion of the parameter space for massive WDs is the solid result; the non-monotonic birth rates rest on a single grid boundary and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02551 v3 pith:SPLPCT4W submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Xinghuan Wang , Xiangcun Meng This is my paper

classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE

keywords TypeIasupernovaesingle-degeneratemodelconvectiveovershootingwhitedwarfsbinarypopulationsynthesiscommon-envelopewindSNeIa-CSMsupernovabirthrate

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 tries to establish that a single, uncertain stellar-physics parameter, convective overshooting, substantially reshapes the predicted population of Type Ia supernova progenitors in the single-degenerate channel. Using binary evolution calculations with the common-envelope wind model, it shows that stronger overshooting widens the initial donor-mass and orbital-period window for systems with massive white dwarfs, but the minimum white dwarf mass needed and the overall predicted Galactic Type Ia birth rate respond non-monotonically, with rates of 2.1e-3, 3.7e-3, and 3.0e-3 $yr^{-1}$ for overshooting parameters δov = 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50. The same calculation predicts that the fraction of SNe Ia that interact with circumstellar material rises steeply with overshooting, from 4.20% to 8.40% to 22.89%, which matters because observed SNe Ia-CSM are rare. A reader should care because the single-degenerate model's long-standing problem is reproducing the observed Type Ia birth rate, and this paper shows that a standard stellar-physics uncertainty changes that predicted rate by nearly a factor of two and changes the predicted CSM fraction by a factor of five.

What carries the argument

The central object is the common-envelope wind (CEW) model and its critical accretion cap. When the donor's mass-transfer rate $|\dot M_2|$ exceeds the critical rate $\dot M_{\rm cr} = 5.3\times10^{-7}\,(1.7-X)/X\,(M_{\rm WD}-0.4)\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, a common envelope forms and the white dwarf is assumed to accrete at exactly $\dot M_{\rm cr}$; otherwise it accretes at $\eta_{\rm He}\eta_{\rm H}|\dot M_2|$. This cap converts any overshooting-driven increase in mass transfer into matter lost from the system, which is why low-mass white dwarfs, needing more accreted mass to reach 1.378 M⊙, can be hurt rather than helped by stronger overshooting. A second piece of machinery is the donor's entropy gradient, which steepens with δov and delays the onset of dynamical instability, thereby raising the critical mass ratio and extending the upper boundary of the parameter space.

What would settle it

Rebuild the same binary grids with the accretion cap removed or replaced by a super-Eddington growth prescription and check whether the minimum white-dwarf mass for δov = 0.50 drops below 0.63 M⊙; observationally, a volume-limited census of SNe Ia-CSM with clean hydrogen-line classification would show whether the 22.89% prediction at high δov is plausible or whether a spin-down delay must intervene.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: convective overshooting, the penetration of convective eddies beyond the Schwarzschild boundary, makes donor stars larger and more mixed at a given age, so systems with massive white dwarfs (≥ 0.75 M⊙) can start Roche-lobe overflow earlier and with more massive companions or longer orbital periods, expanding the parameter space that leads to Type Ia supernovae. But for low-mass white dwarfs the effect is non-monotonic: δov = 0.25 lowers the minimum white dwarf mass to 0.63 M⊙, while δov = 0.50 raises it to 0.675 M⊙, compared with 0.65 M⊙ at δov = 0.00. The reason is the accretion cap in the common-envelope wind model: when the mass-transfer rate exceeds the critical rate, the white dwarf accretes at exactly that critical rate, and any surplus is lost from the system, so more overshooting can actually starve a low-mass white dwarf of the extra mass it needs to reach the Chandrasekhar mass. Consequently the integrated Galactic birth rate, which is dominated by white dwarfs near 0.75 M⊙, peaks at the intermediate overshooting value rather than rising monotonically with δov.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the rule that when mass transfer exceeds the critical rate, the white dwarf accretes at exactly that critical rate and any surplus is lost; if real common-envelope accretion lets the white dwarf gain more mass, the non-monotonic trends could flatten or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The predicted Galactic Type Ia supernova birth rate from the single-degenerate channel is 2.1e-3, 3.7e-3, and 3.0e-3 yr^-1 for δov = 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50, so overshooting alone moves the rate by roughly 75% without any other model change.
The minimum white dwarf mass that can produce Type Ia supernovae is 0.65, 0.63, and 0.675 M⊙ respectively, so the least-massive white dwarfs are not simply helped by more overshooting.
Systems that explode during the common-envelope phase with a common-envelope mass above 0.1 M⊙, the candidate SNe Ia-CSM, grow from 4.20% to 8.40% to 22.89% of the predicted SNe Ia as δov goes from 0.00 to 0.25 to 0.50, so overshooting strongly boosts the predicted circumstellar-interacting fraction.
The upper and right boundaries of the initial donor-mass and orbital-period parameter space expand with δov for white dwarf masses above 0.75 M⊙, enabling more massive companions and longer-period systems to contribute to the Type Ia population.

Reading between the lines

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

If δov correlates with stellar mass as some asteroseismic studies suggest, the parameter-space expansion for massive white dwarfs would be stronger still, and the minimum white dwarf mass might drop further, pushing the peak birth rate to higher δov than 0.25.
The non-monotonic birth rate implies that binary population synthesis studies that fix a single δov could be systematically off not just in overall normalization but in the relative contribution of different white-dwarf mass ranges; a population with a distribution of δov values would likely yield a rate between the extremes, possibly close to the δov = 0.25 value.
The predicted 22.89% SNe Ia-CSM fraction at δov = 0.50 strongly exceeds the observed fraction of about 0.1% to 1%, so a natural resolution is a spin-down delay between the white dwarf reaching 1.378 M⊙ and the explosion, which would let the common envelope dissipate and remove the hydrogen lines; measuring the delay-time distribution of SNe Ia-CSM would then constrain both overshooting and the spi
A direct numerical test would be to repeat the same binary grids with an exponential diffusive overshooting prescription or turbulent entrainment instead of the step scheme; if the non-monotonic minimum white-dwarf mass persists across mixing prescriptions, it is a robust feature of the CEW accretion cap rather than an artifact of the overshooting implementation.

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

Read this one for the qualitative result and treat the headline rates as provisional. The genuinely new contribution is showing, with MESA, that convective overshooting expands the single-degenerate parameter space at the massive-WD end: the upper and right boundaries move outward for initial WD mass ≥0.75 Msun, and the entropy-gradient explanation for why the critical mass ratio rises with delta_ov is physically sensible. That part is convincing and should survive. The authors are also right that this quantifies a stellar-physics uncertainty that binary population synthesis usually ignores.

The soft spots are all around the quantitative birth rates. The minimum WD mass is 0.65, 0.63, and 0.675 Msun for delta_ov=0.00, 0.25, and 0.50, and the non-monotonic birth-rate ordering is carried almost entirely by the delta_ov=0.25 low-mass row in Table 2. That row comes from a single grid panel at 0.63 Msun with no 0.62 or 0.64 point, and the contour boundaries are read by eye from discrete grids. Since the IMF weights low masses heavily, shifting that minimum from 0.63 to 0.65 would remove the largest contribution and could erase the non-monotonic ordering. The authors acknowledge the eye-reading and the rectangular-area approximation, but they do not quantify the resulting uncertainty and ship no code or grid data, so independent reproduction is a rebuild job.

I would also keep the CEW model's assumptions in mind. The accretion cap and the 0.1 Msun CE threshold come from the authors' own earlier papers; that is not circular in this application, but it means the rates inherit whatever is wrong with that cap. The SNe Ia-CSM fraction, which rises to 22.9%, depends on an ad hoc spin-down delay they admit is uncertain. None of this kills the paper, but it does mean the quantitative claims should be read as scenario-dependent estimates, not predictions.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee and probably publication after revision, conditional on a finer grid around the low-mass boundary and a clear statement of contour uncertainty. If you work on SNe Ia progenitor models, cite it for the qualitative expansion; do not cite the non-monotonic rates as established.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses MESA (r24.08.1) to evolve WD + MS binaries under the common-envelope wind (CEW) model for three convective-overshooting parameters, δ_ov = 0.00, 0.25, and 0.50. It maps the initial (orbital period, donor mass) parameter space that leads to SNe Ia for several initial WD masses, calculates Galactic birth rates via the Iben & Tutukov (1984) integral, and estimates the rates and fractions of SNe Ia-CSM. The main claims are that overshooting expands the upper and right boundaries of the parameter space for massive WDs (≥0.75 M⊙), but that the minimum WD mass and low-mass-WD parameter space, and hence the total birth rate, vary non-monotonically with δ_ov: reported minimum masses are 0.65, 0.63, 0.675 M⊙ and birth rates are 2.1, 3.7, 3.0 × 10^-3 yr^-1 for δ_ov = 0.00, 0.25, 0.50. The SNe Ia-CSM fraction is reported to increase with δ_ov, reaching 22.89% at δ_ov = 0.50.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the paper would demonstrate that convective overshooting is a first-order systematic for SD progenitor populations and for predicted SNe Ia-CSM rates, beyond the usual uncertainties in binary population synthesis. The qualitative result that overshooting expands the parameter space for massive WDs is convincingly supported by the MESA tracks and the entropy-gradient explanation in §2.3/Fig. 8 is physically plausible. The paper uses a standard MESA setup, covers multiple δ_ov values, and gives explicit birth-rate tables, which is a strength. However, the headline non-monotonic birth-rate result rests on boundary identifications at a very coarse WD-mass grid, and the reported SNe Ia-CSM fractions are not corrected for the spin-down effect that the authors themselves invoke. These issues make the quantitative conclusions fragile, even though the qualitative trends are likely robust.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3, Tables 1–3, Figs. 4–6] The central non-monotonic birth-rate result is not supported at the current grid resolution. The claimed minima M_WD = 0.65, 0.63, 0.675 M⊙ for δ_ov = 0.00, 0.25, 0.50 are separated by only one-to-two initial-WD-mass grid steps (panels at 0.63, 0.65, 0.675, 0.70 in Figs. 4–6), and the contour boundaries are read by eye without any uncertainty estimate. This matters quantitatively: Table 2's first row (0.63–0.7 M⊙) contributes 0.00128 yr^-1, i.e., about 34% of the δ_ov = 0.25 total of 0.0037 yr^-1, because the lower donor-mass boundary M_A = 2.04 M⊙ inflates Δq via Eq. (4). If a one-step shift moved the δ_ov = 0.25 minimum to 0.65 M⊙, that row would contribute at the level of Table 1's first row (0.00027 yr^-1) or Table 3's first row (0.00005 yr^-1); the total would fall below 0.0030 yr^-1 and the birth rate would become monotonic in δ_ov. Since the IMF weighting in Eq. (3) is ∝ M^-2.5, the low-mass boundary is the most sensitive part of the integral. I request additional WD-mass grid points bracketing each minimum (e.g., 0.62, 0.64, 0.66 for δ_ov = 0.25 and 0.66, 0.68 for δ_ov = 0.50), or a conservative range for the birth rates. Until this is done, the abstract's non-monotonic claim should be weakened.
[Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 3] The SNe Ia-CSM birth rates/fractions are presented as results (6.9 × 10^-4 yr^-1 and 22.89% for δ_ov = 0.50) without applying the spin-down correction that the authors themselves discuss in the same section. The text notes that for a spin-down delay ≳10^5 yr, 'no more than 1.7 in 100 SNe Ia belong to the SN Ia-CSM class' (Meng & Podsiadlowski 2017) and that the observed fraction is 0.1%–1% (Dilday et al. 2012). Reporting 22.89% as a headline result while acknowledging this inconsistency is misleading. Please explicitly label the quoted fractions as upper limits without spin-down delay, and give corrected numbers for at least one representative spin-down timescale; alternatively, restrict the §4.3 discussion to the trend that CE mass, and hence CSM interaction, increases with δ_ov.
[Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 2.3] The non-monotonic minimum WD mass is a direct consequence of the cap in Eq. (1) (Ṁ_WD = Ṁ_cr during CE) combined with the empirical Ṁ_cr in Eq. (2), as explained in §2.3 ('WD can only accrete material at a rate up to Ṁ_cr... strong wind from the CE surface'). Because the birth-rate ordering hinges on this cap and on the point-mass, immediate-explosion treatment of the WD, a sensitivity test is needed: for the boundary cases (e.g., δ_ov = 0.25 with M_WD = 0.63), vary the normalization of Ṁ_cr by a factor of two, or introduce a spin-up/spin-down delay before explosion, and report whether the non-monotonic ordering survives. Without such a test, the quantitative result is a prediction of the specific CEW prescription rather than a robust outcome of overshooting physics.

minor comments (4)

[Tables 1–3 notes] The table notes refer to 'Figs. 2, 3, and 4' for the progenitor regions, but the relevant figures are Figs. 4, 5, and 6; this cross-reference should be corrected.
[Fig. 4–6 captions] Several figure captions and axis labels contain OCR-like typographical corruption (e.g., 'd(namical nstab l ty' and 'log( P i /da(s)'); these should be fixed in the published version.
[Sec. 2.1] For reproducibility, please provide the relevant MESA controls, at minimum the overshoot scheme and the f0/f values used for the 'step' overshooting prescription, rather than only naming MESA r24.08.1.
[Eq. (5) in Sec. 4.2] The notation M_i^1 and M_i^2 in Eq. (5) is used without explicit definition; please define these as the initial accretor and donor masses to avoid confusion with the WD mass notation used elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the convective-overshooting comparison is a new MESA computation, and the reported birth rates are computed outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for the central purpose of comparing convective-overshooting parameters. The parameter-space contours in Figs. 4-7 are produced by direct MESA binary evolution calculations with stated physics inputs (step overshooting, Kolb RLOF, point-mass WD, explosion at 1.378 Msun), not by fitting any target SN Ia rate. The birth-rate integrals in Eq. (3) use Delta-q and Delta-log-a values read from those computed contours, so the resulting rates 2.1e-3, 3.7e-3, and 3.0e-3 yr^-1 are outputs rather than inputs to the calculation. The CEW accretion cap in Eq. (1) and the critical accretion rate in Eq. (2) are model prescriptions cited from prior work, and the self-citations to the CEW model and to the M_CE > 0.1 Msun SNe Ia-CSM criterion are used as physical assumptions rather than as proofs of the paper's conclusions; moreover, the SNe Ia-CSM predictions are explicitly compared with the external Dilday et al. (2012) estimates, including an acknowledged overestimate. No equation reduces to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The admitted qualitative discussion of q_crit and the rectangular-region overestimate in Eq. (3) are limitations and correctness concerns, not circularity. The non-monotonic trend is a computed consequence of the adopted grid and formula, so it is a model prediction that may be numerically fragile but is not circular.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are all adopted from prior literature or chosen by hand, and none are fitted to the target birth rates. The key assumptions are the CEW accretion cap (Eq. 1), the empirical ˙Mcr formula, the M^-2.5 IMF, and the ad hoc spin-down delay used to suppress the predicted SNe Ia-CSM fraction.

free parameters (7)

δov = 0.00, 0.25, 0.50
The convective overshooting parameter is chosen by hand to bracket observed asteroseismic values; the paper's results are functions of it, not fits to the target birth rates.
Mixing length parameter α = 2
Adopted from Pols et al. 1997; affects stellar radii and hence RLOF timing, but not fitted in this work.
Metallicity Z = 0.02
Population I composition assumed for all models; results may not hold at other metallicities.
Critical accretion rate ˙Mcr formula = 5.3e-7 (1.7-X)/X (MWD-0.4) Msun/yr
Empirical formula from Hachisu et al. 1999b (Eq. 2) sets the cap that controls WD growth and the CE phase; central to the parameter space.
Mass accumulation efficiencies ηH, ηHe = not stated
Enter Eq. (1) for the no-CE accretion rate; values are inherited from the CEW model without being listed.
CE-mass threshold for SNe Ia-CSM = 0.1 Msun
Threshold from Meng & Podsiadlowski 2018 used to classify red filled squares as SNe Ia-CSM; changing it changes the reported fractions.
Birth-rate normalization = 0.2 yr^-1
Prefactor in Eq. (3) from Iben & Tutukov 1984 sets the absolute Galactic rate scale; it cancels in relative comparisons across δov.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The IMF of progenitor masses is ∝ M^-2.5 (Salpeter-like).
Used in Eq. (3) to weight the parameter space; if the IMF is different, absolute rates change.
domain assumption The initial binary distribution is uniform in log a and in mass ratio over the bins (implicit in Eq. 3).
The rectangular integration treats all log P and q within the box as equally likely; the authors note this overestimates the SNe Ia region.
domain assumption The Schwarzschild criterion plus a step overshoot scheme with full mixing efficiency describes convective boundaries.
Section 2.1; alternative schemes (exponential diffusive overshooting, turbulent entrainment) may give different results, as the paper itself notes in Sec. 4.1.
domain assumption A WD that reaches 1.378 Msun explodes immediately as a SN Ia.
Section 2.1; the paper later invokes a spin-down delay for SNe Ia-CSM but does not include it in the rate calculation.
domain assumption During CE phases the WD accretes at exactly ˙Mcr and loses all excess material.
Eq. (1) from Meng & Podsiadlowski 2017; this prescription is load-bearing for the parameter space but is not independently calibrated here.
ad hoc to paper A spin-down delay between reaching MCh and explosion can dissipate the CE and reduce the SNe Ia-CSM fraction.
Sec. 4.3 invokes this to reconcile the predicted 22.89% fraction with the observed 0.1-1%; it is not included in the binary evolution or rate calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of convective overshooting on the single-degenerate model of Type Ia supernovae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPLPCT4W

@misc{pith2026250602551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of convective overshooting on the single-degenerate model of Type Ia supernovae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPLPCT4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02551}
}

read the original abstract

The single-degenerate (SD) model is one of the principal models for the progenitors of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia). However, it faces some challenges, the primary being its inability to account for the observed SN Ia birth rate. Many studies have attempted to address this issue by expanding the parameter space, defined by the initial donor star mass and orbital period, that can lead to SNe Ia, as well as by improving binary population synthesis. While these efforts have led to significant progress, many uncertainties in stellar physics persist, which influences the outcomes of such studies. Convective overshooting, which can significantly affect the internal structure of a star and subsequently its evolution within a binary system, is one of the most significant sources of uncertainty in stellar physics. We investigate the effect of convective overshooting on the parameter space and birth rate of SNe Ia within the SD model. We employed the common-envelope wind (CEW) model, a new version of the SD model, as our progenitor model. Using MESA, we obtained the parameter space that leads to SNe Ia for three different convective overshooting parameters and calculated the corresponding SN Ia birth rate. Convective overshooting expands the upper boundaries (corresponding to a larger initial donor mass) and right boundaries (corresponding to a longer initial orbital period) of the parameter space for systems with massive white dwarfs (WDs; >= 0.75Msun). However, the minimum WD mass and the parameter space for low-mass WDs - and, consequently, the calculated SN Ia birth rate - vary non-monotonically with convective overshooting parameters. The CEW model may explain the SNe Ia that interact with the circumstellar medium (CSM), i.e., SNe Ia-CSM. We find that the parameter space for SNe Ia-CSM increases with convective overshooting parameters, as does their birth rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02551 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Evolution of a star with 2.8M⊙ in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram with different δov. The δov is set to 0.00, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50, 0.60, and 0.70. A star symbol indicates the point at which the star radius equals the Roche radius, RL, where a WD mass of MWD = 1.0M⊙ and orbital periods of log(P i /days) = 0.8 are assumed. The purple line connecting the star symbols represents the equal-radius line in the He… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Example of binary evolution. In panel (1), the evolutionary tracks of the donor stars are represented by solid lines and the orbital period evolution with dashed curves. In panel (2), the solid and dashed lines indicate the donor star mass (M2) and the WD mass (MWD), respectively. In panel (3), the solid, dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the mass transfer rate (M˙ 2), the mass growth rate of the CO WD (M˙ WD)… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Final binary evolution calculations for δov = 0.00, shown in the initial orbital period-secondary mass (logP i , Mi 2 ) plane, where P i represents the initial orbital period and Mi 2 is the initial mass of the donor star (for various initial WD masses, as indicated in…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Contours of initial parameters in the (log P i , Mi 2 ) plane for different WD masses and varying δov values, representing the regions where SNe Ia are expected. The initial masses of the WDs are indicated in the lower-right corner of each panel. 0 0 0 0 [PIT…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Entropy profiles of the donor star after it loses different amounts of mass for varying δov. The solid line represents δov = 0.50, the dashed line δov = 0.25, and the dotted line δov = 0.00. Black, blue, red, and purple represent the donor losing masses △M = 0.0M⊙, △M …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Evolution of the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale for stars with 2.8M⊙ and different δov. The δov is set to 0.00, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50, 0.60, and 0.70. its maximum. Therefore, to address the issue of the birth rate in the SD, it is crucial to investigate the accretio…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

[1]

& Maeda, K

Ablimit, I. & Maeda, K. 2019, ApJ, 885, 99

work page 2019
[2]

2022, A&A, 6 67, A97

Ahlborn, F., Kupka, F., Weiss, A., & Flaskamp, M. 2022, A&A, 6 67, A97

work page 2022
[3]

E., Gilliland, R

Bond, H. E., Gilliland, R. L., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2015, Ap J, 813, 106

work page 2015
[4]

R., Howell, D

Cao, Y ., Kulkarni, S. R., Howell, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 5 21, 328

work page 2015
[5]

& Li, X.-D

Chen, W.-C. & Li, X.-D. 2007, ApJ, 658, L51

work page 2007
[6]

Chen, X., Han, Z., & Tout, C. A. 2011, ApJ, 735, L31

work page 2011
[7]

& Torres, G

Claret, A. & Torres, G. 2016, A&A, 592, A15

2016
[8]

Demarque, P ., Sarajedini, A., & Guo, X. J. 1994, ApJ, 426, 165 Di Stefano, R. & Kilic, M. 2012, ApJ, 759, 56 Di Stefano, R., V oss, R., & Claeys, J. S. W. 2011, ApJ, 738, L1

work page 1994

Show all 77 references

[9]

A., Cenko, S

Dilday, B., Howell, D. A., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 942

2012
[10]

Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., & Filippenko, A. V . 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2607

2011
[11]

& Renzini, A

Greggio, L. & Renzini, A. 1983, A&A, 118, 217

1983
[12]

B., Demarque, P ., & Gruberbauer, M

Guenther, D. B., Demarque, P ., & Gruberbauer, M. 2014, ApJ, 7 87, 164

2014
[13]

1996, ApJ, 470, L97

Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 1996, ApJ, 470, L97

1996
[14]

2008, ApJ, 679, 1390

Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1390

2008
[15]

2012, ApJ, 744, 6 9

Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Saio, H., & Nomoto, K. 2012, ApJ, 744, 6 9

2012
[16]

1998, MNRAS, 296, 1019

Han, Z. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 1019

1998
[17]

& Podsiadlowski, P

Han, Z. & Podsiadlowski, P . 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301

2004
[18]

2000, A&A, 360, 952

Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952

2000
[19]

2021, A&A, 646, A133

Higl, J., Müller, E., & Weiss, A. 2021, A&A, 646, A133

2021
[20]

Howell, D. A. 2011, Nature Communications, 2, 350

2011
[21]

& Fowler, W

Hoyle, F. & Fowler, W. A. 1960, ApJ, 132, 565

1960
[22]

& Tutukov, A

Iben, I., J. & Tutukov, A. V . 1984, ApJS, 54, 335

1984
[23]

S., Bauer, E

Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265 , 15

2023
[24]

2011, ApJ, 730, L34

Justham, S. 2011, ApJ, 730, L34

2011
[25]

& Ritter, H

Kolb, U. & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

1990
[26]

2000, A&A, 362, 1046

Langer, N., Deutschmann, A., Wellstein, S., & Höﬂich, P . 2000, A&A, 362, 1046

2000
[27]

Li, X. D. & van den Heuvel, E. P . J. 1997, A&A, 322, L9

1997
[28]

2024, ApJ, 974, 13

Li, Z., Wang, L., Han, Z., & Chen, X. 2024, ApJ, 974, 13

2024
[29]

2014, ApJ, 780, 152

Liu, Z., Y ang, W., Bi, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 152

2014
[30]

J., & Stancli ﬀe, R

Liu, Z.-W., Moriya, T. J., & Stancli ﬀe, R. J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1192

2015
[31]

K., & Han, Z

Liu, Z.-W., Röpke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronom y and Astro- physics, 23, 082001

2023
[32]

& Mermilliod, J

Maeder, A. & Mermilliod, J. C. 1981, A&A, 93, 136

1981
[33]

2013, MNRAS, 436 , 222

Maguire, K., Sullivan, M., Patat, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436 , 222

2013
[34]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107

2014
[35]

& Greggio, L

Matteucci, F. & Greggio, L. 1986, A&A, 154, 279

1986
[36]

Meakin, C. A. & Arnett, D. 2007, ApJ, 667, 448

2007
[37]

2009, MNRAS, 395, 2103

Meng, X., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2103

2009
[38]

2015, International Journal of Mo dern Physics D, 24, 1530029

Meng, X., Gao, Y ., & Han, Z. 2015, International Journal of Mo dern Physics D, 24, 1530029

2015
[39]

& Podsiadlowski, P

Meng, X. & Podsiadlowski, P . 2013, ApJ, 778, L35

2013
[40]

& Podsiadlowski, P

Meng, X. & Podsiadlowski, P . 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4763

2017
[41]

& Podsiadlowski, P

Meng, X. & Podsiadlowski, P . 2018, ApJ, 861, 127

2018
[42]

& Y ang, W

Meng, X. & Y ang, W. 2010, ApJ, 710, 1310

2010
[43]

P ., & De Donder, E

Mennekens, N., V anbeveren, D., De Greve, J. P ., & De Donder, E . 2010, A&A, 515, A89 Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., Noels, A., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 1 18

2010
[44]

R., Portegies Zwart, S

Nelemans, G., Y ungelson, L. R., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & V er bunt, F. 2001, A&A, 365, 491

2001
[45]

M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al

Noebauer, U. M., Kromer, M., Taubenberger, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2787

2017
[46]

K., & Y okoi, K

Nomoto, K., Thielemann, F. K., & Y okoi, K. 1984, ApJ, 286, 644

1984
[47]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

2011
[48]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P ., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

2013
[49]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P ., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

2015
[50]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 3 4

2018
[51]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

2019
[52]

1999, Ap J, 517, 565

Perlmutter, S., Aldering, G., Goldhaber, G., et al. 1999, Ap J, 517, 565

1999
[53]

Piersanti, L., Tornambé, A., & Y ungelson, L. R. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3239

2014
[54]

Piro, A. L. & Morozova, V . S. 2016, ApJ, 826, 96

2016
[55]

2008, New A Rev., 52, 381

Podsiadlowski, P ., Mazzali, P ., Lesaﬀre, P ., Han, Z., & Förster, F. 2008, New A Rev., 52, 381

2008
[56]

R., Tout, C

Pols, O. R., Tout, C. A., Schroder, K.-P ., Eggleton, P . P ., & M anners, J. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 869

1997
[57]

Prather, M. J. & Demarque, P . 1974, ApJ, 193, 109

1974
[58]

2000, MNRAS, 318, L55

Ribas, I., Jordi, C., & Giménez, Á. 2000, MNRAS, 318, L55

2000
[59]

G., Filippenko, A

Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P ., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1009

1998
[60]

J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S

Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S. A., Seitenzahl, I. R., & Kwiatkowski, D. 2014, MNRAS, 440, L101

2014
[61]

Ruiter, A. J. & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&A Rev., 33, 1

2025
[62]

2014, New A Rev., 62, 15

Ruiz-Lapuente, P . 2014, New A Rev., 62, 15

2014
[63]

R., & Eggleton, P

Schroder, K.-P ., Pols, O. R., & Eggleton, P . P . 1997, MNRAS, 285, 696

1997
[64]

M., Nugent, P

Silverman, J. M., Nugent, P . E., Gal-Y am, A., et al. 2013, ApJS, 207, 3

2013
[65]

2019, New A Rev., 87, 101535

Soker, N. 2019, New A Rev., 87, 101535

2019
[66]

2012, A&A, 54 6, A70

Toonen, S., Nelemans, G., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2012, A&A, 54 6, A70

2012
[67]

2023, ApJ, 944, 204 V allely, P

Uno, K., Nagao, T., Maeda, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 204 V allely, P . J., Fausnaugh, M., Jha, S. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS,487, 2372

2023
[68]

Viani, L. S. & Basu, S. 2020, ApJ, 904, 22

2020
[69]

2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 0 49

Wang, B. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 0 49

2018
[70]

& Han, Z

Wang, B. & Han, Z. 2012, New A Rev., 56, 122

2012
[71]

W., et al

Wang, B., Justham, S., Liu, Z. W., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 234 0

2014
[72]

2015, A&A, 584, A37

Wang, B., Li, Y ., Ma, X., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A37

2015
[73]

2009, MNRAS, 395, 847

Wang, B., Meng, X., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 847

2009
[74]

Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355

1984
[75]

Wheeler, J. C. 2012, ApJ, 758, 123

2012
[76]

& Iben, Icko, J

Whelan, J. & Iben, Icko, J. 1973, ApJ, 186, 1007 Y ang, W. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1508.00955 Y ang, W. 2016, ApJ, 829, 68 Y ang, W., Tian, Z., Bi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2094

1973 arXiv
[77]

Zhang, Q. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 153 Article number, page 11

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

& Maeda, K

Ablimit, I. & Maeda, K. 2019, ApJ, 885, 99

work page 2019

[2] [2]

2022, A&A, 6 67, A97

Ahlborn, F., Kupka, F., Weiss, A., & Flaskamp, M. 2022, A&A, 6 67, A97

work page 2022

[3] [3]

E., Gilliland, R

Bond, H. E., Gilliland, R. L., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2015, Ap J, 813, 106

work page 2015

[4] [4]

R., Howell, D

Cao, Y ., Kulkarni, S. R., Howell, D. A., et al. 2015, Nature, 5 21, 328

work page 2015

[5] [5]

& Li, X.-D

Chen, W.-C. & Li, X.-D. 2007, ApJ, 658, L51

work page 2007

[6] [6]

Chen, X., Han, Z., & Tout, C. A. 2011, ApJ, 735, L31

work page 2011

[7] [7]

& Torres, G

Claret, A. & Torres, G. 2016, A&A, 592, A15

2016

[8] [8]

Demarque, P ., Sarajedini, A., & Guo, X. J. 1994, ApJ, 426, 165 Di Stefano, R. & Kilic, M. 2012, ApJ, 759, 56 Di Stefano, R., V oss, R., & Claeys, J. S. W. 2011, ApJ, 738, L1

work page 1994