Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 98 references

The fate of rotating massive stars across cosmic times

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A massive star's fate is set at the end of helium burning by its carbon–oxygen core mass and envelope composition; rotation shifts the remnant boundaries enough to change black-hole masses and supernova-type rates.

desk verdict Useful, honest fate map for massive stars, but the quantitative predictions lean on an unsettled explodability mapping that the paper itself flags and then uses deterministically. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21233 v2 pith:TUJDYFMZ submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

R. Hirschi , K. Goodman , G. Meynet , A. Maeder , S. Ekström , P. Eggenberger , C. Georgy , Y. Sibony
show 4 more authors
N. Yusof S. Martinet Vishnu Varma K. Nomoto
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords massivestarsstellarrotationblackholeformationpair-instabilitysupernovaeneutronevolutioncarbon–oxygencoremassinitialfunction
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

This paper maps what happens to massive single stars when they die, using a homogeneous grid of one-dimensional stellar evolution models spanning initial masses from 9 to 500 times the Sun's mass and metallicities from nearly zero to supersolar, each with and without rotation. The guiding claim is that a star's fate is already fixed at the end of core helium burning: the mass of its carbon–oxygen core determines whether it leaves a neutron star, a black hole, or no remnant, while the remaining hydrogen and helium envelope determines the supernova's spectroscopic type. The central new result is that rotation is not a minor correction — through extra mixing it makes black hole formation occur at lower initial masses across most of the parameter space, while at extremely low metallicity a hydrogen-shell interaction does the opposite and raises the neutron-star fraction. The paper also predicts a pair-instability mass gap between about 90 and 150 solar masses, with no black holes above roughly 50 solar masses at Small Magellanic Cloud or higher metallicity. These predictions matter because they can be checked against gravitational-wave detections, supernova surveys, and chemical-enrichment models.

What carries the argument

The carbon–oxygen (CO) core mass at the end of core helium burning, defined as the mass coordinate where the helium mass fraction first drops below 1%, is the load-bearing quantity. It is used because it sets the pre-collapse compactness of the core, which governs whether the supernova shock revives or the star collapses directly into a black hole. Table 1 encodes the fate map: M_CO < 6 M_sun -> neutron star; 6–8 -> black hole with possible neutron star; 8–12 -> neutron star with possible black hole; 12–40 -> direct black hole; 40–60 -> pulsational pair-instability supernova leaving a black hole; 60–130 -> pair-instability supernova leaving no remnant; >130 -> direct black hole. The companio

What would settle it

If gravitational-wave detections confirm merging black holes with component masses inside the predicted 90–150 solar-mass gap from isolated stellar evolution, the central mapping fails; alternatively, a null result in near-infrared searches for high-redshift pair-instability supernovae would put the framework under pressure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that two quantities read off at the end of core helium burning — the carbon–oxygen core mass and the hydrogen/helium envelope mass — are sufficient to classify the fate of a massive star. The CO core mass sets the remnant through the compactness-based Table 1 mapping: below 6 solar masses a neutron star; 6–8 a black hole with possible neutron star; 8–12 a neutron star with possible black hole; 12–40 a direct black hole; 40–60 a pulsational pair-instability supernova leaving a black hole; 60–130 a pair-instability supernova leaving nothing; above 130 a direct black hole again. On top of this, envelope thresholds assign spectroscopic types (IIP, IIL, IIb, Ib, Ic).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a star's doom is already decided when helium burning ends: the carbon–oxygen core mass at that moment reliably dictates whether the star becomes a neutron star, a black hole, or a pair-instability supernova, even though the paper notes that newer studies place successful explosions at different core masses and convection remains a major uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At Small Magellanic Cloud or higher metallicity, no black hole below the pair-instability gap is predicted above about 50 solar masses, so gravitational-wave events with heavy black holes must come from metal-poor environments.
  • The pair-instability gap is predicted to lie near 90–150 solar masses, and pair-instability supernovae appear only below solar metallicity for initial masses above about 100 solar masses; this sharpens the expected black-hole mass distribution and helps explain the lack of confirmed pair-instability supernovae in optical surveys.
  • Rotation lowers the initial mass at which black holes form in most environments, nearly doubling the predicted black-hole fraction at solar metallicity and changing the mix of supernova types in initial-mass-function-weighted populations.
  • Type Ic supernovae from single stars are rare in these models; the observed fraction is larger than predicted, implying that envelope stripping in binaries or other mechanisms must supply the missing progenitors.
  • A top-heavy initial mass function reproduces the observed core-collapse supernova type fractions much better than the Salpeter initial mass function, providing a population-level constraint on the massive-star mass distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the CO-core-mass mapping were replaced by the newer explodability islands the paper cites, the absolute remnant boundaries would move, but the qualitative rotation trend — shifting boundaries relative to non-rotating stars — might survive; recomputing the contour maps with those islands would test this.
  • The predicted 90–150 solar-mass gap gives a clean interpretation test for events like GW190521: a single-star remnant inside the gap would violate the gap, so a confirmed event there would favour hierarchical mergers in dense clusters.
  • The extremely metal-poor hydrogen-shell effect predicts an elevated neutron-star fraction at very low metallicity relative to SMC metallicity; targeted searches for compact-object populations in very low-metallicity regions could discriminate this.
  • The factor-level deficit of Type Ic supernovae from single stars provides a quantitative upper bound on the fraction of Type Ic progenitors requiring binary mass transfer, which could be refined with binary population synthesis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the GENEC grid of rotating and non-rotating stellar models (initial masses 9–500 Msun, metallicities Z=1e-5 to 0.02) to predict the final fates of massive stars. The fate is diagnosed from the CO core mass at the end of core helium burning, using fixed thresholds (Table 1) to assign neutron star, black hole, PPISN, or PISN outcomes, and from envelope H/He masses to assign spectroscopic supernova types (Table 2). The authors produce remnant-type and supernova-type maps as a function of initial mass and metallicity, compute black hole mass distributions (including a PPISN fit from Eq. 3), and then weight the outcomes by Salpeter and top-heavy IMFs to derive population fractions. The main claims are that rotation significantly alters remnant types and supernova engines, that metallicity strongly controls the fates with maximum black hole masses below 50 Msun at SMC and higher metallicities, and that a pair-instability mass gap is predicted between about 90 and 150 Msun.

Significance. If the mapping from CO core mass to remnant type is reliable, the paper provides a broad and homogeneous census of single-star fates across cosmic times, connecting stellar evolution grids to gravitational-wave and supernova observations. The release of the model grid and Table A2 is a valuable resource. The qualitative trends — e.g., that rotation can promote or inhibit black hole formation depending on metallicity, and that higher metallicity suppresses the most massive remnants — are physically plausible and worth publishing. However, the quantitative results (fractions, maximum BH masses, mass-gap edges) are all derived from a small number of imported explodability thresholds and from linear interpolation over a sparse grid, and the paper provides no uncertainty quantification on these steps. The abstract additionally overstates the rotation effect at low metallicity. The strengths are the parameter-space coverage and the falsifiability of the predictions, but the numerical precision implied by the paper exceeds what the underlying assumptions can support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3 / Table 1] The remnant-type classification uses fixed M_CO thresholds (6, 8, 12, 40, 60, 130 Msun) taken from a subset of the explodability literature. The paper itself concedes that later studies (Wang et al. 2022; Boccioli et al. 2023; Maltsev et al. 2025) find islands of explodability at very different masses with metallicity dependence. Many models in Table A2 lie within ~1 Msun of a boundary: at Z=0.002 the non-rotating 25 Msun model has M_CO=5.66 (NS) while the rotating model has M_CO=6.25 (BH(NS)); at Z=1e-5 the non-rotating 30 Msun model has M_CO=7.57 (BH(NS)) and the rotating one 4.81 (NS). A ±1 Msun shift of the 6/8/12 Msun cuts changes which side of the NS/BH boundary these models fall on. Since all remnant fractions, BH mass distributions, and mass-gap edges in Figs. 3–10 and Tables A3–A4 are derived from these cuts, the quantitative predictions inherit the full mapping uncertainty. The
  2. [Abstract; Section 3.2] The abstract states that 'rotating stars favouring black hole formation at lower initial masses than their non-rotating counterparts.' This is not supported by the paper's own models at low metallicity. For Z=1e-5 and M_ini < 60 Msun, rotation reduces the CO core mass (hydrogen-burning-shell effect, Section 3.2, first case) and produces more NS, not BH; e.g., the rotating 30 Msun model has M_CO=4.81 (NS) versus 7.57 (BH(NS)) for the non-rotating model. The effect of rotation is described in Section 3.2 as mass- and metallicity-dependent, with four regimes where mixing or mass loss dominates. The abstract should be revised to state that rotation can either promote or inhibit BH formation depending on metallicity and mass, or to restrict the claim to subsolar but not extremely metal-poor metallicities.
  3. [Section 3 (interpolation); Fig. 3] The contour maps use linear interpolation over a sparse and unevenly spaced grid (e.g., initial masses 9,12,15,20,25,32,40,60,85,120,150,200,300,500 Msun per metallicity, Table A1). The paper correctly notes that interpolation 'may also result in missing features,' but the interpolated boundaries are used to derive all population fractions and the BH mass distribution. For instance, the NS/BH boundary between 25 and 32 Msun at Z=0.002 is estimated from endpoints with M_CO=5.66 and 8.59; the crossing mass could shift by several Msun if the true M_CO(M_ini) relation is non-linear. This is a known limitation, but it is propagated into the quantitative claims without an uncertainty estimate. Please either report the discrete model values on the contour plots, use the model grid directly for the population synthesis, or provide an interpolation-error estimate.
  4. [Section 3.3 / Eq. (3)] The black-hole remnant masses for PPISN are computed with Eq. (3), a fit taken from Farmer et al. (2019) with fixed coefficients. The uncertainty in this fit and in the assumed M_CO ranges (40–60, 60–130 Msun) is not propagated into the predicted mass gap of ~90–150 Msun or the maximum BH masses in Table 4. Since these numbers are directly compared to GW190521 and GW231123, the gap boundaries should be presented as ranges reflecting the fit and threshold uncertainties, not as sharp values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] 'Eluded to' should be 'alluded to'.
  2. [Table A1] The superscript origin codes are difficult to parse in the typeset version; please display them in a clearer format so each initial mass is unambiguously associated with its source grid.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The four rotation regimes described in Section 3.2 are not indicated on the figure; adding region labels or shading would help the reader connect the text to the plots.
  4. [Section 5.1.2] 'Increase in failed supernova leading to BH' should be 'increase in failed supernovae leading to BHs'.
  5. [Section 3 / Fig. 4 caption] The assumption that the rotating 500 Msun Z=0.02 model has the same properties as the rotating 300 Msun model is stated in the text but not flagged in the figure caption or Table A2; this should be clearly marked wherever the interpolated 500 Msun values appear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions follow from independent CO-core/SN-type mappings applied to pre-existing GENEC model grids.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) take CO core masses, final masses, and H/He envelope masses from GENEC stellar models at the end of core He burning; (2) convert these to remnant types and SN types using Table 1 and Table 2 thresholds; (3) weight by IMFs to get population fractions. The thresholds in Table 1 come from external literature (O'Connor & Ott 2011; Patton & Sukhbold 2020; Sukhbold & Woosley 2014; Farmer et al. 2019; Heger et al. 2003), not from the present data; Eq. (3) is explicitly 'adapted from Farmer et al. (2019)' and its coefficients are fixed, not fitted to the quantities being predicted. The GENEC grids are from the authors' earlier papers, but those are the model data, not an argument whose conclusion is presupposed; using one's own previously published models as input is standard practice and is not circular. The paper even flags the uncertainty in the explodability mapping (Wang et al. 2022; Boccioli et al. 2023; Maltsev et al. 2025) and notes that 'no black holes below 6 M_sun are predicted by design'—both are honest uncertainty statements, not hidden reductions. Comparisons to observed SN type fractions and to GW events are made without fitting. No load-bearing step reduces by definition to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predictions rest on literature-defined thresholds, adopted model physics from prior GENEC papers, and a handful of ad hoc choices (missing model substitution, linear interpolation). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • PPISN black hole mass relation coefficients = a1=-0.096, a2=8.564, a3=-2.07, a4=-152.97
    Eq. (3), adapted from Farmer et al. (2019), sets M_BH for 40<M_CO<60 Msun. Coefficients are empirical fits adopted without derivation in this paper.
  • CO core mass remnant boundaries = 6, 8, 12, 40, 60, 130 Msun
    Table 1: boundaries between NS, BH, PPISN, PISN regimes are taken from literature (Patton & Sukhbold 2020; O'Connor & Ott 2011; Heger et al. 2003; Farmer et al. 2019) and drive all remnant classifications.
  • Envelope mass thresholds for SN type = M_H<0.5, 0.033, 2; M_He<0.5 Msun
    Table 2: thresholds from Wellstein & Langer 1999, Hachinger et al. 2012, Frey et al. 2013 determine SN spectroscopic types. The paper notes these are uncertain (Dessart et al. 2012; van Baal et al. 2024).
  • Initial rotation rate v_ini/v_crit = 0.4
    Section 2.1: single rotation rate chosen to match the peak of B-star velocities (Huang et al. 2010); all rotating models use this value.
  • Mass-loss metallicity exponents = alpha=0.85 (O/WN), 0.66 (WC/WO), 0.5 (de Jager)
    Eq. (1): mass loss scaling with metallicity from prior calibrations; directly shapes final masses and CO core masses across Z.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 1D GENEC stellar evolution models correctly evolve stars to the end of core helium burning with the specified input physics.
    Section 2.1: all fate predictions derive from these models; no comparison to observed stellar interiors except indirect SN/GW checks.
  • domain assumption CO core mass at end of core He burning is a reliable indicator of remnant type and explodability.
    Section 2.3 and Table 1: mapping based on compactness relations from O'Connor & Ott (2011), Sukhbold & Woosley (2014), but later studies (Wang et al. 2022; Boccioli et al. 2023; Maltsev et al. 2025) find different islands of explodability.
  • domain assumption Envelope H/He masses determine spectroscopic SN type.
    Section 2.4 and Table 2: threshold values are literature choices; the authors note ambiguity between Ib and Ic and hidden helium.
  • domain assumption Mass loss after core He burning is negligible for final mass and fate.
    Section 2.2.2: final mass taken at end of He burning; pre-collapse mass loss (Neilson et al. 2011) is neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The rotating 500 Msun Z=0.02 model has the same properties as the rotating 300 Msun model at that metallicity.
    Section 3, interpolation paragraph: 'It was assumed that the properties of this model would be the same as those of the rotating model at the same metallicity with M_ini=300 Msun.' This substitution is needed to fill a gap in the interpolation grid.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear interpolation between the sparse grid points captures the fate boundaries.
    Section 3: the paper itself warns 'The use of linear interpolation may also result in missing features in the map.' The contour maps and population fractions depend on this interpolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fate of rotating massive stars across cosmic times." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUJDYFMZ

@misc{pith2026250821233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fate of rotating massive stars across cosmic times},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUJDYFMZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21233}
}
abstract

The initial mass and metallicity of stars both have a strong impact on their fate. Stellar axial rotation also has a strong impact on the structure and evolution of massive stars. In this study, we exploit the large grid of GENEC models, covering initial masses from 9 to 500 $M_{\odot}$ and metallicities ranging from $Z=10^{-5}$ (nearly zero) to 0.02 (supersolar), to determine the impact of rotation on their fate across cosmic times. Using the carbon-oxygen core mass and envelope composition as indicators of their fate, we predict stellar remnants, supernova engines, and spectroscopic supernova types for both rotating and non-rotating stars. We derive rates of the different supernova and remnant types considering two initial mass functions to help solve puzzles such as the absence of observed pair-instability supernovae. We find that rotation significantly alters the remnant type and supernova engine, with rotating stars favouring black hole formation at lower initial masses than their non-rotating counterparts. Additionally, we confirm the expected strong metallicity dependence of the fates with a maximum black hole mass predicted to be below 50 $M_{\odot}$ at SMC or higher metallicities. A pair-instability mass gap is predicted between about 90 and 150 $M_{\odot}$, with the most massive black holes below the gap found at the lowest metallicities. Considering the fate of massive single stars has far-reaching consequences across many different fields within astrophysics, and understanding the impact of rotation and metallicity will improve our understanding of how massive stars end their lives, and their impact on the universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolutionary tracks in the HRD for rotating (solid line) and non-rotating (dashed line) models. The metallicity (increasing from left to right) of the different grids is given at the bottom of each panel. Each track is labelled and colour coded with its initial mass. be found in the corresponding GENEC grid papers (Ekström et al. 2012; Georgy et al. 2013; Yusof et al. 2013, 2022; Martinet et al. 2023; Sibony et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The CO core mass, 𝑀CO, of the non-rotating (top) and rotating (bottom) models at each metallicity, Z. varies with initial mass and metallicity. The CO core mass increases monotonically for non-rotating models with 𝑀ini < 30 𝑀⊙, across all of the metallicities considered. Above this initial mass, models use a variety of mass loss prescriptions across different stages of their evolution and mass loss is much stronger,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Remnant type of non-rotating massive star models as a function of initial mass and metallicity. The boundaries for each remnant type are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Black hole mass distribution for non-rotating (top) and rotating (bottom) models below the pair-instability mass gap. was found using rotating models with 𝑍 = 10−3 as well as the lower end of 100 𝑀⊙ found by Costa et al. (2025) for non-rotating models at very low metal…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Supernova type of non-rotating massive stars as a function of initial mass and metallicity. The conditions used in this work to associate a given pre-supernova structure with a SN type is given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fraction of non-rotating (top) and rotating (bottom) massive stars per remnant type, weighted by both the Salpeter IMF (left) and a top-heavy IMF (right). the hydrogen shell effect, leading to smaller CO cores that lead to NS instead. For 𝑍 ≥ 0.002, the fraction of mas…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of non-rotating (top) and rotating (bottom) massive stars per supernova type, weighted by both the Salpeter IMF (left) and a top-heavy IMF (right) fraction then decreases from solar to supersolar metallicity (due to stars losing mass earlier in their evolution…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction of non-rotating (top) and rotating (bottom) massive stars per supernova type that are expected to be PISN. Solid lines indicate those weighted using the Salpeter IMF and dashed lines for the top-heavy IMF. 5.3 Fraction of massive stars per supernova type expe…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Aamer A., et al., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11970

    2024

  3. [3]

    Abbott R., et al., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 900, L13

    2020

  4. [4]

    Aguilera-Dena D. R., M \"u ller B., Antoniadis J., Langer N., Dessart L., Vigna-G \'o mez A., Yoon S.-C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.134A 671, A134

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243519 2023

  5. [5]

    Angulo C., et al., 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3

    1999

  6. [6]

    Angus C., et al., 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 977, L41

    2024

  7. [7]

    M., Callister T., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Antonini F., Romero-Shaw I. M., Callister T., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011401 , 134, 011401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011401 2025

  8. [8]

    D., Jain R

    Bailyn C. D., Jain R. K., Coppi P., Orosz J. A., 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 499, 367

    1998

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Boccioli L., Roberti L., 2024, Universe, 10, 148

    2024

  2. [10]

    J., Chieffi A., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 17

    Boccioli L., Roberti L., Limongi M., Mathews G. J., Chieffi A., 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 17

    2023

  3. [11]

    S., 2024, Master's thesis, Keele University, United Kingdom

    Chambers C. S., 2024, Master's thesis, Keele University, United Kingdom

    2024

  4. [12]

    Chieffi A., Limongi M., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 890, 43

    2020

  5. [13]

    Chini R., Hoffmeister V., Nasseri A., Stahl O., Zinnecker H., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 1925

    2012

  6. [14]

    Costa G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.193C 694, A193

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    A., 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Crowther P. A., 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 356, p. 191-199 (2000), 356, 191

    2000

  8. [16]

    De Donder E., Vanbeveren D., 2002, New Astronomy, 7, 55

    2002

  9. [17]

    J., Li C., Woosley S., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 2139

    Dessart L., Hillier D. J., Li C., Woosley S., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 424, 2139

    2012

  10. [18]

    Eggenberger P., et al., 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A137

    2021

  11. [19]

    Ekstr \"o m S., et al., 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A146

    2012

  12. [20]

    S., 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 452, 295

    Eldridge J., Vink J. S., 2006, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 452, 295

    2006

  13. [21]

    R., Xiao L., McClelland L., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S

    Eldridge J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M., Bray J., 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, e058

    2017

  14. [22]

    Farmer R., Renzo M., de Mink S., Marchant P., Justham S., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 53

    2019

  15. [23]

    M., Sravan N., Cantrell A., Kreidberg L., Bailyn C

    Farr W. M., Sravan N., Cantrell A., Kreidberg L., Bailyn C. D., Mandel I., Kalogera V., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 103

    2011

  16. [24]

    H., Hirschi R., Murphy L., Kaiser E., Ekstr \"o m S., Georgy C., Meynet G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502L..40F 502, L40

    Farrell E., Groh J. H., Hirschi R., Murphy L., Kaiser E., Ekstr \"o m S., Georgy C., Meynet G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502L..40F 502, L40

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Alexander D

    Ferguson J. W., Alexander D. R., Allard F., Barman T., Bodnarik J. G., Hauschildt P. H., Heffner-Wong A., Tamanai A., 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 585

    2005

  18. [26]

    H., Fryer C

    Frey L. H., Fryer C. L., Young P. A., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 773, L7

    2013

  19. [27]

    Gal-Yam A., 2012, Science, 337, 927

    2012

  20. [28]

    Georgy C., Meynet G., Walder R., Folini D., Maeder A., 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 502, 611

    2009

  21. [29]

    Georgy C., et al., 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A103

    2013

  22. [30]

    Gilkis A., Arcavi I., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 691

    2022

  23. [31]

    S., Kozyreva A., Hirschi R., Fr \"o hlich C., Yusof N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..100G 846, 100

    Gilmer M. S., Kozyreva A., Hirschi R., Fr \"o hlich C., Yusof N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846..100G 846, 100

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Gomez S., et al., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 87

    2019

  25. [33]

    Gr \"a fener G., Hamann W.-R., 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 482, 945

    2008

  26. [34]

    Hachinger S., Mazzali P., Taubenberger S., Hillebrandt W., Nomoto K., Sauer D., 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 70

    2012

  27. [35]

    Heger A., Fryer A., Woosley S., Langer N., Hartmann D., 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 591, 288

    2003

  28. [36]

    R., Vink J

    Higgins E. R., Vink J. S., Sabhahit G. N., Sander A. A. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2485 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.4052H 516, 4052

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Hirschi R., 2004, PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Switzerland

    2004

  30. [38]

    Hirschi R., Meynet G., Maeder A., 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 425, 649

    2004

  31. [39]

    R., McSwain M., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 722, 605

    Huang W., Gies D. R., McSwain M., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 722, 605

    2010

  32. [40]

    A., Rogers F

    Iglesias C. A., Rogers F. J., 1996, Astrophysical Journal v. 464, p. 943, 464, 943

    1996

  33. [41]

    Jin H., Yoon S.-C., Blinnikov S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accf0d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950...44J 950, 44

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    G., Kaur K., Stone N., Torres M

    Jonker P. G., Kaur K., Stone N., Torres M. A., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 131

    2021

  35. [43]

    A., Hirschi R., Arnett W

    Kaiser E. A., Hirschi R., Arnett W. D., Georgy C., Scott L. J. A., Cristini A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1967K 496, 1967

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Kobayashi C., 2015, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 11, 57

    2015

  37. [45]

    I., Lugaro M., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 179

    Kobayashi C., Karakas A. I., Lugaro M., 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 179

    2020

  38. [46]

    Kozyreva A., et al., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 2854

    2017

  39. [47]

    Langer N., 2012, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 50, 107

    2012

  40. [48]

    E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A..58L 656, A58

    Laplace E., Justham S., Renzo M., G \"o tberg Y., Farmer R., Vartanyan D., de Mink S. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...656A..58L 656, A58

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Li W., et al., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1441

    2011

  42. [50]

    B., Graur O., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 90

    Liu Y.-Q., Modjaz M., Bianco F. B., Graur O., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 827, 90

    2016

  43. [51]

    Maeder A., Meynet G., 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 361, 159

    2000

  44. [52]

    Maeder A., Meynet G., 2012, Reviews of Modern Physics, 84, 25

    2012

  45. [53]

    u ller B., Heger A., R \

    Maltsev K., Schneider F. R. N., Mandel I., M \"u ller B., Heger A., R \"o pke F. K., Laplace E., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.23856 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250323856M p. arXiv:2503.23856

    2025 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    M., Moriya T

    Marchant P., Langer N., Podsiadlowski P., Tauris T. M., Moriya T. J., 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A50

    2016

  47. [55]

    Martinet S., Meynet G., Ekstr \"o m S., Georgy C., Hirschi R., 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 679, A137

    2023

  48. [56]

    J., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 249

    Moriya T. J., et al., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 249

    2021

  49. [57]

    R., Cantiello M., Langer N., 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 529, L9

    Neilson H. R., Cantiello M., Langer N., 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 529, L9

    2011

  50. [58]

    Nugis T., Lamers H., 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 360, p. 227-244, 360, 227

    2000

  51. [59]

    D., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 70

    O'Connor E., Ott C. D., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 70

    2011

  52. [60]

    J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645.1352O 645, 1352

    Ohkubo T., Umeda H., Maeda K., Nomoto K., Suzuki T., Tsuruta S., Rees M. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/504578 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...645.1352O 645, 1352

    2006 doi

  53. [61]

    Patton R., Sukhbold T., 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 2803

    2020

  54. [62]

    pp 69--78

    Preibisch T., Weigelt G., Zinnecker H., 2001, in Symposium-International Astronomical Union. pp 69--78

    2001

  55. [63]

    Springer, pp 229--256

    Reimers D., 1975, in , Problems in stellar atmospheres and envelopes. Springer, pp 229--256

    1975

  56. [64]

    C., Belczynski K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2fbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..23R 964, L23

    Romagnolo A., Gormaz-Matamala A. C., Belczynski K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2fbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...964L..23R 964, L23

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

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

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    E., 1955, Astrophysical Journal, vol

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 121, p. 161, 121, 161

    1955

  59. [67]

    Sana H., et al., 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  60. [68]

    Scaramella R., et al., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 662, A112

    2022

  61. [69]

    Schneider F. R. N., et al., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 780, 117

    2013

  62. [70]

    Schneider F. R. N., et al., 2018, Science, 359, 69

    2018

  63. [71]

    Schneider F. R. N., Podsiadlowski P., M \"u ller B., 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A5

    2021

  64. [72]

    Schulze S., et al., 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 683, A223

    2024

  65. [73]

    Sibony Y., et al., 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 690, A91

    2024

  66. [74]

    V., Chornock R., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1522

    Smith N., Li W., Filippenko A. V., Chornock R., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1522

    2011

  67. [75]

    arXiv:1503.03757

    Spergel D., et al., 2015, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1503.03757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150303757S p. arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    Sukhbold T., Woosley S., 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 10

    2014

  69. [77]

    M., Janka H.-T., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 38

    Sukhbold T., Ertl T., Woosley S., Brown J. M., Janka H.-T., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 821, 38

    2016

  70. [78]

    Sylvester R., Skinner C., Barlow M., 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 301, 1083

    1998

  71. [79]

    arXiv:2507.08219

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration the Virgo Collaboration the KAGRA Collaboration 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250708219T p. arXiv:2507.08219

    2025 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    Ugliano M., Janka H.-T., Marek A., Arcones A., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757, 69

    2012

  73. [81]

    P., Mapelli M., P \'e rigois C., Barone D., Artale M

    Vaccaro M. P., Mapelli M., P \'e rigois C., Barone D., Artale M. C., Dall'Amico M., Iorio G., Torniamenti S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348509 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..51V 685, A51

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    S., de Koter A., Lamers H., 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 369, 574

    Vink J. S., de Koter A., Lamers H., 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 369, 574

    2001

  75. [83]

    S., Higgins E

    Vink J. S., Higgins E. R., Sander A. A., Sabhahit G. N., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 146

    2021

  76. [84]

    S., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 543

    Wang T., Vartanyan D., Burrows A., Coleman M. S., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 543

    2022

  77. [85]

    Astrophys, 350, 148

    Wellstein S., Langer N., 1999, Astron. Astrophys, 350, 148

    1999

  78. [86]

    R., Vink J

    Winch E. R., Vink J. S., Higgins E. R., Sabhahitf G. N., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 2980

    2024

  79. [87]

    E., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 49

    Woosley S. E., 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 49

    2019

  80. [88]

    Xin W., Nomoto K., Zhao G., 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11012

    2025 arXiv

  81. [89]

    E., Langer N., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 940

    Yoon S.-C., Woosley S. E., Langer N., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 725, 940

    2010

  82. [90]

    Yoshida T., Umeda H., 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 412, L78

    2011

  83. [91]

    Yusof N., et al., 2013, Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society, 433, 1114

    2013

  84. [92]

    Yusof N., et al., 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 2814

    2022

  85. [93]

    Zahn J.-P., 1975, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 329

    1975

  86. [94]

    Zahn J.-P., 1977, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 57, 383

    1977

  87. [95]

    Springer, pp 301--325

    Zahn J.-P., 2013, in , Tides in astronomy and astrophysics. Springer, pp 301--325

    2013

  88. [96]

    de Jager C., Nieuwenhuijzen H., Van Der Hucht K., 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series (ISSN 0365-0138), vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 1988, p. 259-289., 72, 259

    1988

  89. [97]

    F., Jerkstrand A., Wongwathanarat A., Janka H.-T., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4106

    van Baal B. F., Jerkstrand A., Wongwathanarat A., Janka H.-T., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4106

    2024

  90. [98]

    T., Groenewegen M., de Koter A., Trams N., Waters L., Zijlstra A., Whitelock P., Loup C., 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 351, 559

    van Loon J. T., Groenewegen M., de Koter A., Trams N., Waters L., Zijlstra A., Whitelock P., Loup C., 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 351, 559

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.