pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23083 · v1 · pith:YQ4P5FHTnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

A Strongly Parametrized Mass Ratio Model for the Stable Mass Transfer Channel: a Case Study of the 10 \, rm{M}_(odot) Peak

Jaxen Godfrey , Lieke van Son , Ben Farr This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords binary black holesmass ratio distributionstable mass transfergravitational wavespopulation analysisbinary evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

The ~10 solar mass peak in binary black hole mergers shows little to no mass-ratio reversal when modeled under the stable mass transfer channel.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper constructs an analytical model that directly connects the stability and efficiency of mass transfer in binary stars to the resulting distribution of mass ratios in merging black holes. This model generates two distinct subpopulations whose shapes trace back to whether the mass ratio reversed during evolution or not. Applying the model to the feature near 10 solar masses in the current gravitational-wave catalog yields a preference for little reversal and for parameter values that fall within expected astrophysical ranges. A reader would care because mass ratio has so far been less exploited than masses or spins as a way to identify which formation channel produced a given subpopulation of events.

Core claim

The authors derive a strongly parametrized analytical model for the mass-ratio distribution expected from the stable mass transfer channel. The model maps mass-transfer stability and accretion efficiency onto the observed mass-ratio distribution and naturally produces two qualitatively distinct subpopulations: a non-mass-ratio-reversed and a mass-ratio-reversed subpopulation whose distinct shapes depend on the binary-evolution parameters in a traceable way. When embedded in a hierarchical population analysis and applied to the ~10 M⊙ peak in the GWTC-4 BBH catalog, the data favor little to no mass-ratio reversal and infer SMT parameters in an astrophysically plausible range.

What carries the argument

A strongly parametrized analytical model that maps mass-transfer stability and accretion efficiency onto the shape of the observed mass-ratio distribution, separating non-reversed and reversed subpopulations.

If this is right

  • The model distinguishes non-mass-ratio-reversed and mass-ratio-reversed subpopulations whose shapes depend on binary-evolution parameters.
  • Data-driven models of this form can be used in mixtures to study singular features in BBH population data.
  • A measurement of the BBH mass-ratio distribution within a subpopulation can be translated into direct constraints on the binary-evolution physics that produced it.
  • The inferred SMT parameters lie in an astrophysically plausible range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other mass features or to joint analyses across multiple subpopulations.
  • Larger future catalogs would allow tighter constraints on the fraction of events that experienced reversal.
  • The preference for minimal reversal may eventually be checked against independent predictions from detailed stellar-evolution simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The ~10 M⊙ peak in the GWTC-4 catalog is produced by the stable mass transfer channel.

What would settle it

A future catalog with substantially more events in the 10 solar mass range showing a clear excess of mass ratios greater than one would falsify the little-to-no-reversal inference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23083 by Ben Farr, Jaxen Godfrey, Lieke van Son.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example intrinsic (qBBH, eq. 6 black) and observed (qobs, eq. 7 purple) mass-ratio distributions predicted by our analytical SMT model for a uniform qZAMS distribution. The possible morphologies are shown for each parameter regime: no MRR systems (left), some MRR systems (middle), and only MRR systems (right). In the left panel, the qobs and qBBH distributions are identical, as qBBH = qobs in this regime. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Inferred primary mass distribution under our model described in Section 2.2. The log-Gaussian foreground component captures the ∼ 10 M⊙ peak, while the B-spline background captures the rest of the distribution. Shading indicates the 90% credible interval. Dotted lines show the combined population. the median background contribution at m1 ∼ 10 M⊙ is well below the Gaussian, while the upper edge of the 90% c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inferred mass-ratio distribution for systems in the ∼ 10 M⊙ peak under our strongly parametrized model. Left: Inferred mass-ratio distribution, split between hyper-posterior samples with no mass-ratio reversal (no MRR; pink, 85.7%) and some mass-ratio reversal (some MRR; purple, 14.3%). Shading indicates the 90% credible interval. Top right: Posterior on the MRR fraction (fMRR, eq. 12) for “some MRR” sampl… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The mass ratio of merging binary black holes (BBHs) carries information about their formation history, yet has received less attention than masses, spins and eccentricities as a channel discriminator. We derive a strongly parametrized analytical model for the mass-ratio distribution expected from the stable mass transfer (SMT) channel. The model maps mass-transfer stability and accretion efficiency onto the observed mass-ratio distribution, and naturally produces two qualitatively distinct subpopulations: a non-mass-ratio-reversed and a mass-ratio-reversed subpopulation whose distinct shapes depend on the binary-evolution parameters in a traceable way. We embed this model in a hierarchical population analysis and apply it to the $\sim 10\, \rm{M}_{\odot}$ peak in the GWTC-4 BBH catalog. We find that the data favor little to no mass-ratio reversal in this peak, and infer SMT parameters in an astrophysically plausible range. This work demonstrates how data-driven models can be used in mixtures to study singular features in BBH population data and serves as a proof of concept for how a measurement of the BBH mass-ratio distribution within a subpopulation can be translated into direct constraints on the binary-evolution physics that produced it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives a strongly parametrized analytical model for the mass-ratio distribution expected from the stable mass transfer (SMT) channel. The model maps mass-transfer stability and accretion efficiency to distinct non-reversed and reversed subpopulations. It is embedded in a hierarchical population analysis and applied directly to the ~10 M⊙ peak in the GWTC-4 BBH catalog, yielding the inference that the data favor little to no mass-ratio reversal together with SMT parameters in an astrophysically plausible range. The work is presented as a proof-of-concept for translating subpopulation mass-ratio measurements into constraints on binary-evolution physics.

Significance. If the central assumption that the ~10 M⊙ peak is produced exclusively by SMT holds and the model is shown to be robust, the approach supplies a traceable mapping from observed mass-ratio shapes to binary-evolution parameters and illustrates how analytical subpopulation models can be used inside hierarchical fits. This would strengthen mass ratio as a channel diagnostic and provide a template for mixture analyses of other catalog features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and hierarchical-analysis section] Abstract and the hierarchical-analysis section: the model is applied exclusively to the ~10 M⊙ peak under the assumption that this feature arises solely from the SMT channel. No test or mixture component is reported that quantifies possible contamination from common-envelope, dynamical, or other channels; if such contamination is non-negligible, the reported preference for little mass-ratio reversal and the inferred SMT parameters do not map directly to SMT physics.
  2. [Model-construction section] Model-construction section: because the analytical form is described as 'strongly parametrized,' the shapes of the reversed and non-reversed subpopulations are fixed by construction once the two free parameters (stability and accretion efficiency) are chosen. The hierarchical fit therefore risks recovering the input parametrization rather than an independent data-driven constraint; an explicit check that the posterior is not dominated by the prior volume or functional form is required.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model section] Notation for the two subpopulations (reversed vs. non-reversed) should be introduced with a single equation or table that lists the mapping from stability/accretion parameters to the functional forms.
  2. [Results section] The abstract states that the inferred parameters lie in an 'astrophysically plausible range' but does not quote the numerical posterior intervals or compare them to existing literature values; this comparison should be added.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have identified important points for clarification and additional validation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of assumptions and robustness checks.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and hierarchical-analysis section] Abstract and the hierarchical-analysis section: the model is applied exclusively to the ~10 M⊙ peak under the assumption that this feature arises solely from the SMT channel. No test or mixture component is reported that quantifies possible contamination from common-envelope, dynamical, or other channels; if such contamination is non-negligible, the reported preference for little mass-ratio reversal and the inferred SMT parameters do not map directly to SMT physics.

    Authors: We agree that the analysis is performed under the explicit assumption that the ~10 M⊙ peak is produced by the SMT channel, consistent with the proof-of-concept nature of the work. The manuscript does not claim to have excluded contributions from other channels. In the revised version we will expand the abstract and hierarchical-analysis section to state this assumption more prominently, discuss its implications for mapping the results to SMT physics, and note that a full multi-channel mixture model would be required to quantify contamination. Such an extension lies beyond the scope of the present study. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Model-construction section] Model-construction section: because the analytical form is described as 'strongly parametrized,' the shapes of the reversed and non-reversed subpopulations are fixed by construction once the two free parameters (stability and accretion efficiency) are chosen. The hierarchical fit therefore risks recovering the input parametrization rather than an independent data-driven constraint; an explicit check that the posterior is not dominated by the prior volume or functional form is required.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the two parameters determine the subpopulation shapes by construction. To demonstrate that the posterior is not dominated by the prior or functional form, we will add an explicit prior-sensitivity analysis (varying the priors on stability and accretion efficiency) and posterior-predictive checks in the revised manuscript. These additions will show that the data meaningfully constrain the parameters within the physically motivated parametrization. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation and inference are independent

full rationale

The paper first derives an analytical, strongly parametrized model mapping SMT stability and accretion parameters to the expected mass-ratio distribution (producing distinct non-reversed and reversed subpopulations). It then embeds this model in a hierarchical population analysis applied to the observed ~10 M⊙ peak feature. The reported inference that data favor little to no reversal is the direct output of the posterior under this model, not a claimed first-principles prediction that reduces to the inputs by construction. No self-definitional equations, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations are present. The choice to model the peak as SMT-only is an explicit case-study assumption rather than a hidden reduction; the central claim remains an independent fit result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two free parameters (stability and accretion efficiency) that are inferred from the same catalog feature the model is applied to, plus the domain assumption that the 10 M⊙ peak arises from the SMT channel. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • mass-transfer stability parameter
    Controls whether mass transfer remains stable and shapes the non-reversed subpopulation; inferred from the data fit.
  • accretion efficiency
    Determines how much mass is retained and whether reversal occurs; inferred from the data fit.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The ~10 M⊙ peak is produced exclusively by the stable mass transfer channel
    Required to justify applying the SMT-only model to this feature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5759 in / 1427 out tokens · 20861 ms · 2026-05-25T05:06:34.925819+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18083

  2. [2]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18082, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18082

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18082

  3. [3]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 882, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800 2019

  4. [4]

    2021, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 913, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe949

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe949 2021

  5. [5]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  6. [6]

    D., & Thrane, E

    Adamcewicz, C., Galaudage, S., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 964, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2df2 2024

  7. [7]

    2025a, Phys

    Afroz, S., & Mukherjee, S. 2025a, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 023531, doi: 10.1103/7zc2-g9vq

    work page doi:10.1103/7zc2-g9vq

  8. [8]

    2025b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09123

    Afroz, S., & Mukherjee, S. 2025b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09123

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    2023, Mon

    Agrawal, P., Hurley, J., Stevenson, S., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 525, 933, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2334

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2334 2023

  10. [10]

    Gravitational-wave constraints on the pair-instability mass gap and nuclear burning in massive stars

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I., Callister, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04637, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04637 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04637 2025

  11. [11]

    2023, Astrophys

    Baibhav, V., Doctor, Z., & Kalogera, V. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 50, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acbf4c 2023

  12. [12]

    Banagiri, S., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P. D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.15646, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.15646

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.15646 2025

  13. [13]

    2022, Astrophys

    Belczynski, K., Romagnolo, A., Olejak, A., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 925, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac375a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac375a 2022

  14. [14]

    P., Jankowiak, M., et al

    Bingham, E., Chen, J. P., Jankowiak, M., et al. 2019, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 28:1. http://jmlr.org/papers/v20/18-403.html

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    2018,, 0.3.13 http://github.com/google/jax

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018,, 0.3.13 http://github.com/google/jax

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    S., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Stevenson, S., & Thrane, E. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8879 2022

  17. [17]

    A., & Farr, W

    Callister, T. A., & Farr, W. M. 2024, Physical Review X, 14, 021005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.021005 2024

  18. [18]

    2026, Astrophys

    Chen, G, ., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 000, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3811

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3811 2026

  19. [19]

    2025,, v7.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17756022

    Collaboration, A. 2025,, v7.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17756022

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17756022 2025

  20. [20]

    Colloms, S., Berry, C. P. L., Veitch, J., & Zevin, M. 2025a, Astrophys. J., 988, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade546

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade546

  21. [21]

    Colloms, S., Doctor, Z., & Berry, C. P. L. 2025b, Astrophys. J., 995, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f09 de Mink, S. E., & Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1219

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1f09 2016

  22. [22]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3667

    Edelman, B., Doctor, Z., Godfrey, J., & Farr, B. 2022, ApJ, 924, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3667

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3667 2022

  23. [23]

    2023, Astrophys

    Edelman, B., Farr, B., & Doctor, Z. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed 2023

  24. [24]

    2025, Phys

    Essick, R., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 102001, doi: 10.1103/44x3-hv3y

    work page doi:10.1103/44x3-hv3y 2025

  25. [25]

    M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al

    Farah, A. M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced02

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced02 2023

  26. [26]

    E., & Farr, W

    Farr, B., Holz, D. E., & Farr, W. M. 2018, ApJL, 854, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa64

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa64 2018

  27. [27]

    M., Stevenson, S., Miller, M

    Farr, W. M., Stevenson, S., Miller, M. C., et al. 2017, Nature, 548, 426, doi: 10.1038/nature23453

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23453 2017

  28. [28]

    2025, A&A, 694, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451654

    Galaudage, S., & Lamberts, A. 2025, A&A, 694, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451654

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451654 2025

  29. [29]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.01288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01288

    Godfrey, J., Edelman, B., & Farr, B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.01288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01288

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.01288 2023

  30. [30]

    2026,, v1.17.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18736568

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2026,, v1.17.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18736568

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18736568 2026

  31. [31]

    Harris, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  32. [32]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 063043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063043

    Heinzel, J., Mould, M., ´Alvarez-L´ opez, S., & Vitale, S. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 063043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063043 2025

  33. [33]

    The No-U-Turn Sampler: Adaptively Setting Path Lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246. https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4246

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    2017, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, doi: 10.5334/jors.148

    Hoyer, S., & Hamman, J. 2017, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, doi: 10.5334/jors.148

    work page doi:10.5334/jors.148 2017

  35. [35]

    2025,, v2025.12.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17834519

    Hoyer, S., Roos, M., Joseph, H., et al. 2025,, v2025.12.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17834519

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17834519 2025

  36. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 10

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  37. [37]

    2023, Mon

    Iorio, G., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1630 Kishore Roy, S., van Son, L. A. C., & Farr, W. M. 2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 225008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ae1921

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1630 2023

  38. [38]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87–90

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01143 2019

  40. [40]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01420, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01420

    Legred, I., Golomb, J., & Chatziioannou, K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01420, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01420

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01420 2026

  41. [41]

    2022, Astrophys

    Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 933, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac78dd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac78dd 2022

  42. [42]

    E., Thrane, E., Lasky, P

    Lower, M. E., Thrane, E., Lasky, P. D., & Smith, R. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 083028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083028 2018

  43. [43]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Rev. Rel., 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  44. [44]

    2022, PhR, 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    Mandel, I., & Farmer, A. 2022, PhR, 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003 2022

  45. [45]

    M., Colonna, A., et al

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., Colonna, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2883

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2883 2017

  46. [46]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed. C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, & K. D. Kokkotas, 16, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2021

  47. [47]

    2024, Ann

    Marchant, P., & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 62, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936 2024

  48. [48]

    M., & Moriya, T

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 2016

  49. [49]

    A., Abril-Pla, O., Deklerk, J., et al

    Martin, O. A., Abril-Pla, O., Deklerk, J., et al. 2026,, v1.1.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19723695

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19723695 2026

  50. [50]

    S., & Steinle, N

    Mould, M., Gerosa, D., Broekgaarden, F. S., & Steinle, N. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 517, 2738, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2859 pandas development team, T. 2026,, v3.0.2 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.19340003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2859 2022

  51. [51]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  52. [52]

    Composable Effects for Flexible and Accelerated Probabilistic Programming in NumPyro

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.11554, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.11554

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.11554 2019

  53. [53]

    2025, Phys

    Plunkett, C., Mould, M., & Vitale, S. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 023039, doi: 10.1103/jv8h-4ggy

    work page doi:10.1103/jv8h-4ggy 2025

  54. [54]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03166

    Ray, A., Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., Breivik, K., & Creighton, J. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03166

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 084029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084029 2016

  56. [56]

    Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJL, 832, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/l2 2016

  57. [57]

    D., & Thrane, E

    Romero-Shaw, I., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2021, ApJL, 921, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3138

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3138 2021

  58. [58]

    M., Lasky, P

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2996

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2996 2019

  59. [59]

    2024, Astrophys

    Sadiq, J., Dent, T., & Gieles, M. 2024, Astrophys. J., 960, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce6 2024

  60. [60]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012

  61. [61]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Laplace, E. 2023, ApJL, 950, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd77a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acd77a 2023

  62. [62]

    Stability Criteria for Mass Transfer in Binary Stellar Evolution

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9703016 1997

  63. [63]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.22093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.22093

    Sridhar, O., Ray, A., & Kalogera, V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.22093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.22093

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.22093 2025

  64. [64]

    2025, ApJL, 994, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d66

    Stegmann, J., Gerosa, D., Romero-Shaw, I., et al. 2025, ApJL, 994, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d66

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae1d66 2025

  65. [65]

    Stevenson, S., & Clarke, T. A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4034, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2936

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2936 2022

  66. [66]

    2022, Astrophys

    Tiwari, V. 2022, Astrophys. J., 928, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a 2022

  67. [67]

    2021, ApJL, 913, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7

    Tiwari, V., & Fairhurst, S. 2021, ApJL, 913, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7 2021

  68. [68]

    A., Fishbach, M., et al

    Tong, H., Callister, T. A., Fishbach, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.05316, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05316

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05316 2025

  69. [69]

    2024, Astron

    Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., P´ erigois, C., et al. 2024, Astron. Astrophys., 688, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449272

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449272 2024

  70. [70]

    L., & Gair, J

    Toubiana, A., Katz, M. L., & Gair, J. R. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 5844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2215 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace) van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Renzo, M., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 940, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b0a van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Callis...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2215 2023

  71. [71]

    2021, Astrophys

    Veske, D., Bartos, I., M´ arka, Z., & M´ arka, S. 2021, Astrophys. J., 922, 258, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac27ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac27ac 2021

  72. [72]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, St´ efan J

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  73. [73]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 03LT01, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e 11

    Vitale, S., Lynch, R., Sturani, R., & Graff, P. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 03LT01, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e 11

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e 2017

  74. [74]

    2025,, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., Van-Lane, P., Wu, K., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2025,, v1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17654855 2025

  75. [75]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff

    Wang, Y.-Z., Li, Y.-J., Gao, S.-J., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.22698, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.22698

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22698 2025

  77. [77]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03021 2021

  78. [78]

    Willcox, R., Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20787, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20787

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20787

  79. [79]

    Willcox, R., Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.07573, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.07573

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.07573

  80. [80]

    Wong, K. W. K., Breivik, K., Kremer, K., & Callister, T. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083021 2021

Showing first 80 references.