Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Detailed Simulations of Massive Hierarchical Triple Star Systems - Exploring the impact of the stellar physics on the evolutionary pathways of massive hierarchical triple systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Detailed stellar-structure models shrink the minimum safe orbit for massive triple stars by a thousandfold, changing predicted gravitational-wave progenitor rates.

desk verdict First on-the-fly TRES+MESA coupling shows massive triple pathways really do diverge from SeBa, but the headline three-orders-of-magnitude Pmin reduction is an extreme-case artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00071 v1 pith:YZPCMCS3 submitted 2025-04-30 astro-ph.SR

Luca Sciarini , Sylvia Ekström , Floris Kummer , Steven Rieder , Caspar Bruenech , Silvia Toonen , Eoin Farrell This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stars:evolutionmassivehierarchicaltriplesystemsstellarwindsrapidvsdetailedcodesapsidalmotionconstantvonZeipel-Lidov-Kozaioscillationsgravitationalwaveprogenitors
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 claims that the fast stellar-evolution codes used in triple-star population synthesis substantially mispredict how much very massive stars expand, and that this misprediction changes which triple systems interact. The authors couple a triple secular evolution code to MESA, a detailed one-dimensional stellar-structure code, and compare the same triples evolved with the fast code SeBa. In the 50 to 120 solar-mass range, the maximum stellar radii differ by up to two orders of magnitude, and the minimum inner orbital period that avoids mass transfer drops from about six thousand days to about six days when the detailed code is used. That widening of the non-interacting parameter space matters because triples that avoid mass transfer can become triple compact objects and later merge through gravitational-wave emission. A fair reader should care because the result implies that population-synthesis predictions for massive triples, including merger-rate estimates, depend on the choice of stellar physics as much as on the three-body dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an on-the-fly coupling of the TRES triple secular evolution code to MESA, a detailed one-dimensional stellar-structure code, so that the star's full structure (radius, core mass, apsidal motion constant, gyration radius) is recomputed as the three-body dynamics evolve. In this setup, wind mass loss feeds back into the stellar structure continuously, which is what keeps the most massive models from swelling to red-supergiant dimensions. A second structural ingredient is the apsidal motion constant $k_{\rm AMC}$, retrieved from the MESA profile at each timestep; it decreases by more than an order of magnitude during the main sequence, reducing precession from tidal and rotational distortion and thereby strengthening the von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai mechanism. The comparison baseline is the fast code SeBa, whose Hurley fitting formulae extrapolate a grid that ends at 50 solar masses, and Roche-lobe overflow is judged at periastron using the Eggleton formula with an eccentricity correction.

What would settle it

Interferometric or eclipsing-binary radius measurements of an ~85$\,M_\odot$, solar-metallicity star near the end of main-sequence life would settle which code is right: the detailed model holds the maximum radius to tens of solar radii, while the fast code predicts a red-supergiant expansion to thousands of solar radii, so one such star observed at large radius would overturn the MESA-based period reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the stellar-evolution physics, not the secular dynamics alone, controls many of the divergent fates of massive hierarchical triples. In the fast code, a 70 to 120 solar-mass star loses mass but then shifts onto the track of a lower-mass star, swelling to a red supergiant of thousands of solar radii; in the detailed code, the same star reacts to wind mass loss by contracting, so its maximum radius stays at tens to hundreds of solar radii. Because Roche-lobe overflow is decided by radius against the periastron Roche lobe, this radius gap translates directly into a different classification of the system's evolution. The paper demonstrates divergent outcomes for every category it tracks: inner versus tertiary mass transfer, mass transfer versus dynamical destabilization, mass transfer versus orbit unbinding, and mass transfer versus a non-interacting triple that can become a triple compact object. The same self-consistent stellar structure also lowers the apsidal motion constant along the main sequence, weakening tidal and rotational precession and letting von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai oscillations persist longer, which further increases the chance of interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on assuming that the detailed code's non-rotating models, with their chosen wind mass-loss rates, describe how very massive stars really expand; if real winds are weaker or rotation makes the stars swell, the claimed thousand-fold period reduction shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MESA's radius evolution is the faithful one, fast-code population synthesis has been overcounting interacting massive triples: systems previously classified as mass-transferring would instead remain detached through the main sequence.
  • The minimum inner period for avoiding Roche-lobe overflow drops from about 6,000 days to about 6 days, enlarging the parameter space for triple compact objects that can later merge through gravitational-wave emission.
  • Structure-dependent precession, through a falling apsidal motion constant, keeps von Zeipel-Lidov-Kozai oscillations alive longer, making eccentric mass transfer more likely than constant-coefficient models suggest.
  • The divergence between codes produces opposite outcomes in every tracked category: inner versus tertiary mass transfer, mass transfer versus dynamical destabilization, mass transfer versus orbit unbinding, and mass transfer versus a non-interacting triple.
  • The choice of dynamical-tide prescription also changes outcomes for eccentric inner binaries, with the revised prescription producing eccentricity growth instead of circularization for systems above roughly e = 0.7.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: the same fast-code radius bias likely affects massive binary population synthesis, so the correction to interaction rates may extend to binary black-hole merger channels as well as triple ones.
  • Because the MESA models are non-rotating, the three-orders-of-magnitude period reduction is best read as an upper bound; adding rotation could let stars expand and close part of the gap.
  • A testable follow-up would be a grid-based population synthesis with the detailed code, converting the per-system pathway flips shown here into a quantitative revision of predicted gravitational-wave merger rates.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new coupling of the MESA detailed stellar evolution code to the TRES secular triple-star evolution code through AMUSE, and uses it to compare the evolutionary pathways of massive hierarchical triples with those obtained using the rapid SeBa code. The authors report that MESA and SeBa single-star tracks diverge increasingly with initial mass and wind mass-loss efficiency, that the maximum radii can differ by up to two orders of magnitude, and that the minimum inner period for avoiding Roche-lobe overflow is reduced by three orders of magnitude when MESA replaces SeBa. Several illustrative systems are shown in which the two codes predict different pathways: inner versus tertiary mass transfer, mass transfer versus dynamical destabilization, mass transfer versus orbital unbinding, interacting versus non-interacting outcomes, and a case where self-consistently computed apsidal-motion constants change the outcome. The paper also explores the impact of a modified dynamical-tides prescription from Sciarini et al. (2024).

Significance. If the central period-reduction claim holds, the results imply that rapid-code population synthesis of massive triples systematically overestimates interaction rates and underestimates the formation of triple compact objects, directly affecting gravitational-wave merger rate predictions. The qualitative divergence between rapid and detailed stellar codes for masses above 50 M_sun is consistent with Bavera et al. (2023) and is an important caution for the field. The methodological advance of coupling MESA on-the-fly to a secular triple code is valuable, and the authors make the code publicly available. The paper also provides a careful single-star comparison and is transparent about wind and rotation prescriptions. The main quantitative claim, however, is derived from an extreme corner of the grid and is not robust across the paper's own default choices, so it needs qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 4.5, Abstract, Sect. 5] The three-orders-of-magnitude reduction in the minimum inner period (Pmin,MESA∼6 days vs Pmin,SeBa∼6×10^3 days) is derived in Sect. 4.5 from a single 85 M_sun MESA track computed with Dutch_scaling_factor=1 (the 'TCO' system). This is not representative of the paper's default wind setting: in Sect. 2.2.4 the authors adopt Dutch_scaling_factor=0.333 as the default, and under that prescription the MESA/SeBa maximum-radius discrepancy in the considered mass range is about one order of magnitude, not two (Sect. 3.1, Fig. 1b; lower panel of Fig. 3). Since the limiting period scales as R_max^{3/2}, a factor-of-ten radius gap implies only a ~30-fold reduction in Pmin (i.e., ~200 days), not a 1000-fold reduction. The abstract and conclusion present the 6-day value as a general result without these qualifications. I recommend stating that the three-orders reduction is an extreme-case upper limit valid for the strongest winds and the highest masses, and giving the estimate under the default wind prescription.
  2. [Sect. 2.2.3 and Appendix A] The MESA tracks are normalized to SeBa at 50 M_sun via the overshoot parameter α_ov, calibrated without winds to reproduce the SeBa maximum MS radius. The paper notes that this calibrated value may be underestimated for higher masses (Sect. 2.2.3, Appendix A). Consequently, the quantitative divergence between MESA and SeBa above 50 M_sun is not fully independent of the chosen calibration; part of the high-mass difference could reflect the one-point normalization rather than solely the self-consistent reaction to mass loss. The authors should state this calibration dependence explicitly when quoting the Pmin estimates and interpreting the order-of-magnitude radius discrepancies.
  3. [Sect. 4.7 and Appendix D] The result that the S24 dynamical-tides prescription makes the eccentricity increase for e≳0.7 is a model-dependent property of the low-order Zahn (1977) expansion, as the authors state in Sect. 4.7 and Appendix D. The abstract and the concluding section do not repeat this caveat, so a reader could mistake this for a robust physical finding. Please add an explicit caveat, both in the abstract and in the conclusions, that this eccentricity increase is a prediction of the S24 model and may change if higher-order eccentricity terms are included.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 4.5] In the sentence 'Given Kepler 3rd law (P2∝ a3)', the notation should be typeset as P^2 ∝ a^3, and the derivation should mention explicitly that the Roche-lobe radius is taken as proportional to a at fixed mass ratio, so that the period scales as R_max^{3/2}.
  2. [Table 1 and Appendix B] The system labeled 'η Carinae*' is marked as 'Divergent: No' in Table 1, but Appendix B states that the MESA and SeBa pathways do differ (eccentric versus circular mass transfer). The table footnote explains the nomenclature, but the caption should also note this distinction to avoid apparent inconsistency.
  3. [Abstract and Sect. 5] The abstract should state that the reduction in Pmin is 'up to three orders of magnitude' under the strongest wind prescription, rather than presenting it as a unique value, so that the headline matches the internal-consistency concerns raised in Sect. 4.5.
  4. [General] There are minor typographical issues, such as the misplaced diacritic in the reference 'Krtiˇcka' and the equation-number formatting in Appendix D. A careful proofread of the final version is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the code comparison, Pmin estimate, and S24 tide discussion are transparent derivations, not self-validating fits.

full rationale

The central MESA-vs-SeBa comparison is not circular. The paper openly calibrates alpha_ov = 0.31 to match the 50 Msun SeBa maximum MS radius (Sect. 2.2.3 and Appendix A), but the divergent behavior that drives the conclusions is the unforced mass and wind-scaling dependence above 50 Msun (Sect. 3.1, Fig. 3). The single calibration point does not encode the two-orders-of-magnitude high-mass radius gaps or the non-monotonic Rmax behavior with winds. The claimed Pmin reduction is likewise a derived consequence, not a fitted input: Sect. 4.5 takes the computed Rmax discrepancy and applies Kepler's third law plus the Roche-lobe relation (Eq. 9) to estimate Pmin,MESA ~ 6 days vs Pmin,SeBa ~ 6e3 days. This is an arithmetic propagation of model outputs; whether the three-orders magnitude is robust outside the strongest-wind/highest-mass corner is a scope and internal-consistency question, not a circularity. The S24 tidal discussion is also transparent: the eccentricity-increasing result for e >= 0.7 is derived in Appendix D from the explicit S24/Z77 equations, and the paper explicitly states that the physical justification is beyond the scope and that the result 'directly stems from Z77 formalism' (Sect. 4.7, Appendix D). It is a model-implication statement, not an independent prediction used to validate the model. The SeBa-side Pmin reference to Kummer et al. (2023) involves overlapping authors, but the present paper recomputes the SeBa tracks and Rmax values in Figs. 1-3, so the comparison is code-reproduced here rather than resting solely on the self-citation. In sum, all load-bearing quantities are either computed in this paper or explicitly recycled with their assumptions stated; there is no step where a prediction reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on one fitted parameter (alpha_ov calibrated to SeBa at 50 Msun), two wind-scenario scalings, and the assumption that MESA's physics is the reference truth. The S24 tidal model is self-cited and its predictions are taken as given. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha_ov (overshooting parameter) = 0.31
    Calibrated to match the 50 Msun SeBa model's maximum main-sequence radius without winds (Appendix A), then used for all stellar masses in the grid. This anchors the comparison at one point and conditions the divergence above 50 Msun.
  • Dutch_scaling_factor (wind mass-loss scaling) = 0.333 and 1.0
    Scenario choices, not fitted. The default 0.333 is motivated by observations indicating standard prescriptions overestimate mass loss by about a factor of 3; the value 1.0 is a high-wind scenario. These choices directly set the radial expansion and the resulting period reduction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The secular approximation for triple dynamics, as implemented in seculartriple/TRES, remains valid for the hierarchical systems considered.
    Invoked in Sect. 2.3; the entire method relies on the perturbative treatment of the third body. The paper stops simulations when the stability criterion (Vynatheya et al. 2022) is violated.
  • domain assumption The H00/P98 fitting formulae underlying SeBa are a standard representation of stellar evolution for the comparison.
    SeBa is based on Hurley et al. (2000, 2002) fits to the Pols et al. (1998) grid, which the paper uses as the reference 'fast code'. The comparison assumes these tracks represent the current population-synthesis default.
  • domain assumption The Dutch wind combination (Vink, de Jager, Nugis & Lamers) is an appropriate standard for high-mass winds, and the adopted scaling factors bracket the uncertainty.
    Used in Sect. 2.2.4 for both codes. The paper acknowledges wind uncertainties (Sect. 3.2) but the headline three-orders result depends on these scaling choices.
  • domain assumption MESA is a more faithful model of massive-star evolution than SeBa/H00 for the purposes of this comparison.
    The paper's premise is that detailed on-the-fly stellar physics is superior to rapid fitting formulae. The divergence is interpreted as a failure of SeBa's extrapolation; this is plausible but not proven in the paper itself.
  • domain assumption The S24 dynamical tide model (Sciarini et al. 2024) correctly describes tidal evolution in eccentric orbits, including the sign change of f_e at Omega_spin/Omega_orb = 2.007.
    Section 4.7 and Appendix D apply the authors' own S24 model. The result that dynamical tides increase eccentricity for e >= 0.659 follows by construction from S24's equations, which are not independently validated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detailed Simulations of Massive Hierarchical Triple Star Systems - Exploring the impact of the stellar physics on the evolutionary pathways of massive hierarchical triple systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZPCMCS3

@misc{pith2026250500071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detailed Simulations of Massive Hierarchical Triple Star Systems - Exploring the impact of the stellar physics on the evolutionary pathways of massive hierarchical triple systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZPCMCS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00071}
}
read the original abstract

Recent observations estimate that 30% of early B and O-type stars are found in triple systems. So far, the evolution of triple star systems has mainly been modeled using fast stellar codes. Their accuracy decreases with increasing mass, limiting their reliability for predicting the evolutionary pathways of massive triple systems. We coupled Tres, which by default uses Seba (fast stellar code) to Mesa to perform the first simulations of triple systems that combine a triple secular evolutionary code with a detailed, on-the-fly stellar code. After examining the differences between the stellar evolution predicted by the two codes, we simulate the evolution of a set of triple systems and compare their predicted evolutionary pathways. The predicted stellar tracks become increasingly divergent with increasing mass and wind mass loss efficiency. The maximal radial extent, crucial for determining whether the components of the triple systems interact, differ by up to two orders of magnitude between the two stellar codes in the considered mass range. This leads to divergences in the triples evolutionary pathways predicted by mesa and seba. Using mesa instead of seba, the minimum period for avoiding inner mass transfer is reduced by three orders of magnitude. This has important consequences for the formation of GW sources through the triple compact object channel. Our simulations offer new insights into the physics of triple systems, as key processes (mass loss, radial expansion, precession) are treated self-consistently. They indicate that the results of triple systems population synthesis studies must be interpreted cautiously, in particular when the considered masses are outside the range of the grid the fast codes are based on and when significant stellar winds are considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. HRD obtained with mesa (solid lines) and seba (dashed lines). Isoradius lines are represented by gray dashes. correspond to the moment the models reach the Vink bista￾bility jump, which makes the mass loss increase. The greater mass loss changes the terminal age main sequence (TAMS) luminosity of the star, which is a simple function of the cur￾rent mass in the H00 tracks5 . As a result, the luminosity of the star de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as Fig. 1b with a wind scaling factor three times higher. pected in this high mass range where stellar winds play an im￾portant role, increasing the wind scaling factor strongly affects the evolution of the stars. However, the reaction to mass loss is very different between the mesa and the seba tracks. 5 Eq. (8) in H00. As with the lower wind scaling factor, the maximum radial extent significantly differs betw… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel: Maximum radius reached during the MS by the mesa and seba models for different values of the wind scaling factors (0, 0.333 and 1). Lower panel: Same for the maximum radius reached during the whole evolution and for wind scaling factors of 0.333 and 1. As can be observed in the upper panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the η Carinae system simulated with mesa and seba. Upper panel: Inner eccentricity. Middle panel: Radius expansion of the primary (dashed line) and secondary (dotted & dashed line). The Roche Lobe radius of the primary is shown in solid line. Lower panel: …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the system labeled "Tertiary MT" in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of the system labeled "Dyn. Destab." in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the system labeled "ZLK & precession" in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the evolution of systems in moderately eccentric orbits as predicted by the H02 and the S24 prescriptions. One system is subject to ZLK oscillations (blue and magenta lines), the other is not (violet and orange lines). The scale of the horizontal axis ch…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The IACOB project XIX. Revisiting massive-star evolution with empirical TAMS constraints: updated models, overshoot calibration, and the population of blue supergiants

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive-star models require mass-dependent core overshoot (α_ov ≈ 0.18–0.45) to match the empirical TAMS, but still fail to explain the velocity dependence of the TAMS and the observed blue supergiant population.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2023, , 525, 933

    Agrawal , P., Hurley , J., Stevenson , S., et al. 2023, , 525, 933

    2023

  2. [2]

    J., Bavera , S

    Andrews , J. J., Bavera , S. S., Briel , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02376

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Antonini , F., Toonen , S., & Hamers , A. S. 2017, , 841, 77

    2017

  4. [4]

    S., Fragos , T., Zapartas , E., et al

    Bavera , S. S., Fragos , T., Zapartas , E., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1090

    2023

  5. [5]

    2002, , 572, 407

    Belczynski , K., Kalogera , V., & Bulik , T. 2002, , 572, 407

    2002

  6. [6]

    E., et al

    Belczynski , K., Repetto , S., Holz , D. E., et al. 2016, , 819, 108

    2016

  7. [7]

    O., Singh , S

    Bj \"o rklund , R., Sundqvist , J. O., Singh , S. M., Puls , J., & Najarro , F. 2023, , 676, A109

    2023

  8. [8]

    C., Lanz , T., & Hillier , D

    Bouret , J. C., Lanz , T., & Hillier , D. J. 2005, , 438, 301

    2005

Show all 109 references
  1. [9]

    A., de Koter , A., Bestenlehner , J

    Brands , S. A., de Koter , A., Bestenlehner , J. M., et al. 2022, , 663, A36

    2022

  2. [10]

    2020, , 898, 71

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

    2020

  3. [11]

    Brooker , R. A. & Olle , T. W. 1955, , 115, 101

    1955

  4. [12]

    E., Cantiello , M., et al

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

    2011

  5. [13]

    W., Boekholt , T., Kummer , F., & Toonen , S

    Bruenech , C. W., Boekholt , T., Kummer , F., & Toonen , S. 2025, , 693, A14

    2025

  6. [14]

    2016, , 823, 102

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

    2016

  7. [15]

    1999, , 350, 56

    Claret , A. 1999, , 350, 56

    1999

  8. [16]

    2004, , 424, 919

    Claret , A. 2004, , 424, 919

    2004

  9. [17]

    & Gimenez , A

    Claret , A. & Gimenez , A. 1989, , 81, 37

    1989

  10. [18]

    & Gimenez , A

    Claret , A. & Gimenez , A. 1992, , 96, 255

    1992

  11. [19]

    & Gim \'e nez , A

    Claret , A. & Gim \'e nez , A. 2010, , 519, A57

    2010

  12. [20]

    2012, Astronomy & Geophysics, 53, 4.30

    Crowther, P. 2012, Astronomy & Geophysics, 53, 4.30

    2012

  13. [21]

    S., & Lopes , D

    Damineli , A., Conti , P. S., & Lopes , D. F. 1997, , 2, 107

    1997

  14. [22]

    1997, , 2, 387

    Davidson , K. 1997, , 2, 387

    1997

  15. [23]

    J., Siess , L., & Deschamps , R

    Davis , P. J., Siess , L., & Deschamps , R. 2013, , 556, A4

    2013

  16. [24]

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

    1988

  17. [25]

    E., Langer , N., Izzard , R

    de Mink , S. E., Langer , N., Izzard , R. G., Sana , H., & de Koter , A. 2013, , 764, 166

    2013

  18. [26]

    & Eggen , O

    de Vaucouleurs , G. & Eggen , O. J. 1952, , 64, 185

    1952

  19. [27]

    E., & Kummer , F

    Dorozsmai , A., Toonen , S., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., de Mink , S. E., & Kummer , F. 2024, , 527, 9782

    2024

  20. [28]

    Eggleton , P. P. 1983, , 268, 368

    1983

  21. [29]

    L., Johnston , C., Toonen , S., et al

    Eisner , N. L., Johnston , C., Toonen , S., et al. 2022, , 511, 4710

    2022

  22. [30]

    Eldridge , J. J. & Stanway , E. R. 2022, , 60, 455

    2022

  23. [31]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, , 34, e058

    2017

  24. [32]

    & Tremaine , S

    Fabrycky , D. & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298

    2007

  25. [33]

    B., Kozinsky , B., & Rasio , F

    Ford , E. B., Kozinsky , B., & Rasio , F. A. 2000, , 535, 385

    2000

  26. [34]

    & Antonini , F

    Fragione , G. & Antonini , F. 2019, , 488, 728

    2019

  27. [35]

    J., Bavera , S

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

    2023

  28. [36]

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

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

    2012

  29. [37]

    W., Massa , D

    Fullerton , A. W., Massa , D. L., & Prinja , R. K. 2006, , 637, 1025

    2006

  30. [38]

    & Perets , H

    Generozov , A. & Perets , H. B. 2024, , 964, 83

    2024

  31. [39]

    E., Pols , O

    Glebbeek , E., Gaburov , E., de Mink , S. E., Pols , O. R., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2009, , 497, 255

    2009

  32. [40]

    Hamers, A. S. & Dosopoulou, F. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 872, 119

    2019

  33. [41]

    S., Glanz , H., & Neunteufel , P

    Hamers , A. S., Glanz , H., & Neunteufel , P. 2022, , 259, 25

    2022

  34. [42]

    S., Rantala , A., Neunteufel , P., Preece , H., & Vynatheya , P

    Hamers , A. S., Rantala , A., Neunteufel , P., Preece , H., & Vynatheya , P. 2021, , 502, 4479

    2021

  35. [43]

    Hayward , C. C. & Hopkins , P. F. 2017, , 465, 1682

    2017

  36. [44]

    P., Schneider , F

    Hirai , R., Podsiadlowski , P., Owocki , S. P., Schneider , F. R. N., & Smith , N. 2021, , 503, 4276

    2021

  37. [45]

    Humphreys , R. M. & Davidson , K. 1994, , 106, 1025

    1994

  38. [46]

    M., Davidson , K., & Smith , N

    Humphreys , R. M., Davidson , K., & Smith , N. 1999, , 111, 1124

    1999

  39. [47]

    R., Pols , O

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

    2000

  40. [48]

    R., Tout , C

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

    2002

  41. [49]

    1981, , 99, 126

    Hut , P. 1981, , 99, 126

    1981

  42. [50]

    & Soker , N

    Kashi , A. & Soker , N. 2010, , 723, 602

    2010

  43. [51]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    1962

  44. [52]

    2021, , 647, A28

    Krti c ka , J., Kub \'a t , J., & Krti c kov \'a , I. 2021, , 647, A28

    2021

  45. [53]

    U., Tauris , T

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

    2018

  46. [54]

    2023, , 678, A60

    Kummer , F., Toonen , S., & de Koter , A. 2023, , 678, A60

    2023

  47. [55]

    2012, , 50, 107

    Langer , N. 2012, , 50, 107

    2012

  48. [56]

    Lidov , M. L. 1962, , 9, 719

    1962

  49. [57]

    & Naoz , S

    Lithwick , Y. & Naoz , S. 2011, , 742, 94

    2011

  50. [58]

    M., & Moriya , T

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

    2016

  51. [59]

    & Aarseth , S

    Mardling , R. & Aarseth , S. 1999, in NATO Advanced Study Institute (ASI) Series C, Vol. 522, The Dynamics of Small Bodies in the Solar System, A Major Key to Solar System Studies, ed. B. A. Steves & A. E. Roy , 385

    1999

  52. [60]

    Mardling , R. A. & Aarseth , S. J. 2001, , 321, 398

    2001

  53. [61]

    Martinez , M. A. S., Rodriguez , C. L., & Fragione , G. 2022, , 937, 78

    2022

  54. [62]

    & Di Stefano , R

    Moe , M. & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15

    2017

  55. [63]

    2016, , 54, 441

    Naoz , S. 2016, , 54, 441

    2016

  56. [64]

    P., & Rasio , F

    Naoz , S., Fragos , T., Geller , A., Stephan , A. P., & Rasio , F. A. 2016, , 822, L24

    2016

  57. [65]

    & Lamers , H

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

    2000

  58. [66]

    Offner , S. S. R., Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 275

    2023

  59. [67]

    2011, , 192, 3

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

    2011

  60. [68]

    2013, , 208, 4

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

    2013

  61. [69]

    2015, , 220, 15

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

    2015

  62. [70]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, , 234, 34

    2018

  63. [71]

    2019, , 243, 10

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

    2019

  64. [72]

    I., van Elteren , A., de Vries , N., et al

    Pelupessy , F. I., van Elteren , A., de Vries , N., et al. 2013, , 557, A84

    2013

  65. [73]

    T., Caputo , D

    Pijloo , J. T., Caputo , D. P., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2012, , 424, 2914

    2012

  66. [74]

    R., Schr \"o der , K.-P., Hurley , J

    Pols , O. R., Schr \"o der , K.-P., Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., & Eggleton , P. P. 1998, , 298, 525

    1998

  67. [75]

    2009, , 14, 369

    Portegies Zwart , S., McMillan , S., Harfst , S., et al. 2009, , 14, 369

    2009

  68. [76]

    Portegies Zwart , S., McMillan , S. L. W., van Elteren , E., Pelupessy , I., & de Vries , N. 2013, Computer Physics Communications, 184, 456

    2013

  69. [77]

    Portegies Zwart, S. F. & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 3401

    2016

  70. [78]

    Portegies Zwart , S. F. & Verbunt , F. 1996, , 309, 179

    1996

  71. [79]

    P., Hamers , A

    Preece , H. P., Hamers , A. S., Battich , T., & Rajamuthukumar , A. S. 2022, , 517, 2111

    2022

  72. [80]

    W., et al

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

    2022

  73. [81]

    Rodriguez , C. L. & Antonini , F. 2018, , 863, 7

    2018

  74. [82]

    A., et al

    Rosu , S., Noels , A., Dupret , M. A., et al. 2020, , 642, A221

    2020

  75. [83]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

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

    2012

  76. [84]

    B., Lacour , S., et al

    Sana , H., Le Bouquin , J. B., Lacour , S., et al. 2014, , 215, 15

    2014

  77. [85]

    2024, , 681, L1

    Sciarini , L., Ekstr \"o m , S., Eggenberger , P., et al. 2024, , 681, L1

    2024

  78. [86]

    F., Willems , B., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F

    Sepinsky , J. F., Willems , B., Kalogera , V., & Rasio , F. A. 2007, , 667, 1170

    2007

  79. [87]

    Shappee , B. J. & Thompson , T. A. 2013, , 766, 64

    2013

  80. [88]

    2025 a , , 983, 115

    Shariat , C., Naoz , S., El-Badry , K., et al. 2025 a , , 983, 115

    2025

  81. [89]

    2025 b , , 978, 47

    Shariat , C., Naoz , S., El-Badry , K., et al. 2025 b , , 978, 47

    2025

  82. [90]

    & Tremaine , S

    Silsbee , K. & Tremaine , S. 2017, , 836, 39

    2017

  83. [91]

    & Willems , B

    Smeyers , P. & Willems , B. 2001, , 373, 173

    2001

  84. [92]

    2015, , 451, 4086

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

    2015

  85. [93]

    2022, , 516, 1406

    Stegmann , J., Antonini , F., & Moe , M. 2022, , 516, 1406

    2022

  86. [94]

    2024, , 971, 139

    Su , Y., Liu , B., & Xu , S. 2024, , 971, 139

    2024

  87. [95]

    O., Puls , J., & Feldmeier , A

    Sundqvist , J. O., Puls , J., & Feldmeier , A. 2010, , 510, A11

    2010

  88. [96]

    Toonen , S., Boekholt , T. C. N., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2022, , 661, A61

    2022

  89. [97]

    2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6

    Toonen , S., Hamers , A., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6

    2016

  90. [98]

    2012, , 546, A70

    Toonen , S., Nelemans , G., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2012, , 546, A70

    2012

  91. [99]

    , Hamers, A

    Toonen , S., Portegies Zwart, S. , Hamers, A. S. , & Bandopadhyay, D. 2020, , 640, A16

    2020

  92. [100]

    A., Rastello , S., Di Carlo , U

    Trani , A. A., Rastello , S., Di Carlo , U. N., et al. 2022, , 511, 1362

    2022

  93. [101]

    2017, , 608, A57

    Verbunt , F., Igoshev , A., & Cator , E. 2017, , 608, A57

    2017

  94. [102]

    Vink , J. S. 2022, , 60, 203

    2022

  95. [103]

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

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

    2001

  96. [104]

    1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345

    von Zeipel , H. 1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345

    1910

  97. [105]

    S., Mardling, R

    Vynatheya, P., Hamers, A. S., Mardling, R. A., & Bellinger, E. P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4146–4155

    2022

  98. [106]

    E., Heger , A., & Weaver , T

    Woosley , S. E., Heger , A., & Weaver , T. A. 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015

    2002

  99. [107]

    Zahn , J. P. 1977, , 57, 383

    1977

  100. [108]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  101. [109]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.