Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-conservative Mass Transfer as a Formation Channel for Gaia Black Hole System

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simple mass-loss geometry may explain the wide orbits of the Gaia black-hole binaries.

desk verdict Clever, novel proof-of-concept for donor-side mass loss, but the L1 angular-momentum problem and hand-picked initial periods leave the case suggestive, not convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.10728 v3 pith:72D63YWT submitted 2025-11-13 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Aleksandra Olejak , Jakub Klencki , Alejandro Vigna-Gomez , Selma E. de Mink , Lieke van Son , Jakub Cehula , Jakob Stegmann , Taeho Ryu
show 1 more author
David D. Hendriks
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords blackholebinariesGaiaBH1BH2Roche-lobeoverflownon-conservativemasstransferorbitalevolutionbinarystarstellarloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes that fully non-conservative mass transfer, in which all overflowing material is lost from the binary while carrying the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass, can produce the wide orbits of Gaia BH1 and BH2. Using stellar evolution calculations, the authors show that this prescription widens the orbit during Roche-lobe overflow instead of shrinking it, allowing an initially 20-solar-mass star and a 1-solar-mass companion to become a black hole plus low-mass star system with orbital periods close to the observed 185.5 and 1276.7 days. If correct, this removes the need for fine-tuned initial conditions or exotic formation channels for these systems, and suggests that similar non-conservative mass transfer may operate in other puzzling binary populations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the angular-momentum-loss prescription for fully non-conservative mass transfer, expressed by the formula J_dot_ml = M_dot (a M_acc/(M_acc + M_don))^2 (2*pi/P), which assigns the escaping mass the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass. This differs from the standard isotropic re-emission model, which assumes mass loss from the accretor's vicinity and removes much more orbital angular momentum per unit mass. The paper also invokes the Roche-lobe geometry of extreme-mass-ratio binaries, specifically the small L1 overflow and the persistently unfilled L3 point, along with opacity-driven subsurface super-Eddington layers in the donor, to argue that such a

What would settle it

A high-resolution hydrodynamical simulation of Roche-lobe overflow in an extreme-mass-ratio binary (donor/accretor mass ratio about 20) that tracks where the overflowing material ends up: if the majority of the mass forms a stream onto the accretor, is re-emitted from its vicinity, or escapes through L2/L3, the donor-centered angular-momentum assumption would fail and the orbit would shrink rather than widen. Alternatively, a systematic survey of post-mass-transfer binaries that finds periods systematically shorter than this model predicts would falsify the scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that when mass lost during Roche-lobe overflow carries away the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass (a Jeans-mode-like outflow, with alpha=1, beta=delta=gamma=0), the binary orbit expands during mass transfer rather than contracting. In their MESA models, a 20 solar-mass donor and 1 solar-mass companion on a 40-day orbit evolve through a rapid mass-transfer phase to a ~174-day post-mass-transfer binary, while the same setup on a 260-day orbit ends at ~1135 days; both match the observed periods of Gaia BH1 and BH2. They argue this mass-loss geometry is physically plausible for extreme-mass-ratio, wide binaries because the accretor's Roche lobe is tiny, th

Load-bearing premise

The scenario relies on the assumption that material overflowing through L1 is actually lost from the system carrying the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass, rather than being accreted, re-emitted from the accretor, or escaping through L2/L3, and no hydrodynamical simulation or direct observation yet establishes this outflow geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario holds, the wide orbits of Gaia BH1 and BH2 no longer require fine-tuned initial conditions or alternative formation channels such as dynamical ejection or suppressed radial expansion.
  • Similar donor-angular-momentum mass loss may explain the unexpectedly wide orbits of other Gaia compact-object binaries, including those hosting white dwarfs and neutron stars.
  • The mechanism could help form stripped Wolf-Rayet stars with faint low-mass companions, consistent with the low radial-velocity variations observed in SMC stripped stars.
  • It may ease the formation of low-mass X-ray binaries by allowing the donor to shed much of its envelope before a delayed common-envelope phase, making envelope ejection more feasible.
  • The same mass-loss geometry, if it operates in other mass-ratio regimes, would alter predictions for the orbital-period and mass distributions of gravitational-wave merger progenitors formed through isolated binary evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction is that systems formed through this channel should show a characteristic relation between final orbital period and the donor's initial mass ratio, which population synthesis could compare with the growing Gaia sample.
  • The proposed mechanism suggests that binary evolution codes should not default to isotropic re-emission for extreme-mass-ratio, wide binaries; using donor-angular-momentum loss may change derived event rates for compact-object mergers and ULX populations.
  • One could search for signs of eruptive pre-RLOF mass loss in the chemical or rotational properties of the low-mass companions in Gaia BH1 and BH2, since the donor's enhanced wind would pollute the system.
  • If the underlying cause is high-opacity subsurface layers, the effect should be metallicity- and temperature-dependent, implying that the orbital widening should be more pronounced at higher metallicities and for cooler, more extended donors; this could be tested with surveys at different metallicities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an isolated-binary formation channel for Gaia BH1 and BH2 in which Roche-lobe overflow is fully non-conservative and all mass lost from the donor carries the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass (alpha=1, beta=delta=gamma=0). Using MESA, the authors evolve 20 M_sun + 1 M_sun binaries with initial periods of 40 d and 260 d, obtaining final orbital periods of roughly 174 d and 1135 d, which are close to the observed 185.5 d and 1276.7 d. They argue that this mass-loss geometry is physically plausible because of the extreme mass ratio, the small accretor Roche lobe, high-opacity subsurface layers, and possible self-accretion, and they discuss broader implications for other post-mass-transfer populations.

Significance. If the proposed mass-loss geometry is physically realized, the paper offers a potentially elegant resolution to a long-standing puzzle: how wide, non-interacting BH plus low-mass-star binaries can form in isolation. The MESA models are detailed, self-consistent, and the opacity profiles in Fig. 3 are a useful addition. The idea is worth considering. However, the central assumption that RLOF mass loss carries the donor-center specific angular momentum is not validated by any hydrodynamical calculation or direct observational constraint, and the claimed 'wide range of initial conditions' is not demonstrated by the two presented tracks. The paper is best read as a proof-of-concept for a specific, idealized mass-loss prescription rather than an established formation scenario.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (1); §4] The angular momentum loss law assumes that the escaping mass carries the donor's center-of-mass specific orbital angular momentum, j_d = [a M_a/(M_a+M_d)]^2 Omega. But the mass that overflows is launched from the inner Lagrange point L1, not from the donor center. For the modeled q ~ 20, r_L1 ~ 0.72a while r_donor ~ 0.048a; for a non-rotating donor the specific angular momentum of material at L1 is roughly 15 times j_d, and for a tidally synchronized donor it is about 200 times j_d. The paper acknowledges in §4 that the stream is launched near L1 but never evaluates the angular momentum of such an L1 outflow. If the real stream removes angular momentum at or above the L1 value, the orbit shrinks rather than widens and the scenario fails. The speculative arguments about enhanced winds and self-accretion do not replace a quantitative check of whether the assumed alpha=1 donor-center prescr
  2. [Abstract and §5] The claim that the model reproduces the observed periods 'over a wide range of initial conditions' and 'without fine-tuning' is not supported by the manuscript. Only two MESA tracks are shown (20 M_sun + 1 M_sun, P_i=40 d and 260 d), and the initial periods are chosen so that the final periods land near 174 d and 1135 d. No grid over P_i, donor mass, metallicity, or mass-loss geometry is presented, so the sensitivity and the claimed range are unknown. Two hand-picked configurations cannot establish 'little fine-tuning'; the initial periods appear tuned to the two observed systems.
  3. [§4 vs. §2] There is an internal tension between the assumed mass-loss geometry and the tidal treatment. The MESA models include tidal synchronization of individual layers (Hut 1980), and §4 argues that subsurface convective layers may become tidally synchronized. If those layers are synchronized, matter leaving near L1 or from the donor surface carries the large specific angular momentum of the rotating layer, not the donor-center value used in Eq. (1). A consistent treatment would either compute the angular momentum of the synchronized L1 stream or show that the assumed donor-center loss is nevertheless a good approximation. As written, the paper invokes tidal synchronization to motivate mass loss while neglecting its orbital angular-momentum cost.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] The stray line '(R_star - R_L1)/R_star' appears immediately after the Figure 4 discussion and seems to be a leftover fragment; it should be removed.
  2. [Table 1] The table caption contains a typo: 'T able' should be 'Table'.
  3. [§2] The 'standard isotropic re-emission' model shown as the orange dashed line in Figs. 1 and 4 is not defined by its parameter values. Please specify, e.g., beta=1, alpha=delta=gamma=0.
  4. [Appendix B] Equations B1 and B2 use kick components v_r, v_t, v_p, but the signs of these components relative to the orbital velocity are not defined. Please state the convention.
  5. [§5.2] The statement that post-mass-transfer stripped helium stars have radial velocities of order 4-8 km/s is not derived or referenced. Clarify whether this is the RV amplitude and how it is computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the α=1 donor-center mass-loss law is an independent input and the MESA tracks are forward calculations; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations prevent a clean 0.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: assume a specific angular-momentum-loss geometry (α=1, donor-center Jeans-mode), evolve 20+1 Msun binaries in MESA, and compare the resulting periods to Gaia BH1/BH2. The mass-loss law is not defined in terms of the observed periods, and no parameter is fitted to the periods in the sense of being adjusted so that Eq. (1) reproduces them; α=1 is taken from the standard Jeans-mode formalism with literature attribution (Huang 1963; Soberman et al. 1997; Tauris & van den Heuvel 2006). The two initial periods (40 d, 260 d) are model inputs; choosing initial conditions that lead to an observed configuration is normal inverse-modeling practice, and the letter itself frames the result as a plausible channel rather than a unique prediction. The 'wide range of initial conditions' statement would need a grid to be fully supported, but that is a robustness/correctness caveat, not an equation-level circularity. The self-citations (Ryu et al. 2025; Hendriks & Izzard 2023) are not load-bearing: non-filling of L3 is also shown in this paper's own MESA runs (Figs. 1 and 4), and self-accretion is only a speculative physical motivation, not an input to the angular-momentum budget. The main scientific uncertainty is whether real RLOF streams leave with the donor's center-of-mass specific angular momentum, an assumption explicitly acknowledged in §5.1; unsupported assumptions are a physical-plausibility risk, not circular reasoning.

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

The central result depends on a small number of hand-chosen initial conditions (masses and periods) and, most importantly, on the ad hoc assumption that all RLOF mass is lost from the donor with its specific angular momentum. The opacity-peak physical motivation is independent but speculative. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial orbital period for Gaia BH1 progenitor = 40 days
    Chosen so that the post-RLOF period (~174 d) lands near the observed 185.5 d; no systematic grid shown.
  • Initial orbital period for Gaia BH2 progenitor = 260 days
    Chosen so that the post-RLOF period (~1135 d) lands near the observed 1276.7 d.
  • Initial donor mass = 20 M_sun
    Chosen to yield a ~9 M_sun BH after envelope stripping; not varied in the shown tracks.
  • Initial companion mass = 1 M_sun
    Chosen to match the observed low-mass companion; not varied.
  • Mass-loss geometry parameter alpha = 1
    Fully non-conservative, donor-Jeans-mode mass loss; this is the key assumption that makes orbital widening possible.
  • Natal kick parameters = Examples: radial/tangential/polar kicks 12-62 km/s, Delta-M=0.5 M_sun
    Appendix B uses these to reproduce observed eccentricities; illustrative and not part of the main period calculation.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper RLOF mass loss carries the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass (alpha=1, beta=delta=gamma=0).
    Central model assumption stated in §2 and §5. It is physically motivated (opacity peaks, unequal Roche lobes, self-accretion) but not derived from hydrodynamics.
  • domain assumption L2/L3 overflow does not occur and does not remove substantial angular momentum.
    Invoked in §4 and §5.1, citing Lubow & Shu 1975, Eggleton 1983, and Ryu et al. 2025; the authors show L3 remains unfilled in their simulations.
  • domain assumption Both stars form simultaneously and the low-mass companion does not undergo early mass transfer during its pre-main-sequence phase.
    Explicitly flagged as a caveat in §5.1; the pre-main-sequence radius of a 1 M_sun star could be larger and trigger earlier interaction.
  • domain assumption Standard MESA stellar physics and binary interaction prescriptions (Kolb-Ritter mass transfer, Hut tides, Brott overshooting) are adequate for the problem.
    Used throughout §2 and §3; standard in the field but carries model uncertainties.
  • domain assumption BH formation involves low asymmetric mass loss and can be approximated by direct collapse or modest neutrino-driven kicks.
    Used in Appendix B to generate eccentricity; the parameter choices are illustrative rather than derived from a supernova model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-conservative Mass Transfer as a Formation Channel for Gaia Black Hole System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72D63YWT

@misc{pith2026251110728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-conservative Mass Transfer as a Formation Channel for Gaia Black Hole System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72D63YWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.10728}
}
read the original abstract

The detected Gaia systems hosting compact objects challenge standard models of binary star evolution. In particular, if the observed black hole (BH) systems evolved in isolation, they are expected to have undergone a mass transfer phase. Given their highly unequal masses, such mass transfer is dynamically unstable within standard models, leading to a stellar merger or a short-period binary. In contrast, the observed systems have much wider orbits than predicted, making their formation within conventional evolutionary frameworks difficult to reconcile. Using detailed binary evolution calculations, we test whether non-conservative mass transfer, in which most of the mass is lost from the system carrying the specific angular momentum of the donor's center of mass, can explain the properties of two Gaia BH systems. This mass-loss geometry differs from standard isotropic re-emission from the accretor's vicinity. We find that our mass-loss geometry model reproduces the orbital periods of the two Gaia BH systems remarkably well over a wide range of initial conditions, offering a plausible formation pathway. We speculate this may point to enhanced eruptive mass loss, potentially driven by high-opacity subsurface layers in the donor prior to Roche-lobe overflow, consistent with preferentially bipolar outflows observed in luminous blue variables. Alternatively, it may indicate the need for more sophisticated mass-transfer prescriptions that account for highly unequal Roche-lobe sizes, sub-synchronous rotation, and possible self-accretion. Similar mechanisms may operate in other post-mass-transfer systems facing analogous evolutionary challenges, including Gaia neutron-star and white-dwarf binaries, stripped-envelope Wolf-Rayet stars, and low-mass X-ray binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.10728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the Gaia BH1 progenitor sys￾tem. The top panel shows the evolution of the donor’s mass, with the red, yellow, and blue curves representing the hy￾drogen-rich envelope, helium core, and carbon–oxygen core, respectively. The middle panel presents the evolution of the donor’s radius, along with the Roche lobe radius RL and the sizes corresponding to the inner Lagrange point L1 ≈ a (1 − (Macc/(3Mdon))1/3 ) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the geometry of systems at the onset of RLOF for three different mass ratios, all with the same orbital separation and total components mass. The left panel shows a system with a donor-to-accretor mass ratio Mdon/Mac = 20, as in case of Gaia BH1 and BH2 progenitors. For comparison, cases with equal-mass components (Mdon/Mac = 1) and with the opposite extreme mass ratio (Mdon/Mac =0.05) are also prese… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Opacity profiles of the donor stars at the early stages of RLOF from MESA simulations, shown as a function of mass above a given layer (left panels) and radius normalized by the stellar Roche-lobe radius (right panels). Results are shown for the Gaia BH1 progenitor system – upper panels, black line and the Gaia BH2 progenitor system – lower panels, grey line. For comparison, the Eddington opacity for the presented s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the progenitor system of Gaia BH2. The physical assumption and figure description are the same as for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Unravelling Mass Transfer in Algols from Surface Abundances. I. Z Vulpeculae

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Z Vul's donor star shows a C/N ratio of 2.14, lacking the deep carbon depletion expected after mass stripping, and the fitted models favor nearly conservative Case A mass transfer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202, doi: 10.1038/nature13791

    doi:10.1038/nature13791 2014

  2. [2]

    2024, A&A, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    Balbinot, E., Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450425 2024

  3. [3]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  4. [4]

    S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039804

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039804 2021

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Belczynski, K., Klencki, J., Fields, C. E., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936528

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936528 2020

  6. [6]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Andrews, J. J. 2019, ApJL, 878, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab21d3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab21d3 2019

  7. [7]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Larson, S. L. 2017, ApJL, 850, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5 2017

  8. [8]

    E., Cantiello, M., et al

    Brott, I., de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016113 2011

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    2020, MNRAS, 491, 2715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3223

    Burrows, A., Radice, D., Vartanyan, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3223

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2009, A&A, 499, 279, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911643

    Cantiello, M., Langer, N., Brott, I., et al. 2009, A&A, 499, 279, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911643

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf21

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Gossage, S., et al

    Chattopadhyay, D., Rocha, K. A., Gossage, S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.16201. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.16201 11

    2025

  5. [13]

    J., Goldberg, J

    Cheng, S. J., Goldberg, J. A., Cantiello, M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 270, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad701e

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

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

    Davis, P. J., Siess, L., & Deschamps, R. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 556, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220391

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

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

    Davis, P. J., Siess, L., & Deschamps, R. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 570, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423730

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 38, doi: 10.33232/001c.117652

    El-Badry, K. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 38, doi: 10.33232/001c.117652

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    doi

  11. [19]

    2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    doi

  12. [20]

    W., et al

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, doi: 10.33232/001c.121261

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2020, A&A, 639, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037487

    Escorza, A., Siess, L., Van Winckel, H., & Jorissen, A. 2020, A&A, 639, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037487

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Fryer, C. L. 1999, ApJ, 522, 413, doi: 10.1086/307647

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

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

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91 F¨ urst, F., Walton, D. J., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2016, ApJL, 831, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/831/2/L14 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 201...

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2020a, ApJ, 899, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    doi

  18. [26]

    F., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., & Han, Z. 2020b, ApJS, 249, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab98f6

    doi

  19. [27]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, L44, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae091

    Gilkis, A., & Mazeh, T. 2024, MNRAS, 535, L44, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae091

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    D., & Izzard, R

    Hendriks, D. D., & Izzard, R. G. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2077

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    1963, ApJ, 138, 471, doi: 10.1086/147659

    Huang, S.-S. 1963, ApJ, 138, 471, doi: 10.1086/147659

    1963 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  23. [31]

    2024, A&A, 690, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450531

    Iorio, G., Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450531

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    T., & Kresse, D

    Janka, H. T., & Kresse, D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.13817, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.13817

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2015, ApJ, 813, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/74

    Blaes, O. 2015, ApJ, 813, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/1/74

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Salpeter, E

    Joss, P. C., Salpeter, E. E., & Ostriker, J. P. 1973, ApJ, 181, 429, doi: 10.1086/152060

    1973 doi

  29. [37]

    1996, ApJ, 471, 352, doi: 10.1086/177974

    Kalogera, V. 1996, ApJ, 471, 352, doi: 10.1086/177974

    1996 doi

  30. [38]

    1999, ApJ, 521, 723, doi: 10.1086/307562

    Kalogera, V. 1999, ApJ, 521, 723, doi: 10.1086/307562

    1999 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08860, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08860

    Klencki, J., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08860, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.08860

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

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

    1990

  34. [42]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    Kotko, I., Banerjee, S., & Belczynski, K. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 3577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2591

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    U., Andrews, J

    Kruckow, M. U., Andrews, J. J., Fragos, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452356

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    F., et al

    Lamberts, A., Garrison-Kimmel, S., Hopkins, P. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 2704, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2035

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    2024, ApJL, 975, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8653

    Li, Z., Zhu, C., Lu, X., et al. 2024, ApJL, 975, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad8653

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    H., & Shu, F

    Lubow, S. H., & Shu, F. H. 1975, ApJ, 198, 383, doi: 10.1086/153614

    1975 doi

  41. [49]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992 Mar ´ ın Pina, D., Rastello, S., Gieles, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450460

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    W., Soria, R., Gris´ e, F., & Pietrzy´ nski, G

    Motch, C., Pakull, M. W., Soria, R., Gris´ e, F., & Pietrzy´ nski, G. 2014, Nature, 514, 198, doi: 10.1038/nature13730 M¨ uller-Horn, J., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452504

    2014 doi

  43. [51]

    2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Chawla, C., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Ogilvie, G. I. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 171, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035941

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, A&A, 638, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557

    Olejak, A., Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Sobolewska, M. 2020, A&A, 638, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, A&A, 651, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140520 12

    Olejak, A., Belczynski, K., & Ivanova, N. 2021, A&A, 651, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140520 12

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, A&A, 642, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038341

    Oomen, G.-M., Pols, O., Van Winckel, H., & Nelemans, G. 2020, A&A, 642, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038341

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Owocki, S. P. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2015

  50. [58]

    412, Very Massive Stars in the Local Universe, ed

    Library, Vol. 412, Very Massive Stars in the Local Universe, ed. J. S. Vink, 113, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09596-7 5

    doi

  51. [59]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, 75

    1976

  52. [60]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05243

    Parkosidis, A., Toonen, S., Dosopoulou, F., & Laplace, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.05243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05243

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    A., & Sukhbold, T

    Patton, R. A., & Sukhbold, T. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2803, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3029

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    Pavlovskii, K., Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., & Van, K. X. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2786

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, A&A, 681, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347090

    Picco, A., Marchant, P., Sana, H., & Nelemans, G. 2024, A&A, 681, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347090

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 385, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06464.x

    Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Han, Z. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 385, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06464.x

    2003

  62. [70]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw365

    Paxton, B. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw365

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Renzo, M., Zapartas, E., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Hur, R., Kalogera, V., et al

    Rocha, K. A., Hur, R., Kalogera, V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb970

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    E., et al

    Ryu, T., Sari, R., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.18255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18255

    2025 doi

  66. [74]

    Sanyal, D., Grassitelli, L., Langer, N., & Bestenlehner, J. M. 2015, A&A, 580, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525945

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    2017, A&A, 597, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629612

    Grassitelli, L. 2017, A&A, 597, A71, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629612

    2017 doi

  68. [76]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.21264, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21264

    Scherbak, P., Lu, W., & Fuller, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.21264, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21264

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, A&A, 689, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449978

    Schootemeijer, A., Shenar, T., Langer, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A157, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449978

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    L., & Teukolsky, S

    Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects

    1983

  71. [79]

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., Hansen, B. M. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf76b

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol

    Smith, N. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol. 2, 508–532, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4

    2026 doi

  73. [81]

    E., Yungelson, L., & Lasota, J

    Soberman, G. E., Yungelson, L., & Lasota, J. P. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 327, 620

    1997

  74. [82]

    Tauris, T. M. 2022, ApJ, 938, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86c8

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, Vol. 39 (Cambridge University Press), 623–665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    2006 doi arXiv

  76. [84]

    2012, ApJ, 757, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/69 van den Heuvel, E

    Ugliano, M., Janka, H.-T., Marek, A., & Arcones, A. 2012, ApJ, 757, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/69 van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1992, Endpoints of stellar evolution: The incidence of stellar mass black holes in the galaxy, Tech. rep. van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Renzo, ...

    2012 doi

  77. [85]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 1015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw101

    Wang, C., Jia, K., & Li, X.-D. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw101

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    2014, in Binary Systems, their Evolution and Environments, ed

    Wiktorowicz, G., Belczynski, K., & Maccarone, T. 2014, in Binary Systems, their Evolution and Environments, ed. R. de Grijs, 37, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1312.5924

    2014 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e6

    Wiktorowicz, G., Wyrzykowski, L., Chruslinska, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e6

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14786

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., & Shahaf, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14786

    2025 doi

  81. [89]

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

    1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.