[REVIEW]: COMPAS: A rapid binary population synthesis suite

whedon commented 2 years ago

Submitting author: @ilyamandel (Ilya Mandel) Repository: https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS Version: v02.27.00 Editor: @christinahedges Reviewer: @katiebreivik, @HeloiseS Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.5847518

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef98e783b7fa1c269179100e48f270f4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef98e783b7fa1c269179100e48f270f4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef98e783b7fa1c269179100e48f270f4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/ef98e783b7fa1c269179100e48f270f4)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@katiebreivik & @HeloiseS, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @christinahedges know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @katiebreivik

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ilyamandel) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] #3952
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

Review checklist for @HeloiseS

✨ Important: Please do not use the Convert to issue functionality when working through this checklist, instead, please open any new issues associated with your review in the software repository associated with the submission. ✨

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

[x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@ilyamandel) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines

Functionality

[x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of Need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

jeffriley commented 2 years ago

see ONE model at 8 Msol... which is weird because my minimum mass in my run is 10 Msol

minimum-secondary-mass is 10? I assume yes from the IMF plot. If you have allow-rlof-at-birth enabled and one of the stars is overflowing its Roche lobe at birth, then COMPAS will equilibrate the masses of the stars and circularise the orbit - so the equilbrated masses could be lower than expected - but that shouldn't happen if your minimum secondary mass is 10. There is a column in the BSE_System_Parameters file that records if the masses were equlibrated at birth (the "Equilibrated_At_Birth" column).

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

Thank you very much for all of the tests and suggestions, @HeloiseS ! And just to let you know, we aren't ignoring your suggestions regarding the python scripts, just getting together the resources to implement them (e.g., @avigna will try to implement your advice regarding pythonSubmit, but it will take him a few more days to get to that). Thank you for your patience!

HeloiseS commented 2 years ago

Aces! I figured you were waiting for the full review of the other referee to make any changes so I'm v. happy to wait. Once you want me to take a look or run some final tests again just ping me and ill be here 😉

avigna commented 2 years ago

If you're curious to see what i did with this class (i refactored it for my own use) i can fork a suggestion for the class and yaml file (unless Jeff prefers JSON 😉 ) for you to look at and see if it would work with the general workflow of compas.

@HeloiseS if the offer still holds, I'd be keen to check it out. I just got into thinking/working on it, and haven't decided which way to proceed, so your suggestions might be elucidating. Thanks in advance.

HeloiseS commented 2 years ago

i think this is worth discussing viva voce in a call (becuse it'll clog the thread which is already lengthy) - i don't even think you need something like what I'd refactored it as initially (but it depends on what you want from it later!) and it's easier to explain with the document under our eyes. email me at hfstevance@gmail.com and we can zom or something. then i can write a summary on here for record keeping. sounds good?

katiebreivik commented 2 years ago

Hi All -- here is my long awaited (APOLOGIES) review:

The paper contains all the necessary information and is clear and concise! I was also able to follow all of the documentation for the installation/running of COMPAS as expected with the exception of a couple of typos I found after the updates based on @HeloiseS's suggestions above so I dropped an issue: #713.

Next, here are some suggestions that I won't require for approval but think are very much worth considering: Similar to @HeloiseS, I do find the pythonSubmit.py files to be cumbersome. I absolutely understand the reasons for this based on the COMPAS c++ code-base and also understand that it is unlikely that the pythonSubmit.py files are used in paper-quality population runs on a cluster by the team. But! I would advocate (similar to @HeloiseS again!) that the team consider a near-future refactor of the pythonSubmit.py-like files or add some extra documentation that walks a user through the process of editing them (e.g. which lines should and shouldn't be modified). Since most of the tutorials seem to rely on them, making them as clear as possible will pay many dividends!

Similarly, the tutorials for the post-processing and paper figures are on the right track but I also found it frustrating to try to track down the data for each of them. I understand that they are a work in progress, but I think it is worth considering whether there are some simple tutorials that could be quickly developed which show a user how to run/work with moderate amounts of data that they generate themselves (a la the detailed evolution figure!). I am a huge fan of reproducibility and open data access, but when somebody is just starting out with population synthesis, downloading a huge file from the paper zenodo to run a tutorial might be the barrier that sends them elsewhere.

The other outstanding issues I have that are required for approval but are quick fixes:

[ ] the documentation doesn't provide a clear statement of need right on the docs splash page. The quickest/easiest fix is probably to copy the COMPAS README.md text (which is great!) over from the repository.
[ ] The docs don't give an explicit way to test whether the installation was successful in the Getting started tab. I did find some examples for testing whether COMPAS is properly installed in the configuration tab (e.g. ./compas -v or ./compas -h). These would be helpful for a user to have as a 'testing your installation' tab under "Getting started" so they don't have to dig.
[x] I'm assuming that the detailed evolution demo in the examples folder is supposed to be used as the quick way for a user to test whether the evolution is working properly. When I run the pythonSubmit.py file, it produces output as expected but the plotting script has a typo based on the automatic output for the BSE_Detailed_Output.h5 file. Since this is the only very quick way for a user to verify that they are producing a proper stellar evolution output, I think this needs to be fixed for this review and have opened up an issue here: #714 <--- EDITING TO ADD THAT THIS IS ALL SQUARED AWAY!

Apologies again for my delay -- and special apologies to @christinahedges for accidentally clicking "make an issue" on one of my checkboxes! I am cursed to accidentally do this on every JOSS review I participate in. Sorry about that!

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@HeloiseS, @ilyamandel and @avigna, I'd like to ask you to discuss these suggestions as much as possible in the thread here, or on the repo. These reviews are open, and taking the review into a different format (zoom) excludes other participants in the review. If @HeloiseS has suggestions for code and you want to keep this thread shorter, feel free to open an issue or PR on the main repo and then cross-reference it here. Especially if this is a suggested change to the code, please open a PR and discuss in the open. Thanks!

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

Hello all, thank you to both @HeloiseS and @katiebreivik for your excellent feedback, and thorough review. I think @HeloiseS may have further review comments and suggestions after @katiebreivik's final review, please do post these here. I want to check in at this point and sum up that

There are a few issues pointed out by both reviewers which need to be fixed before the submission can be accepted by JOSS
There are some larger pieces of feedback about the usability/API of the tool and the tutorials.

At this point, it's clear some of this feedback is necessary to pass the review. We do encourage authors to "go the extra mile", and I think the feedback from the reviewers about improving the code usability is extremely valuable. I do understand it is also work for the submitting authors. I'd like to give the authors a chance to act on the feedback they've received and they are able to respond to, and then we can discuss how much resource the authors have to respond to higher level, go-the-extra-mile feedback, and whether this feedback prevents the submission being accepted to JOSS.

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@ilyamandel, can I prompt you to check back in with us about how you'd like to proceed with the feedback from the review?

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

@christinahedges , @HeloiseS , @katiebreivik :

First of all, apologies for the delay in responding to some of the suggestions presented here.

Secondly, the ApJS submission of the longer accompanying COMPAS methods paper ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.10352 ) has now been accepted.

Thirdly, we have responded to the majority of the tasks identified here and/or added as issues on the COMPAS github page. I believe the following are the only outstanding issues; please correct me if I am wrong.

Reformat pythonSubmit.py . @avigna is working on that -- see https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/pull/720 -- and just needs to update the documentation for that PR to be pulled.
Clean up some of the notebooks. @reinhold-willcox is working on that -- see https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/pull/718 -- and just needs to merge in some other changes for that PR to be pulled.
I realised that we have not yet addressed the two documentation issues identified by @katiebreivik in her review, https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3838#issuecomment-978029500 . I'll create a PR for them now. [Edit: PR created, https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/pull/725 ]

arfon commented 2 years ago

Secondly, the ApJS submission of the longer accompanying COMPAS methods paper ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.10352 ) has now been accepted.

FYI, I heard from AAS publishing that the DOI for that paper will be 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c so please add that information to the YAML header of your JOSS paper when you have a chance.

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

Thank you, @arfon -- paper.md on the JOSS branch updated with this DOI.

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

Dear @HeloiseS , @katiebreivik , @christinahedges:

We've now pulled the remaining key changes addressing the issues that you brought up (thanks to @avigna , @jeffriley , @reinhold-willcox et al.).

Of course, things are still far from perfect -- there are nearly 50 outstanding issues listed at https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/issues , some of them related the topics raised in the review, including post-processing, documentation, etc. It's a living code, so it will never reach a state where we are completely happy with it. But the reviews have been incredibly helpful in making it better -- thank you!

Please let us know whether you think we can proceed from here on the understanding that we'll continue to improve the code along the lines highlighted in the review, or whether there are still significant issues you'd like to see addressed first.

P.S. I will be offline from 18 December through 10 January, so I apologise in advance for not responding to your messages during this time. Best wishes for the holiday season!

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@HeloiseS and @katiebreivik, it looks to me that the authors have completed all of the major comments from the review. @HeloiseS it seems like the team are addressing Python submit file, which I believe @ilyamandel is close to merging.

Are the reviewers happy to sign off on this submission? If so, please say in the comments, and I will then recommend the submission for acceptance.

katiebreivik commented 2 years ago

I am happy to sign off my approval! Thanks @christinahedges for facilitating and congratulations to the COMPAS team!

HeloiseS commented 2 years ago

Same here :) great job everyone!

HeloiseS commented 2 years ago

but don 't forget the tests @ilyamandel and team ! :)

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references from branch JOSS

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting to check references... from custom branch JOSS

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch JOSS

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch JOSS. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

whedon commented 2 years ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1017/S0305004100021150 is OK
- 10.1086/171341 is OK
- 10.1086/176813 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00651498 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1161 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1576 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2933 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629420 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2190 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015 is OK
- 10.1038/nature06333 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aad044 is OK
- 10.1038/nature24030 is OK
- 10.1038/nature10095 is OK
- 10.1038/nature11521 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001 is OK
- 10.1086/513562 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201628980 is OK
- 10.1038/nature18322 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L8 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1772 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2714 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9bf6 is OK
- 10.1038/nature23453 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aad800 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw379 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1223344 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/15 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 is OK
- 10.1086/500363 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 is OK
- 10.1086/319719 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2260 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aacea4 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5caa is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3193 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161103 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.201301 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 is OK
- 10.1086/190103 is OK
- 10.1038/364421a0 is OK
- 10.1038/364423a0 is OK
- 10.1086/165412 is OK
- 10.1086/160960 is OK
- 10.1086/513736 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2786 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1430 is OK
- 10.1086/168974 is OK
- 10.1086/161701 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/114 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/49 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103010 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L12 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124046 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.024058 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.011101 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.151101 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1942 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/58 is OK
- 10.1038/ncomms14906 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1764 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2463 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1bdf is OK
- 10.1086/147659 is OK
- 10.1086/107290 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201936528 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty908 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9f0c is OK
- 10.1038/nature12569 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/144 is OK
- 10.1038/nature08579 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-018-0568-z is OK
- 10.1126/science.1203601 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw273 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629685 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8408 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043014 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220007 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322714 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/782/1/7 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/58 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/20 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833025 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201526617 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2558 is OK
- 10.1086/168190 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/281.1.257 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/291.4.732 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01658.x is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04220.x is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1217 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201935332 is OK
- 10.1088/978-0-7503-1278-3 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127 is OK
- 10.1086/133478 is OK
- 10.1086/153315 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201730698 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa549 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx3174 is OK
- 10.1086/150487 is OK
- 10.1038/369127a0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/291.3.569 is OK
- 10.1086/338805 is OK
- 10.1007/s12036-017-9474-5 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1275 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2230 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3087 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201525945 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629612 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1106 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2733 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20000147 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx027 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa28c is OK
- 10.1086/147589 is OK
- 10.1143/PTP.30.460 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv3002 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201117769 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/42 is OK
- 10.1393/ncr/i2016-10120-8 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt213 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aat6506 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv776 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx816 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/31/15/155005 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty983 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2249 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv3002 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3981 is OK
- 10.1086/421551 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/203.4.1049 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.821 is OK
- 10.1086/513603 is OK
- 10.1086/516712 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.231101 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.024037 is OK
- 10.1086/591218 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa1417 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1268 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834 is OK
- 10.1086/118116 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00638971 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/109 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty306 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17167.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21672.x is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7014 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201936204 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.324 is OK
- 10.1086/310296 is OK
- 10.1038/nature09466 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1233232 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/103 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/10 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/69 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/124 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa059 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 is OK
- 10.1086/431543 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1684 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2577 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 is OK
- 10.1086/308158 is OK
- 10.1086/375341 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2017.52 is OK
- 10.1086/164809 is OK
- 10.1086/160871 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461 is OK
- 10.1086/177974 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14506.x is OK
- 10.1086/173033 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aab5b0 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103021 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ppnp.2004.07.001 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aaca30 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d77 is OK
- 10.1086/161749 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aadbae is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aad2d2 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aab95f is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220273 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321986 is OK
- 10.1086/340494 is OK
- 10.1080/10556799308230566 is OK
- 10.1086/431786 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 is OK
- 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/34 is OK
- 10.1086/145971 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slt164 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slz183 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2020.31 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3542 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/12 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729 is OK
- 10.1017/S1743921311011124 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.112004 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1e4d is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3b06 is OK
- 10.1086/312422 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv139 is OK
- 10.1086/508914 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/132 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/89 is OK
- 10.1086/423264 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aan0106 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07340.x is OK
- 10.1038/nature03293 is OK
- 10.1086/505169 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3087 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1772 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.064060 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw379 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/72 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/108 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/263 is OK
- 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1985 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv852 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08355.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2659 is OK
- 10.1086/422901 is OK
- 10.1086/500363 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 is OK
- 10.1038/nature10159 is OK
- 10.1086/166683 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae6b is OK
- 10.1038/nature11697 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slu022 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1652 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1576 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629420 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010099 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15123.x is OK
- 10.1086/466521 is OK
- 10.1086/312496 is OK
- 10.1086/172089 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202037710 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/727/2/95 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124007 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/30/12/123001 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c is OK
- 10.1086/311680 is OK
- 10.1142/S0218271815300128 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/615 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1150 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1999 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3190 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201526192 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629844 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20021184 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/121 is OK
- 10.1086/133478 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.113 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab45e6 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043012 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3426 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv3002 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw2562 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423641 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201423447 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023007 is OK
- 10.1086/190103 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz226 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9bf6 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20052862 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L138 is OK
- 10.1086/177505 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/280.4.1035 is OK
- 10.1134/S1063772909100047 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52 is OK
- 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa634a is OK
- 10.1038/nature17425 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2840 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2177 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2057 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20077545 is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.2000.10473909 is OK
- 10.1086/153853 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.201301 is OK
- 10.1086/375341 is OK
- 10.1086/154524 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.aa.24.090186.001553 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1485 is OK
- 10.1038/nature18322 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19019.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/sly063 is OK
- 10.1086/160871 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw379 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1219 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1161 is OK
- 10.1080/00401706.1995.10484303 is OK
- 10.1145/218380.218498 is OK
- 10.1038/nphoton.2013.177 is OK
- 10.1038/nature24471 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.041301 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40 is OK
- 10.1086/165412 is OK
- 10.1086/160960 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1086/191508 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.aa.21.090183.002015 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/36 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201935842 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/32 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201218966 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/268.4.871 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201628193 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023012 is OK
- 10.1086/307992 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aai8635 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05745.x is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/148 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21127.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1634 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw645 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slu183 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11668.x is OK
- 10.1086/159942 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aai8635 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/psv073 is OK
- 10.1086/430728 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/52.3.499 is OK
- 10.1086/319125 is OK
- 10.1086/320343 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20020550 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21881.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slw218 is OK
- 10.1086/501516 is OK
- 10.1038/nature13791 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02626.x is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201730472 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/496 is OK
- 10.1086/165716 is OK
- 10.1086/522073 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x is OK
- 10.1086/176778 is OK
- 10.1086/497331 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13064.x is OK
- 10.1086/161749 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2190 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084006 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024010 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151101 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.2198 is OK
- 10.1017/S1743921317000059 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1804 is OK
- 10.1086/374637 is OK
- 10.1086/307476 is OK
- 10.1038/nature24453 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe0e is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x is OK
- 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1161 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2933 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2123 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aau4005 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab498b is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2462 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L17 is OK
- 10.1086/312343 is OK
- 10.1086/174525 is OK
- 10.1086/167702 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/708/1/9 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aaca30 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2035 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1946 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.061101 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547 is OK
- 10.1086/340304 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa756 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab973 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa756 is OK
- 10.1086/518997 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/abbadd is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9809 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/10/105009 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.041501 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084036 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/8 is OK
- 10.1007/lrr-2016-1 is OK
- 10.1086/184741 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/807/2/L24 is OK
- 10.1017/S1743921317003209 is OK
- 10.1086/172058 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/250.4.701 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1106 is OK
- 10.1086/340098 is OK
- 10.1086/338805 is OK
- 10.1038/253698a0 is OK
- 10.1007/s12036-017-9474-5 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201731518 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/722 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2733 is OK
- 10.1086/341197 is OK
- 10.1086/421713 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2903 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L19 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18147.x is OK
- 10.1086/305614 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw426 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2190 is OK
- 10.1086/521026 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/58 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20066129 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/200912827 is OK
- 10.1086/177423 is OK
- 10.1086/177974 is OK
- 10.1086/305085 is OK
- 10.1086/309400 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1467-9469.2011.00756.x is OK
- 10.1198/106186004X12803 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L18 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/58 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1764 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8408 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aad800 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b21 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2234 is OK
- 10.1086/154524 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.081501 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110615 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.221101 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10233.x is OK
- 10.1086/175268 is OK
- 10.1086/319641 is OK
- 10.1086/186143 is OK
- 10.1086/306265 is OK
- 10.1086/312475 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx1430 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02862.x is OK
- 10.1038/nature18322 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slw152 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/291.3.569 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01923.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2123 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7335 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu381 is OK
- 10.1038/nphys214 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slz183 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2714 is OK
- 10.1038/nature23453 is OK
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slv054 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114007 is OK
- 10.1086/375713 is OK
- 10.1086/307174 is OK
- 10.1086/430515 is OK
- 10.1086/187251 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08997.x is OK
- 10.1086/340370 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06616.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08373.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu1913 is OK
- 10.1086/505169 is OK
- 10.1086/339860 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19019.x is OK
- 10.1086/306933 is OK
- 10.1126/science.1096986 is OK
- 10.1086/181803 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt2503 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201937293 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/190 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv620 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt037 is OK
- 10.1038/nature10365 is OK
- 10.1007/s41114-017-0006-z is OK
- 10.1155/2016/6341974 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361:20078841 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/110 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/113 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/25 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/18 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L21 is OK
- 10.1086/311680 is OK
- 10.1086/154860 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16864.x is OK
- 10.1086/181612 is OK
- 10.1086/184740 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L31 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20985.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/169.2.229 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.aa.17.090179.001241 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/115 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu2404 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/940 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.123524 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1651 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stu871 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/27/11/114106 is OK
- 10.1038/340126a0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sts295 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1419 is OK
- 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/06/026 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sts295 is OK
- 10.1086/380561 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12738.x is OK
- 10.1086/305614 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1918 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/91 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/103 is OK
- 10.1086/523620 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv009 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02437.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2923 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1772 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322198 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv1753 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/724 is OK
- 10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 is OK
- 10.2172/4423221 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9367 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa905c is OK
- 10.1126/science.aap9811 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abd3a0 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-017-0285-z is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8fc7 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aaq0049 is OK
- 10.1126/science.aap9580 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9478 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91b3 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201833025 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.061504 is OK
- 10.1038/nature24303 is OK
- 10.1038/nature24291 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8edf is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9d82 is OK
- 10.1093/pasj/psx121 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa90b6 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa07d is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-017-01152-9 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063021 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043011 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/52 is OK
- 10.1086/587832 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c is OK
- 10.1086/321359 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1683 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw3225 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv2195 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv990 is OK
- 10.1088/2041-8205/778/2/L23 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3223 is OK
- 10.1086/192237 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/90 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/785/1/28 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stv721 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/33/7/075009 is OK
- 10.1088/1742-6596/228/1/012012 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/260.3.675 is OK
- 10.1007/BF00873079 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124007 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/48 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.044061 is OK
- 10.1038/323310a0 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1147 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.021303 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/47 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1131 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023009 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201630188 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123017 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044024 is OK
- 10.1086/497062 is OK
- 10.1086/186493 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13402.x is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.592845 is OK
-  10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a  is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53 is OK
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14711.x is OK
- 10.1086/319455 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09669.x is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21083.x is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b21 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1083 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz216 is OK
- 10.1086/155109 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa002 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa3390 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa3043 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2335 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2264 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa1784 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab850 is OK
- 10.1086/304238 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201730472 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.002 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558 is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw1083 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stab1291 is OK
- 10.1016/j.newar.2010.09.023 is OK
- 10.1086/175268 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2020.31 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.161101 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab822f is OK
- 10.1038/248030a0 is OK
- 10.1007/BF02345020 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/112.6.583 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2186 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.021501 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123017 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty3047 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e5 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023015 is OK
- 10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f7c is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 is OK
- 10.1007/s41115-020-0008-5 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-03059-w is OK
- 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20767.x is OK
- 10.1086/186905 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/abde4a is OK
- 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202039219 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/abd5b7 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083017 is OK
- 10.1126/science.abb3363 is OK
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab30ca is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201936669 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201834525 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty1655 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stw941 is OK
- 10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/123 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202037744 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201935854 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2019.31 is OK
- 10.1017/pasa.2018.47 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stt1612 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0020 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afe is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06420.x is OK
- 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.143 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201424356 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3064 is OK
- 10.1086/185922 is OK
- 10.1038/s41550-021-01360-w is OK
- 10.1086/172789 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 is OK
- 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/71 is OK
- 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3542 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1103/physrevd.100.043012 may be a valid DOI for title: Reconstructing phenomenological distributions of compact binaries via gravitational wave observations
- 10.1093/mnras/stz226 may be a valid DOI for title: Constraints on Binary Black Hole Populations from LIGO-Virgo Detections
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1175 may be a valid DOI for title: Black Hole Mergers from Quadruples
- 10.3847/2515-5172/ab66be may be a valid DOI for title: What GW170729’s exceptional mass and spin tells us about its family tree
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f92 may be a valid DOI for title: SN 2016iet: The Pulsational or Pair Instability Explosion of a Low Metallicity Massive CO Core Embedded in a Dense Hydrogen-Poor Circumstellar Medium
- 10.1093/pasj/psx108 may be a valid DOI for title: The Detection Rates of Merging Binary Black Holes Originating from Star Clusters and Their Mass Function
- 10.1093/mnras/staa720 may be a valid DOI for title: R-process enrichment in ultrafaint dwarf galaxies
- 10.1103/physrevd.101.063021 may be a valid DOI for title: Gravitational waves or deconfined quarks: what causes the premature collapse of neutron stars born in short gamma-ray bursts?
- 10.1093/mnras/staa157 may be a valid DOI for title: The high redshift SFR-M* relation is sensitive to the employed star formation rate and stellar mass indicators: Towards addressing the tension between observations and simulations
- 10.1017/cbo9780511536281.017 may be a valid DOI for title: Formation and evolution of compact stellar X-ray sources
- 10.1103/physrevd.104.063030 may be a valid DOI for title: Detecting Gravitational Waves With Disparate Detector Responses: Two New Binary Black Hole Mergers
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733f may be a valid DOI for title: 2-OGC: Open Gravitational-wave Catalog of binary mergers from analysis of public Advanced LIGO and Virgo data
- 10.1103/physrevd.102.083026 may be a valid DOI for title: Gravitational-wave inference in the catalog era: evolving priors and marginal events
- 10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/166 may be a valid DOI for title: The rotation rates of massive stars: the role of binary interaction through tides, mass transfer, and mergers
- 10.1007/s11222-008-9059-x may be a valid DOI for title: Adaptive Importance Sampling in General Mixture Classes
- 10.22323/1.306.0065 may be a valid DOI for title: Single and binary stellar progenitors of long-duration gamma-ray bursts
- 10.7146/dpb.v6i80.6496 may be a valid DOI for title: Blindfold games are harder than games with perfect information
- 10.1080/01621459.2000.10473909 may be a valid DOI for title: Safe and effective importance sampling
- 10.2307/1268522 may be a valid DOI for title: A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code
- 10.1080/00224065.1981.11978748 may be a valid DOI for title: An approach to sensitivity analysis of computer models: Part I—Introduction, input variable selection and preliminary variable assessment
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201424286 may be a valid DOI for title: Bonnsai: a Bayesian tool for comparing stars with stellar evolution models
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201629685 may be a valid DOI for title: Delay-time distribution of core-collapse supernovae with late events resulting from binary interaction
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201935842 may be a valid DOI for title: Constraining the masses of microlensing black holes and the mass gap with Gaia DR2
- 10.1051/0004-6361/200912827 may be a valid DOI for title: Population synthesis of binary carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars
- 10.1103/physrevd.100.023007 may be a valid DOI for title: A Highly Spinning and Aligned Binary Black Hole Merger in the Advanced LIGO First Observing Run
- 10.1038/nature18322 may be a valid DOI for title: The first gravitational-wave source from the isolated evolution of two stars in the 40–100 solar mass range
- 10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/61 may be a valid DOI for title: Early-type Eclipsing Binaries with Intermediate Orbital Periods
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321576 may be a valid DOI for title: PopCORN: Hunting down the differences between binary population synthesis codes
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201321753 may be a valid DOI for title: The effect of common-envelope evolution on the visible population of post-common-envelope binaries
- 10.1103/physrevd.100.043012 may be a valid DOI for title: Reconstructing phenomenological distributions of compact binaries via gravitational wave observations
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5b9a may be a valid DOI for title: LISA and the Existence of a Fast-Merging Double Neutron Star Formation Channel
- 10.1086/127051 may be a valid DOI for title: Nuclear Reactions in Stars and Nucleogenesis
- 10.1086/344585 may be a valid DOI for title: Probing the Neutron-Capture Nucleosynthesis History of Galactic Matter
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x may be a valid DOI for title: A statistical study of 233 pulsar proper motions
- 10.1093/mnras/stu1738 may be a valid DOI for title: Galaxies on FIRE (Feedback In Realistic Environments): stellar feedback explains cosmologically inefficient star formation
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.009 may be a valid DOI for title: Nucleosynthesis and remnants in massive stars of solar metallicity
- 10.1086/522073 may be a valid DOI for title: A new look at the binary characteristics of massive stars
- 10.1017/pasa.2016.52 may be a valid DOI for title: Dawes review 6: The impact of companions on stellar evolution
- 10.1086/181708 may be a valid DOI for title: Discovery of a pulsar in a binary system
- 10.12942/lrr-2006-6 may be a valid DOI for title: The evolution of compact binary star systems
- 10.1103/physrevlett.76.352 may be a valid DOI for title: Pulsar recoil and gravitational radiation due to asymmetrical stellar collapse and explosion
- 10.1080/10556799308230566 may be a valid DOI for title: Asymmetric neutrino emission and formation of rapidly moving pulsars
- 10.1086/431786 may be a valid DOI for title: The neutrino bubble instability: A mechanism for generating pulsar kicks
- 10.1038/253698a0 may be a valid DOI for title: Two kinds of stellar collapse
- 10.1086/338805 may be a valid DOI for title: The velocity distribution of isolated radio pulsars
- 10.1007/978-94-010-1483-0_5 may be a valid DOI for title: Late Stages of Close Binary Systems
- 10.1038/nature10529 may be a valid DOI for title: Two populations of X-ray pulsars produced by two types of supernova
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201220636 may be a valid DOI for title: Three-dimensional neutrino-driven supernovae: Neutron star kicks, spins, and asymmetric ejection of nucleosynthesis products
- 10.1007/s12036-017-9474-5 may be a valid DOI for title: A new look at distances and velocities of neutron stars
- 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3358 may be a valid DOI for title: The high angular resolution multiplicity of massive stars
- 10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/4 may be a valid DOI for title: An updated look at binary characteristics of massive stars in the Cygnus OB2 association
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21317.x may be a valid DOI for title: A spectroscopic survey on the multiplicity of high-mass stars
- 10.1088/0004-637x/719/1/722 may be a valid DOI for title: Further evidence for the bimodal distribution of neutron-star masses
- 10.1086/160960 may be a valid DOI for title: Approximations to the radii of Roche lobes
- 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/l138 may be a valid DOI for title: The effect of metallicity on the detection prospects for gravitational waves
- 10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/724 may be a valid DOI for title: Adiabatic mass loss in binary stars. I. Computational method
- 10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/40 may be a valid DOI for title: Adiabatic mass loss in binary stars. II. From zero-age main sequence to the base of the giant branch
- 10.1086/165412 may be a valid DOI for title: Thresholds for rapid mass transfer in binary systems. I-Polytropic models
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322714 may be a valid DOI for title: Theoretical uncertainties of the Type Ia supernova rate
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8140 may be a valid DOI for title: Accretion Disk Assembly During Common Envelope Evolution: Implications for Feedback and LIGO Binary Black Hole Formation
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6117 may be a valid DOI for title: Common Envelope Wind Tunnel: Coefficients of Drag and Accretion in a Simplified Context for Studying Flows around Objects Embedded within Stellar Envelopes
- 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.008 may be a valid DOI for title: Formation of double compact objects
- 10.1086/133321 may be a valid DOI for title: Common envelopes in binary star evolution
- 10.1086/161701 may be a valid DOI for title: Double white dwarfs as progenitors of R Coronae Borealis stars and Type I supernovae
- 10.1086/168974 may be a valid DOI for title: Common envelope evolution and double cores of planetary nebulae
- 10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/114 may be a valid DOI for title: On the binding energy parameter λof common envelope evolution
- 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 may be a valid DOI for title: Pulsational pair-instability supernovae
- 10.1086/190103 may be a valid DOI for title: Neutrino Processes and Pair Formation in Massive Stars and Supernovae.
- 10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 may be a valid DOI for title: Dynamics of supernova explosion resulting from pair formation
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201628980 may be a valid DOI for title: The effect of pair-instability mass loss on black-hole mergers
- 10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e may be a valid DOI for title: Use of gravitational waves to probe the formation channels of compact binaries
- 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c may be a valid DOI for title: Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization
- 10.1086/154524 may be a valid DOI for title: The binary pulsar-Physical processes, possible companions, and evolutionary histories
- 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135402 may be a valid DOI for title: Binary Neutron Star Mergers with Missing Electromagnetic Counterparts as Manifestations of Mirror World
- 10.1007/978-94-010-3087-8_42 may be a valid DOI for title: Pulsars and close binary systems
- 10.1086/306265 may be a valid DOI for title: Evolution of binary compact objects that merge
- 10.1103/physrevd.86.124007 may be a valid DOI for title: Black-hole–neutron-star mergers: Disk mass predictions
- 10.1103/physrevd.84.104017 may be a valid DOI for title: Will black hole-neutron star binary inspirals tell us about the neutron star equation of state?
- 10.1088/2041-8205/791/1/l7 may be a valid DOI for title: Prospects for Joint Gravitational-wave and Electromagnetic Observations of Neutron-star-Black-hole Coalescing Binaries
- 10.3847/0004-637x/820/1/28 may be a valid DOI for title: The dense matter equation of state from neutron star radius and mass measurements
- 10.1103/physrevd.85.104045 may be a valid DOI for title: Estimating parameters of coalescing compact binaries with proposed advanced detector networks
- 10.1103/physrevd.49.2658 may be a valid DOI for title: Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform?
- 10.22323/1.331.0013 may be a valid DOI for title: Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8d24 may be a valid DOI for title: A Search for Neutron Star-Black Hole Binary Mergers in the Short Gamma-Ray Burst Population
- 10.1287/opre.1.5.263 may be a valid DOI for title: Methods of Reducing Sample Size in Monte Carlo Computations
- 10.1007/10720995_68 may be a valid DOI for title: Constraints on mass ejection in black hole formation derived from black hole X-ray binaries
- 10.1007/3-540-31186-6_27 may be a valid DOI for title: An adaptive importance sampling technique
- 10.1016/0021-9991(77)90121-8 may be a valid DOI for title: Nonphysical sampling distributions in Monte Carlo free-energy estimation: Umbrella sampling
- 10.1088/0004-6256/142/6/197 may be a valid DOI for title: Toward a Unification of Star Formation Rate Determinations in the Milky Way and Other Galaxies
- 10.1093/mnras/staa1324 may be a valid DOI for title: Weighing in on black hole binaries with BPASS: LB-1 does not contain a 70M_⊙ black hole
- 10.1017/s1743921318008037 may be a valid DOI for title: High mass X-ray binaries as progenitors of gravitational wave sources
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6458 may be a valid DOI for title: The Explosion of Helium Stars Evolved With Mass Loss
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2681 may be a valid DOI for title: Black hole, neutron star and white dwarf merger rates in AGN disks
- 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa196 may be a valid DOI for title: Is GW190521 the merger of black holes from the first stellar generations?
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2bff may be a valid DOI for title: Wolf-Rayet galaxies in SDSS-IV MaNGA. II. Metallicity dependence of the high-mass slope of the stellar initial mass function
- 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8 may be a valid DOI for title: Constraints on Weak Supernova Kicks from Observed Pulsar Velocities

INVALID DOIs

- 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9, 10.1007/lrr-2016-1 is INVALID
- 10.1007/s41114-018-0012-9, 10.1007/lrr-2016-1 is INVALID
- https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab584d is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.06.002 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newar.2004.09.020 is INVALID because of 'https://doi.org/' prefix

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

Fantastic!

@ilyamandel the paper LGTM, it seems like some of the references are invalid (see whedon's comment above) would you and your team be able to fix these references and then I'll get this recommended!

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@ilyamandel we're so very close. I know we're also very close to a holiday! Whenever you are able, if you update the references in your paper I'll recommend this for acceptance.

jeffriley commented 2 years ago

@christinahedges @ilyamandel is on holiday at the moment with little or no internet access. I'll see what I can do with the references in the next day or so.

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

Hi @jeffriley, that's great. If we don't get to this till after the holiday that's totally fine, I think that's the last piece before I can recommend it for acceptance 👍

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

I think these are bib file references that aren't actually used in the JOSS paper. Jeff, perhaps you could simply extract only the necessary references into a downselected bib file. Or ask Simon to do that. Ilya, trying to send a GitHub comment via email from my phone from Eden (Eden, New South Wales ;-) ).

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021, 4:31 AM Christina Hedges @.***> wrote:

Hi @jeffriley https://github.com/jeffriley, that's great. If we don't get to this till after the holiday that's totally fine, I think that's the last piece before I can recommend it for acceptance 👍

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/3838#issuecomment-998966295, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD5BVJ5BQOGYRT57DYEZIDUSC2Y5ANCNFSM5GMCUT2Q . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

jeffriley commented 2 years ago

I'll try to get to this - or ask Simon if he's around - in the next few days. I've been out of action for the past week...

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

@whedon generate pdf from branch JOSS

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting PDF compilation from custom branch JOSS. Reticulating splines etc...

whedon commented 2 years ago

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

@christinahedges -- sorry, just got back from vacation. I cleaned up the references so that Whedon no longer complains -- see above.

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon check references from branch JOSS

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting to check references... from custom branch JOSS

whedon commented 2 years ago

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1126/science.1223344 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/280.4.1035 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x is OK
- 10.1086/521026 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stx2933 is OK
- 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 is OK
- 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz2840 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty908 is OK
- 10.1038/ncomms14906 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/sty2463 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa2177 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz3542 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@ilyamandel LGTM! Great work everyone involved, thank you all for your patience, professionalism, and thorough reviews!

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 2 years ago

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

Sorry for the typo above that was out of order!!

@ilyamandel If you are happy and would like to make no further changes based on the review, please make a tagged release 🏷️ of the code and archive it, and then please report the version number and archive DOI here in this thread. Please make sure this archived version has all the correct meta data (author names, title etc)!

I can then recommend to our EIC that we accept this submission.

If you need any help with these steps please let me know and I can guide you through it.

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

Thank you, @christinahedges !

The version of record for JOSS is v02.27.00: https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/releases/tag/v02.27.00

By archiving, do you mean creating a Zenodo archive of the repo? I haven't done that before, but will attempt to create one (though possibly not until after the weekend).

TeamCOMPAS commented 2 years ago

OK, it seems I need to enable zenodo archiving before creating the release...

The release tag is still the same -- https://github.com/TeamCOMPAS/COMPAS/releases/tag/v02.27.00

The DOI is 10.5281/zenodo.5847518

TeamCOMPAS commented 2 years ago

https://zenodo.org/record/5847518#.YeDLHvFBxp8 -- OK, done, now really going offline. :)

ilyamandel commented 2 years ago

Hi @christinahedges, Please let me know if there's anything else missing. I'm off for travel in a few days, so wanted to cross the t's and dot the i's beforehand, if possible. But no rush -- I was the slow one for several weeks! :)

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.5847518 as archive

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.5847518 is the archive.

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon set v02.27.00 as version

whedon commented 2 years ago

OK. v02.27.00 is the version.

christinahedges commented 2 years ago

@whedon recommend-accept

whedon commented 2 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

openjournals / joss-reviews