REVIEW 1 cited by
Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): The multiplicity properties and evolution of BAF-type supergiants
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): The multiplicity properties and evolution of BAF-type supergiants
read the original abstract
Given the uncertain evolutionary status of blue supergiant stars, their multiplicity properties hold vital clues to better understand their origin and evolution. As part of The Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM) campaign in the Small Magellanic Cloud we present a multi-epoch spectroscopic survey of 128 supergiant stars of spectral type B5--F5, which roughly correspond to initial masses in the range 6 to 30 solar masses. The observed binary fraction for the B5-9 supergiants is 25+/-6 % (10+/-4 %) and 5+/-2 % (0 %) for the A-F stars, using a radial velocity (RV) variability threshold of 5 kms (10 kms) as a criterion for binarity. Accounting for observational biases we find an intrinsic multiplicity fraction of less than 18% for the B5-9 stars and 8$^{+9}_{-7}$% for the AF stars, for the orbital periods up to 10$^{3.5}$day and mass-ratios (q) in the range 0.1 < q < 1. The large stellar radii of these supergiant stars prevent short orbital periods but we demonstrate that this effect alone cannot explain our results. We assess the spectra and RV time series of the detected binary systems and find that only a small fraction display convincing solutions. We conclude that the multiplicity fractions are compromised by intrinsic stellar variability such that the true multiplicity fraction may be significantly smaller. Our main conclusions from comparing the multiplicity properties of the B5-9 and AF supergiants to that of their less evolved counterparts is that such stars cannot be explained by a direct evolution from the main sequence. Furthermore, by comparing their multiplicity properties to red supergiant stars we conclude that the AF supergiant stars are neither progenitors nor descendants of red supergiants.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The IACOB project XIX. Revisiting massive-star evolution with empirical TAMS constraints: updated models, overshoot calibration, and the population of blue supergiants
Massive-star models require mass-dependent core overshoot (α_ov ≈ 0.18–0.45) to match the empirical TAMS, but still fail to explain the velocity dependence of the TAMS and the observed blue supergiant population.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.