Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Decretion disc evolution and neutron star accretion in short-period eccentric Be/X-ray binaries

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In simulations of the eccentric Be/X-ray binary A0538-66, neutron star accretion is strongest for prograde misalignments below 90° and weakest for retrograde misalignments above 90°, because tilt sets both particle encounters and…

desk verdict A genuinely new geometry sweep for eccentric Be/X-ray binaries, with a plausible qualitative trend, but the headline accretion numbers need error bars before the prograde/retrograde ordering is taken as quantitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04705 v1 pith:B65LOLIA submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

R.G. Rast , C.E. Jones , M.W. Suffak , A.C. Carciofi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords Be/X-raybinariesdecretiondiscssmoothedparticlehydrodynamicsmisalignmentangleneutronstaraccretioneccentricbinaryA0538-66X-rayoutbursts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper sets out to show that in short-period, highly eccentric Be/X-ray binaries the orientation of the neutron star's orbit relative to the Be star's disc controls how much matter the neutron star accretes. Using ten 3D smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations of the A0538-66 system that sweep the misalignment angle from coplanar prograde (0°) to coplanar retrograde (180°), the authors find a systematic hierarchy: accretion is highest for prograde misalignments below 90° and lowest for retrograde misalignments above 90°, from about $3\times10^{-10}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ in the coplanar prograde case down to a few $\times10^{-12}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ in the retrograde family. The driving mechanism is geometric: the tilt of the orbit sets both how many disc particles the neutron star meets and how long it interacts with each one before relative motion separates them. The simulations also establish that the high eccentricity forces every disc property—mass, angular momentum, eccentricity, inclination—to oscillate with orbital phase, so accretion is phase-dependent even in a quasi-steady disc. A sympathetic reader would care because this connects binary geometry directly to the timing and strength of X-ray outbursts and to observable disc variability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a suite of ten three-dimensional smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations of a Be-star decretion disc interacting with a neutron star, all initialized with the parameters of A0538-66 ($e=0.72$, $P\approx16.6$ d) and differing only in the misalignment angle of the neutron star's orbital plane, stepped from 0° (coplanar prograde) to 180° (coplanar retrograde). The argument is carried by two competing geometric effects: how much of the disc plane the neutron star's orbit overlaps, which sets the number of disc particles it encounters, and the relative velocity between the neutron star and those particles, which sets how long each encounter lasts. The disc transport is set by the Shakura–Sunyaev viscosity prescription with $\alpha_{\mathrm{SS}} = 0.5$, and the mapping to the SPH artificial viscosity uses the isothermal scale-height relation $H(r) = c_s/v_{\mathrm{crit}} (r/R_\star)^{1.5}$; particle splitting increases resolution near the neutron star so that accretion rates into the Eggleton Roche-lobe sink radius can be measured.

What would settle it

Rerun the 45° and 105° models with a viscosity that computes the local scale height from the actual particle distribution rather than from the relation $H(r) = c_s/v_{\mathrm{crit}} (r/R_\star)^{1.5}$: the central hierarchy survives only if the prograde 45° model still accretes faster than the retrograde 105° model. An observational counter-check would be a sample of eccentric Be/X-ray binaries in which bright periastron outbursts show no systematic preference for prograde-aligned systems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a highly eccentric Be/X-ray binary like A0538-66, the misalignment angle between the neutron star's orbital plane and the Be star's equator sets a systematic ordering of accretion efficiency and disc response. For prograde misalignments (0°–75°) the neutron star's velocity roughly aligns with the disc particles, so overlapping the disc for longer and with smaller relative velocities yields the highest accretion rates; rates fall steadily as the angle grows. For retrograde misalignments (105°–180°), the same two effects compete rather than cooperate: the coplanar retrograde case maximizes particle encounters but with strongly antiparallel velocities, and misaligned retrograde orbits reduce both encounter number and interaction time, so accretion rates are systematically lower than in the prograde family. The paper also claims that in every model the disc's mass, angular momentum, eccentricity, and inclinations oscillate with orbital phase, with the largest disruption at periastron and a recovery afterward, and that the orbital phase of peak accretion shifts from periastron for near-coplanar cases to multiple post-periastron peaks for highly misaligned prograde cases.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the viscous transport law that describes the Be disc also applies to gas once it becomes bound to the neutron star; the paper itself notes that its scale-height formula overestimates the thickness there, and using a fixed artificial-viscosity alternative changes the measured accretion rates by up to roughly 30 percent, with the largest shifts at 45° and 105°.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Time-averaged neutron star accretion in eccentric Be/X-ray binaries should follow a prograde-favored ordering: for the same stellar and orbital parameters, misalignments below 90° out-accrete misalignments above 90°.
  • Every disc observable in these systems should vary with orbital phase, with mass and angular momentum dipping at periastron and rebuilding during the rest of the orbit, so phase-resolved observations should see periodic dips and recoveries.
  • For near-coplanar orbits the peak accretion occurs at or just after periastron; for highly misaligned prograde orbits the peak splits into multiple events as the neutron star re-crosses the disc plane or runs into its own induced spiral arms.
  • Retrograde orbits should produce weaker spiral arms and less disc disruption than prograde orbits, with coplanar retrograde accretion more efficient than any misaligned retrograde case because of the larger number of particles encountered.
  • The 30°–45° misaligned models develop accretion streams from the inner disc to the neutron star just after periastron, providing a geometric channel for the periodic Type I X-ray outbursts seen in these systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same geometric competition operates in other short-period eccentric Be/X-ray binaries, the observed spread of Type I outburst fluences could be inverted to infer typical misalignment angles: the brightest accretors would be the most prograde-aligned systems.
  • A natural extension is to vary eccentricity: the paper's interaction-time argument implies the prograde/retrograde accretion gap should narrow at lower eccentricity, where periastron relative velocities are less extreme.
  • The angular momentum of captured retrograde material is opposite to the neutron star's spin direction, so retrograde accretors might show systematically different pulse-period changes than prograde accretors; this is not addressed in the paper.
  • Multi-wavelength monitoring of a single system could test the phase-locking corollary: if the simulated disc tilts are real, polarization angle and Balmer-line equivalent width should oscillate on the orbital period with amplitude growing as the misalignment approaches 90°.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D SPH simulations of a Be star decretion disc in a highly eccentric, short-period Be/X-ray binary with parameters based on A0538-66, varying the neutron star orbital misalignment angle from 0 to 180 degrees. The authors track disc mass, angular momentum, eccentricity, inclination, and neutron star accretion rate, and report that all disc quantities vary with orbital phase, with prograde misalignments (<90 degrees) generally yielding higher accretion rates than retrograde ones (>90 degrees). The paper also tests an alternative viscosity prescription and reports that disc-scale evolution is robust, while accretion-rate differences can reach roughly 30% in some misaligned cases.

Significance. If the central accretion-rate hierarchy is robust, this is the first systematic SPH survey of misalignment effects in eccentric Be/X-ray binaries, and it would provide useful input for interpreting periodic Type I X-ray outbursts and for future observational predictions. The paper has clear strengths: it uses a broad and well-motivated parameter grid, all parameters except misalignment are fixed from prior literature, the headline quantities are emergent simulation outputs rather than fitted, and the phase-locked variability is convincingly illustrated in the figures. The main risk is quantitative rather than conceptual: the Table 2 accretion-rate hierarchy lacks uncertainty estimates, and the paper's own viscosity test changes rates by amounts comparable to the smallest margins in that hierarchy.

major comments (2)
  1. [Table 2; Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2] The central claim that accretion rates are largest for misalignment angles less than 90 degrees and smaller for angles greater than 90 degrees rests on single-orbit mean values in Table 2 with no error bars, no number of averaged orbits, and no run-to-run variance. The smallest prograde-to-retrograde margin is only a factor of 1.7 (75 degrees at 2.7e-11 M_sun/yr versus 180 degrees at 1.6e-11 M_sun/yr). Accretion is strongly burst-like (Figs. 7, 8, 14, 15), and at the quoted particle mass of 4.6e-15 M_sun and period of 0.0456 yr, the 120-degree rate corresponds to roughly 20 particles per orbit, so Poisson and burst-to-burst fluctuations could plausibly be comparable to or larger than the smallest reported gaps. The authors should report the averaging window, the scatter across orbits, and ideally multiple realizations or a phase-binned standard error, before the prograde/retrograde ordering can be considered established.
  2. [Section 4.3, Eq. (6)] The authors themselves note that Eq. (6) overestimates the scale height for particles bound to the neutron star, forcing the SPH artificial viscosity to compensate and affecting accretion timescales near the secondary. The corrective test with alpha_SPH = 5 changes accretion rates by up to roughly 30%, with the largest effects in the 45- and 105-degree models. Since the Table 2 hierarchy contains neighboring-model margins of only about 1.7-2.4, and since the viscosity sensitivity is largest on both sides of the 90-degree divide, this systematic uncertainty could alter or even invert specific orderings in the headline result. I ask the authors to present the viscosity-test accretion rates quantitatively (not only as time-series examples) and to state explicitly whether the '<90 vs >90' hierarchy is preserved under the alpha_SPH prescription in all cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Data Availability] The statement 'No new data were generated or analysed in support of this research' is inconsistent with the simulation outputs underlying Figs. 2-19; please clarify whether simulation outputs are available on request or through a repository.
  2. [Figures 2 and 9] The panels labeled 'i w.r.t. Secondary' mix angles with respect to the binary orbital plane and the secondary star's spin; please standardize the terminology and axis labels so the reader can distinguish these two reference frames.
  3. [Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.2] The phrase 'accretion rates are strongly correlated with orbital phase' is qualitative; consider reporting a quantitative metric, such as the fraction of accreted mass within a given phase window or a phase-binned mean and standard deviation.
  4. [Table 2] For the accretion-rate rows, please state explicitly how many orbital periods are included in the average and whether the quasi-steady-state interval is the same for all models; this information is needed to interpret the single quoted values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Self-contained SPH study; no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations; the prograde/retrograde accretion trend is an emergent output, so circularity score is 0.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. All model inputs (alpha_SS = 0.5, mass-loss rate, effective temperature, stellar masses and radii, injection radius, and sink radius) are fixed from prior literature or standard practice, and the headline accretion rates and disc parameters are emergent simulation outputs measured from particle sinks, not fitted to any target. The claimed prograde/retrograde accretion hierarchy is not encoded in the equations: the Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity prescription, SPH force law, and sink criterion contain no dependence on misalignment angle except through the actual orbital geometry, so the ordering in Table 2 is a genuine simulation output. The scale-height relation (Eq. 6) is the one assumption that is not valid for particles bound to the secondary, and the paper explicitly concedes this in Section 4.3 and runs an alternative alpha_SPH = 5 prescription; that test changes rates by less than 30% and does not alter the trends, so the central claim does not reduce to the assumption. Citations to the same group's code lineage (Okazaki et al. 2002; Cyr et al. 2017; Suffak et al. 2022; Rubio et al. 2025) and to Eq. 6 (Carciofi & Bjorkman 2006) are method provenance, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The absence of quoted error bars on the Table 2 mean accretion rates is a statistical robustness concern, not circularity. No circular step could be identified.

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

All free parameters are standard inputs taken from prior literature (Cyr 2017; Suffak 2022; Rubio 2025) or standard binary physics, not fitted to the paper's own results, so they are model inputs rather than circularity. The one in-paper modeling choice that exceeds standard validity is the scale-height/viscosity treatment near the secondary, flagged by the authors in Section 4.3 and mirrored in weakest_assumption. No invented physical entities: the disc, spiral arms, truncation, warps, and accretion streams are established features in the cited literature. The quantitative outputs (Table 2) inherit the chosen alpha_SS, mass-loss rate, and sink-radius convention, which is why absolute rates should be read as model-dependent.

free parameters (6)
  • Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter alpha_SS = 0.5
    Chosen by hand from the standard 0-1 range and prior Be disc simulations (Okazaki 2002; Rimulo 2018); held constant in space and time. Directly sets disc spreading rate, disc size, and interaction timescales, so all quantitative outputs depend on it. The paper tests robustness with alpha_SPH = 5 and reports differences mostly below 30%.
  • mass loss rate (disc feeding) = 1e-8 M_sun/yr
    Fixed injection rate of disc material, a typical Be value; controls disc growth and quasi-steady-state mass, which enters the accretion-rate normalization.
  • gas temperature = 0.6 T_eff,primary
    Isothermal gas temperature set to 60% of the primary's effective temperature following Millar & Marlborough 1999; sets sound speed and therefore scale height and viscosity (Eqs. 2 and 6).
  • injection radius = 1.04 R_star (ring 1.00-1.04 R_star)
    Inner boundary of particle injection; taken from Cyr 2017, Suffak 2022, and Rubio 2025. Affects how much injected mass is immediately re-accreted and the inner disc structure.
  • neutron star accretion radius = 0.05 R_L (Eggleton 1983)
    Sink radius defining accretion onto the neutron star; larger radii capture more particles, so the absolute accretion rates in Table 2 scale with this arbitrary convention.
  • particle splitting thresholds = R > 10 R_star; neighbors < 70; mass floor 4e-4 m_initial; h^2 > 0.1 r^2
    Resolution parameters from Kitsionas & Whitworth 2002 and Rubio 2025; set where the disc is resolved and thereby affect the number of particles near the neutron star and the accretion rate estimates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Viscous decretion disc paradigm: the disc is fed at the primary's equator and spreads outward by viscosity (Lee, Osaki & Saio 1991).
    Invoked in Section 1 and implemented throughout; the entire disc model presupposes this picture, including the radial drift that carries particles to the neutron star.
  • domain assumption Shakura-Sunyaev alpha-viscosity with constant alpha_SS, linked to SPH artificial viscosity via Eq. 3.
    Eq. 2 and Section 2; the viscosity law determines disc spreading, spiral arm strength, and accretion timescales. The paper tests an alternative (alpha_SPH = 5) in Section 4.3.
  • domain assumption Isothermal disc scale height H(r) = c_s/v_crit (r/R_star)^1.5 (Eq. 6) applied to all particles, including those bound to the secondary.
    Section 4.3 states this relation 'does not truly follow' for particles bound to the secondary and is overestimated there; it is the load-bearing premise flagged in weakest_assumption.
  • standard math Eggleton (1983) Roche lobe approximation, Eq. 1, defines the accretion radius 0.05 R_L.
    Section 2; standard binary physics used to set the sink radius; the absolute accretion rates scale with this convention.
  • domain assumption Primary and secondary are sink particles with fixed masses; particles crossing the primary radius or the secondary accretion radius are removed.
    Section 2; a simplifying approximation that ignores the neutron star's own accretion disc structure and any feedback; fine for disc-scale questions but relevant to accretion-rate interpretation.
  • domain assumption Disc material is initialized on Keplerian orbits in the primary's equatorial plane, and the binary orbit is rotated about the x-axis to set misalignment.
    Section 2 and Fig. 1; observational support for roughly Keplerian Be discs is cited (Marlborough 1987; Wheelwright 2012; Marr 2018), and the geometry setup defines the 0-180 degree grid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decretion disc evolution and neutron star accretion in short-period eccentric Be/X-ray binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B65LOLIA

@misc{pith2026250204705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decretion disc evolution and neutron star accretion in short-period eccentric Be/X-ray binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B65LOLIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04705}
}
abstract

We examine Be star discs in highly eccentric Be/X-ray systems. We use a three-dimensional smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code to model the structure of the Be star disc and investigate its interactions with the secondary star over time. We use system parameters consistent with the eccentric, short-period (P $\approx$ 16 d) Be/X-ray binary A0538-66 as the basis for our models. We explore a range of system geometries by incrementally varying the misalignment angle of the neutron star's orbital plane with respect to the primary star's equatorial plane to cover a complete range from coplanar prograde to coplanar retrograde. For all simulations, we follow the evolution of the disc's total mass and angular momentum as well as the average eccentricity and inclination with respect to the equatorial planes of both the primary and secondary. We also determine the neutron star accretion rates. We find that the high eccentricity of the binary orbit causes all calculated disc parameters to vary with orbital phase in all models. The amplitude of these variations is negatively correlated with misalignment angle for models with misalignment angles less than 90{\deg}, and positively correlated for models with misalignment angles greater than 90{\deg}. Accretion rates are affected by the number of particles the neutron star interacts with as well as the length of the interaction time between the particles and the neutron star. We find that accretion rates are largest for models with misalignment angles less than 90{\deg}, and smaller for models with those greater than 90{\deg}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representing the coordinate system used for our mis￾aligned binary systems. The primary star is at the center. Two configurations of the system are shown; one where the orbital plane of the secondary star (small blue circle) is misaligned by 45◦ with respect to the - plane, and another where it is misaligned by 135◦ . from the coplanar prograde case, where the secondary star orbits in the same direction as… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the prograde models. Top to bottom: total disc specific angular momentum, total angular momentum, total disc mass, average disc eccentricity, average disc inclination relative to the primary and secondary stars, and average longitude of the ascending node for the disc particles. We omit the 0◦ model when plotting the longitude of the ascending node, as this parameter shows no trends for this misalignmen… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top-down view (- plane) of the prograde simulations. From left to right, snapshots are taken at 60.0 orb, 60.4 orb, 60.5 orb, and 60.6 orb. In this view, the motion of the secondary star is counter-clockwise. Images rendered using SPLASH (Price 2007). MNRAS 000, 1–18 (…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accretion rates onto the secondary star, plotted as a function of time measured in orb, for the prograde simulations. To better illustrate the dependence of accretion rates on orbital phase, we show the first 40 orb. The misalignment angle of each model is indicated in…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Accretion rates onto the secondary star as a function of time measured in orb since apastron, for the prograde simulations. The vertical dashed line represents the phase of periastron. Top to bottom: misalignment angles of 0◦ , 30◦ , 45◦ , 60◦ , and 75◦ , respectively.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison of the disc evolution using SS and SPH for the 135◦ model. This behaviour is representative of all tested retrograde models. 0   0   [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison of the disc evolution using SS and SPH for the prograde models. Panel (a) represents the typical observed difference, while panel (b) represents the largest difference. larger misalignment angles are also associated with less defined spi￾ral arms and lower …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. X-BPASS : Self-consistent modelling of stellar populations and their associated X-ray Binary emission in a binary stellar evolution framework

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-consistent stellar population and X-ray binary spectral synthesis model, X-BPASS, reproduces observed X-ray binary counts and flux trends and predicts that X-ray binaries contribute to nebular He II emission wi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H., 1994, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/173679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421..651A 421, 651

    Artymowicz P., Lubow S. H., 1994, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/173679 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421..651A 421, 651

    doi:10.1086/173679 1994

  2. [2]

    BRITEning up the Be Phenomenon

    Baade D., et al., 2018, in Wade G. A., Baade D., Guzik J. A., Smolec R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 8, 3rd BRITE Science Conference. pp 69--76, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1708.08413

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.08413 2018

  3. [3]

    C., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..47B 678, A47

    Baade D., Labadie-Bartz J., Rivinius T., Carciofi A. C., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..47B 678, A47

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244149 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Bonnell I

    Bate M. R., Bonnell I. A., Price N. M., 1995, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.277..362B 277, 362

    doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  5. [5]

    L., Cameron A

    Benz W., Bowers R. L., Cameron A. G. W., Press W. H. ., 1990, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/168273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...348..647B 348, 647

    doi:10.1086/168273 1990

  6. [6]

    Bodensteiner J., Shenar T., Sana H., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037640 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..42B 641, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037640 2020

  7. [7]

    D., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..625C 4, 625

    Capano C. D., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..625C 4, 625

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6 2020

  8. [8]

    C., Bjorkman J

    Carciofi A. C., Bjorkman J. E., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/499483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639.1081C 639, 1081

    doi:10.1086/499483 2006

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    J., Kirk J., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..969C 452, 969

    Coe M. J., Kirk J., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1283 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..969C 452, 969

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Coleman M. S. B., Burrows A., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3938C 517, 3938

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    I., 1987, in Slettebak A., Snow T

    Collins George W. I., 1987, in Slettebak A., Snow T. P., eds, IAU Colloq. 92: Physics of Be Stars. p. 3

    1987

  4. [12]

    H., Jones C

    Cyr I. H., Jones C. E., Panoglou D., Carciofi A. C., Okazaki A. T., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx1427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.471..596C 471, 596

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Jones C

    Cyr I. H., Jones C. E., Carciofi A. C., Steckel C., Tycner C., Okazaki A. T., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa2176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.497.3525C 497, 3525

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Oudmaijer R

    Dodd J. M., Oudmaijer R. D., Radley I. C., Vioque M., Frost A. J., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.3076D 527, 3076

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    H., Wisniewski J

    Draper Z. H., Wisniewski J. P., Bjorkman K. S., Meade M. R., Haubois X., Mota B. C., Carciofi A. C., Bjorkman J. E., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...786..120D 786, 120

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    P., 1983, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    Eggleton P. P., 1983, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    El-Badry K., Quataert E., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3436E 502, 3436

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Hirai R., Podsiadlowski P., Heger A., Nagakura H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...972L..18H 972, L18

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Hughes A., Bailes M., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...522..504H 522, 504

    1999 doi

  12. [20]

    Jaschek M., Slettebak A., Jaschek C., 1981, Be Star Newsletter, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981BeSN....4....9J 4, 9

    1981

  13. [22]

    Kriz S., Harmanec P., 1975, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975BAICz..26...65K 26, 65

    1975

  14. [23]

    Labadie-Bartz J., et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9c7e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...53L 155, 53

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    Labadie-Bartz J., Carciofi A. C., Henrique de Amorim T., Rubio A., Luiz Figueiredo A., Ticiani dos Santos P., Thomson-Paressant K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5abd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....163..226L 163, 226

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Lai D., Wang C., Han J., 2006, Chinese Journal of A&A Supplement, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ChJAS...6b.241L 6, 241

    2006

  17. [26]

    Lee U., Osaki Y., Saio H., 1991, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/250.2.432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.250..432L 250, 432

    1991 doi

  18. [27]

    H., Martin R

    Lubow S. H., Martin R. G., Nixon C., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/800/2/96 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...800...96L 800, 96

    2015 doi

  19. [28]

    Marchant P., Bodensteiner J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62...21M 62, 21

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    L., Albrecht S

    Marcussen M. L., Albrecht S. H., Winn J. N., Su Y., Lundkvist M. S., Schlaufman K. C., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad75fa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..149M 975, 149

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    M., 1987, in Slettebak A., Snow T

    Marlborough J. M., 1987, in Slettebak A., Snow T. P., eds, IAU Colloq. 92: Physics of Be Stars. p. 316

    1987

  22. [31]

    C., Jones C

    Marr K. C., Jones C. E., Halonen R. J., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0d0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...852..103M 852, 103

    2018 doi

  23. [32]

    G., Tout C

    Martin R. G., Tout C. A., Pringle J. E., 2009, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15031.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1563M 397, 1563

    2009

  24. [33]

    G., Pringle J

    Martin R. G., Pringle J. E., Tout C. A., Lubow S. H., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19231.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.416.2827M 416, 2827

    2011

  25. [34]

    G., Nixon C., Armitage P

    Martin R. G., Nixon C., Armitage P. J., Lubow S. H., Price D. J., 2014, @doi [ApJ, Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/790/2/L34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790L..34M 790, L34

    2014 doi

  26. [35]

    E., Marlborough J

    Millar C. E., Marlborough J. M., 1999a, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307098 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...516..276M 516, 276

    doi

  27. [36]

    E., Marlborough J

    Millar C. E., Marlborough J. M., 1999b, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/307963 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...526..400M 526, 400

    doi

  28. [37]

    Miranda R., Lai D., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1450 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2396M 452, 2396

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..48M 528, A48

    Moreno E., Koenigsberger G., Harrington D. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A..48M 528, A48

    2011 doi

  30. [39]

    T., 2007, in St

    Okazaki A. T., 2007, in St. -Louis N., Moffat A. F. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 367, Massive Stars in Interactive Binaries. p. 485

    2007

  31. [40]

    T., Negueruela I., 2001, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...377..161O 377, 161

    Okazaki A. T., Negueruela I., 2001, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20011083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...377..161O 377, 161

    2001 doi

  32. [41]

    T., Bate M

    Okazaki A. T., Bate M. R., Ogilvie G. I., Pringle J. E., 2002, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05960.x , 337, 967

    2002

  33. [42]

    T., Hayasaki K., Moritani Y., 2013, @doi [Publications of the ASJ] 10.1093/pasj/65.2.41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASJ...65...41O 65, 41

    Okazaki A. T., Hayasaki K., Moritani Y., 2013, @doi [Publications of the ASJ] 10.1093/pasj/65.2.41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASJ...65...41O 65, 41

    2013 doi

  34. [43]

    G., Lubow S

    Overton M., Martin R. G., Lubow S. H., Lepp S., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slad172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528L.106O 528, L106

    2024 doi

  35. [44]

    S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Owocki S., 2006, in Kraus M., Miroshnichenko A. S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 355, Stars with the B[e] Phenomenon. p. 219

    2006

  36. [45]

    \"O zel F., Freire P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..401O 54, 401

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    C., Vieira R

    Panoglou D., Carciofi A. C., Vieira R. G., Cyr I. H., Jones C. E., Okazaki A. T., Rivinius T., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.2616P 461, 2616

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS07022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PASA...24..159P 24, 159

    Price D. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1071/AS07022 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PASA...24..159P 24, 159

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    F., Mozurkewich D., Hummel C

    Quirrenbach A., Buscher D. F., Mozurkewich D., Hummel C. A., Armstrong J. T., 1994, A&A, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...283L..13Q 283, L13

    1994

  40. [49]

    F., Charles P

    Rajoelimanana A. F., Charles P. A., Meintjes P. J., Townsend L. J., Schurch M. P. E., Udalski A., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw2534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.4133R 464, 4133

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    Reig P., 2011, @doi [Astrophysics and Space Science] 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Ap&SS.332....1R 332, 1

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    R., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3555R 476, 3555

    R \' mulo L. R., et al., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty431 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3555R 476, 3555

    2018 doi

  43. [52]

    C., Carciofi A

    Rubio A. C., Carciofi A. C., Bjorkman J. E., 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics

    2025

  44. [53]

    Salvesen G., Pokawanvit S., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa1094 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.2179S 495, 2179

    2020 doi

  45. [54]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  46. [55]

    Struve O., 1931, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/143298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931ApJ....73...94S 73, 94

    1931 doi

  47. [56]

    E., Carciofi A

    Suffak M., Jones C. E., Carciofi A. C., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3024 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509..931S 509, 931

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    W., Jones C

    Suffak M. W., Jones C. E., Carciofi A. C., de Amorim T. H., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2781 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..782S 526, 782

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    R., Peters G

    Wang L., Gies D. R., Peters G. J., G \"o tberg Y., Chojnowski S. D., Lester K. V., Howell S. B., 2021, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..248W 161, 248

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    E., Bjorkman J

    Wheelwright H. E., Bjorkman J. E., Oudmaijer R. D., Carciofi A. C., Bjorkman K. S., Porter J. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01241.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.423L..11W 423, L11

    2012

  51. [60]

    S., Bjorkman J

    Wood K., Bjorkman K. S., Bjorkman J. E., 1997, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/303747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...477..926W 477, 926

    1997 doi

  52. [61]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.