Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Formation of a Possible Black-hole Ultracompact X-ray Binary with the Shortest Orbital Period

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rotation-boosted magnetic braking law can shrink a black-hole binary to a 7.7-minute orbit.

desk verdict A solid, testable application of the CARB magnetic-braking law to produce a 7.7-minute BH UCXB, with the caveat that the final episode is not fully evolved and the input law is phenomenological. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12689 v1 pith:D6YSFMUD submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Xing-Peng Yang , Kun Xu , Zhi-Fu Gao , Long Jiang , Wen-Cong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords ultracompactX-raybinariesblackholeCARBmagneticbrakingstellarevolutiongravitationalwavesourceswhitedwarfdonorsM31bulge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that Seq.1, a bright X-ray source in the M31 bulge with a 7.7-minute period, can be a black-hole ultracompact X-ray binary—a system in which a white dwarf feeds a black hole in an orbit shorter than any known. The standard magnetic braking model forbids such short periods, predicting a floor near 8.3 minutes. The paper's proposal is that a newer magnetic braking law, boosted by the donor's rotation and convection, drains angular momentum fast enough to shrink an isolated black hole–main-sequence binary to 7.7 minutes and start a brief second mass-transfer episode. The resulting X-ray luminosity matches the observed value, and the same model predicts a detectable gravitational-wave signal and a future tidal disruption event.

What carries the argument

The central object is the convection- and rotation-boosted (CARB) magnetic braking law, a prescription for how fast a magnetized stellar wind extracts angular momentum from a rotating donor star. Its rate $\dot J_{\rm mb}$ scales steeply with the donor's spin $\Omega$ and convective turnover time $\tau_{\rm conv}$, with an effective escape velocity $v'_{\rm esc}=(v_{\rm esc}^2+2\Omega^2R^2/K^2)^{1/2}$ and a fitted constant $K=0.07$. In the models the law operates only while the donor has both a convective envelope and a radiative core, and it is strong enough to overcome the orbital expansion caused by mass transfer, driving the orbit down to 7.7 minutes after gravitational radiation takes over.

What would settle it

If additional X-ray observations show that the 7.7-minute modulation is not a coherent orbital period, or if a measured orbital period derivative is inconsistent with gravitational-radiation-driven shrinkage of a binary with a $10\,M_\odot$ black hole and a $0.16\,M_\odot$ white dwarf, the proposed formation channel would be ruled out for Seq.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the convection- and rotation-boosted (CARB) magnetic braking prescription can produce a black-hole ultracompact X-ray binary with an orbital period of 7.7 minutes from an isolated black hole plus main-sequence star binary. In the modeled evolution, the main-sequence donor loses its hydrogen-rich envelope during a first mass-transfer phase that lasts about 0.4 Gyr, leaving a helium core that becomes a low-mass white dwarf; the binary detaches, then gravitational radiation shrinks the orbit until the white dwarf overflows its Roche lobe. This second, short mass-transfer episode proceeds at rates above $10^{-9}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for up to about 0.16 Myr, and at a rate of $1.7\times10^{-8}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ would yield an X-ray luminosity of about $10^{38}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, matching Seq.1. The paper also maps the progenitor region in donor mass and initial orbital period and predicts a gravitational-wave frequency of 4.3 mHz and a tidal disruption after about 0.12 Myr, all conditional on the 7.7-minute period being truly orbital.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the rotation- and convection-boosted magnetic braking law being the right description of angular-momentum loss for these rapidly rotating, tidally locked, partially convective donor stars, and on the observed 7.7-minute period being the true orbital period.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Seq.1's period is orbital, it is the shortest-period black-hole ultracompact X-ray binary known, below the ~8.3-minute floor of the standard magnetic braking model.
  • The binary should emit gravitational waves at $f_{\rm gw}=2/P_{\rm orb}\approx 4.3$ mHz, and the characteristic strain lies above the LISA and Taiji sensitivity curves for black-hole masses down to $6\,M_\odot$.
  • The short mass-transfer episode produces X-ray luminosities of order $10^{38}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$, consistent with the observed maximum of Seq.1.
  • The initial progenitor region—donor masses $1.0$–$1.8\,M_\odot$ and orbital periods $0.6$–$4.1$ days—can feed future population synthesis estimates of black-hole ultracompact X-ray binary rates.
  • A tidal disruption of the white dwarf is expected after roughly 0.12 Myr if the black-hole mass is $10\,M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A timing campaign that measures the period derivative of Seq.1 could discriminate the model: the predicted gravitational-radiation-driven shrinkage should show up in X-ray pulse arrival times over a few years, whereas a stable period would point to a different origin.
  • The same CARB-driven shrinkage, applied to neutron-star binaries, would imply a population of ultracompact systems with periods between the current record and the standard-model floor; the parameter space mapped here is a concrete input for estimating how many.
  • If the 7.7-minute modulation is instead a superorbital or spin period, the proposed isolated-binary channel does not apply to Seq.1, and the orbital interpretation needs independent confirmation before the formation model is accepted.
  • The 0.12 Myr tidal-disruption prediction assumes a $10\,M_\odot$ black hole; a measured chirp mass from gravitational waves would allow the disruption clock to be recalculated for the actual masses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses MESA binary stellar-evolution models to argue that the convection- and rotation-boosted (CARB) magnetic-braking prescription of Van & Ivanova (2019) can drive isolated black-hole main-sequence binaries into ultracompact X-ray binaries with orbital periods as short as 7.7 minutes. The authors apply this to the M31 source Seq.1, which has a candidate 7.7 minute period and an X-ray luminosity of about 1e38 erg/s in the 0.5-8 keV band. In their models, a first mass-transfer episode strips the donor's hydrogen envelope, leaving a low-mass He white dwarf; gravitational radiation then shrinks the orbit until a second, short mass-transfer episode begins, with periods reaching about 5-7.7 minutes and mass-transfer rates up to about 1.7e-8 Msun/yr. The paper also presents an initial parameter space of BH-MS progenitors, estimates the gravitational-wave detectability of such systems with LISA/Taiji/TianQin, and predicts a tidal disruption event after about 0.12 Myr for the assumed parameters.

Significance. If the central formation channel is correct, this is a potentially important result: it would explain a candidate BH ultracompact X-ray binary with the shortest known orbital period, connect isolated binary evolution to a detectable low-frequency gravitational-wave source at 4.3 mHz, and sharpen the interpretation of Seq.1. The authors are to be credited for including a standard-magnetic-braking control, for using detailed MESA models with publicly posted inlists, and for making falsifiable predictions (GW frequency, TDE timescale, initial parameter space). The main caveats are that the central conclusion depends on an extrapolated phenomenological braking law and that the final mass-transfer episode is not actually evolved to completion; these issues mean the result is a plausible scenario rather than a secure prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Eq. (5) and Section 3.1, Fig. 6] The central claim that the orbit can shrink to 7.7 minutes depends on the CARB magnetic-braking law being valid for tidally locked, rapidly rotating, partially convective donor stars near Roche-lobe overflow, which is not directly covered by the persistent-LMXB calibration of Van & Ivanova (2019). The robustness test in Fig. 6 varies only the wind scaling factor eta_w, while K=0.07 and the exponents 11/3 and 8/3 are held fixed. Please add a sensitivity study that varies K and the exponents within ranges consistent with the underlying Réville et al. (2015) grid, or provide an explicit argument that the calibration domain covers this regime. Without such a test, the 7.7-minute period may be an artifact of extrapolating a phenomenological law well beyond its calibrated range.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Table 1] The second mass-transfer episode is not followed through; the text states that the simulation stops when the time step reaches a minimum limit, and Table 1 notes this for all UCXB models. The claimed 7.7-minute period and the 1e38 erg/s luminosity are therefore inferred from the onset of an unresolved episode, not from a fully evolved state. In particular, the luminosity estimate is obtained by inserting an assumed instantaneous rate of 1.7e-8 Msun/yr into LX = 0.1 Mdot c^2, rather than from the simulated accretion history. Please either extend the calculation with a different mass-transfer scheme or with a more robust implicit time-stepping approach, or explicitly label the claims as extrapolations and provide the total mass transferred during the episode. As written, the headline match with the observed luminosity is not a direct simulation output.
  3. [Section 4.3] The statement 'Our detailed binary evolution model also confirms this point' regarding stable mass transfer is not supported by the unresolved simulation. The simulation adopts f=1 (no outflow), whereas the stability argument in this section uses an outflow fraction f=0.9 and a specific angular-momentum parameter lambda=0.99. Please clarify whether the unresolved numerical evolution is actually consistent with the stable regime, or remove the confirmation claim. This matters because the interpretation of Seq.1 as a persistent source and the absence of a long GRB rely on the stability of the second mass-transfer episode.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, near Eq. (1)] The sentence contains a duplicated article: 'G is the the gravitational constant.'
  2. [Section 1] There is a typo: 'the calculated mass transfer rate adopting the standard MB prescription is approximately an order of magnitude lower than the obseved one' should read 'observed'.
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states that the top and bottom panels correspond to the standard and CARB MB cases, respectively, but the placement of labels in the figure rendering appears to reverse this ordering; please check the panel labels.
  4. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'the simulation stops because the time step exceeds a minimum time step limit' is likely meant to be 'falls below' a minimum time step; please use the standard MESA terminology.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eq. (6)] The symbol M in Eq. (6) is called the chirp mass but is not given a distinguishing notation; to avoid confusion with the BH mass, please use a script or calligraphic M consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the 7.7-minute period and 10^38 erg/s luminosity are outputs of MESA evolution using the externally calibrated CARB MB law, not fitted inputs from Seq.1.

full rationale

The central calculation integrates Eq. (5), the CARB magnetic-braking rate from Van & Ivanova (2019), together with standard gravitational-radiation and mass-loss terms, for isolated BH-MS binaries. Seq.1's observed 7.7-minute period and X-ray luminosity are used only as comparison targets; they are not inserted into Eq. (5) or used to fit K=0.07 or the exponent choices. The fitted constant comes from the MHD wind simulations of Réville et al. (2015), and the CARB law's prior calibration is against persistent LMXBs, not against Seq.1. The quoted luminosity is an explicit consistency estimate ('If the mass-transfer rate is 1.7×10^-8 M_sun/yr...'), not a parameter fitted to the observed flux. Citations to same-group papers (Qin et al. 2023, Deng et al. 2021, Chen 2020) appear as baseline comparisons for the standard-MB channel, supporting population/rate context, and standard analytic formulas for GW strain and chirp mass; none of these citations supplies the claimed formation channel, which is computed here with MESA. The fact that the simulation stops at a minimum time-step limit during the second RLOF, so the 7.7-minute/luminosity point is an extrapolation from the onset of an unresolved episode, is a numerical/correctness caveat rather than a circularity. No step was found in which an output is defined in terms of the target or a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All results inherit the assumptions of MESA and of the CARB MB law. The key freedom is the magnetic braking prescription itself; a different MB calibration would shift the parameter space. The paper introduces no new physical entities, so the invented_entities ledger is empty.

free parameters (4)
  • K in CARB Alfven radius formula = 0.07
    Constant fitted from a grid of MHD simulations (Reville et al. 2015, cited in Eq. 4). The central result's angular momentum loss rate scales with this fit.
  • Dutch wind scaling factor eta_w = 1.0 (fiducial; varied 0.5 to 2.0)
    Controls the wind mass-loss rate that enters the CARB MB law; Figure 6 shows the evolutionary outcome is sensitive to this factor.
  • Accretion efficiency f = 1
    All transferred mass is assumed to be accreted up to the Eddington limit; lower f would change BH mass growth and the angular momentum carried by outflows.
  • Mixing length parameter alpha = 2
    Standard MESA choice; affects donor radius and mass transfer but is not strongly tied to the central claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CARB magnetic braking law of Van and Ivanova (2019) correctly describes angular momentum loss for tidally locked, low-mass main-sequence donors in compact binaries.
    The entire formation channel to 7.7 minutes is driven by this law (Eq. 5). It is phenomenological and was calibrated against persistent LMXB observations, not first principles.
  • domain assumption The progenitors are isolated, circular BH-MS binaries with no common envelope, no dynamical encounters, and no natal kicks.
    The parameter space and evolutionary tracks in Figures 5 and 7 only apply to this isolated channel; alternative dynamical formation is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Tidal locking between the donor star's spin and the orbit is maintained throughout, so MB removes orbital angular momentum at the spin rate.
    Stated in Section 2.2; if tidal coupling is imperfect, the orbital effect of MB would be reduced.
  • domain assumption The BH is a point mass with Eddington-limited accretion; transferred matter in excess of Eddington carries away the BH's specific orbital angular momentum.
    Standard treatment in the MESA binary module; affects orbital evolution during mass transfer and the inferred luminosity.
  • domain assumption MESA's stellar physics, solar composition, opacities, and Dutch wind scheme are adequate for the donor stars considered.
    Adopted from the code setup in Section 2.1; the central result depends on donor radii and wind loss rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of a Possible Black-hole Ultracompact X-ray Binary with the Shortest Orbital Period." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6YSFMUD

@misc{pith2026250512689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of a Possible Black-hole Ultracompact X-ray Binary with the Shortest Orbital Period},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6YSFMUD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12689}
}
abstract

In the bulge of M31, the Chandra observations discovered a possible black hole (BH) ultracompact X-ray binary (UCXB) Seq.1 with an orbital period of 7.7 minutes and a maximum X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm X}=1.09^{+0.02}_{-0.01}\times10^{38}~ \rm erg\,s^{-1}$ in the $0.5-8$ keV band. The minimum orbital period of the BH UCXBs predicted by the standard magnetic braking (MB) model is longer than 8.3 minutes. In this work, we investigate whether the convection- and rotation-boosted (CARB) MB prescription can account for the formation of a BH UCXB like Seq.1. Our detailed stellar evolution models indicate that the CARB MB law can drive isolated BH-main sequence (MS) binaries to evolve toward BH UCXBs with an orbital period of $7.7~ \rm minutes$, in which a low-mass white dwarf transfers the material onto a BH in a short-term mass transfer episode, producing an X-ray luminosity of $10^{38}~\rm erg\,s^{-1}$. We also obtain an initial parameter space of BH-MS binaries as the progenitors of Seq.1 in the donor-star masses and orbital periods plane, which can be applied to future population synthesis simulations. If Seq.1 is indeed a BH UCXB, future spaceborne gravitational wave (GW) detectors can detect the low-frequency GW signals from this source, and a tidal disruption event will be expected after 0.12 Myr.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12689 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Evolution of BH-MS binaries with a BH mass of 10 M⊙, a donor-star mass of 1.25 M⊙, and different initial orbital periods in the orbital period vs. stellar age diagram. The open circles, open triangles, and open stars represent the onset of first RLOF, the end of first RLOF, and the onset of UCXBs, respectively. The horizontal dashed line denote the detected period (7.7 minutes) of Seq.1. is almost stripped, remainin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Same as Figures 1 and 2, but for the evolutionary tracks of BH-MS binaries in the H-R diagram. mum orbital period is 58 minutes, which is much longer than the orbital period of 7.7 minutes detected in Seq.1. In the CARB MB case, the BH binary experiences rapid orbital decay and the orbital period decreases to 0.34 days on a short timescale of ∼ 0.4 Gyr. As Md = 0.16 M⊙, the rich-H envelope of the donor star 2.0 4.0 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of a BH-MS binary with Mbh,i = 10 M⊙, Md,i = 1.25 M⊙, and Porb,i = 1.6 days under dif￾ferent wind scaling factors in orbital period vs. stellar age diagram. The blue, yellow, green, and red curves correspond to a wind scaling factor of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Parameter space distribution of BH-MS binaries that can evolve toward BH UCXBs like Seq.1 in the initial orbital period vs. initial donor-star mass diagram. The ini￾tial mass of the BH is fixed to be 10 M⊙. The open circles indicate those systems that cannot evolve int…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of three BH UCXBs that evolve from BH-MS binaries consisting a BH and a 1.5 M⊙ MS compan￾ion in an initial orbit of 1.0 day in the characteristic strain amplitude vs. GW frequency diagram. The red, blue, and green curves represent the sensitivity curves of LI…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y Armas Padilla, M., Corral-Santana, J

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y Armas Padilla, M., Corral-Santana, J. M., Borghese, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346797

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  2. [2]

    O., Tudor, V., et al

    Bahramian, A., Heinke, C. O., Tudor, V., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 2199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx166

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx166 2017

  3. [3]

    R., & Murray, S

    Barnard, R., Garcia, M. R., & Murray, S. S. 2013, ApJ, 770, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/148

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/2/148 2013

  4. [4]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, A&A, 678, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347047

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347047 2023

  5. [5]

    M., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Chen, H.-L., Tauris, T. M., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2023, ApJ, 951, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd4b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd4b8 2023

  6. [6]

    M., Han, Z., & Chen, X

    Chen, H.-L., Tauris, T. M., Han, Z., & Chen, X. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab670

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab670 2021

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9017

    Chen, W.-C. 2020, ApJ, 896, 129, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9017

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9017 2020

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJL, 900, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abae66

    Chen, W.-C., Liu, D.-D., & Wang, B. 2020, ApJL, 900, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abae66

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abae66 2020

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/131

    Chen, W.-C., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2016, ApJ, 830, 131, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/131

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Strader, J., Davies, M

    Church, R. P., Strader, J., Davies, M. B., & Bobrick, A. 2017, ApJL, 851, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9aeb

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Deloye, C. J., & Bildsten, L. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1217, doi: 10.1086/379063

    2003 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fec

    Deng, Z.-L., & Li, X.-D. 2024, ApJ, 971, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5fec

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2

    Deng, Z.-L., Li, X.-D., Gao, Z.-F., & Shao, Y. 2021, ApJ, 909, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly014

    Dong, Y.-Z., Gu, W.-M., Liu, T., & Wang, J. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L101, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly014

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Herant, M., & Davies, M. B. 1999, ApJ, 520, 650, doi: 10.1086/307467

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    2010, ApJ, 724, 417, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/417

    Weinberg, N. 2010, ApJ, 724, 417, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/417

    2010 doi

  9. [17]

    E., Pols, O

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2009, A&A, 497, 255, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810425

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    F., & Alexander, T

    Hopman, C., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Alexander, T. 2004, ApJL, 604, L101, doi: 10.1086/383616

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    A., & Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943, doi: 10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    G., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Tauris, T. M., & Langer, N. 2014, A&A, 571, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424680

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    2006, ApJL, 653, L137, doi: 10.1086/510672

    Ivanova, N. 2006, ApJL, 653, L137, doi: 10.1086/510672

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 948, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/948

    Ivanova, N., Chaichenets, S., Fregeau, J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 948, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/948

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Lombardi, J

    Ivanova, N., Rasio, F. A., Lombardi, J. C., J., Dooley, K. L., & Proulx, Z. F. 2005, ApJL, 621, L109, doi: 10.1086/429220

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    King, A. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L120, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa020

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Kolb, U., & Burderi, L

    King, A. R., Kolb, U., & Burderi, L. 1996, ApJL, 464, L127, doi: 10.1086/310105

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2818

    Lin, J., & Yu, W. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2818

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1907, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1907

    Ma, B., & Li, X.-D. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1907, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1907

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    Greene, T. P. 2012, ApJL, 754, L26, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L26

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 979, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08514.x

    2005

  22. [30]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Strader, J., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 3918, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1869

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094030, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094030

    Nelemans, G. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094030, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/26/9/094030

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    A., Rappaport, S

    Nelson, L. A., Rappaport, S. A., & Joss, P. C. 1986, ApJ, 304, 231, doi: 10.1086/164156 12

    1986 doi

  25. [33]

    W., Hartmann, L

    Noyes, R. W., Hartmann, L. W., Baliunas, S. L., Duncan, D. K., & Vaughan, A. H. 1984, ApJ, 279, 763, doi: 10.1086/161945

    1984 doi

  26. [34]

    Parker, E. N. 1971, ApJ, 164, 491, doi: 10.1086/150862

    1971 doi

  27. [35]

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

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

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

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

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

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

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

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

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

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

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

    2003

  33. [41]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. D. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1107, doi: 10.1086/324686

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb340

    Qin, K., Jiang, L., & Chen, W.-C. 2023, ApJ, 944, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb340

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12d3

    Qin, K., Xu, K., Liu, D.-D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad12d3

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    C., & Webbink, R

    Rappaport, S., Joss, P. C., & Webbink, R. F. 1982, ApJ, 254, 616, doi: 10.1086/159772

    1982 doi

  37. [45]

    A., Ma, C

    Rappaport, S., Nelson, L. A., Ma, C. P., & Joss, P. C. 1987, ApJ, 322, 842, doi: 10.1086/165778

    1987 doi

  38. [46]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713, doi: 10.1086/161569 R´ eville, V., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., &

    1983 doi

  39. [47]

    Pinto, R. F. 2015, ApJ, 798, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/116

    2015 doi

  40. [48]

    J., & Liu, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liu, C. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 108, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-1008-4

    Ruan, W.-H., Liu, C., Guo, Z.-K., Wu, Y.-L., & Cai, R.-G. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 108, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-1008-4

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Tauris, T. M. 2018, PhRvL, 121, 131105, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.131105

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09388

    2023 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    A., Aarseth, S

    Tout, C. A., Aarseth, S. J., Pols, O. R., & Eggleton, P. P. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 732, doi: 10.1093/mnras/291.4.732

    1997 doi

  45. [53]

    Tudor, V., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Knigge, C., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty284

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    X., & Ivanova, N

    Van, K. X., & Ivanova, N. 2019, ApJL, 886, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab571c

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    X., Ivanova, N., & Heinke, C

    Van, K. X., Ivanova, N., & Heinke, C. O. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5595, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3489 van der Sluys, M. V., Verbunt, F., & Pols, O. R. 2005a, A&A, 431, 647, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041777 —. 2005b, A&A, 440, 973, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20052696 van Haaften, L. M., Nelem...

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    1981, A&A, 100, L7

    Verbunt, F., & Zwaan, C. 1981, A&A, 100, L7

    1981

  49. [57]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2032

    Wang, B., Chen, W.-C., Liu, D.-D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2032

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, PhRvD, 100, 043003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043003

    Wang, H.-T., Jiang, Z., Sesana, A., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 043003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043003

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273, doi: 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  52. [60]

    E., & Bloom, J

    Woosley, S. E., & Bloom, J. S. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 507, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150558

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1002

    Zhang, J., Bao, T., & Li, Z. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2096, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1002

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1526, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/11/007

    Zhu, C.-H., L¨ u, G.-L., & Wang, Z.-J. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1526, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/11/007

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.