Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

A 'Be star + black hole' candidate is reclassified as two luminous stars in orbit.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

ALS 8814 is likely a double-lined binary with two luminous stars plus a possible third companion, not a Be star + black hole binary.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection ALS 8814 is probably not a Be+BH binary; the paper makes a strong case for a luminous companion, though the orbit's numbers remain mushy. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01545 v1 pith:PDXPGLPY submitted 2025-09-01 astro-ph.SR

Complex spectral variability and hints of a luminous companion in the Be star + black hole binary candidate ALS 8814

Kareem El-Badry , Matthias Fabry , Hugues Sana , Tomer Shenar , Rhys Seeburger This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Be starsblack hole binariesspectroscopic binariesspectral disentanglingradial velocitiesH-alpha emissionGaia astrometryhierarchical triple
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 reanalyzes archival spectra of ALS 8814, a system recently promoted as a Be star orbiting a black hole on the basis of large radial-velocity swings in its emission lines. It claims that the spectra actually contain two sets of stellar absorption lines moving in anti-phase, so two hot, rapidly rotating B-type stars contribute roughly equally to the light; if true, the black hole was an artifact of treating the system as single-lined. The authors recover the companion's spectrum by spectral disentangling and argue that disk variability alone cannot explain all the signatures. They also find that the Gaia astrometric wobble (RUWE = 18.6) is too large for the binary orbit alone, suggesting a third luminous companion.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that ALS 8814 is not a Be star + black hole binary. Its key empirical finding is that at least two luminous components contribute roughly equally to the optical spectra and move in anti-phase, removing the need for a dark companion. This is established from trailed spectra, where a second set of broad, shallow absorption lines is seen shifting opposite to the primary; from the mismatch between the Doppler shifts of emission and absorption lines; and from spectral disentangling with three independent methods, which recovers a rapidly rotating companion spectrum that was missed when the secondary's disentangled spectrum was not examined. Simulations with phase-lock

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is spectral disentangling: an ansatz that every observed normalized spectrum is the sum of two time-invariant component spectra, Doppler-shifted by the binary orbit and combined at a fixed flux ratio (assumed 0.5). The paper applies three variants — wavelength-space, Fourier-space, and shift-and-add — to the LAMOST medium-resolution spectra around three He I lines. Disentangling carries the argument because it stacks information from all epochs, producing a high-signal secondary spectrum whose broad He I lines would not appear if the system were truly single-lined; it also yields a revised orbit (K1 ≈ 51.6 km/s, K2 ≈ 24.1 km/s) in which the secondary moves in anti-phase

Load-bearing premise

The companion detection assumes each observed spectrum is exactly the sum of two time-invariant stellar spectra at a fixed 50/50 light ratio, and the rejection of the main alternative depends on assumptions about the disk's V/R emission geometry and on adopting the original orbital period and systemic velocity.

What would settle it

Obtain dense, high-resolution phase-resolved spectroscopy across the full 176.55-day orbit and high-resolution imaging at 0.1–0.3 arcsec separation: continuous anti-phase motion of broad He I lines with K2≈24–38 km/s plus a resolved tertiary at the predicted flux ratio would confirm the paper's picture, while a single set of lines with no resolved third source would refute it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • ALS 8814 should be dropped from Be+BH candidate lists: its large mass function no longer implies a dark companion.
  • The system's flux ratio near 0.5 and anti-phase geometry can be tested with dense future phase coverage; if confirmed, it becomes a rare double-lined Be binary with the largest radial-velocity semi-amplitude known among classical Be stars.
  • The Gaia RUWE prediction makes a specific observable prediction: an unresolved source at 0.1–0.3 arcsec with flux ratio ≳3% should be detectable by high-resolution imaging or interferometry.
  • The eccentric orbit and apparently un-stripped companion are unusual for Be binaries, so the system would challenge the usual assumption that Be stars are spun up by mass accretion.
  • Other single-lined Be+BH candidates with large RV amplitudes should be re-examined for diluted anti-phase lines before assuming a dark companion.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A practical consequence the paper leaves implicit: when a Be star shows large RV swings and no obvious companion lines, the null hypothesis should be a rapidly rotating luminous companion diluted by disk emission, not a black hole; spectral disentangling should be run on the secondary spectrum, not just the primary-subtracted residuals.
  • The V/R simulation suggests a quantitative diagnostic: if phase-locked V/R variations with amplitudes ≳1/3 are absent in future data, the disentangled secondary is almost certainly real; if present with opposite phasing, the companion parameters would need revision.
  • If the proposed tertiary is physically bound, ALS 8814 could become a rare triple whose outer orbit and inner binary together constrain the formation history of Be binaries without mass transfer.
  • The true rotation of the primary is probably hidden by disk emission filling in the He I cores; spectra covering metal lines bluer than the LAMOST MRS windows would distinguish v sin i ≈ 130 from ≈ 300 km/s and thereby test whether the Be star is near critical rotation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes archival LAMOST medium- and low-resolution spectra of ALS 8814, a system recently proposed as a Be star + black hole binary. The authors report that the spectra contain two sets of absorption lines moving in anti-phase, that emission and absorption lines show inconsistent radial-velocity behavior, and that three independent spectral-disentangling methods recover a broad-lined, rapidly rotating secondary spectrum. They construct null models (a single star with phase-locked V/R variations and a static tertiary) and argue that both fail to reproduce the observations, and they use the large Gaia RUWE to argue for a third, marginally resolved component. The paper concludes that ALS 8814 likely contains two luminous stars contributing roughly equal optical light, with no need for a black hole, and that the system is probably a hierarchical triple.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper removes a high-profile black-hole candidate and reclassifies ALS 8814 as a double-lined binary of two hot, rapidly rotating B-type stars, with a possible third luminous companion. This is significant because the system has been used to support the existence of Be+BH binaries, a population that remains observationally elusive. The paper's key strengths are that the anti-phase absorption features are visible in raw trailed spectra without invoking a model, the LRS strong-line stationarity is an independent indicator of a second luminous component, and the authors make falsifiable predictions (e.g., high-resolution imaging should resolve a companion at 0.1-0.3 arcsec). The interpretations are appropriately hedged, and the limitations of the disentangling assumptions are stated. However, the quantitative rejection of alternative single-star models is not as strong as the text sometimes implies, and one simulation is inconsistent with the adopted orbital solution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Figure 10] The 'SB2' simulation in §5.2 is explicitly described as two stars moving in anti-phase 'with equal R V amplitudes', but the adopted orbital solution in Table 1 has K1 = 51.6 ± 1.5 km/s and K2 = 24.1 ± 1.6 km/s. For a flux ratio of 0.5, the centroid of a strong absorption line formed by both components shifts by (K1 − K2)/2 between quadratures, i.e., by about 27.5 km/s between the two extreme-epoch spectra, not zero. The LRS resolution (R ≈ 1800) corresponds to ~170 km/s, so a 27 km/s shift is not visually obvious; nevertheless, the simulation as presented predicts perfect cancellation, which is not the model actually inferred. This undermines the quantitative comparison with the static-tertiary case (which predicts a ~52 km/s shift). The authors should repeat the SB2 simulation with K1 = 51.6, K2 = 24.1 and quantify the line-shift predictions, or explicitly state that Figure 10 is an ill
  2. [§5.1, Equations (1)–(2), Figure 9] The V/R null test considers only a restricted family of variability: two Gaussian emission peaks with fixed separation and width, modulated sinusoidally by ±33% in amplitude, with a single prescribed phasing. Real Be disks show a wider range of phase-locked profile variability, including one-armed oscillations, changes in peak separation and width, and phase-dependent infilling of photospheric lines. The statement that the observed spectra 'do not show coherent V/R variations' is based on visual inspection of 26 MRS spectra with sparse phase coverage, and the paper itself notes (§3.3) that the two-component disentangling model leaves reduced chi2 > 1 for all three He I lines. The conclusion that emission-line variability alone is 'unlikely to explain all signatures' is therefore stronger than the simulation supports. I would like to see either a quantitative upper limit on the amplitude/
  3. [§3.3–3.5, Figure 4] The physical interpretation of the system as two stars of roughly equal optical luminosity rests on the assumed flux ratio of 0.5 and on a secondary semi-amplitude K2 that is not tightly constrained. Figure 4 shows best-fit K2 values of 22, 24, and 37 km/s for the three He I lines, and K2 is sensitive to the fitting window. The dynamical mass ratio is M2/M1 = K1/K2 ≈ 2.1 for the fiducial K2 = 24 km/s, implying that the secondary is significantly more massive than the Be star. A main-sequence secondary of ~20 M_sun would be expected to be substantially more luminous and hotter than the 11 M_sun primary, which is in tension with the assumption of equal optical flux and the similarity of the inferred temperatures. The authors should discuss how the adopted flux ratio can be reconciled with the dynamical mass ratio, and should show how the disentangled spectra and the conclusions change for
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The units for the argument of periastron are given only as 'rad' in the table header but not in the caption; please state the units explicitly and consider also giving the value in degrees for readability.
  2. [§5.2] The phrase 'equal R V amplitudes' is misleading given Table 1; if the authors intend a simplified illustration, say so explicitly in the text and figure caption.
  3. [Figure 9] The caption refers to 'the bottom panel' but the figure appears to contain multiple lower panels; please reference the specific panel (e.g., 'lower left', 'lower right').
  4. [Acknowledgments] Typo: 'the the Flemish Government' should be 'the Flemish Government'.
  5. [Abstract] The claim that ALS 8814 has 'the largest RV semi-amplitude observed in any known classical Be star' would benefit from a citation or quantitative context, since the comparison sample is not defined in the abstract or introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the luminous-companion claim is supported by direct spectral variability and forward-model null tests, not by the disentangling ansatz alone.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that ALS 8814 contains at least two luminous components moving in anti-phase—does not reduce to its own assumptions. The anti-phase motion is first identified directly in the raw trailed spectra (Section 3.1, Figure 1), and the differing Doppler behavior of emission and absorption lines is shown directly in the LRS data (Section 3.2, Figure 2). The disentangling model does assume two time-invariant components with a flux ratio of 0.5 (Section 3.3), but the paper explicitly tests the main alternative hypothesis—that a single star with phase-locked V/R variations could produce a spurious secondary—via forward simulations (Section 5.1). Those simulations show that the specific V/R model does produce a spurious secondary, but that the simulated data lack the anti-phase absorption-line motion seen in the real data and are best fit by K2=0, unlike the observed data. The possibility of a static tertiary is also tested against the LRS spectra (Section 5.2) and rejected as the sole explanation. None of these steps equates the conclusion with the input: the null models are constructed independently and fail on empirical grounds. The RUWE-based argument for a third component uses the authors' gaiamock code, but its accuracy is validated against external Gaia DR3 astrometric binaries within ~20% (Section 4, Figure 8), providing independent support rather than self-referential circularity. The paper also honestly flags limitations—K2 is poorly constrained across lines, red_chi2>1 for all He I lines, and further data are needed (Sections 3.3, 3.5, 5.1)—which further indicates that the results are not being forced by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The fixed orbital period and center-of-mass velocity are taken from An et al. (2025), an external source, while the other orbital parameters are refit; this is not circular. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the central claim is falsifiable against the data, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rely on: the assumption that observed spectra are a sum of two time-invariant spectra (the disentangling ansatz); the adopted period and gamma from An et al. (2025); stellar atmosphere models from TLUSTY/BSTAR06 for both components; the stationarity and Gaussian form of DIBs; and the reliability of gaiamock for predicting RUWE. These are all standard tools, stated in the text, and none introduce new physics.

free parameters (8)
  • K2 (secondary RV semi-amplitude) = 24.1 ± 1.6 km/s best-fit; varies 22-38 km/s across lines
    Fit via MCMC spectral disentangling; underpins the claim of anti-phase motion and mass ratio.
  • K1 (primary RV semi-amplitude) = 51.6 ± 1.5 km/s
    Refit in disentangling; consistent with An et al. (2025).
  • eccentricity e = 0.31 ± 0.02
    Refit in disentangling; moderately discrepant from An et al.
  • periastron time Tp = 2458038.5 ± 1.4 JD
    Refit in disentangling.
  • argument of periastron omega = -0.23 ± 0.05 rad
    Refit in disentangling.
  • flux ratio (primary:secondary) = 0.5 (assumed)
    Assumed in wavelength-space disentangling; independently supported by LRS line stationarity but not fitted.
  • v sin i (secondary) = ≈250 km/s (visual)
    Matched to disentangled line widths; not quantitatively fit.
  • v sin i (primary) = 130 km/s in simulations; true likely 250-300 km/s
    Adopted to mimic combined star+disk line cores; paper notes true value likely higher.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Observed spectra are the sum of two time-invariant component spectra with known Doppler shifts (disentangling ansatz)
    Invoked in Section 3.3; violations from V/R variability are addressed in Section 5.1 but not fully excluded.
  • domain assumption Orbital period P=176.55 d and center-of-mass velocity gamma=16.99 km/s from An et al. (2025) are correct and fixed
    Adopted in Section 3.3; an incorrect period would bias phase-folding and disentangling.
  • domain assumption TLUSTY BSTAR06 models with Teff=26 kK, log g=4 approximate the photospheres of both components
    Used to interpret disentangled spectra and in simulations (Sections 3.5, 5.1).
  • domain assumption Gaia RUWE can be accurately predicted for binaries via gaiamock
    Validated against DR3 astrometric binaries in Section 4 (Figure 8).
  • domain assumption DIBs are stationary and can be removed with fixed Gaussian fits
    Section 2.1.1; stationary residuals could bias disentangling if removal is imperfect.
invented entities (1)
  • Marginally resolved tertiary or background source independent evidence
    purpose: Explains Gaia RUWE=18.6, too large for binary motion alone
    Predicted at separation 0.1-0.3 arcsec with flux ratio ≳3%; detectable with high-resolution imaging; flagged in Section 4.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complex spectral variability and hints of a luminous companion in the Be star + black hole binary candidate ALS 8814." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PDXPGLPY

@misc{pith2026250901545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complex spectral variability and hints of a luminous companion in the Be star + black hole binary candidate ALS 8814},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PDXPGLPY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01545}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The emission-line binary ALS 8814 was recently proposed as a Be star + black hole (BH) binary based on large-amplitude radial velocity (RV) variations of a Be star and non-detection of spectroscopic features from a luminous companion. We reanalyze low- and medium-resolution LAMOST spectra of ALS 8814 and show that the system's spectroscopic variability is considerably more complex than previously recognized. Inspection of the system's trailed spectra reveals the presence of a second set of absorption lines that move in anti-phase with the Be star. In addition, the emission and absorption lines exhibit inconsistent RV variability, suggesting that they trace different stars. Using spectral disentangling, we recover the spectrum of a rapidly rotating companion whose broad, shallow lines were previously undetected. Time-variability in the emission lines complicates interpretation of the disentangled spectrum, such that the physical parameters of the components are still uncertain, but we find with simulations that emission line variability alone is unlikely to explain all signatures of the companion. The system's high Gaia RUWE value suggests a third luminous companion, making ALS 8814 a likely hierarchical triple. Although it is unlikely to contain a BH, the system is unusual, with the largest RV semi-amplitude observed in any known classical Be star and a companion that does not appear to be stripped. More extensive spectroscopic monitoring and high-resolution imaging will be necessary to fully characterize the system's orbital architecture, stellar parameters, and evolutionary status.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01545 by Hugues Sana, Kareem El-Badry, Matthias Fabry, Rhys Seeburger, Tomer Shenar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Phase-folded trailed LAMOST MRS spectra of ALS 8814. Top panels show the raw data; bottom panels show data after subtraction of the disentangled mean spectrum of the primary. In the top panels, narrow absorption lines flanked by double-peaked emission lines shift coherently. Traces of broader absorption lines moving in anti-phase can also be discerned; these become more obvious in the bottom panels. cali… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Cutouts of LAMOST low-resolution spectra of ALS 8814 near opposite RV extrema. All panels show a wavelength range corresponding to a fixed velocity range of ±1500 km s−1 . Top panels show regions containing emission lines, while bottom panels show strong absorption lines. The emission lines are clearly RV variable, shifting by more than 50 km s−1 between the two epochs. However, no coherent RV variabilit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — Variability of He I λ4921.93, the strongest He line covered by the MRS data. Top panel compares the observed MRS data between a visit near opposition (black) and visits near opposite conjunctions (red and blue). The RVs listed in each panel are those predicted by the ephemeris of the Be star. Bottom panel shows a simulation with two luminous stars (see text for details). The observed line cores shift sig… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Constraints on the RV semi-amplitude of the primary (K1) and secondary (K2) from wavelength-space disentangling. The three panels show results from the three He I lines highlighted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Reconstruction of observed spectra with the disentangled components. Top and bottom rows show epochs near opposite quadratures, while the three columns show three different He I lines. Black lines show observed spectra, while red and blue lines show the disentangled spectra of the primary and secondary. Their sum (cyan) matches the observed spectra well. 4980 5000 5020 5040 5060 5080 5100 5120 5140 0.94 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Comparison of the disentangled spectra of the primary (top) and secondary (bottom) produced by three different disentangling methods. Despite minor differences, the three algorithms produce broadly consistent results. The recovered secondary has broad He I lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Comparison of the disentangled spectra of the primary and secondary (black lines) to synthetic spectra. Cyan line in the left panels shows a model with v sin i = 250 km s−1 , as assumed by An et al. (2025). The data visually appear better fit by a model with v sin i = 130 km s−1 , but this is likely a consequence of infilling from emission lines, and the broad absorption wings of He I λ6678.15 suggest a … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Observed and predicted RUWE of Gaia DR3 astrometric binaries (colored points) and ALS 8814 (black star). ALS 8814 has a much larger RUWE than predicted from its orbit for any plausible inclination or orientation. In contrast, the predicted RUWE of the DR3 astrometric binaries is fairly accurate. The simplest expla￾nation is that a marginally-resolved tertiary or background star in ALS 8814 perturbs the a… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Effects of V/R variations on spectral disentangling. We simulate spectra of a binary with a single luminous star surrounded by a disk that undergoes phase-locked V/R variations (Equation 1). Spectra at opposite RV extrema are shown in the upper right panel; upper left panels show all the trailed simulated spectra. Lower right panel shows the results of applying spectral disentangling to the simulated spe… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Simulation of the LRS spectra shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [2]

    Abdul-Masih M., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-020-2216-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.580E..11A 580, E11

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2216-x

  2. [3]

    arXiv:2505.23151

    An Q.-Y., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2505.23151 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250523151A p. arXiv:2505.23151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.23151 2025

  3. [4]

    J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..19A 579, A19

    Armstrong D. J., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525889 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...579A..19A 579, A19

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525889 2015

  4. [5]

    Belczynski K., Ziolkowski J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707..870B 707, 870

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/870 2009

  5. [6]

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037640

  6. [7]

    Bodensteiner J., et al., 2020b, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038682 , 641, A43

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038682

  7. [8]

    M., Herrero A., Sim \'o n-D \' az S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505..378C 505, 378

    Casares J., Negueruela I., Rib \'o M., Ribas I., Paredes J. M., Herrero A., Sim \'o n-D \' az S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature12916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.505..378C 505, 378

    doi:10.1038/nature12916 2014

  8. [9]

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

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1283 2015

  9. [10]

    Cui X.-Q., et al., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1197C 12, 1197

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  10. [11]

    M., Oudmaijer R

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3105 2024

  11. [12]

    K., Speagle J

    Edenhofer G., Zucker C., Frank P., Saydjari A. K., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., En lin T. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...685A..82E 685, A82

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347628 2024

  12. [13]

    El-Badry K., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.138448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..62E 8, 62

    doi:10.33232/001c.138448 2025

  13. [14]

    El-Badry K., Quataert E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493L..22E 493, L22

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa004 2020

  14. [15]

    El-Badry K., Quataert E., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab285 , 502, 3436

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab285 2021

  15. [16]

    B., Mr \'o z P., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3089E 511, 3089

    El-Badry K., Burdge K. B., Mr \'o z P., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac274 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3089E 511, 3089

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac274

  16. [17]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3602E 516, 3602

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2422

  17. [18]

    El-Badry K., Lam C., Holl B., Halbwachs J.-L., Rix H.-W., Mazeh T., Shahaf S., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.125461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E.100E 7, 100

    doi:10.33232/001c.125461 2024

  18. [19]

    J., Mahy L., Marchant P., Le Bouquin J.-B., Sana H., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140452 , 651, A119

    Fabry M., Hawcroft C., Frost A. J., Mahy L., Marchant P., Le Bouquin J.-B., Sana H., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140452 , 651, A119

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202140452 2021

  19. [20]

    Fan H., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878..151F 878, 151

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b74 2019

  20. [21]

    D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab291c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131i4502F 131, 094502

    Feinstein A. D., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab291c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131i4502F 131, 094502

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab291c 2019

  21. [22]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  22. [23]

    Fortin F., Garc \' a F., Simaz Bunzel A., Chaty S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671A.149F 671, A149

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245236 2023

  23. [24]

    J., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202143004 , 659, L3

    Frost A. J., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202143004 , 659, L3

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202143004 2022

  24. [25]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.adg7700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Sci...384..214F 384, 214

    Frost A. J., et al., 2024, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.adg7700 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Sci...384..214F 384, 214

    doi:10.1126/science.adg7700 2024

  25. [26]

    F., Levato H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...448..283G 448, 283

    Gonz \'a lez J. F., Levato H., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...448..283G 448, 283

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053177 2006

  26. [27]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  27. [28]

    Grudzinska M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1419 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.2773G 452, 2773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1419 2015

  28. [29]

    Hadrava P., 1995, Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, 114, 393

    work page 1995

  29. [30]

    Hensberge H., Iliji \'c S., Torres K. B. V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20079038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...482.1031H 482, 1031

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20079038 2008

  30. [31]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    Howell S. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    doi:10.1086/676406 2014

  31. [32]

    Hubeny I., Lanz T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...439..875H 439, 875

    doi:10.1086/175226 1995

  32. [33]

    ascl:1705.012

    Iliji \'c S., 2017, Astrophysics Source Code Library, p. ascl:1705.012

    work page 2017

  33. [34]

    M., 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series

    Iliji \'c S., Hensberge H., Pavlovski K., Freyhammer L. M., 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. San Francisco, California, USA, pp 111--113

    work page 2004

  34. [35]

    Janssens S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A.129J 658, A129

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141866 2022

  35. [36]

    J., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347318 , 677, L9

    Janssens S., Shenar T., Degenaar N., Bodensteiner J., Sana H., Audenaert J., Frost A. J., 2023, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347318 , 677, L9

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347318 2023

  36. [37]

    Kervella P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A.111K 667, A111

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244009 2022

  37. [38]

    Klement R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac062c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916...24K 916, 24

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac062c 2021

  38. [39]

    Klement R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...962...70K 962, 70

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ec 2024

  39. [40]

    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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5abd 2022

  40. [41]

    Langer N., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937375 , 638, A39

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937375 2020

  41. [42]

    Lanz T., Hubeny I., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..169...83L 169, 83

    doi:10.1086/511270 2007

  42. [43]

    J., Dufton P

    Lennon D. J., Dufton P. L., Villase \ n or J. I., Evans C. J., Langer N., Saxton R., Monageng I. M., Toonen S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A.180L 665, A180

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142413 2022

  43. [44]

    Lindegren L., 2018, R e-normalising the astrometric chi-square in G aia D R 2, GAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124, https://dms.cosmos.esa.int/COSMOS/doc_fetch.php?id=3757412

    2018

  44. [45]

    Lindegren L., 2022, E xpected astrometric properties of binaries in ( E ) D R 3, https://dms.cosmos.esa.int/COSMOS/doc_fetch.php?id=1566327

    work page 2022

  45. [46]

    Liu J., et al., 2019, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-019-1766-2 , 575, 618

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1766-2 2019

  46. [47]

    arXiv:2005.07210

    Liu C., et al., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200507210L p. arXiv:2005.07210

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.07210 2020

  47. [48]

    Mahy L., Gosset E., Sana H., Damerdji Y., De Becker M., Rauw G., Nitschelm C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118199 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...540A..97M 540, A97

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118199 2012

  48. [49]

    Mahy L., et al., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243147 , 664, A159

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243147 2022

  49. [50]

    V., Moffat A

    Marchenko S. V., Moffat A. F. J., Eenens P. R. J., 1998, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/316280 , 110, 1416

    work page doi:10.1086/316280 1998

  50. [51]

    S., et al., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11040083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...83M 11, 83

    Miroshnichenko A. S., et al., 2023, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies11040083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Galax..11...83M 11, 83

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies11040083 2023

  51. [52]

    HIP 15429: A newborn Be star on an eccentric binary orbit

    M \"u ller-Horn J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06973 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250406973M p. arXiv:2504.06973

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06973 2025

  52. [53]

    R., Cote J., Waters L

    Pols O. R., Cote J., Waters L. B. F. M., Heise J., 1991, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991A&A...241..419P 241, 419

    work page 1991

  53. [54]

    V., Lipunov V

    Raguzova N. V., Lipunov V. M., 1999, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&A...349..505R 349, 505

    work page 1999

  54. [55]

    G., Jones C

    Rast R. G., Jones C. E., Carciofi A. C., Suffak M. W., Fonseca Silva A. C., Henry G. W., Tycner C., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad40a2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...30R 968, 30

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad40a2 2024

  55. [56]

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

    doi:10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8 2011

  56. [57]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  57. [58]

    arXiv:2411.06882

    Rivinius T., Klement R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241106882R p. arXiv:2411.06882

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.06882 2024

  58. [59]

    C., Martayan C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...69R 21, 69

    Rivinius T., Carciofi A. C., Martayan C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...69R 21, 69

    doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0 2013

  59. [60]

    Rivinius T., Baade D., Hadrava P., Heida M., Klement R., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637L...3R 637, L3

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038020 2020

  60. [61]

    MWC656: A Be+BH or a Be+sdO?

    Rivinius T., Klement R., Chojnowski S. D., Baade D., Shepard K., Hadrava P., 2024, in Mackey J., Vink J. S., St-Louis N., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 361, Massive Stars Near and Far. pp 332--333 ( @eprint arXiv 2208.12315 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921322002976

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [62]

    Rivinius T., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A.172R 694, A172

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347275 2025

  62. [63]

    A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..133R 971, 133

    Rocha K. A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5955 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971..133R 971, 133

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5955 2024

  63. [64]

    Sana H., Le Bouquin J.-B., De Becker M., Berger J.-P., de Koter A., M \'e rand A., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L43 , 740, L43

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/l43 2011

  64. [65]

    Seeburger R., Rix H.-W., El-Badry K., Xiang M., Fouesneau M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1935S 530, 1935

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae982 2024

  65. [66]

    Shao Y., Li X.-D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...37S 796, 37

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/1/37 2014

  66. [67]

    Shenar T., et al., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833006 , 616, A103

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833006 2018

  67. [68]

    Shenar T., et al., 2020, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038275 , 639, L6

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038275 2020

  68. [69]

    Shenar T., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y , 6, 1085

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y 2022

  69. [70]

    Shi X.-d., Qian S.-b., Zhu L.-y., Li L.-j., Zhao E.-g., Lin W.-x., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1f66 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...28S 271, 28

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad1f66 2024

  70. [71]

    P., Sturm E., 1994, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 281, 286

    Simon K. P., Sturm E., 1994, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 281, 286

    work page 1994

  71. [72]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.09388 2023

  72. [73]

    Exploring Thousands of Nearby Hierarchical Systems with Gaia and Speckle Interferometry

    Tokovinin A., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2303.17620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230317620T p. arXiv:2303.17620

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17620 2023

  73. [74]

    Wang S., et al., 2021a, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..292W 21, 292

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/292

  74. [75]

    R., Peters G

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf144

  75. [76]

    Wang C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad86b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975L..20W 975, L20

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad86b7 2024

  76. [77]

    T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.23876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250323876X p

    Xu X. T., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.23876 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250323876X p. arXiv:2503.23876

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.23876 2025

  77. [78]

    D., Wang Z

    Zhang F., Li X. D., Wang Z. R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...603..663Z 603, 663

    work page doi:10.1086/381540 2004

  78. [79]

    Zhao G., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., Jing Y.-P., Deng L.-C., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12..723Z 12, 723

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 2012

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.