Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 64 references

Can the Anomalous Magnetic Braking of Ap/Bp Stars Explain the Orbital Decay of Algol-type Binaries?

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ap/Bp magnetic braking cannot explain the rapid orbital decay of Algol binaries: the predicted period decay rates fall two to three orders of magnitude short of observed values.

desk verdict A clean negative result — anomalous MB of Ap/Bp stars misses Algol orbital decay by 2–3 orders of magnitude, and the paper is honest that the verdict hinges on the observed Pdot being truly secular. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06081 v1 pith:Y2S25UJR submitted 2025-09-07 astro-ph.SR

Guan-Long Wu , Zhao-Yu Zuo , Wen-Cong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords AlgolbinariesorbitaldecaymagneticbrakingAp/BpstarsbinarystellarevolutioncircumbinarydiskApplegatemechanismeclipsetiming
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

Algol-type binaries are close stellar pairs where one star transfers mass to a hotter companion, and several of them have been observed shrinking in orbit faster than ordinary mass transfer can explain. This paper asks whether anomalous magnetic braking of Ap/Bp stars, intermediate-mass main-sequence stars with strong fossil magnetic fields, could supply the missing angular-momentum loss. The authors' stellar evolution simulations show that strong magnetic fields can shrink such binaries over hundreds of millions to billions of years and can match the donor temperatures and luminosities of X Tri, AT Peg, and TX UMa. But the predicted period decay rates, about 10^-10 to 10^-8 days per year, are two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the observed rates near 10^-7 days per year. The paper concludes that anomalous magnetic braking cannot be the cause of the observed rapid orbital decay and discusses circumbinary disks, magnetic activity cycles, and third bodies as alternatives.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the anomalous magnetic-braking prescription: wind leaving an Ap/Bp donor is tied to the stellar magnetic field out to the magnetospheric radius, so it carries away specific angular momentum at that lever arm, giving an orbital angular-momentum loss rate dJ/dt = -Mdot_w r_m^2 (2π/P). The magnetospheric radius is set by pressure balance between wind ram pressure and magnetic pressure, making the loss rate scale with surface field strength, donor radius, wind mass-loss rate, and orbital period. This mechanism works efficiently while the donor's wind is substantial, but the wind rate drops sharply after the mass ratio reverses, which is why the predicted period deca

What would settle it

Use the model's Eq. (3) to compute what wind mass-loss rate an Ap/Bp donor would need to produce X Tri's observed -1.42 x 10^-7 days/yr; if that rate exceeds plausible stellar wind rates by orders of magnitude, the negative conclusion is confirmed. Observationally, a decade-plus eclipse-timing campaign on X Tri, AT Peg, and TX UMa showing the negative period derivative persisting without sign reversal or periodic residuals would establish the decay is truly secular, while sinusoidal O-C residuals would support cyclic mechanisms instead.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a negative result built from direct comparison. The authors simulate main-sequence binaries with an initially more massive Ap/Bp star and a lower-mass companion, evolving them through Roche-lobe overflow while magnetic wind-field coupling removes orbital angular momentum. Once the mass ratio drops below unity, the donor's wind mass-loss rate falls sharply, and the predicted period decay rate collapses to 10^-10 to 10^-8 days/yr, two to three orders of magnitude below the observed values listed for systems such as X Tri and TX UMa. Thus, under the paper's model assumptions, anomalous magnetic braking can produce Algol-like donor stars but cannot generate the rapid orbital

Load-bearing premise

The negative conclusion assumes the period derivatives in Table 1 are long-term, secular orbital decay; if the observed O-C variations are actually cyclic, produced by the Applegate mechanism or a third body, then the slow predicted decay is not in conflict with the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rapid orbital decay in Algol systems requires an angular-momentum sink at least roughly one hundred times faster than Ap/Bp magnetic braking provides.
  • Circumbinary disks, magnetic activity cycles, and a third body remain viable alternatives, and they predict different observable signatures: near-infrared disk emission versus periodic eclipse-timing residuals.
  • Ap/Bp magnetic braking is not ruled out for long-term secular orbital evolution; the paper only rules it out as the driver of the observed fast decay.
  • Long-term eclipse-timing observations that distinguish a monotonic decrease from a cyclic variation will determine whether the apparent rapid decay is real and which mechanism is required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed negative period derivatives are merely phases of cyclic variations, the paper's model is not in conflict with the data; the decisive test is whether the period derivatives persist over times longer than typical Applegate or third-body cycle periods.
  • The bottleneck in the model is the donor's wind mass-loss rate after mass-ratio reversal. If some process kept Ap/Bp winds much stronger than the adopted stellar-wind scheme assumes, magnetic braking could in principle reach the observed rates; that is a direct extension of the paper's Eq. (3).
  • The paper's population argument, that Ap/Bp stars are rare in short-period binaries, implies that even a tuned magnetic-braking model would struggle statistically to explain multiple Algol systems; a dedicated survey of magnetic fields in Algol donors could test this independently.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether the anomalous magnetic braking (MB) mechanism proposed for Ap/Bp stars can account for the orbital decay seen in several Algol binaries. Using the MESA binary module, the authors evolve main-sequence binaries with a more massive Ap/Bp donor (star I) and a point-mass secondary, with wind mass loss and the Eq. (3) torque Jdot ∝ B_s R^{13/4} Mdot_w^{1/2}. They vary B_s (0, 2000, 5000, 13000, 15000 G) and initial periods (1.4–3.4 d) and then hand-match four initial configurations to X Tri, AT Peg, AF Gem, and TX UMa. The models produce long orbital-decay stages (hundreds Myr to several Gyr) and can reproduce the observed donor Teff and L for three of the four systems, but the predicted -Pdot during the q<1 Algol stage is 10^-10–10^-8 d/yr, 2–3 orders below the observed values in Table 1. The paper concludes that anomalous MB cannot explain the observed rapid orbital decay, and discusses CB disks, shell expansion, Applegate cycles, and LTTE as alternatives.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper is a useful negative result: it removes a plausible AM-loss channel for Algol binaries and sharpens the case for alternative mechanisms. The comparison is non-circular in an important sense: B_s, initial masses, and periods are not tuned to reproduce Pdot, and the 2–3 order deficit is generic across the explored grid. The paper also provides a falsifiable estimate (an inner CB-disk temperature of ~1360 K for X Tri, Sec. 4.2.1) and clearly flags the main observational caveat. The principal weaknesses are the conditional status of the observed period derivatives and the questionable survival of Ap/Bp fields in the convective-envelope donors that carry the decay stage.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 / Fig. 8 / Abstract] The central negative claim depends on treating the Table 1 O-C period derivatives as secular. The paper states this assumption in Sec. 4.1 but presents the mismatch in the abstract and Sec. 5 as a definitive failure of the model. The evidence is not uniform: Sec. 4.2.3 reports that TW Cas's Pdot changed sign and that AF Gem has a cyclic explanation (Yang et al. 2014). The conclusion should be explicitly conditional ('if these Pdot values are secular'), or the claim should be restricted to the subset of systems for which secular decay is robust. As written, the headline overstates the strength of the test.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and 4.2.3 (Eq. 3)] The torque model keeps the Ap/Bp surface field B_s constant through the entire post-RLOF evolution, but the decay-stage donors in Figs. 2 and 7 have log Teff ~ 3.75–3.84 (F/G), i.e. convective envelopes. The paper itself cites Braithwaite & Spruit (2017) to argue that stable Ap-type fields cannot be sustained in convective envelopes, and Sec. 4.1 notes a ~1e8-yr field-decay timescale. This is a physical inconsistency in the model applied to the very epoch whose Pdot is compared in Fig. 8. The predicted -Pdot should be presented as an upper limit, and the text should explicitly reconcile the assumed B_s with the donor's envelope structure, or state that the discrepancy would only grow if field decay/convective destruction is included.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3) / Sec. 4.1] Equation (3) shows Jdot ∝ Mdot_w^{1/2}; a factor 100 deficit in Pdot would require a factor 10^4 increase in Mdot_w. A sentence quantifying this would demonstrate robustness against wind-scheme uncertainties.
  2. [Whole paper] The MESA inlists are not provided. Given that the computations use MESA r24.08.1 with specific wind and mass-transfer settings, the numerical tracks cannot be reproduced without these inputs. Please include the relevant inlists as supplementary material.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 / Fig. 7] The four matched systems A–D are selected by hand and not by a fitting procedure; a brief description of the selection criterion and the sensitivity of the HR match to small parameter changes would strengthen the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the anomalous MB model is an externally imported ansatz tested against independent observed period derivatives; the negative result is a genuine mismatch, not a construction of its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that anomalous magnetic braking of Ap/Bp stars, as formulated by Justham et al. (2006) and implemented in MESA, cannot reproduce the observed rapid orbital decay of the selected Algol binaries. The model's free parameters (initial masses, initial period, surface magnetic field) are chosen so that the computed donor effective temperatures and luminosities match the observed HR positions of X Tri, AT Peg, and TX UMa. The predicted period decay rate is a distinct output of the same evolutionary tracks, and no parameter is fitted to the observed -Pdot values. The mismatch in Figure 8 is therefore an independent test. The paper explicitly flags the assumption that observed O-C period changes represent a secular trend, which is a caveat on the observational side, not a circular step in the derivation. Self-citations (Chen et al. 2006; Chen & Podsiadlowski 2016; Chen 2024; Fan et al. 2024) appear in contextual or alternative-mechanism discussions and do not load-bear the central negative claim. The anomalous MB formula itself is imported from external work (Justham et al. 2006), not from the authors' previous results. No instance of fitted input being relabeled as prediction, uniqueness imported from same authors, or ansatz smuggled via self-citation was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All model inputs are standard MESA physics or imported from earlier anomalous MB papers. No new free parameter is fitted to the observed decay rates, and no new entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Surface magnetic field B_s of the donor = 2000, 5000, 8000, 13000, 15000, 16000 G across tracks
    Chosen within the observed Ap/Bp range and varied for sensitivity; not fitted to the observed Pdot.
  • Initial masses and orbital periods of matched systems A-D = A: (2.6, 1.2, 4.2 d), B: (2.7, 1.4, 7.0 d), C: (3.3, 1.9, 3.4 d), D: (4.0, 3.0, 6.0 d)
    Selected so that model HR tracks pass through observed donor positions for X Tri, AT Peg, and TX UMa.
  • Wind mass-loss scaling factor = 1.0
    Standard MESA Dutch-wind scaling; assumed rather than fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Anomalous magnetic braking torque follows Eq. (3), with winds coupled out to the magnetospheric radius
    The central mechanism is imported from Justham et al. (2006); if this coupling prescription is wrong, the predicted Pdot changes.
  • domain assumption MESA Dutch-wind mass-loss rates approximate real winds of 1.5-5 Msun evolved donors
    The magnitude of the negative result is controlled by the sharp decline in wind loss after RLOF (Section 3.3, Figure 9).
  • domain assumption Mass transfer is conservative (beta = 1) apart from stellar wind loss
    Simplifies Eq. (4); if accretion is inefficient, the orbital response changes.
  • domain assumption Observed Pdot values in Table 1 are secular orbital decay rather than cyclic effects
    The mismatch conclusion interprets O-C derivatives as long-term; the paper flags this assumption in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can the Anomalous Magnetic Braking of Ap/Bp Stars Explain the Orbital Decay of Algol-type Binaries?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2S25UJR

@misc{pith2026250906081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can the Anomalous Magnetic Braking of Ap/Bp Stars Explain the Orbital Decay of Algol-type Binaries?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2S25UJR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06081}
}
abstract

Several Algol-type binaries were detected to be experiencing rapid orbital decay, which is in contradiction with the conservative mass transfer model.} In this work, we investigate whether anomalous magnetic braking (MB) of intermediate-mass Ap/Bp stars, characterized by surface magnetic fields of $\sim10^2 \mathendash 10^4~\rm G$, could drive orbital decay through magnetic wind-field coupling. Using the stellar evolution code {\ttfamily MESA}, we simulate the evolution of several \add{main-sequence binaries containing Ap/Bp stars}, with typical initial parameters \add{of Algol binaries}. Our models indicate that the anomalous MB mechanism could induce orbital decay in long timescales (hundreds of Myr to several Gyr), \add{reproducing several basic Algol parameters such as the effective temperatures and luminosities of donor stars. However, the predicted orbital period decay rates are much lower than those observed in several Algol systems. We analyze the limitations of the anomalous MB model and discuss alternative mechanisms that could account for the long- or short-term orbital period variations observed in Algol systems, including a surrounding circumbinary disk, stellar expansion, the Applegate mechanism, and the light travel-time effect. Long-term observations are still required to distinguish between these mechanisms in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relation between the function f(q, β) and the mass ratio q. The dotted, solid, and dashed lines describe the cases with β = 1.0, 0.9, and 0.8, respectively. The horizontal red line denotes f(q, β) = 0, over which the mass transfer would produce an orbital expansion effect. of evolved stars’ surface magnetic fields and initial or￾bital periods (Pi = 1.4, 2.4 and 3.4 days). Subsequently, we compare our simulated resul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the mass ratio (panel a), orbital period (panel b), and mass-transfer rate (panel c) as a function of the mass-transfer timescale (t − trlof, trlof is the stellar age when the Roche lobe overflow occurs) for MS binary systems with (M1, M2) = (3.0, 2.0) M⊙. The purple curve corresponds to the initial orbital period Pi = 0.68 days under the standard MB law (i.e. Bs = 0 G). The black, blue, and green curve… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the orbital period as a function of mass ratio for the same three systems with Ap/Bp com￾ponents as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the evolutionary tracks of the evolved stars in the HR diagram for the three binary systems presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the evolved stars in four MS binary systems in the HR diagram. The black, blue, green, and pur￾ple curves correspond to the evolutionary tracks of MS binary systems A(M1/M⊙, M2/M⊙, Pi/days, Bs/G = 2.6, 1.2, 4.2, 8000), B(2.7, 1.4, 7.0, 16000), C(3.3, 1.9, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al

    Alecian, E., Neiner, C., Wade, G. A., et al. 2015, in IAU

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    307, New Windows on Massive Stars, ed

    Symposium, Vol. 307, New Windows on Massive Stars, ed. G. Meynet, C. Georgy, J. Groh, & P. Stee, 330–335, doi: 10.1017/S1743921314007030

    doi:10.1017/s1743921314007030

  3. [3]

    Applegate, J. H. 1992, ApJ, 385, 621, doi: 10.1086/170967

    doi:10.1086/170967 1992

  4. [4]

    Braithwaite, J., & Spruit, H. C. 2004, Nature, 431, 819, doi: 10.1038/nature02934 —. 2017, Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160271, doi: 10.1098/rsos.160271

    doi:10.1038/nature02934 2004

  5. [5]

    Chambliss, C. R. 1982, PASP, 94, 926, doi: 10.1086/131086

    work page doi:10.1086/131086 1982

  6. [6]

    Chaubey, U. S. 1979, Ap&SS, 64, 177, doi: 10.1007/BF00640040

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00640040 1979

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66ce

    Chen, W.-C. 2024, ApJ, 973, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad66ce

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad66ce 2024

  8. [8]

    2006, ApJ, 649, 973, doi: 10.1086/506433

    Chen, W.-C., Li, X.-D., & Qian, S.-B. 2006, ApJ, 649, 973, doi: 10.1086/506433

    doi:10.1086/506433 2006

Show all 64 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]

    D., Hubrig, S., Hasselquist, S., et al

    Chojnowski, S. D., Hubrig, S., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2019, ApJL, 873, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0750

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Crawford, J. A. 1955, ApJ, 121, 71, doi: 10.1086/145965 Can Ap/Bp Stars Explain the Orbital Decay of Algol-type Bina ries? 11

    1955 doi

  4. [12]

    F., & Landstreet, J

    Donati, J. F., & Landstreet, J. D. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 333, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101833

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b48

    Fan, Y.-N., Shao, Y., & Chen, W.-C. 2024, ApJ, 976, 210, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b48

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, SSRv, 191, 77, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0138-y

    Ferrario, L., Melatos, A., & Zrake, J. 2015, SSRv, 191, 77, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0138-y

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Tout, C

    Ferrario, L., Pringle, J. E., Tout, C. A., & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2009, MNRAS, 400, L71, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00765.x

    2009

  8. [16]

    P., Wade, G

    Folsom, C. P., Wade, G. A., & Johnson, N. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 3336, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1003

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2015, A&A, 582 , A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526725 Gaia Collaboration

    Fossati, L., Castro, N., Sch¨ oller, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 582 , A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526725 Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Collaboration, 2020), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G; ...

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    1983, ApJS, 52, 35, doi: 10.1086/190858

    Giuricin, G., Mardirossian, F., & Mezzetti, M. 1983, ApJS, 52, 35, doi: 10.1086/190858

    1983 doi

  11. [19]

    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 Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Rebolo, R., & Casares, J. 2014, MNRAS, 438, L21, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt150 Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., Su´ ...

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    P., K¨ apyl¨ a, P

    Hidalgo, J. P., K¨ apyl¨ a, P. J., Schleicher, D. R. G., Ortiz-Rodr ´ ıguez, C. A., & Navarrete, F. H. 2024, A&A, 691, A326, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449977

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    1963, ApJ, 138, 471, doi: 10.1086/147659 Ibanoˇ glu, C., Soydugan, F., Soydugan, E., & Dervi¸ soˇ glu,A

    Huang, S.-S. 1963, ApJ, 138, 471, doi: 10.1086/147659 Ibanoˇ glu, C., Soydugan, F., Soydugan, E., & Dervi¸ soˇ glu,A. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 435, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11052.x

    1963

  14. [22]

    Irwin, J. B. 1952, ApJ, 116, 211, doi: 10.1086/145604

    1952 doi

  15. [23]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09907.x

    Justham, S., Rappaport, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09907.x

    2006

  17. [25]

    Kawaler, S. D. 1988, ApJ, 333, 236, doi: 10.1086/166740

    1988 doi

  18. [26]

    Khaliullina, A. I. 2015, Astronomy Reports, 59, 717, doi: 10.1134/S106377291506013X

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  20. [28]

    1955, Annales d’Astrophysique, 18, 379

    Kopal, Z. 1955, Annales d’Astrophysique, 18, 379

    1955

  21. [29]

    Kraft, R. P. 1967, ApJ, 150, 551, doi: 10.1086/149359

    1967 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Rappaport, S

    Levine, A. M., Rappaport, S. A., & Zojcheski, G. 2000, ApJ, 541, 194, doi: 10.1086/309398

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    2002, The Observatory, 122, 85

    Lloyd, C., & Guilbault, P. 2002, The Observatory, 122, 85

    2002

  24. [32]

    2022, NewA, 93, 101741, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2021.101741

    Ma, W.-W., Zhao, E.-G., & Sarotsakulchai, T. 2022, NewA, 93, 101741, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2021.101741

    2022

  25. [33]

    1975, Mem

    Massevitch, A., & Yungelson, L. 1975, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 46, 217

    1975

  26. [34]

    2017, A&A, 601, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628429

    Mathys, G. 2017, A&A, 601, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628429

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Maxted, P. F. L., & Hilditch, R. W. 1995, A&A, 301, 149

    1995

  28. [36]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Hill, G., & Hilditch, R. W. 1994, A&A, 285, 535 —. 1995, A&A, 301, 135

    1994

  29. [37]

    1968, MNRAS, 138, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/138.3.359

    Mestel, L. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 359, doi: 10.1093/mnras/138.3.359

    1968 doi

  30. [38]

    1980, A&AS, 39, 265

    Mezzetti, M., Cester, B., Giuricin, G., & Mardirossian, F. 1980, A&AS, 39, 265

    1980

  31. [39]

    Morton, D. C. 1960, ApJ, 132, 146, doi: 10.1086/146908

    1960 doi

  32. [40]

    1989, MNRAS, 236, 629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/236.3.629

    Moss, D. 1989, MNRAS, 236, 629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/236.3.629

    1989 doi

  33. [41]

    P., & Smith, R

    Narita, E., Schroeder, K. P., & Smith, R. C. 2001, The Observatory, 121, 308

    2001

  34. [42]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Nelson, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 664, doi: 10.1086/320560 Parimucha, ˇS., Gajdoˇ s, P., Kudak, V., Fedurco, M., & Vaˇ nko, M. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 047, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/18/4/47

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    1984, ApJS, 54, 443, doi: 10.1086/190940

    Patterson, J. 1984, ApJS, 54, 443, doi: 10.1086/190940

    1984 doi

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    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

  39. [47]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    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

  41. [49]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  42. [50]

    2000a, AJ, 119, 901, doi: 10.1086/301217 —

    Qian, S. 2000a, AJ, 119, 901, doi: 10.1086/301217 —. 2000b, AJ, 119, 3064, doi: 10.1086/301412 —. 2001a, AJ, 122, 1561, doi: 10.1086/322179 —. 2001b, AJ, 121, 1614, doi: 10.1086/319404 —. 2001c, AJ, 122, 2686, doi: 10.1086/323455 —. 2002, PASP, 114, 650, doi: 10.1086/341681

    2002 doi

  43. [51]

    2003, PASJ, 55, 499, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.2.499

    Qian, S.-B., & Boonrucksar, S. 2003, PASJ, 55, 499, doi: 10.1093/pasj/55.2.499

    2003 doi

  44. [52]

    L., & Weigert, A

    Refsdal, S., Roth, M. L., & Weigert, A. 1974, A&A, 36, 113

    1974

  45. [53]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 12 Wu et al

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Sarna, M. J. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 534, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.2.534

    1993 doi

  47. [55]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Ohlmann, S. T., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1621-5

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Castro, N., & Fossati, L. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw148

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, ApJ, 171, 565, doi: 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  50. [58]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    1997 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    C., & Taam, R

    Spruit, H. C., & Taam, R. E. 2001, ApJ, 548, 900, doi: 10.1086/319030

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    Sterne, T. E. 1939, MNRAS, 99, 451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/99.5.451

    1939 doi

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    1981, A&A, 100, L7

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

    1981

  55. [63]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 107, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/8/107

    Wang, Z.-H., Zhu, L.-Y., Li, L.-J., & Tian, X.-M. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 107, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/8/107

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2014, AJ, 147, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/145

    Yang, Y.-G., Yang, Y., & Li, S.-Z. 2014, AJ, 147, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/145

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.