Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The companion in Abell 35 is not an evolved subgiant but a main-sequence star temporarily inflated by a recent mass-transfer episode, observed roughly 10^5 to 10^6 years after accretion ended.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 17:34 UTC pith:NKHCL5XJ

load-bearing objection Strong observational case for A35's inflated-accretor status, but the model's central assumption on accretion entropy is untested — needs careful review. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.23756 v2 pith:NKHCL5XJ submitted 2026-03-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Thermally inflated accretors in post-mass transfer binaries: Abell 35 and its class revisited

Soumyadeep Bhattacharjee , Kareem El-Badry , Jim Fuller , Cheyanne Shariat , Natsuko Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords binary starswhite dwarfsmass transferstellar accretionthermal inflationAbell 35blue lurkerspost-mass-transfer evolution
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.

This paper argues that the strange subgiant-looking companions in Abell 35-type binaries — stars that are too big and bright for ordinary main-sequence stars but too common to be finely tuned near-twin binaries — are actually ordinary main-sequence stars that a recent mass-transfer episode puffed up out of thermal equilibrium. For the prototype Abell 35, a new astrometric orbit gives a 790-day period and yields a companion with T_eff ≈ 4925 K, radius ≈ 2.95 R_sun, near-solar metallicity, and rapid rotation aligned with the orbit, all consistent with recent accretion and spin-up. The authors show that a twin-binary origin is dynamically disfavored, then build self-consistent binary evolution models in which accreted gas deposits half its infall energy into the star's envelope. The accretor balloons to giant-like radii without overflowing its Roche lobe, then contracts over roughly a million years through a bloated, rapidly rotating phase matching what is observed. If correct, this makes Abell 35-type systems a short-lived but common stage, and connects them to post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide white-dwarf binaries as one evolutionary sequence.

Core claim

In the paper's own terms: the subgiant companions in Abell 35-type binaries are main-sequence accretors temporarily inflated out of thermal equilibrium by recent mass transfer. The accretor expands dramatically during rapid accretion but does not fill its Roche lobe, so mass transfer remains stable even at rates and mass ratios classically thought unstable. After the donor's envelope is stripped, the inflated accretor thermally relaxes back to the main sequence over 10^4–10^6 years, passing through exactly the temperatures, radii, and spin rates observed in the A35-type population. For Abell 35 itself, the revised distance, 790-day astrometric orbit, and rotational alignment with the orbit a

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a modified accretion prescription in the binary evolution code: instead of assuming accreted material enters with the entropy of the stellar surface, the model assumes the material has been virialized and retains a fraction f_E = 0.5 of its infall gravitational energy as entropy deposited in the accretor's envelope (Equation 2). This extra entropy is what makes a low-mass star with a convective envelope expand rather than merely swallow mass; under the default prescription the same stars do not inflate. The same machinery also sets the star spinning near critical rotation, which later yields the observed 1–10 day rotation periods during contraction.

Load-bearing premise

The whole inflation rests on the assumption that accreted matter deposits half of its infall gravitational energy as entropy in the star's envelope; if the real deposited fraction is much smaller, the inflation disappears, and the paper's numerical setup cannot probe values below f_E ≈ 0.2.

What would settle it

A direct, resolved 3D radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of mass accretion onto a ~1 M_sun convective-envelope star that measures the fraction of infall energy actually retained as entropy — if it returns f_E < 0.2, the inflation engine is removed. Observationally, finding an A35-type system whose companion's mass and age match an evolved star rather than a recently contracted main-sequence star would also falsify the class.

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

If this is right

  • Most AU-scale companions to hot white dwarfs (T_eff ≳ 50,000 K) should appear inflated and evolved, while companions to cooler white dwarfs should look like ordinary main-sequence stars.
  • Abell 35-type binaries, post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide WD+main-sequence binaries are successive stages of a single post-mass-transfer pathway.
  • Stable mass transfer can survive accretion rates up to ~10^-2 M_sun/yr and mass ratios once considered unstable, so inflated accretors may be common rather than exceptional.
  • A35's companion is currently contracting and spinning down; its rotational axis aligned with the orbit is a direct relic of accretion-induced spin-up.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the inflated-accretor picture is right, the apparent 'subgiant' luminosity of A35's companion is temporary; in a few million years the star will look like a normal main-sequence star, so the present population of A35-type systems is a snapshot of a transient phase, and a larger census should find more systems outside planetary nebulae than inside.
  • The f_E = 0.5 assumption is the weakest physical input, and the paper cannot numerically test f_E ≲ 0.2; a 3D simulation of the accretion boundary layer on a low-mass convective star would directly measure this parameter and could either confirm or remove the inflation mechanism.
  • Applying the same contraction tracks backwards, some systems currently classified as post-AGB binaries with 'two evolved stars' may in fact be one evolved donor plus one inflated main-sequence accretor; checking whether the secondary's mass matches its pre-accretion zero-age main-sequence mass would test this.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the subgiant companions in Abell 35–type binaries are main-sequence accretors temporarily inflated by recent mass transfer, rather than evolved subgiants. It presents a new Gaia DR3 astrometric orbit for A35 (P_orb = 790 d, e ≈ 0.05, i ≈ 26°), a revised SED and spectroscopic analysis giving T_eff ≈ 4925 K, R ≈ 2.95 R_sun, near-solar metallicity, and v_rot sin i = 86 km/s, with the rotation axis aligned to the orbit. The authors disfavor a coeval twin-binary origin using a comparison of astrometric masses with an IFMR-based initial-mass estimate, and then present MESA binary models with a new accretion prescription (Eq. 2, f_E = 0.5) that inflates low-mass convective-envelope accretors. They find that the post-mass-transfer contraction phase passes through the observed A35-like parameters at ages ~10^4–10^6 yr, and propose a unifying evolutionary sequence connecting post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide WD+MS binaries.

Significance. If the inflated-accretor interpretation holds, the paper resolves a long-standing population puzzle without invoking finely tuned twin binaries, and it provides a testable evolutionary framework. The observational contribution is genuinely strong: a new astrometric orbit, a careful MCMC SED fit, four independent spectroscopic cross-checks, a Na-D–based reddening estimate, and a dynamical-mass argument. The MESA models are reproducible (public github repository), and the paper makes falsifiable predictions, e.g., that most AU-scale companions to hot WDs should appear inflated. The main weakness is that the inflation in the models is driven by a new, largely unvalidated accretion prescription, and the mass argument relies on an extrapolated IFMR. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the central claim is fully supported, but they do not invalidate the observational data or the overall scenario, which is plausible and timely.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1.1, Eq. (2), Appendix C (Figs. 15–16)] The central modeled phenomenon—inflation of a low-mass convective-envelope accretor—appears only with the new prescription f_E = 0.5. With MESA's default surface-entropy accretion, a 1 M_sun accretor does not inflate (Fig. 15, right). The paper states in §3.1.1 that f_E ≲ 0.2 is numerically unstable, so the weak-deposition regime is untested. Because f_E = 0.5 is an order-of-magnitude estimate from a Keplerian disk, and boundary layers may radiate a large fraction of the infall energy, the calculation does not currently demonstrate that the inflation is robust. I request (a) a numerical method to access lower f_E, or (b) an explicit calibration/error budget for f_E from independent constraints, or (c) a clear qualification in the abstract/conclusions that the inflation prediction depends on this untested parameter.
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 6] The argument against the evolved-subgiant interpretation hinges on comparing astrometry-allowed subgiant masses with initial masses from the Cunningham et al. (2024) IFMR extrapolated below 1 M_sun. The paper acknowledges the IFMR is not calibrated there. Binary interactions may truncate WD masses (as the authors note, citing Ironi et al. 2025), but the adopted extrapolation could also err in the opposite direction, and the derived tension is therefore not robust. Please quantify how much the IFMR would need to shift to restore a twin-binary solution, or redo the comparison with a plausible binary-IFMR range, and state whether the conclusion survives.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.1] Typo 'T rff,SG' should be 'T_eff,SG'. Also, in Table 1, the WD row has 'WDT_eff #' and 'log(g) # 7.2±0.3K'—the K unit does not belong on log g, and the formatting is broken.
  2. [§2.3] Typos: 'dyanamical' should be 'dynamical'; 'componant' should be 'component'.
  3. [Table 1 / §2.2.2] The text quotes v_rot ≈ 195 km/s (derived from P_phot and R_SG), while Table 1 lists v_rot sin i = 86 km/s and P_phot = 0.767 d. Please clarify explicitly that 195 km/s is the deprojected equatorial value obtained by dividing by sin i ≈ 0.44, to avoid apparent inconsistency.
  4. [§2.2.3] Define 'HPDP photometry' (IUE High Prime Data Products?) at first use, since many readers will not recognize the acronym.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the inflated-accretor interpretation rests on independent Gaia/SED/spectroscopic evidence; the f_E=0.5 accretion prescription is a disclosed model assumption, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The central claim—that A35-type companions are main-sequence accretors inflated by recent mass transfer—is supported by a chain that is largely independent of the MESA models: the Gaia DR3 astrometric orbit and revised distance, the SED-derived Teff and radius, the new FEROS spectroscopy giving v_rot sin i and solar metallicity, the spin-orbit alignment, and the dynamical-mass versus IFMR argument against a coeval twin-binary origin. The MESA calculations are presented as a plausibility test of the evolutionary scenario, and the paper explicitly states that the models are 'tailored for A35' rather than fitted to it. The main caveat is that the inflation of low-mass convective-envelope accretors appears only with the new accretion prescription (Eq. 2 with f_E=0.5), and the paper itself notes that f_E≲0.2 is numerically unstable, so the weak-deposition regime cannot be probed. This is a genuine model-assumption sensitivity, and it weakens the strength of the MESA support as an independent test, but it is not circular: f_E is not calibrated to A35's Teff or radius, the prescription is physically motivated from a Keplerian-disk estimate, and the conclusion does not reduce to the prescription by construction. The observational facts—large radius, rapid aligned rotation, young hot WD, dynamical mass tension—stand independently. Self-citations in the paper are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing in a circular way. Thus no circular step meets the standard of 'prediction equivalent to input by construction.'

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The theoretical phenomenon (inflation) is powered by two hand-set inputs: f_E = 0.5 (entropy-deposition fraction) and chosen initial conditions; the paper's own Equation 2 carries the effect. The observational parameter set is anchored to measured quantities (Gaia orbit and parallax, FEROS spectra, Na-D reddening, photometric period). The MESA microphysics (convection, overshoot, winds, magnetic braking) is inherited from Choi et al. (2016) and Temmink et al. (2023); the WD properties, log g, and the IFMR come from external literature. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • f_E — retained fraction of infall energy deposited in the accretor = 0.5
    Eq. 2, §3.1.1. Controls the entropy deposited by accretion and hence the amplitude of the inflation that is the paper's central phenomenon. Chosen from a Keplerian-disk argument, not measured or fit; low values (f_E ≲ 0.2) are numerically unstable, so the suppressing regime cannot be tested.
  • β — mass retention fraction of transferred mass = 0.5 (models A, C); 0.05 (model B)
    §3.1: non-conservative mass transfer with 50% (or 5%) of transferred mass accreted; chosen values bracket plausible outcomes. (MESA defines β as the lost fraction, so inlists read accordingly.)
  • Initial conditions for MESA models = M_d = 1.2 M_sun; M_a = 0.5 M_sun (A, C), 0.7 M_sun (B); P_i = 1000 d (A, B), 600 d (C)
    §3.2.1: 'We have not carried out an exhaustive search of the parameter space to best-match the system's properties' — hand-picked representative starting points chosen to yield A35-like outcomes.
  • R_WD — white dwarf radius in the SED fit = (1.62 ± 0.02) × 10^-2 R_sun (fixed E(b-v) = 0.03); (1.7 ± 0.2) × 10^-2 R_sun (free reddening)
    §2.2.1: the only free WD parameter in the SED fit; depends on adopting T_WD = 80 kK and log g = 7.5 from the literature.
  • E(b-v) — reddening = 0.047 ± 0.023 when free; fixed to 0.03 from Na D EW in the adopted fit
    §2.2.1: estimated two ways (free fit and Na-D doublet EW, Poznanski et al. 2012); the adopted 0.03 drives the final T_eff and R_WD.
  • log(g)_SG fixed at 3.5 in the SED fit = 3.5
    §2.2.1: fixed because previous studies used it and the SED is claimed insensitive; an assumption entering the radius/Teff estimate.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption MESA r24.03.1 microphysics package: Ledoux convection, MLT α = 1.9, semiconvection α_sc = 0.1, core/shell overshoot f/f0 = 0.129/0.0129 and 0.0174/0.00174, Reimers wind η_R = 0.1, Bloecker wind η_B = 0.2, energy eqn 'dedt'
    §3.1: standard choices inherited from Choi et al. (2016) and Temmink et al. (2023); the fiducial model runs with gold_tolerances off because gold-tolerance runs crash in the WD cooling phase 'for unclear reasons'.
  • domain assumption Kolb & Ritter (1990) Roche-lobe overflow mass transfer prescription
    §3.1: the standard prescription, which the paper itself notes breaks down at the large Roche-lobe overfill factors reached in models A and C (Fig. 9).
  • ad hoc to paper Cunningham et al. (2024) initial-final mass relation extrapolated to initial masses < 1 M_sun
    §2.3: 'This IFMR is not directly calibrated for initial masses < 1 M_sun. We perform a simple extrapolation of Equation 1 in their paper, which is adequate for our purpose.' The twin-binary disfavoring conclusion depends on this extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Rappaport et al. (1983) magnetic braking with γ = 4 for accretor spin-down
    §3.1.2, Eq. 5: used to produce the rotation evolution compared with observed P_rot; the authors note the spin model 'may be far from reality.'
  • domain assumption Temmink et al. (2023) stability criteria (Mdot < Mdot_KH) and L3-overfill analysis
    §3.2.3, Eq. 6: the basis for the claim that extreme mass ratios may remain stable; the same reference is used to argue that Roche overfill and L3 overflow do not necessarily trigger instability.
  • domain assumption P_phot = 0.767 d is the accretor's rotation period
    §2.2.2: photometric period from Jacoby (1981) and TESS (Bond & Zeimann 2024) is assumed to be the rotation period; it drives v_rot ≈ 195 km/s and the spin-orbit alignment conclusion (i_rot ≈ 26.2° ≈ i_orbit).
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometric orbital solution for A35 is reliable; the single-star parallax is unusable (RUWE ≈ 16)
    §2.1.1: parallax error inflated per Nagarajan & El-Badry (2024). The 165.75 pc distance and the entire dynamical-mass argument rest on this solution.
  • domain assumption WD parameters T_WD = 80 ± 10 kK and log g ≈ 7.5 adopted from Herald & Bianchi (2002)/Ziegler et al. (2012) as inputs
    §2.2.1, §2.2.3: the SED WD radius and the WD mass range (0.53–0.61 M_sun) used in the Gaia mass inference are conditioned on these literature values, which the paper itself shows to be in tension with post-AGB evolutionary tracks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31041 in / 31394 out tokens · 292725 ms · 2026-08-02T17:34:23.420207+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A small but growing class of binaries containing hot ($T_{\rm eff}\sim10^5\ {\rm K}$) white dwarfs (WDs) and rapidly rotating, apparently subgiant companions -- including the prototype, Abell 35 -- show companions that are too large and luminous to be ordinary main-sequence stars yet too numerous to be explained as finely tuned near-twin binaries. We argue that these stars are instead main-sequence accretors temporarily inflated out of thermal equilibrium by recent mass transfer. For the subgiant of Abell 35, a new Gaia DR3 astrometric orbit ($P_{\rm orb}=790\ {\rm d}$), combined with updated photometric and spectroscopic constraints, yields $T_{\rm eff}\approx4925\pm75\ {\rm K}$, $R\approx3\pm0.05\ R_{\odot}$, near-solar metallicity, and rapid rotation aligned with the orbit ($v_{\rm rot}\approx195\pm3\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}}$), indicating substantial recent accretion and spin-up. Dynamical mass limits disfavor a coeval twin-binary origin, supporting the inflated-accretor interpretation. We test this scenario using self-consistent MESA binary evolution calculations with a new accretion prescription in which accreted material retains a fraction of its infall energy, rather than adopting the default assumption that its entropy equals that of the accretor's surface. The accretor expands to giant-like radii when $\dot{M}$ is high yet remains within its Roche lobe, allowing stable mass transfer even for mass ratios traditionally considered unstable. After mass transfer ceases, the star contracts on Myr timescales through a bloated, rapidly rotating phase whose temperatures, radii, and spins match those observed in Abell 35-type systems. This framework naturally explains the population and unifies Abell 35-type binaries with post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide WD+main-sequence systems as successive stages of the same post-mass-transfer evolutionary pathway.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23756 by Cheyanne Shariat, Jim Fuller, Kareem El-Badry, Natsuko Yamaguchi, Soumyadeep Bhattacharjee.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Inferring the reddening from the high resolution optical spectrum of the subgiant obtained with FEROS. Left panel: Nor￾malized stellar spectrum around the Na-D doublet. The narrow ISM lines are well resolved. We overplot a (suitably rotationally broad￾ened) synthetic spectrum from BOSZ and a stellar spectrum from the CKS survey best matching the observed Na-D lines in A35. The details about the spectral an… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top panel: The nebula of Abell 35 (A35) with the cen￾tral (unresolved binary) star marked. Henceforth, we simply call this central star as A35. Bottom panel: The Gaia color-magnitude diagram (CMD) showing the position of Abell 35 (effectively, the companion) in the subgiant branch. The inset presents 100 random samples of the Gaia orbital solution for visualization of the orbit. adopt an uncertainty floor … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The SED of A35 (black circles) and our best fit PHOENIX+TMAP model with a fixed E(b − v)=0.03 (blue line). This fit uses a solar metallicity for the subgiant and a temperature of 80 kK for the WD. The corresponding synthetic photometry from our model is shown as red crosses. We also present the FUSE (grey) and IUE (green) spectra. The PHOENIX spectrum is downresolved for clarity. The bottom panel shows the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left three panels: Comparison of the FEROS spectrum of the subgiant in A35 with GALAH and CKS spectra for three wavelength ranges, each containing a strong Ba II line. The good match indicates a new-solar metallicity of the subgiant and no significant Ba excess. Right panel: Zoom-in on the Ba lines and comparison with synthetic spectra of [M/H] = −0.1 from iSpec, with and without Ba excess. The latter yiel… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: The spectrscopic log(g) and Teff of the WD from Ziegler et al. (2012, dark blue star) and Herald & Bianchi (2002, light blue star) compared to the post-AGB tracks from (Miller Bertolami 2016, solid lines) for Z = 0.01 (model file 0100 t03.dat.txt). We also plot the log(g) derived from the radii that best fit the IUE photometry as discussed in Section 2.2.3 (dashed lines). Intersection of the so… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examining the evolved subgiant scenario. Top Panel: Subgiant mass permitted by Gaia astrometry (MGaia SG , blue) and the initial mass of the WD (MIFMR init , orange, estimated using the IFMR from Cunningham et al. 2024), as a function of the assumed WD mass. The dark (light) shaded region represents (1σ) 3σ-equivalent error region on either side of the median values (solid line). The intersection of the sh… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top Panel: Evolution of radius (Racc) and temperature (Teff, acc) of the accretor in model A over the course of the binary evolution, colored according to βM˙ . The black open circle marks the beginning of the model, and the arrows mark the direction of evolution. The filled circles (open squares) mark the intervals of 102 (105 ) years – only for the regime where RSG > 1.5 R⊙ to fo￾cus on the inflated stat… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Roche Lobe (RL, d) and Outer lobe (ROL, d) overfill fac￾tors of the donor around the epoch of the highest accretion rates. For all our models, ROL, d/RL, d ≈ 1.3 during this epoch (calculated using equation 4 in Temmink et al. 2023). Thus, we have used this single scaling value for the right axis. We follow the same linestyles for the models as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratio of the 1) donor mass loss rate rate, M˙ d ≈ M˙ , to the global thermal timescale of the donor M˙ KH, d (blue lines) and 2) accretor’s accretion rate M˙ a ≈ βM˙ to the Eddington-limited ac￾cretion rate M˙ Edd, a. We only show ±300 years around the epoch of peak mass transfer. Both the limits are always satisfied, indicat￾ing plausible stability. We follow the same linestyles for the models as in [PI… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We concentrate on the periods after maximum M˙ . We find that the accretion rate decreases to ∼ 10−5M⊙/yr within 100 yr, and to ∼ 10−10M⊙/yr within 104 yr. By this time, both the stars have settled at their final masses. In Mod￾els A and C, the accretor gains a substantial amount of mass of 0.25 M⊙ and 0.35 M⊙, respectively. In Model B, due to low β, only a few ×10−2M⊙ is gained. The binary period has als… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbital periods and WD masses for A35 and several other classes of related post-mass transfer binaries. The Rappa￾port et al. (1995) relation for stable RGB mass transfer is shown as dashed line and a shaded error region. A35 seems most similar to the Gaia WD+MS binaries and the Kepler SLBs, which are both plausibly the results of AGB mass transfer. small fraction of its mass, and remains critically rotat… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cartoon depicting the proposed evolutionary sequence connecting the different observed populations of post-mass transfer wide binaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ratio of the donor to accretor luminosity in the optical (0.5−0.7 nm, assuming blackbodies) in the approximate age range of the post-AGB binary systems. In all our models, despite the ac￾cretor’s inflation, the donor dominates the optical light after peak mass transfer. We follow the same linestyles for the models as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of a 2 M⊙ accretor with M˙ = 10−3 M⊙/year (left panel) and 1 M⊙ accretor with M˙ = 10−4 M⊙/year (right panel) for the fiducial and new accretion prescriptions. The insets show the evolution of the accretor radius until its mass doubles. The dotted line in the right panel denotes the portion in the HR diagram before attaining the Hayashi limit where the convective mass fraction in the ’outer half… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mass fraction of the surface convection zone (calculated from the Ledoux unstable mass at radius >0.5 R⊙) as a function of the total mass for the 1 M⊙ accretor for both accretion prescrip￾tions. The new prescription disrupts surface convection almost com￾pletely at the very initial stages of accretion. tend to prevent the expansion of the star, whereas radiative envelopes tend to expand on accretion. This… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Mass-Orbital Period Distribution of Massive White Dwarfs Formed Through Stable Mass Transfer

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Simulations show that intermediate-mass progenitors with non-degenerate cores before helium burning produce a mass-orbital period relation for massive white dwarfs that accounts for long-period systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Abell, G. O. 1955, PASP, 67, 258, doi: 10.1086/126815

    work page doi:10.1086/126815 1955

  2. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty174

    Aller, A., Lillo-Box, J., Vuˇckovi´c, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty174

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty174 2018

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 674, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243462 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Sordo, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243462 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243462 2023

  4. [4]

    R., & Zorotovic, M

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., & Zorotovic, M. 2024, A&A, 687, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449320

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449320 2024

  5. [5]

    R., Kong, A

    Bhattacharjee, S., Kulkarni, S. R., Kong, A. K. H., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 024201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ada702

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ada702 2025

  6. [6]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  7. [7]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofr´e, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

  8. [8]

    1995, A&A, 297, 727

    Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 297, 727

    1995

  9. [9]

    C., M´esz´aros, S., Fleming, S

    Bohlin, R. C., M´esz´aros, S., Fleming, S. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9 2017

  10. [10]

    E., & Livio, M

    Bond, H. E., & Livio, M. 1990, ApJ, 355, 568, doi: 10.1086/168789

    work page doi:10.1086/168789 1990

  11. [11]

    E., & Zeimann, G

    Bond, H. E., & Zeimann, G. R. 2024, ApJ, 967, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3df9

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3df9 2024

  12. [12]

    2017, PASP, 129, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455

    Brahm, R., Jord´an, A., & Espinoza, N. 2017, PASP, 129, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455 2017

  13. [13]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 380, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02446-x

    Budaj, J., Bernhard, K., Jones, D., & Munday, J. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 380, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02446-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02446-x 2025

  14. [14]

    E., et al

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, X. E., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e051, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.26

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.26 2025

  15. [15]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  16. [16]

    P., & Giuli, R

    Cox, J. P., & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure

    1968

  17. [17]

    O’Brien, M

    Cunningham, T., Tremblay, P.-E., & W. O’Brien, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3275

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3275 2024

  18. [18]

    D., Andrews, J

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe 2022

  19. [19]

    T., & O’Connell, R

    Dorman, B., Rood, R. T., & O’Connell, R. W. 1993, ApJ, 419, 596, doi: 10.1086/173511

    doi:10.1086/173511 1993

  20. [20]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  21. [21]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    El-Badry, K. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    doi:10.33232/001c.138448 2025

  22. [22]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2186 2018

  23. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac815

    El-Badry, K., Seeburger, R., Jayasinghe, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac815

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac815 2022

  24. [24]

    Clayton, G. C. 2019, ApJ, 886, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a 2019

  25. [25]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  26. [26]

    Y ., & Iben, Jr., I

    Fujimoto, M. Y ., & Iben, Jr., I. 1989, ApJ, 341, 306, doi: 10.1086/167495 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243709 A35-TYPESYSTEMS AND INFLATED ACCRETORS21

    work page doi:10.1086/167495 1989

  27. [27]

    A., Parsons, S

    Garbutt, J. A., Parsons, S. G., Toloza, O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae807

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae807 2024

  28. [28]

    Lynas-Gray, A. E. 1998, MNRAS, 301, L33, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9809331

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9809331 1998

  29. [29]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2020, ApJ, 899, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7 2020

  30. [30]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  31. [31]

    2024a, dust extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models, v1.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4658887 —

    Gordon, K. 2024a, dust extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models, v1.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4658887 —. 2024b, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4658887

  32. [32]

    D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G. C. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1320, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1320 2009

  33. [33]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accb59 2023

  34. [34]

    D., Misselt, K

    Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Bouwman, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7 2021

  35. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc86e

    Gossage, S., Kalogera, V ., & Sun, M. 2023, ApJ, 950, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc86e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc86e 2023

  36. [36]

    O., & Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, C. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 742, doi: 10.1086/116893

    doi:10.1086/116893 1994

  37. [37]

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

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  38. [38]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63

    Hallakoun, N., Shahaf, S., Mazeh, T., Toonen, S., & Ben-Ami, S. 2024, ApJL, 970, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63 2024

  39. [39]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x

    arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  41. [41]

    E., & Bianchi, L

    Herald, J. E., & Bianchi, L. 2002, ApJ, 580, 434, doi: 10.1086/343034

    work page doi:10.1086/343034 2002

  42. [42]

    2016, A&A, 588, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628125

    Hillen, M., Kluska, J., Le Bouquin, J.-B., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628125

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628125 2016

  43. [43]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  44. [44]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  45. [45]

    Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N. L. 2025, ApJ, 991, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa1c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa1c 2025

  46. [46]

    P., Perets, H

    Igoshev, A. P., Perets, H. B., & Michaely, E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa833

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa833 2020

  47. [47]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f2

    Ironi, O., Ben-Ami, S., Hallakoun, N., & Shahaf, S. 2025, ApJ, 982, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f2 2025

  48. [48]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  49. [49]

    Jacoby, G. H. 1981, ApJ, 244, 903, doi: 10.1086/158765

    work page doi:10.1086/158765 1981

  50. [50]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Jayasinghe, T., Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2187

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2187 2022

  51. [51]

    A., Petigura, E

    Johnson, J. A., Petigura, E. A., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80e7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80e7 2017

  52. [52]

    2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, 123–153, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 5

    Jones, D. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, 123–153, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 5

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 2020

  53. [53]

    Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., Brown, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2501

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2501 2022

  54. [54]

    2017, A&A, 600, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730700

    Jones, D., Van Winckel, H., Aller, A., Exter, K., & De Marco, O. 2017, A&A, 600, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730700

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730700 2017

  55. [55]

    2009, A&A, 498, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810703

    Jorissen, A., Frankowski, A., Famaey, B., & van Eck, S. 2009, A&A, 498, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810703

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810703 2009

  56. [56]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Tubbesing, S., et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    1999

  57. [57]

    2018, AJ, 155, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf

    Kawahara, H., Masuda, K., MacLeod, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf 2018

  58. [58]

    1977, A&A, 54, 539

    Kippenhahn, R., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1977, A&A, 54, 539

    1977

  59. [59]

    Knigge, C., Toonen, S., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1336

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1336 2022

  60. [60]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

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

    1990

  61. [61]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y . 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    doi:10.1086/108790 1962

  62. [62]

    2014, Science, 344, 275, doi: 10.1126/science.1251999

    Kruse, E., & Agol, E. 2014, Science, 344, 275, doi: 10.1126/science.1251999

    doi:10.1126/science.1251999 2014

  63. [63]

    Lau, M. Y . M., Hirai, R., Mandel, I., & Tout, C. A. 2024, ApJL, 966, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3d50

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad3d50 2024

  64. [64]

    1947, ApJ, 105, 305, doi: 10.1086/144905

    Ledoux, P. 1947, ApJ, 105, 305, doi: 10.1086/144905

    doi:10.1086/144905 1947

  65. [65]

    Smith, J. C. 2019, ApJ, 881, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf8 2019

  66. [66]

    M., Gosnell, N

    Leiner, E. M., Gosnell, N. M., Geller, A. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d0c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d0c 2025

  67. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1 2019

  68. [68]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 L¨obling, L., Boffin, H. M. J., & Jones, D. 2019, A&A, 624, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834466 L¨obling, L., Maney, M. A., Rauch, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3247

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 1962

  69. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3621 2023

  70. [70]

    W., et al

    Masuda, K., Kawahara, H., Latham, D. W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 881, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab321b M´esz´aros, S., Bohlin, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449306

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab321b 2019

  71. [71]

    1979, A&A, 78, 167 Miller Bertolami, M

    Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1979, A&A, 78, 167 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526577

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526577 1979

  72. [72]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 2017

  73. [73]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2328 22 BHATTACHARJEE ET AL

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2328 2021

  74. [74]

    2024, PASP, 136, 094203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7981

    Nagarajan, P., & El-Badry, K. 2024, PASP, 136, 094203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7981

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad7981 2024

  75. [75]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315 2016

  76. [76]

    1977a, PASJ, 29, 249, doi: 10.1093/pasj/29.2.249 —

    Neo, S., Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1977a, PASJ, 29, 249, doi: 10.1093/pasj/29.2.249 —. 1977b, PASJ, 29, 249, doi: 10.1093/pasj/29.2.249

    doi:10.1093/pasj/29.2.249

  77. [77]

    The fate of Gaia's wide binaries: Interplay of white-dwarf recoil and tidal capture

    Nine, A. C., Mathieu, R. D., Gosnell, N. M., & Leiner, E. M. 2023, ApJ, 944, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb046 O’Connor, C. E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08880, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08880

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08880 2023

  78. [78]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.10066 2023

  79. [79]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833816 2018

  80. [80]

    1981, A&A, 102, 17 pandas development team, T

    Packet, W. 1981, A&A, 102, 17 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134 1981

Showing first 80 references.