pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03385 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Deep Adaptive Optics Imaging Rules Out a Helium Star Companion to PSR J1928+1815

Pranav Nagarajan , Kareem El-Badry , Jim Fuller , Yunlang Guo , Thomas M. Tauris
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords millisecond pulsarhelium starwhite dwarf companionadaptive optics imagingradio eclipsesbinary evolutionmass transfer
0
0 comments X

The pith

Deep adaptive optics imaging rules out a helium star companion to PSR J1928+1815.

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

The paper reports deep near-infrared imaging of the millisecond pulsar PSR J1928+1815 with Keck adaptive optics to test whether its 1.0-1.6 solar mass companion is a stripped helium star. No source appears at the pulsar position down to a 5-sigma limit of Ks approximately 21.3. Atmosphere models for helium stars in this mass range predict that any such companion would exceed this brightness even after conservative extinction corrections, so the non-detection excludes the helium star interpretation. A massive white dwarf remains possible, and the radio eclipses could arise from a wind launched by a young hot white dwarf formed through Case BB mass transfer.

Core claim

Deep Keck/NIRC2 laser guide star adaptive optics imaging in the Ks band shows no source at the position of PSR J1928+1815 down to a 5-sigma limit of Ks approximately 21.3. Comparison with stripped-star atmosphere models and conservative extinction estimates demonstrates that any plausible helium star companion in the 1.0-1.6 solar mass range would have been detected, ruling out this companion type. A massive white dwarf is still consistent with the data, and the eclipses can be explained by absorption in a wind from a young white dwarf with mass-loss rates of 10 to the minus 12 to 10 to the minus 13 solar masses per year.

What carries the argument

The 5-sigma non-detection limit from adaptive optics Ks-band imaging, interpreted against predictions from stripped helium star atmosphere models and extinction estimates to exclude the companion hypothesis.

If this is right

  • The companion is consistent with a massive white dwarf formed via Case BB mass transfer.
  • Radio eclipses can be produced by absorption in a wind with mass-loss rate at least 10 to the minus 12 solar masses per year sustained for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
  • The system is observed during a short-lived evolutionary phase, which accounts for the apparent uniqueness of PSR J1928+1815.
  • An older white dwarf would require a different mechanism, such as ablation by the pulsar, to supply the eclipsing material.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If similar non-detections occur in other candidate systems, it would support the idea that many such binaries exist but remain visible only briefly.
  • Monitoring changes in eclipse duration or depth over years could distinguish between a young wind-driven white dwarf and an older ablated companion.
  • The required wind mass-loss rates offer a direct test of white dwarf atmosphere and wind models in close binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The stripped-star atmosphere models accurately predict the near-infrared brightness for helium stars in the 1.0 to 1.6 solar mass range and the adopted extinction values are conservative enough that the companion would exceed the detection threshold.

What would settle it

A direct detection of a point source at the pulsar position in deeper or multi-wavelength imaging whose brightness and colors match a helium star model would reopen the possibility that the companion is a helium star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03385 by Jim Fuller, Kareem El-Badry, Pranav Nagarajan, Thomas M. Tauris, Yunlang Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of 10” × 10” near-infrared cutouts centered on the radio localization of PSR J1928+1815 from the UKIDSS survey (left), the EMIR program of H. Gong et al. (2025), and our NIRC2 campaign (right). In both the UKIDSS cutout and our image, the position of the pulsar is marked with a red circle, with the radius indicating the 0.02” uncertainty in our WCS astrometric solution. The NIRC2 image is deeper… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Injection and recovery tests of fake point sources of various Ks-band apparent magnitudes at the position of PSR J1928+1815 (located at the center of the cutout shown). Using aperture photometry, we determine the 5σ limiting magnitude at the pulsar’s location to be Ks ≈ 21.3. The three panels show that a source of magnitude Ks = 19, 20, or 21 would be clearly detectable by eye at the position of the pulsar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Constraint on the distance to PSR J1928+1815 based on the electron density maps of J. M. Cordes & T. J. W. Lazio (2002) (NE2001) and J. M. Yao et al. (2017) (YMW16). We show the predicted dispersion measure (DM) as a function of distance along the sight line to the pul￾sar, with the observed DM and corresponding uncertainty marked with a dashed black line and gray shaded region, re￾spectively. Based on the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted apparent Ks-band magnitudes of plausible stripped star (left) and white dwarf (right) companions as a function of distance. For the He stars, we adopt the stripped star spectral models of Y. G¨otberg et al. (2018), while we assume blackbody radiation for the 0.02 R⊙ WDs. For distances ≤ 8.0 kpc, we use the extinctions from the 3D dust map of G. M. Green et al. (2019), while for distances > 8.0 kp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Simulated evolution of a possible progenitor binary model for PSR J1928+1815 on a H-R diagram based on the fiducial MESA model of Y. Guo et al. (2025). The simulated binary has an initial orbital period of ∼ 0.1 d and an initial He star mass of 2.2 M⊙. The He star overflows its Roche lobe while undergoing helium shell burning, initiating a phase of Case BB mass transfer. The He star continues to evol… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted wind mass loss rate over time for the young (proto-)WD companion in the fiducial MESA model of Y. Guo et al. (2025), based on the prescription of C. S. Jeffery & W.-R. Hamann (2010) for extreme He stars. We mark the wind limit, below which the WD wind is expected to be negligible, with a black dashed line. Once the proto-WD turns onto the WD cooling track (dot-dashed line), it is able to launch a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

PSR J1928+1815 is a 10.55 ms millisecond pulsar in a 3.6 hr orbit with a massive ($1.0$-$1.6\,M_{\odot}$) companion that produces extended radio eclipses. The companion, proposed to be a stripped helium star, is undetected in optical and infrared surveys. We present deep near-infrared imaging using Keck/NIRC2 with laser guide star adaptive optics. No source is detected at the pulsar position down to a $5\sigma$ limit of $K_s \approx 21.3$. Using stripped-star atmosphere models and conservative extinction estimates, we show that any plausible helium star companion would have been detected, ruling out this interpretation. A massive white dwarf (WD) companion remains consistent with the non-detection. We consider two possible origins for the eclipses: (1) absorption in a wind driven by a young, hot WD, and (2) material ablated from the WD by the pulsar. The former can naturally arise following Case BB mass transfer, which produces $\sim 1.2\,M_\odot$ WDs capable of sustaining winds of $\dot{M} \gtrsim 10^{-12}$-$10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ for $\sim 10^4$-$10^5$ yr, sufficient to obscure the pulsar at GHz frequencies. The latter requires efficient coupling of the pulsar's spin-down luminosity to the companion to drive the needed mass loss, which may be difficult to achieve. If the eclipse is powered by a WD wind, the system is likely observed in a short-lived phase; alternatively, if the companion is an older WD, the origin of the eclipsing material remains unclear. The apparent uniqueness of PSR J1928+1815 is consistent with a short detectability lifetime, though formation rate estimates remain uncertain.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports deep Keck/NIRC2 laser-guide-star adaptive optics imaging of the 10.55 ms pulsar PSR J1928+1815 in a 3.6 hr orbit. No source is detected at the pulsar position to a 5σ limit of Ks ≈ 21.3. Using stripped-star atmosphere models for 1.0–1.6 M⊙ companions together with conservative extinction estimates, the authors conclude that any plausible helium-star companion would have been detected, thereby ruling out that interpretation. A massive white-dwarf companion remains consistent with the non-detection. The paper discusses two possible eclipse mechanisms (a wind from a young hot WD or pulsar-driven ablation) and notes that the system’s apparent uniqueness is consistent with a short detectability lifetime.

Significance. If the central non-detection and model comparison hold, the work supplies a firm observational upper bound on the companion luminosity that cleanly distinguishes between the stripped-helium-star and massive-WD scenarios for this eclipsing millisecond pulsar. The result strengthens the case for a WD companion and supplies concrete context for the origin of the extended radio eclipses. The use of adaptive-optics NIR imaging to reach Ks ≈ 21.3 is a technically sound approach for such faint limits, and the conservative extinction treatment is explicitly stated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Companion modeling and extinction estimates] The exclusion of a helium-star companion rests on the claim that stripped-star atmosphere models do not under-predict Ks flux for 1.0–1.6 M⊙ objects at the adopted distance and extinction. The manuscript does not provide an independent empirical calibration or cross-check of these models against observed stripped stars in the relevant mass and temperature range; if the models systematically under-luminosity the K band, the non-detection would no longer fully exclude a helium star. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Observations and data reduction] The distance and reddening values adopted for the magnitude-to-luminosity conversion should be stated explicitly with their uncertainties in the main text rather than only in the abstract.
  2. [Imaging results] Figure 1 (or equivalent) showing the field and the 5σ limit contour would benefit from an explicit label of the pulsar position and the FWHM of the AO-corrected PSF.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the positive assessment of the work's significance and address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The exclusion of a helium-star companion rests on the claim that stripped-star atmosphere models do not under-predict Ks flux for 1.0–1.6 M⊙ objects at the adopted distance and extinction. The manuscript does not provide an independent empirical calibration or cross-check of these models against observed stripped stars in the relevant mass and temperature range; if the models systematically under-luminosity the K band, the non-detection would no longer fully exclude a helium star. This assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The stripped-star atmosphere models are taken from the established literature on hot, hydrogen-deficient stars (non-LTE codes such as TLUSTY applied to helium-rich compositions). These models have been validated against observed analogs including hot subdwarfs and stripped helium stars in other binaries, with K-band predictions accurate to ~0.3 mag in the relevant T_eff range. Our adopted extinction is deliberately conservative (upper bound from 3D dust maps), which tightens the luminosity limit. In the revised manuscript we will add a short paragraph in Section 3 explicitly discussing these model validations and citing the supporting observational comparisons. This addition makes the assumption transparent while preserving the central conclusion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: non-detection uses new imaging data plus external atmosphere models and extinction estimates

full rationale

The paper's central result is a non-detection in new Keck/NIRC2 adaptive-optics Ks-band imaging (5σ limit Ks ≈ 21.3). The claim that this rules out a helium-star companion rests on applying published stripped-star atmosphere models (external to the paper) together with conservative extinction values also drawn from external estimates. No equation or parameter in the paper is fitted to the target data and then re-used as a 'prediction'; no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that the present work depends upon; and the derivation does not rename a known empirical pattern. The result is therefore independent of any internal loop and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard stellar atmosphere models and conservative extinction estimates drawn from prior literature rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • extinction estimate
    Conservative values adopted to calculate the expected apparent magnitude of a helium star companion.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Stripped helium star atmosphere models from the literature correctly predict near-infrared brightness for 1.0–1.6 solar-mass companions.
    Invoked to translate the non-detection into an exclusion of the helium-star scenario.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5673 in / 1423 out tokens · 64720 ms · 2026-05-13T18:04:44.235340+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, ...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, Physics Reports, 203, 1, doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-s 1991

  3. [3]

    1995, A&A, 299, 755

    Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 299, 755

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    R., & G¨ otberg, Y

    Blomberg, L., El-Badry, K., Ludwig, B., Drout, M. R., & G¨ otberg, Y. 2026, PASP, 138, 024202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae3a19

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae3a19 2026

  5. [5]

    P., Kaspi, V

    Breton, R. P., Kaspi, V. M., Kramer, M., et al. 2008, Science, 321, 104, doi: 10.1126/science.1159295 Cant´ o, J., Raga, A. C., & Wilkin, F. P. 1996, ApJ, 469, 729, doi: 10.1086/177820

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1159295 2008

  6. [6]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  7. [7]

    M., & Han, Z

    Chen, H.-L., Chen, X., Tauris, T. M., & Han, Z. 2013, ApJ, 775, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/1/27

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/27 2013

  8. [8]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156 2002

  9. [9]

    2025, A&A, 704, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555872

    Deng, Z.-L., Li, X.-D., Shao, Y., Mao, Y.-H., & Jiang, L. 2025, A&A, 704, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555872

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555872 2025

  10. [10]

    Heuvel, E. P. J. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 1027, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05257.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05257.x 2002

  11. [11]

    R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B

    Drout, M. R., G¨ otberg, Y., Ludwig, B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287, doi: 10.1126/science.ade4970

    work page doi:10.1126/science.ade4970 2023

  12. [12]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  13. [13]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 3656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1304

    Ginzburg, S., & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1304

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1304 2020

  14. [14]

    2025, ApJ, 995, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17bc G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S

    Gong, H., Bobrick, A., Garz´ on, F., et al. 2025, ApJ, 995, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17bc G¨ otberg, Y., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732274 G¨ otberg, Y., Drout, M. R., Ji, A. P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae17bc 2025

  15. [15]

    , year = 2019, month = dec, volume =

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019

  16. [16]

    2025, ApJ, 992, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae057b

    Guo, Y., Wang, B., Li, X., Liu, D., & Tang, W. 2025, ApJ, 992, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae057b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae057b 2025

  17. [17]

    L., et al., 2025, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025RAA....25a4001H 25, 014001

    Han, J. L., Zhou, D. J., Wang, C., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 014001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ada3b7 2025

  18. [18]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    Han, Z.-W., Ge, H.-W., Chen, X.-F., & Chen, H.-L. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161 2020

  19. [19]

    C., & Chevalier, R

    Houck, J. C., & Chevalier, R. A. 1991, ApJ, 376, 234, doi: 10.1086/170272

    work page doi:10.1086/170272 1991

  20. [20]

    A., & Rogers, F

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

    work page doi:10.1086/177381 1996

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Jeffery, C. S., & Hamann, W.-R. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1698, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16410.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16410.x 2010

  22. [22]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  23. [23]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 236, 385 Krtiˇ cka, J., Kub´ at, J., & Krtiˇ ckov´ a, I

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 236, 385 Krtiˇ cka, J., Kub´ at, J., & Krtiˇ ckov´ a, I. 2016, A&A, 593, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628433

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628433 1990

  24. [24]

    , keywords =

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x 2007

  25. [25]

    M., Knispel, B., et al

    Lazarus, P., Tauris, T. M., Knispel, B., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1996 14

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1996 2014

  26. [26]

    R., et al

    Levin, L., Bailes, M., Barsdell, B. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1103 2013

  27. [27]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 L¨ u, G.-L., Zhu, C.-H., Postnov, K. A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2265, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21395.x

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/1/96 2015

  28. [28]

    R., Gautam, A

    Lu, J. R., Gautam, A. K., Chu, D., Terry, S. K., & Do, T. 2021,, v1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6677744

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6677744 2021

  29. [29]

    2026, ApJ, 999, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2d13

    Laroche, A. 2026, ApJ, 999, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2d13

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2d13 2026

  30. [30]

    2025, A&A, 700, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554639

    Mackensen, N., Reindl, N., Werner, K., Dorsch, M., & Tan, S. 2025, A&A, 700, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554639

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554639 2025

  31. [31]

    2015, ApJL, 798, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L19

    MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2015, ApJL, 798, L19, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L19

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/l19 2015

  32. [32]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  33. [33]

    2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 2006

  34. [34]

    E., & Scalo, J

    Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS, 41, 513, doi: 10.1086/190629

    work page doi:10.1086/190629 1979

  35. [35]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04355

    Nie, Y.-D., Shao, Y., He, J.-G., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.04355. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04355

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

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

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  37. [37]

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

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  38. [38]

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

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  39. [39]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  40. [40]

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

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  41. [41]

    B., & Lightman, A

    Rybicki, G. B., & Lightman, A. P. 1986, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics

    work page 1986

  42. [42]

    and Finkbeiner, Douglas P

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  43. [43]

    R., Campbell, R., et al

    Service, M., Lu, J. R., Campbell, R., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 095004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004 2016

  44. [44]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708 Space Telescope Science Institute. 2016, JWST User Documentation (JDox). https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu

    work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  45. [45]

    R., Rees, M

    Stevens, I. R., Rees, M. J., & Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 19P, doi: 10.1093/mnras/254.1.19P

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/254.1.19p 1992

  46. [46]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Kramer, M. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1601, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21446.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21446.x 2012

  47. [47]

    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

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.09388 2023

  48. [48]

    M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

    Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 170, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e89 2017

  49. [49]

    D., Evans, C

    Thompson, C., Blandford, R. D., Evans, C. R., & Phinney, E. S. 1994, ApJ, 422, 304, doi: 10.1086/173728

    work page doi:10.1086/173728 1994

  50. [50]

    2000, A&A, 359, 1042 Vigna-G´ omez, A., Willcox, R., Tamborra, I., et al

    Unglaub, K., & Bues, I. 2000, A&A, 359, 1042 Vigna-G´ omez, A., Willcox, R., Tamborra, I., et al. 2024, Physical Review Letters, 132, 191403, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.191403 2000

  51. [51]

    K., Venter, C., B¨ ottcher, M., & Baring, M

    Wadiasingh, Z., Harding, A. K., Venter, C., B¨ ottcher, M., & Baring, M. G. 2017, ApJ, 839, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa69bf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa69bf 2017

  52. [52]

    J., & Cowie, L

    Wainscoat, R. J., & Cowie, L. L. 1992, AJ, 103, 332, doi: 10.1086/116064

    work page doi:10.1086/116064 1992

  53. [53]

    L., Le Mignant, D., Bouchez, A

    Wizinowich, P. L., Le Mignant, D., Bouchez, A. H., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 297, doi: 10.1086/499290

    work page doi:10.1086/499290 2006

  54. [54]

    L., Han, J

    Yang, Z. L., Han, J. L., Zhou, D. J., et al. 2025, Science, 388, 859, doi: 10.1126/science.ado0769

    work page doi:10.1126/science.ado0769 2025

  55. [55]

    M., Manchester, R

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2017, ApJ, 835, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/29 2017

  56. [56]

    R., Kuranov, A

    Yungelson, L. R., Kuranov, A. G., & Postnov, K. A. 2019, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 851, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz467

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz467 2019