pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06141 · v2 · pith:XFS3LCFLnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

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

Rizhong Zheng , Hongwei Ge , Christopher A Tout , Hailiang Chen , Zhenwei Li , Dengkai Jiang , Chengyuan Li , Zhijia Tian
show 5 more authors
Bo Ma Lifu Zhang Jian Mou Xuefei Chen Zhanwen Han
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 23:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords white dwarfsbinary evolutionstable mass transferorbital periodstellar modelsintermediate-mass starsMESA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Intermediate-mass progenitors produce a mass-orbital period relation that explains long-period massive white dwarf binaries via stable mass transfer.

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

This paper models white dwarf formation in binaries through stable mass transfer using detailed stellar evolution calculations. Earlier relations based only on low-mass progenitors left some observed long-period high-mass systems unexplained. By extending the models to intermediate-mass stars whose cores stay non-degenerate until central helium burning, the work derives relations that match those systems. The distinction matters because stable transfer leaves a different mass-period signature than common envelope evolution. Readers care because the relation lets observers infer which channel produced a given binary.

Core claim

Our results show that the relations for intermediate-mass progenitors whose cores remain non-degenerate prior to central helium burning can account for the formation channels of long-period and massive WD binaries. The models employ the quasi-adiabatic criterion to enforce stable mass transfer, examine multiple transfer schemes and metallicities, and contrast the outcomes with those from low-mass progenitors.

What carries the argument

The mass-orbital period (M_WD - P_orb) relation computed from stable mass transfer sequences of intermediate-mass progenitors.

If this is right

  • Long-period massive white dwarf binaries can form without common envelope evolution.
  • The predicted distribution depends on the adopted mass-transfer scheme and metallicity.
  • Low-mass progenitor relations alone are insufficient to explain the full observed population.
  • Observed white dwarf binaries can be classified by evolutionary channel using their location on the relation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Population synthesis codes will need to include these intermediate-mass channels to reproduce the observed white dwarf binary statistics.
  • Direct comparison of the modeled relation with a larger observed sample could calibrate the stability criterion itself.
  • Some of these massive white dwarfs may later accrete and become Type Ia supernova candidates if they reach the Chandrasekhar limit.

Load-bearing premise

The quasi-adiabatic criterion correctly separates stable mass transfer from common-envelope evolution.

What would settle it

A sample of long-period massive white dwarf binaries whose periods and masses fall systematically outside the modeled relations for intermediate-mass progenitors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06141 by Bo Ma, Chengyuan Li, Christopher A Tout, Dengkai Jiang, Hailiang Chen, Hongwei Ge, Jian Mou, Lifu Zhang, Rizhong Zheng, Xuefei Chen, Zhanwen Han, Zhenwei Li, Zhijia Tian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution in the H-R diagram of the donor star for binary models with an initial donor mass of 1.0 M⊙, an initial accretor mass of 1.4 M⊙, and an initial metallicity of Z⊙. The tracks illustrate the complete evolutionary path for various initial orbital periods, starting from the ZAMS through the mass-transfer phases and ending at the WD cool￾ing stage. Solid circles and star symbols denote the onset and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evolution in the H-R diagram of the donor stars for models with different initial donor masses (Mi d), as indi￾cated by the labels on the tracks. The evolutionary tracks cover the entire process from the ZAMS to the WD cooling stage. These calculations are performed for a fixed initial ac￾cretor mass of 1.4 M⊙, an initial metallicity of Z⊙, and an ini￾tial orbital period of 950 days. Solid circles and star… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of the orbital period as a function of decreasing donor mass for binary models with an initial orbital period of 950 days and an initial accretor mass of 1.4 M⊙. The two panels compare the evolution under different initial metallicities: (a) solar metallicity (Z i = Z⊙) and (b) sub-solar metallicity (Z i = 0.1 Z⊙). In each panel, tracks for models with different initial donor masses (1.0 M⊙ and 2… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the donor mass-transfer rate (M˙ d) with the critical mass-transfer rate (M˙ crit, calculated via Eq. 6) as a function of donor mass for a representative model undergoing stable mass transfer. The model param￾eters are: initial donor mass Mi d = 2.0 M⊙, initial accretor mass Mi a = 1.4 M⊙, initial orbital period P i orb = 303 days, and initial metallicity Z i = 0.1 Z⊙. The red dash-dotted lin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: These two panels show examples of the models that we exclude. They have the same initial donor mass (2.0 M⊙), accretor mass (1.4 M⊙), and initial metallicity (10−1 Z⊙), but different initial orbital periods. Panel (a) has an initial orbital period of 450 days and represents a case in which the donor radius exceeds one-third of its Roche-lobe radius. Panel (b) has an initial orbital period of 30 days and il… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the parameter space for stable mass transfer, unstable mass transfer, and outflow (mass loss through the outer Lagrange point L3) under different metallicities. All the computed models shown here have an accretor mass of 1.4 M⊙, with periods ranging from 3 days to 1950 days. The upper line shows the models with the minimum orbital periods leading to the onset of mass transfer in Case C, while… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the MWD–Porb relationship between the Kolb scheme (U. Kolb & H. Ritter 1990) and the Han scheme (Z. Han et al. 2002; X. Chen et al. 2013) for binary models with an initial metallicity Z i = Z⊙. Dark-colored symbols indicate models at the end of the mass-transfer phase, whereas light-colored symbols represent models during the white dwarf cooling phase. The solid circles and asterisks represen… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of binary models with one-tenth solar metallicity and an accretor mass of 1.4 M⊙. The left panel shows the donor radius as a function of core mass, while the right panel shows the orbital period as a function of core mass. Filled circles mark the onset of mass transfer and crosses indicate the end of the mass-transfer phase, defined by log M˙ d = −9. Both the donor radius and orbital period are p… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relation between the core mass and stellar ra￾dius during single-star evolution for two models with initial masses of 1.0 M⊙ and 2.0 M⊙ at one-tenth solar metallicity. the standard relation begins to appear when the initial donor mass reaches 2.1 M⊙, whereas the 2.0 M⊙ models still remain close to the canonical low-mass progenitor relation. According to P. Marigo et al. (2001) and A. I. Karakas & J. C. Lat… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the MWD–Porb distributions for low-mass and intermediate-mass progenitors with an initial metal￾licity of 10−1 Z⊙. The color shade distinguishes different evolutionary phases: darker markers correspond to the end of mass transfer, and lighter markers correspond to the subsequent white dwarf cooling phase. Pairs of points connected by dashed arrows correspond to the same models at different e… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between observations and theoretical models; the parameters of the individual observed systems are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between our theoretical MWD–Porb distributions and observational data. The observed systems include Gaia DR3 WD+MS binaries; the orbital periods and masses plotted here are adopted from N. Hallakoun et al. (2024), while the systems were originally identified by S. Shahaf et al. (2024). Also shown are three self-lensing binaries (KIC 03835482, 06233093, and 12254688) from H. Kawahara et al. (201… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of MWD–Porb for two accretor masses and mass-transfer efficiencies. Dark and light sym￾bols denote models at the end of mass transfer and during the WD cooling phase, respectively. The models are cal￾culated for an initial donor mass of 2.1 M⊙ and an initial metallicity of 10−1 Z⊙. Arrows indicate the minimum initial orbital periods required for systems to reach a core mass of 0.57 M⊙ while m… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

White dwarfs (WDs) in binaries can form through either the stable mass-transfer process or common envelope evolution (CEE). Compared to CEE, the stable mass-transfer process can lead to a distinct mass-orbital period ($M_{\mathrm{WD}}-P_{\mathrm{orb}}$) relation. Thus, this relation of WDs contains the information about the evolution channels. We can study the relation in WD binary systems to determine whether their progenitors undergo a CEE. We use the stellar evolution code MESA as our primary computational tool and adopt the quasi-adiabatic criterion to ensure that our models satisfy the conditions for stable mass transfer. Our study considers different mass-transfer schemes, varying metallicities, and the relation for both low-mass and intermediate-mass progenitors. Previous studies have focused on the relation for low-mass progenitors, which cannot explain some long-period, high-mass WD binaries. Our results show that the relations for intermediate-mass progenitors whose cores remain non-degenerate prior to central helium burning can account for the formation channels of long-period and massive WD binaries.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper uses MESA to simulate stable mass transfer in binaries and derives M_WD–P_orb relations for white dwarfs. It adopts a quasi-adiabatic criterion to select stable-transfer models and concludes that intermediate-mass progenitors (cores non-degenerate before central He burning) produce long-period, high-mass WD binaries that low-mass progenitor channels cannot explain.

Significance. If validated, the result supplies a concrete formation channel for observed long-period massive WD systems and a diagnostic for distinguishing stable mass transfer from common-envelope evolution. The forward modeling with varying metallicities and mass-transfer schemes is a positive feature.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / modeling approach] Abstract and modeling description: the quasi-adiabatic criterion is the central modeling choice used to identify stable mass transfer for the intermediate-mass, non-degenerate-core progenitors that underpin the main claim. The manuscript contains no direct comparison of this criterion’s stability boundaries to full MESA binary integrations that solve the donor’s thermal response and Roche-lobe overflow rate self-consistently. Without such a cross-check, the derived M_WD–P_orb tracks for these progenitors rest on an untested assumption.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it stated the progenitor mass ranges adopted for the low-mass versus intermediate-mass cases and the metallicities explored.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive assessment of the paper's significance. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / modeling approach] Abstract and modeling description: the quasi-adiabatic criterion is the central modeling choice used to identify stable mass transfer for the intermediate-mass, non-degenerate-core progenitors that underpin the main claim. The manuscript contains no direct comparison of this criterion’s stability boundaries to full MESA binary integrations that solve the donor’s thermal response and Roche-lobe overflow rate self-consistently. Without such a cross-check, the derived M_WD–P_orb tracks for these progenitors rest on an untested assumption.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of a direct cross-check. The quasi-adiabatic criterion is a standard, analytically motivated approximation (based on the donor's adiabatic mass-radius response versus the Roche-lobe response) that has been widely adopted in the binary-evolution literature to delineate stable mass transfer. Our MESA calculations evolve the binaries using the code's binary module; the criterion is applied only to select the subset of initial conditions that satisfy the stability condition before performing the full evolutionary sequences. Nevertheless, we agree that an explicit numerical comparison of the resulting stability boundaries against a set of fully self-consistent MESA runs (with thermal response and RLOF rate solved simultaneously) would strengthen the presentation. We will therefore add a short appendix or subsection in the revised manuscript that performs this comparison for a representative sample of intermediate-mass progenitors. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward MESA simulations produce M_WD-P_orb relations as output

full rationale

The paper performs forward stellar evolution calculations in MESA using an adopted quasi-adiabatic stability criterion as an input modeling choice. The reported M_WD-P_orb relations for intermediate-mass progenitors are generated as simulation outputs rather than being fitted to data or defined in terms of the target result. No equations, parameters, or self-citations are shown that would reduce the claimed relations to the inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the quasi-adiabatic criterion correctly identifies stable mass transfer across the mass range studied, plus standard MESA physics for core evolution and mass loss. No free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption quasi-adiabatic criterion ensures stable mass transfer
    Invoked to select models that remain in the stable-transfer regime.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1158 out tokens · 17987 ms · 2026-06-27T23:34:59.754104+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Subhaloes in Self-Interacting Galactic Dark Matter Haloes

    Antoniadis, J., Van Kerkwijk, M. H., Koester, D., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 423, 3316, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21124.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21124.x 2012

  2. [2]

    Jacques and Scott, Pat , year = 2009, month = sep, journal =

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  3. [3]

    G., Pleunis, Z., Hessels, J

    Bassa, C. G., Pleunis, Z., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 846, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8400

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8400 2017

  4. [4]

    2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23756

    Yamaguchi, N. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23756

    arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 297, 727

    Bloecker, T. 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 297, 727

    1995

  6. [6]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt992

    Chen, X., Han, Z., Deca, J., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt992

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt992 2013

  7. [7]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stx115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx115

    Chen, X., Maxted, P., Li, J., & Han, Z. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stx115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx115 2017

  8. [8]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  9. [9]

    S., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Hjellming, M. S., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 724, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/724

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/724 2010

  10. [10]

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

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

  11. [11]

    F., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., & Han, Z. 2020b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab98f6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab98f6

  12. [12]

    A., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Webbink, R. F., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e 2024

  13. [13]

    E., Stairs, I

    Gonzalez, M. E., Stairs, I. H., Ferdman, R. D., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/102 2011

  14. [14]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63

    Ben-Ami, S. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63 2024

  15. [15]

    , eprint =

    Han, Z., Tout, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 319, 215, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03839.x H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 26, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03839.x 2002

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x 2002

  17. [17]

    and Justham, S

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

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

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    I., & Lattanzio, J

    Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 31, e030, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.21

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.21 2014

  20. [20]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf 2018

  21. [21]

    2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer)

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer)

    2012

  22. [22]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Koester, D., & Reimers, D. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 364, p. L66-L69 (2000), 364, L66

    2000

  23. [23]

    1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 236, 385

    1990

  24. [24]

    C., et al

    Kosec, P., Kara, E., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 715, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01929-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01929-7 2023

  25. [25]

    and Prakash, Madappa , year = 2007, month = apr, journal =

    Lattimer, J., & Prakash, M. 2007, Physics Reports, 442, 109, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.003 2007

  26. [26]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    Lin, J., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, Ph., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/70 2011

  27. [27]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1041 L¨ obling, L., Maney, M., Rauch, T., et al

    Linial, I., & Sari, R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 2441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1041 L¨ obling, L., Maney, M., Rauch, T., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 528 19

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1041 2017

  28. [28]

    N., Hobbs, G

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  29. [29]

    N., Newton, L

    Manchester, R. N., Newton, L. M., Cooke, D. J., & Lyne, A. G. 1980, The Astrophysical Journal, 236, L25, doi: 10.1086/183191

    work page doi:10.1086/183191 1980

  30. [30]

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Chiosi, C., & Wood, P. R. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 371, 152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010309

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010309 2001

  31. [31]

    M., et al

    Mathur, S., Huber, D., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30 2017

  32. [32]

    P., & Sion, E

    McCook, G. P., & Sion, E. M. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 121, 1

    1999

  33. [33]

    T., et al

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038307

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038307 2021

  34. [34]

    Moltzer, C. A. S., Pols, O. R., Winckel, H. V., Temmink, K. D., & Wijdeveld, M. W. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 703, A294, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556437

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556437 2025

  35. [35]

    Navarro, J., Anderson, S., & Freire, P. C. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 943, doi: 10.1086/377153

    work page doi:10.1086/377153 2003

  36. [36]

    1970, Acta Astronomica, Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1970, Acta Astronomica, Vol. 20, p. 47, 20, 47

    1970

  37. [37]

    1971b, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

    Paczynski, B. 1971b, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

  38. [38]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, 75

    1976

  39. [39]

    F., Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al

    Pala, A. F., Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.14800

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.14800 2025

  40. [40]

    G., Hernandez, M

    Parsons, S. G., Hernandez, M. S., Toloza, O., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 4579, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3368

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3368 2022

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Giant Planets, Oscillations, Rotation, and Massive Stars

    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

  43. [43]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: https://doi.org/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

  44. [44]

    Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA): Convective Boundaries, Element Diffusion, and Massive Star Explosions

    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 internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  45. [45]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 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

  46. [46]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, B1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  47. [47]

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06206.x , archiveprefix =

    Podsiadlowski, Ph., Rappaport, S., & Han, Z. 2003, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341, 385, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06464.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06464.x 2003

  48. [48]

    Pols, O. R. 2011, Stellar structure and evolution (Astronomical Institute Utrecht Utrecht)

    2011

  49. [49]

    M., Stairs, I

    Ransom, S. M., Stairs, I. H., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 520, doi: 10.1038/nature12917

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12917 2014

  50. [50]

    C., & Verbunt, F

    Rappaport, S., Joss, P. C., & Verbunt, F. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 275, 713, doi: 10.1086/161569

    work page doi:10.1086/161569 1983

  51. [51]

    C., Di Stefano, R., & Han, Z

    Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, Ph., Joss, P. C., Di Stefano, R., & Han, Z. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 273, 731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.3.731

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/273.3.731 1995

  52. [52]

    1975, Mem

    Reimers, D. 1975, Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  53. [53]

    1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 202, 93

    Ritter, H. 1988, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 202, 93

    1988

  54. [54]

    , keywords =

    Romani, R. W., Kandel, D., Filippenko, A. V., Brink, T. G., & Zheng, W. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac8007 2022

  55. [55]

    2022, Physics Reports, 988, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    Saumon, D., Blouin, S., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2022, Physics Reports, 988, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001 2022

  56. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae773 2024

  57. [57]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2b4

    Shao, Y., & Li, X.-D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd2b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd2b4 2021

  58. [58]

    Wickramasinghe, D. T. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 437, 2217, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2030

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2030 2014

  59. [59]

    Stability Criteria for Mass Transfer in Binary Stellar Evolution

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9703016 1997

  60. [60]

    M., & Savonije, G

    Tauris, T. M., & Savonije, G. J. 1999, ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS, 23, 229

    1999

  61. [61]

    M., & Van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & Van den Heuvel, E. P. 2023, Physics of binary star evolution: from stars to X-ray binaries and gravitational wave sources, Vol. 42 (Princeton University Press)

    2023

  62. [62]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006, in Compact stellar X-ray sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der

    2006

  63. [63]

    Formation and Evolution of Compact Stellar X-ray Sources

    Klis, Vol. 39, 623–665, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0303456

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0303456

  64. [64]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137 20

    Toonen, S. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137 20

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244137 2023

  65. [65]

    F., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Nordlund, ˚A., & Asplund, M

    Trampedach, R., Stein, R. F., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Nordlund, ˚A., & Asplund, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 4366, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2084

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2084 2014

  66. [66]

    1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Vassiliadis, E., & Wood, P. 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 413, no. 2, p. 641-657., 413, 641

    1993

  67. [67]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4005

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Fuller, J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4005

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad4005 2023

  68. [68]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab020

    Zhang, Y., Chen, H., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab020

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab020 2021