Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Be Star + He Star Binary as an Indicator of a Binary Mass Transfer Phase

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that measured mass ratios of Be star + He star binaries record the initial mass ratios of their progenitor binaries and favor mass transfer efficiencies above 0.5.

desk verdict A solid but incremental BPS study with a genuinely useful two-group classification; the central efficiency claim is plausible but rests on a small, selection-biased observed sample and is not as robust as the paper's framing suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02662 v2 pith:2CZKBVQJ submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.SR

Yuchen Bao , Zhenwei Li , Hongwei Ge , Xuefei Chen , Zhanwen Han This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords BestarsHestarcompanionsbinarypopulationsynthesismasstransferstabilityefficiencyRochelobeoverflowinitialratioMXPup
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Be stars are rapidly rotating stars thought to spin up by accreting matter from a binary companion, and systems that still contain the stripped helium-star donor preserve a record of that single mass-transfer episode. This paper uses binary population synthesis to argue that the observed Be+He binaries split into two populations: systems where mass transfer began on the early main sequence, and systems where it began later. It claims that for the latter group the measured mass ratio of the Be star to the He star is a probe of the primordial binary's mass ratio, because the final He-star mass is set by the initial primary mass. The simulations also favor mass transfer that retains at least about half of the transferred mass, since low-efficiency models cannot produce the large observed mass ratios and fail to reproduce the short-period system MX Pup.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a rapid Monte Carlo binary population synthesis code that evolves millions of primordial binaries using fitted stellar models, with a critical mass ratio $q_{\rm c}$ deciding whether Roche-lobe overflow proceeds stably or leads to a common envelope. The updated criterion sets $q_{\rm c}$ by the donor's structure and caps it at 5. Around this, the paper varies one free parameter, the mass transfer efficiency $\beta$, the fraction of transferred mass actually accreted, across four prescriptions. On top of that, it introduces a two-group classification: group 1 has mass transfer starting in the early main sequence, group 2 at later stages, and the mapping from initial primary mass to final He-star mass differs between groups, which is what turns the observed mass ratio into a probe.

What would settle it

Find one Be+He binary whose reconstructed primordial mass ratio exceeds 5 but that demonstrably formed through stable Roche-lobe overflow rather than a common envelope; that would break the cap $q_{\rm c}\le 5$. A complementary test: measure a volume-limited sample of roughly 30 group 2 BeHe binaries; if their Be-to-He mass ratios do not trend inversely with the reconstructed initial mass ratios, the claimed probe fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Be+He binaries are not just products of binary mass transfer but also record the conditions of the original binary. Dividing simulated systems according to when the donor first fills its Roche lobe, the paper finds that if overflow begins only after the donor has left the early main sequence, the final helium-star mass is nearly the initial core mass of the primary, so the observed Be-to-He mass ratio decreases as the primordial mass ratio increases. That inverse relation is absent for early-main-sequence mass transfer, where the primary loses much of its mass before forming a helium core. Among four mass-transfer efficiency prescriptions, constant efficiencies of 0.5 and 1 match the observed mass-ratio peaks, while an efficiency of 0.1 produces no systems with mass ratios above about 12 and is ruled out by the observed range. The same two high-efficiency models reproduce the 5.15-day binary MX Pup, whose formation requires an initial mass ratio above 2.5 so the orbit does not widen too much.

Load-bearing premise

The whole population outcome rests on the assumed rule for when Roche-lobe overflow is stable rather than leading to a common envelope, specifically the adopted criterion and the imposed cap that the critical mass ratio $q_{\rm c}$ never exceeds 5, and the paper does not independently validate that cap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Observed Be+He mass ratios can be used to reconstruct the initial mass-ratio distribution of the binaries that produced them, at least for group 2 systems.
  • Mass transfer efficiencies around or below 0.1 are disfavored, because that model cannot produce the large observed Be/He mass ratios.
  • Efficiencies near or above 0.5 reproduce the observed mass-ratio peaks and the close binary MX Pup; the initial mass ratio for MX Pup must exceed 2.5.
  • Simulations overproduce BeHe binaries formed by late (case B) mass transfer; either many such systems are hidden by selection effects or case B mass transfer often fails to create a Be star.
  • A precise measurement of MX Pup's helium-star mass would distinguish between efficiencies of 0.5 and 1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that a larger, bias-corrected sample of Be+He binaries could turn the group 2 mass-ratio relation into a quantitative calibrator of $q_{\rm c}$, linking stable Roche-lobe overflow to common-envelope outcomes in other populations such as double white dwarfs.
  • We infer that the imposed cap $q_{\rm c}\le 5$ is the most consequential input: if actual stability limits for donors that have left the main sequence but not yet become giants exceed 5, the fraction of group 2 systems and the MX Pup formation window would shift, and a targeted search for BeHe binaries with reconstructed primordial mass ratios above 5 would test it.
  • A testable extension: orbital-period distributions separate the groups, with group 1 predicted at longer periods, so homogeneous radial-velocity monitoring of new BeHe detections can check the claimed overproduction of case B systems without waiting for a larger mass-ratio sample.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the rapid binary population synthesis code BSE to construct Galactic populations of Be star + He star (BeHe) binaries under four prescriptions for the mass transfer efficiency β_rlof (spin-dependent, 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0), together with the updated critical mass ratio criterion of Ge et al. (2020b) capped at q_c ≤ 5. The simulated population is divided into two groups according to the evolutionary stage at which RLOF begins: group 1 (early main-sequence donor) and group 2 (late main-sequence or more evolved donor). The authors compare simulated M_Be–M_He, M_Be–P_orb, and mass-ratio distributions with the observed BeHe sample from Wang et al. (2023) and Klement et al. (2025), and use these comparisons to argue that BeHe mass ratios can probe primordial mass ratios and that a higher mass transfer efficiency (≳0.5) supports the observations better. They also show that models with β = 0.5 and 1.0 can reproduce the formation of MX Pup, and they attribute the overproduction of group 2 systems to observational selection effects or additional physical processes.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a physically motivated two-group classification of BeHe binaries, a new way to connect observed BeHe mass ratios to primordial binary properties, and an interesting constraint on mass transfer efficiency using a small but rapidly growing observational sample. The use of an updated mass transfer stability criterion and the reproduction of MX Pup are concrete strengths, and the population synthesis setup is standard and clearly described. However, the quantitative conclusion that β ≳ 0.5 is preferred relies on comparing raw simulated counts with a small, selection-biased observed sample, and the group assignment procedure is acknowledged by the authors to be arbitrary and does not propagate mass uncertainties. The significance is therefore real but currently qualitative rather than a robust measurement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figures 2–4] The comparison that supports the central claim, that higher mass transfer efficiency (≳0.5) agrees with observations better, uses raw simulated Galactic counts in the M_Be–M_He and M_Be–P_orb planes without modeling the survey selection function of the observed BeHe sample. The paper itself invokes selection effects to explain both the scarcity of He stars above about 2 M☉ and the overproduction of group 2 systems (Section 3.2 and Conclusion). Because the models with different β populate different regions of these planes, a plausible selection function could change which model is favored. The authors should either apply a selection model to the simulations, restrict the comparison to shape-based quantities that are less sensitive to overall counts, or explicitly demonstrate that the model ranking is robust under reasonable selection biases.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 2] The assignment of each observed binary to group 1 or group 2 uses only the most probable masses and compares the pixel counts in the simulated M_Be–M_He distributions. No propagation of the quoted mass uncertainties is performed, although a shift within the error bars can move a system between pixels and change the reported one-third and two-thirds group fractions for models III and IV. The authors should repeat the classification using Monte Carlo draws from the observed mass uncertainties and report the resulting distribution of group assignments, or show that the classification is stable under such perturbations, since the group fractions are part of the evidence for the efficiency conclusion.
  3. [Section 2, paragraph beginning 'In this work, we adopt the results from H. Ge et al. (2020b)'] The adopted stability criterion, with the imposed cap q_c ≤ 5, is load-bearing for the entire population: it decides which primordial binaries undergo stable RLOF and produce BeHe systems rather than common envelope evolution, and it is also essential for the MX Pup reproduction in Section 3.3. The cap is introduced with a one-sentence rationale and no sensitivity test. The conclusions would be considerably strengthened by varying q_c (for example, removing the cap or testing the alternative criteria used by Shao & Li 2021) and showing how the group fractions, mass-ratio distributions, and MX Pup formation change. As written, the stability criterion is not independently validated within the paper.
  4. [Sections 3.2 and 4, conclusion (2)] The statement that a higher mass transfer efficiency supports the observations better is a selection among four model prescriptions with a free input parameter β, but no statistical goodness-of-fit or uncertainty quantification is provided. Since β is an input rather than a fitted parameter, the conclusion is a qualitative preference, not a measurement. A likelihood or comparison metric computed with propagated uncertainties would clarify how strong the preference for β ≳ 0.5 actually is, and would also allow the authors to state the confidence in their claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, text before Figure 2] The paper reports 'only four and two observed Be star binaries' for models I and II and fractions of one-third and two-thirds for models III and IV, but the total number of observed BeHe systems used in the comparison is not stated explicitly; please give the sample size and list the individual systems.
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The caption notes that 'the numbers of group 2 have been decreased by 5', but the figure does not indicate where this scaling is applied or how the reader should interpret the vertical axis; please clarify whether the scaling is a constant offset or a factor, and consider presenting the two groups with separate y-axes.
  3. [Section 3.1, final paragraph] The mass-ratio ranges quoted for group 1 (5–18, 4–12, 5–16, and 9–22 for models I–IV) are presented without a definition of what fraction of the population they enclose; please state whether these are full ranges or quantiles.
  4. [Section 3.3, Figure 5] The text says the He star mass in MX Pup is very uncertain, and Figure 5 gives M_He ≈ 0.6–6.6 M☉; the discussion would benefit from explicitly noting that the current mass estimate cannot yet distinguish between model III and model IV, as the text also implies.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The term 'case B mass transfer' is used in the abstract and conclusion, but the group 2 definition in Section 3.1 includes donors at the late main-sequence, HG, RGB, and He-core-burning stages, which is a broader classification than the traditional case B; please define the term precisely when it is used.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's observed group classification is defined by the model's own pixel counts, so the claimed preference for high mass-transfer efficiency is partly self-constructed; the mass-ratio probe and MX Pup comparisons retain independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 ('Population Properties of Be Stars'), classification paragraph; used again in Conclusion item (2)]
    "For the observed BeHe binaries, it is hard to know the specific mass transfer history; thus, the classification cannot be performed directly. Therefore, we classify the observed sample according to the population synthesis results of Figure 2. Specifically, we compare the corresponding numbers in the pixels of the middle panels (group 1) and right panels (group 2), where the observational samples (the most probable values) are located. The observational sample will be classified into group 1 if the corresponding numbers are larger (or equal); otherwise, it will be classified into group 2."

    Observed 'group 1/group 2' labels are not independent measurements; each model defines them by its own predicted pixel counts in the M_Be–M_He plane. The paper then counts the labeled systems and reports 'The fraction of observed Be star binaries in group 2 is one-third and two-thirds for model III and model IV, respectively,' using that fraction as evidence that 'models III and IV support the observations better.' Because the binning rule absorbs observed points into whichever model component has the larger synthetic count, the group fraction is a function of the model being tested, not a pre-existing observed statistic.

full rationale

The core population-synthesis comparison is not, in itself, circular: the four beta values are free inputs, the simulated M_Be–M_He and M_Be–P_orb distributions are genuine outputs, and the mass-ratio probe of initial mass ratios follows from the simulated donor-core relation described in Section 3.1. The main circularity is the classification rule: observed BeHe binaries are assigned to 'group 1' or 'group 2' by comparing model pixel counts, and the resulting model-dependent group fractions are then quoted as observed evidence favoring models III and IV. That step is self-definitional and inflates the inferred support for high mass-transfer efficiency. The adopted q_c criterion from H. Ge et al. (2020b), including the hand-set cap q_c <= 5, is a load-bearing assumption imported from the authors' prior work, but it is an input assumption rather than a conclusion derived from the target observations, so I do not count it as a circular step; it is a correctness/robustness concern. The independent features (model II's inability to make q > 12, the MX Pup reproduction in models III/IV, and the mass-ratio peak locations) give the paper real discriminating content, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The conclusions rest on four hand-chosen efficiency values, a capped stability criterion from the authors' group, and a threshold-based group classification. No new entities are introduced. These parameters are inputs to the simulation, not outputs, so the paper's predictive content is the qualitative comparison against observational data.

free parameters (3)
  • beta_rlof (mass transfer efficiency) = Model I: spin-dependent; Model II: 0.1; Model III: 0.5; Model IV: 1.0
    Beta is a free parameter in Equation (1). The conclusion that efficiency at least 0.5 best matches observations is obtained by comparing these chosen values to data, not derived from first principles.
  • q_c upper limit = 5
    Bound set by hand based on a discussion of thermal timescale mass transfer. It affects which binaries undergo stable RLOF and thus shapes the simulated BeHe populations.
  • Group classification threshold = 20% mass loss before He core development
    The division into group 1 and group 2 uses an operational threshold to separate early-MS from late-MS mass transfer. It is chosen for convenience, not derived, and structures the whole analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BSE analytic fitting formulae adequately approximate single-star evolution across the mass and metallicity grid.
    Section 2: single-star models are calculated based on analytic formulae that approximate stellar evolution with a wide range of stellar mass and metallicity.
  • domain assumption A Be star forms when an accretor gains enough angular momentum to reach near-critical rotation during mass transfer.
    Section 1: once the accretor is spun up to near-critical rotation, a classical Be star is formed.
  • domain assumption Mass lost from the system during RLOF removes the accretor's specific orbital angular momentum.
    Section 2, Equation (2): the angular momentum loss rate is set by beta_rlof times the accretor's specific angular momentum, an input that controls orbital evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper The Ge et al. critical mass ratio criterion, capped at q_c ≤ 5, determines dynamical stability of mass transfer.
    Section 2: the criterion is adopted from the authors' own prior work and given an imposed upper limit. It is not independently validated within this paper.
  • domain assumption Constant star formation rate of 3 solar masses per year and solar metallicity Z=0.02 represent the Milky Way over the past 15 Gyr.
    Section 2: these inputs are used to convert the Monte Carlo sample into Galactic population numbers compared with observations.
  • domain assumption The adopted initial mass function, mass ratio distribution, and separation distribution describe the Galactic binary population.
    Section 2: the IMF from Miller & Scalo, the q_i^-1 mass ratio distribution from Mazeh, and the Han separation distribution set the input population; absolute numbers and mass ratio trends depend on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Be Star + He Star Binary as an Indicator of a Binary Mass Transfer Phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CZKBVQJ

@misc{pith2026250602662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Be Star + He Star Binary as an Indicator of a Binary Mass Transfer Phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CZKBVQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02662}
}
abstract

The rapid rotation of Be stars is supposed to mainly originate from binary evolution. In recent years, more and more Be stars with helium (He) star companions have been discovered, which provides a significant opportunity to study binary interaction physics. In this work, we perform binary population synthesis with an updated binary mass transfer stability criterion and try to understand the details of mass transfer processes by constructing a series of Be star + He star (BeHe) binary populations. We found that the simulations and the observations can be divided into two groups according to the masses of components, corresponding to the two distinct evolutionary processes during the mass transfer. In particular, we found that the mass ratios of BeHe binaries may be taken as a probe of the initial mass ratios of the primordial binaries. Moreover, the results suggest that a higher mass transfer efficiency ($\gtrsim 0.5$) supports the observations better. The simulations predicted too many Be star binaries experiencing Case B mass transfer, which conflicts with the observations. The reason is due to either observational selection effects or unclear physical factors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Stable mass transfer in massive binaries leading to merging black holes

    astro-ph.SR 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Stable mass transfer in massive binaries, modeled with the accreting star's altered structure, produces merging black holes matching LIGO/Virgo masses and spins.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 151

    Ablimit, I., & Maeda, K. 2018, ApJ, 866, 151

    2018

  2. [2]

    L., et al

    Banerjee, S., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A41

    2020

  3. [3]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, ed. B. Cosimo & S. Andrea (Berlin: Springer)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Boubert, D., & Evans, N. W. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 5261

    2018

  5. [5]

    O., Coe, M

    Brown, R. O., Coe, M. J., Ho, W. C. G., & Okazaki, A. T. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 387

    2019

  6. [6]

    Carciofi, A. C. 2011, in IAU Symp. 272, Active OB Stars: Structure,

    2011

  7. [7]

    C., & Bjorkman, J

    Carciofi, A. C., & Bjorkman, J. E. 2006, ApJ, 639, 1081

    2006

  8. [8]

    C., Okazaki, A

    Carciofi, A. C., Okazaki, A. T., Le Bouquin, J. B., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 915

    2009

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    2002, A&A, 385, 488

    Carrier, F., Burki, G., & Burnet, M. 2002, A&A, 385, 488

    2002

  2. [10]

    2014, Natur, 505, 378

    Casares, J., Negueruela, I., Ribó, M., et al. 2014, Natur, 505, 378

    2014

  3. [11]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 3682

    Broekgaarden, F. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 3682

    2021

  4. [12]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 662

    Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 662

    2003

  5. [13]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 186

    Chen, X., Han, Z., Deca, J., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 186

    2013

  6. [14]

    2024, PrPNP, 134, 104083

    Chen, X., Liu, Z., & Han, Z. 2024, PrPNP, 134, 104083

    2024

  7. [15]

    R., Arcos, C., Kanaan, S., et al

    Cochetti, Y. R., Arcos, C., Kanaan, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A123

    2019

  8. [16]

    R., Granada, A., Arias, M

    Cochetti, Y. R., Granada, A., Arias, M. L., Torres, A. F., & Arcos, C. 2023, Galax, 11, 90 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166 de Mink, S. E., Sana, H., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 7

    2023

  9. [17]

    2006, Natur, 439, 45

    Diehl, R., Halloin, H., Kretschmer, K., et al. 2006, Natur, 439, 45

    2006

  10. [18]

    P., Fitchett, M

    Eggleton, P. P., Fitchett, M. J., & Tout, C. A. 1989, ApJ, 347, 998 Ekström, S., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., & Barblan, F. 2008, A&A, 478, 467

    1989

  11. [19]

    S., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Hjellming, M. S., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2010, ApJ, 717, 724

    2010

  12. [20]

    A., Chen, X., et al

    Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Chen, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 254

    2024

  13. [21]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40

    2015

  14. [22]

    R., Wang, L., & Klement, R

    Gies, D. R., Wang, L., & Klement, R. 2023, ApJL, 942, L6 Götberg, Y., Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78

    2023

  15. [23]

    2013, A&A, 553, A25

    Granada, A., Ekström, S., Georgy, C., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A25

    2013

  16. [24]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2773

    Grudzinska, M., Belczynski, K., Casares, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2773

    2015

  17. [25]

    2022, RAA, 22, 025009

    Guo, Y., Li, J., Xiong, J., et al. 2022, RAA, 22, 025009

    2022

  18. [26]

    1998, MNRAS, 296, 1019

    Han, Z. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 1019

    1998

  19. [27]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669

    2003

  20. [28]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., & Ivanova, N. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 449

    2002

  21. [29]

    2020, RAA, 20, 161

    Han, Z.-W., Ge, H.-W., Chen, X.-F., & Chen, H.-L. 2020, RAA, 20, 161

    2020

  22. [30]

    Hanuschik, R. W. 1996, A&A, 308, 170

    1996

  23. [31]

    Hastings, B., Langer, N., Wang, C., Schootemeijer, A., & Milone, A. P. 2021, A&A, 653, A144

    2021

  24. [32]

    2020, A&A, 633, A165 Hovis–Afflerbach, B., Götberg, Y., Schootemeijer, A., et al

    Hastings, B., Wang, C., & Langer, N. 2020, A&A, 633, A165 Hovis–Afflerbach, B., Götberg, Y., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A239

    2020

  25. [33]

    R., & McSwain, M

    Huang, W., Gies, D. R., & McSwain, M. V. 2010, ApJ, 722, 605

    2010

  26. [34]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543

    2000

  27. [35]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  28. [36]

    2020, Common Envelope Evolution (Bristol: IOP Publishing)

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Ricker, P. 2020, Common Envelope Evolution (Bristol: IOP Publishing)

    2020

  29. [37]

    2023, A&A, 677, L9

    Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Degenaar, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L9

    2023

  30. [38]

    2022, A&A, 667, A111

    Kervella, P., Borgniet, S., Domiciano de Souza, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A111

    2022

  31. [39]

    D., & Hurley, J

    Kiel, P. D., & Hurley, J. R. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1152

    2006

  32. [40]

    2025, A&A, 694, A208

    Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Baade, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A208

    2025

  33. [41]

    R., et al

    Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Gies, D. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 70

    2024

  34. [42]

    1975, BAICz, 26, 65

    Kriz, S., & Harmanec, P. 1975, BAICz, 26, 65

    1975

  35. [43]

    2020, A&A, 638, A39

    Langer, N., Schürmann, C., Stoll, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A39

    2020

  36. [44]

    E., Valli, R., et al

    Lechien, T., de Mink, S. E., Valli, R., et al. 2025, arXiv:2505.14780

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    2023, A&A, 669, A82

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Ge, H., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2023, A&A, 669, A82

    2023

  38. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 13

    Li, Z., Wang, L., Han, Z., & Chen, X. 2024, ApJ, 974, 13

    2024

  39. [47]

    Liu, Z., & Stancliffe, R. J. 2020, A&A, 641, A20

    2020

  40. [48]

    1988, ApJ, 329, 764

    Livio, M., & Soker, N. 1988, ApJ, 329, 764

    1988

  41. [49]

    Maraschi, L., Treves, A., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1976, Natur, 259, 292

    1976

  42. [50]

    N., Coti Zelati, F., et al

    Marino, A., Yang, H. N., Coti Zelati, F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L36

    2025

  43. [51]

    Mathew, B., Subramaniam, A., & Bhatt, B. C. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1879

    2008

  44. [52]

    1992, ApJ, 401, 265

    Mazeh, T., Goldberg, D., Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1992, ApJ, 401, 265

    1992

  45. [53]

    V., & Gies, D

    McSwain, M. V., & Gies, D. R. 2005, ApJS, 161, 118

    2005

  46. [54]

    E., Sterken, C., & Vogt, N

    Mennickent, R. E., Sterken, C., & Vogt, N. 1997, A&A, 326, 1167

    1997

  47. [55]

    E., Vogt, N., & Sterken, C

    Mennickent, R. E., Vogt, N., & Sterken, C. 1994, A&AS, 108, 237

    1994

  48. [56]

    2000, A&A, 361, 101

    Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101

    2000

  49. [57]

    E., & Scalo, J

    Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS, 41, 513

    1979

  50. [58]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15 Nazé, Y., Rauw, G., Smith, M

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15 Nazé, Y., Rauw, G., Smith, M. A., & Motch, C. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3366

    2017

  51. [59]

    1998, A&A, 338, 505

    Negueruela, I. 1998, A&A, 338, 505

    1998

  52. [60]

    2025, A&A, 695, A117

    Nuijten, M., & Nelemans, G. 2025, A&A, 695, A117

    2025

  53. [61]

    R., Cote, J., Waters, L

    Pols, O. R., Cote, J., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Heise, J. 1991, A&A, 241, 419 9 The Astrophysical Journal, 987:210 (10pp), 2025 July 10 Bao et al

    1991

  54. [62]

    M., & Rivinius, T

    Porter, J. M., & Rivinius, T. 2003, PASP, 115, 1153

    2003

  55. [63]

    A., & Yungelson, L

    Postnov, K. A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2014, LRR, 17, 3

    2014

  56. [64]

    V., & Popov, S

    Raguzova, N. V., & Popov, S. B. 2005, A&AT, 24, 151

    2005

  57. [65]

    Rappaport, S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1982, Be Stars in IAU Symp. 98, Be Stars, ed. M. Jaschek & H. G. Groth (Dordrecht: Reidel), 327

    1982

  58. [66]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, A&ARv, 21, 69

    2013

  59. [67]

    2024, arXiv:2411.06882

    Rivinius, T., & Klement, R. 2024, arXiv:2411.06882

    2024

  60. [68]

    D., et al

    Rivinius, T., Klement, R., Chojnowski, S. D., et al. 2024, in IAU Symp. 361, Massive Stars Near and Far, ed. J. Mackey, J. S. Vink, & N. St-Louis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 332

    2024

  61. [69]

    P., & Whitney, B

    Robitaille, T. P., & Whitney, B. A. 2010, ApJL, 710, L11

    2010

  62. [70]

    A., Kalogera, V., Doctor, Z., et al

    Rocha, K. A., Kalogera, V., Doctor, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 133

    2024

  63. [71]

    J., & Seitenzahl, I

    Ruiter, A. J., & Seitenzahl, I. R. 2025, A&ARv, 33, 1

    2025

  64. [72]

    E., et al

    Sana, H., de Koter, A., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A107

    2013

  65. [73]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Sci, 337, 444 Schürmann, C., Xu, X. T., Langer, N., et al. 2025, arXiv:2503.23878

    2012

  66. [74]

    2014, ApJ, 796, 37

    Shao, Y., & Li, X.-D. 2014, ApJ, 796, 37

    2014

  67. [75]

    Shao, Y., & Li, X. D. 2016, ApJ, 833, 108

    2016

  68. [76]

    Shao, Y., & Li, X. D. 2020, ApJ, 898, 143

    2020

  69. [77]

    Shao, Y., & Li, X. D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 67

    2021

  70. [78]

    Sigut, T. A. A., McGill, M. A., & Jones, C. E. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1973

    2009

  71. [79]

    F., Biermann, P., & Mezger, P

    Smith, L. F., Biermann, P., & Mezger, P. G. 1978, A&A, 66, 65

    1978

  72. [80]

    J., & Eldridge, J

    Stancliffe, R. J., & Eldridge, J. J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1699

    2009

  73. [81]

    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 Klis, Vol. 39 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 623

    2006

  74. [82]

    Townsend, R. H. D., Owocki, S. P., & Howarth, I. D. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 189

    2004

  75. [83]

    J., Vigna-Gómez, A., et al

    Vinciguerra, S., Neijssel, C. J., Vigna-Gómez, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4705

    2020

  76. [84]

    R., & Peters, G

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., & Peters, G. J. 2017, ApJ, 843, 60

    2017

  77. [85]

    R., & Peters, G

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., & Peters, G. J. 2018, ApJ, 853, 156

    2018

  78. [86]

    R., Peters, G

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., Peters, G. J., & Han, Z. 2023, AJ, 165, 203

    2023

  79. [87]

    R., Peters, G

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., Peters, G. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 248

    2021

  80. [88]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 35

    Wang, L., Li, J., Wu, Y., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 35

    2022

  81. [89]

    Webbink, R. F. 2008, in Short-Period Binary Stars: Observations, Analyses, and Results, ed. E. F. Milone, D. A. Leahy, & D. W. Hobill, Vol. 352 (Berlin: Springer)

    2008

  82. [90]

    T., Schürmann, C., Langer, N., et al

    Xu, X. T., Schürmann, C., Langer, N., et al. 2025, arXiv:2503.23876

    2025

  83. [91]

    2024, A&A, 683, A37

    Yungelson, L., Kuranov, A., Postnov, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A37

    2024

  84. [92]

    2023, RAA, 23, 025021

    Zhu, C.-H., Lü, G.-L., Lu, X.-Z., & He, J. 2023, RAA, 23, 025021

    2023

  85. [93]

    1997, A&A, 318, 443

    Zorec, J., & Briot, D. 1997, A&A, 318, 443

    1997

  86. [94]

    2016, A&A, 595, A132 10 The Astrophysical Journal, 987:210 (10pp), 2025 July 10 Bao et al

    Zorec, J., Frémat, Y., Domiciano de Souza, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A132 10 The Astrophysical Journal, 987:210 (10pp), 2025 July 10 Bao et al

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.