Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Mass-feeding of jet-launching white dwarfs in grazing and common envelope evolution

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 proposes that a white dwarf can launch powerful jets during common-envelope and grazing-envelope evolution because super-Eddington accretion builds a growing disk at about one solar radius whose gravitational energy drives the…

desk verdict A candid speculative proposal that WDs in CEE/GEE can launch jets via a mass-growing, super-Eddington disk at ~1Rsun; the arithmetic is transparent, the key feedback loop is assumed not shown, and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22621 v2 pith:DJTMZW6L submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Noam Soker (Technion , Israel) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords stars:jetsAGBandpost-AGBbinaries:closewhitedwarfsplanetarynebulae:generalcommonenvelopeevolutiongrazingluminousrednovae
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

White dwarfs (WDs) orbiting red giant or AGB stars are normally too slow eaters to power jets: nuclear burning on their surface limits accretion to about $10^{-7}$–$10^{-6}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and faster inflow inflates an envelope that chokes the accretion. This paper proposes a way around that: during a grazing envelope evolution (GEE) or the early common envelope evolution (CEE), the gas rains down onto a growing, unsteady accretion disk at a radius of about $1\,R_\odot$. The disk, not the WD, launches the jets, using the gravitational energy released as its mass climbs toward $0.01$–$0.03\,M_\odot$. The jets act as a pressure release valve, pushing away the high-entropy gas that would otherwise stop the disk from growing. If this works, WD companions would naturally explain the jet-carved lobes seen in planetary nebulae that have gone through CEE, and would power the bipolar luminous red novae observed in binary systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mass-growing, unsteady accretion disk around the WD at $R_d \simeq 1\,R_\odot$, whose gravitational settling energy powers the two opposite jets; the WD itself stays at a safe accretion rate below $\sim 10^{-6}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. The disk's properties come from a chain of analytic scalings: a BHL accretion estimate (with jet-feedback density reduction) giving $\dot M_{\rm acc}\simeq 0.19\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ at orbital separation $a\sim 100\,R_\odot$; the specific angular momentum of the accreted gas fixing the disk radius via $R_d \simeq (\eta/0.2)^2 (M_{\rm WD}/0.4 M_{\rm in})^3 (a/100\,R_\odot)\,R_\odot$; and the disk energy relation $E_d \simeq 10^{46}\,\mathrm{erg}$. What makes the disk grow instead of the WD is the positive jet feedback known as the pressure release valve, which ejects high-entropy gas and keeps the inflow funnel open.

What would settle it

A 3D simulation of a $0.6\,M_\odot$ WD with a pre-existing disk moving inside an AGB envelope at $a\sim100\,R_\odot$, with jet feedback included, that yields a disk mass saturating well below $0.01\,M_\odot$ or a jet energy below $10^{46}$ erg over a few months would falsify the scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a WD companion to an RGB or AGB star can launch powerful jets during the GEE and early CEE, despite its low nuclear burning limit, by transferring accretion to a non-steady disk at $R_d \simeq 1\,R_\odot$. Accretion onto the disk proceeds at a super-Eddington rate, of order $0.01\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ net, releasing a disk luminosity of about $5\,L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ and a total gravitational energy $E_d \simeq 10^{46}\,\mathrm{erg}$ as the disk mass grows. The disk's jets carry away most of the inflowing mass and remove the high-entropy outer layers of both the disk and the WD's inflated envelope, letting the disk build up instead of being engulfed. The scenario assumes the WD enters the envelope with an accretion disk already formed by Roche lobe overflow before the CEE begins.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the jets remove the high-entropy gas from the disk's outskirts and from the WD's inflated envelope quickly enough for the accretion disk to grow to $0.01$–$0.03\,M_\odot$ while the inflow is several times super-Eddington; the paper states that numerical simulations must confirm this flow structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jet-launching WD companions join neutron stars and main-sequence stars as viable sources of jets in CEE simulations, without the WD having to accrete above its nuclear burning limit.
  • Post-common-envelope planetary nebulae with jet-shaped lobes can be produced by a WD companion even though the WD cannot accept mass at high rates.
  • Luminous red novae and related ILOTs in binaries can be powered by WD-disk jets, with total energies of $10^{46}$–$10^{47}\,\mathrm{erg}$ and bright phases lasting from weeks to a few years.
  • Grazing envelope evolution can be understood as the phase where jets efficiently strip the outer envelope, in many systems preceding or replacing the common envelope phase.
  • CEE and ILOT models and simulations that omit jets are missing what may be a robust ingredient of the most energetic phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the author leaves implicit is that the disk-building phase is short: because the energy budget is $\sim 10^{46}$ erg, the jet-powered bright phase from a WD should last months, not decades, which distinguishes these events from longer-lived nuclear-powered transients.
  • The low jet terminal speed inside the envelope, about $170\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, suggests that lobes carved by WD jets in post-CEE nebulae should be slower than those from more massive compact accretors, a signature that could be tested by proper-motion measurements of nebular knots.
  • Since the WD's own mass barely changes, remnants of jet-powered ILOTs should host WDs with nearly their original mass; finding a remnant whose WD has clearly grown in mass would count against the scenario.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scenario in which a white dwarf (WD) entering a common-envelope event (CEE) or a grazing envelope evolution (GEE) with an RGB or AGB star can launch energetic jets not by accreting onto the WD itself, but by building a super-Eddington, non-steady accretion disk of radius ~1 R_sun around it. The disk grows to ~0.01-0.03 M_sun over months while launching jets that remove high-entropy gas from the disk outskirts and from the WD's inflated envelope through a 'pressure release valve' mechanism. The gravitational energy released by the growing disk, E_d ~ 10^46 erg (Eq. 12), is then available to power jets that can remove ~0.4 M_sun of the giant's envelope, shape post-CEE planetary nebulae, and contribute to luminous red novae and ILOTs. The paper is explicitly speculative and calls for numerical simulations to confirm the assumed flow structure.

Significance. If the proposed disk-growth mechanism operates, it would address a real difficulty: WDs are normally limited to accretion rates below ~10^-6 M_sun/yr by nuclear envelope inflation, while observational evidence from post-CEE PNe and ILOTs suggests jet activity during or after CEE. The paper's explicit scaling equations (Eqs. 8-12) are internally coherent and the author states the key assumptions rather than hiding them. The scenario is also falsifiable: targeted 3D simulations of a WD accreting in a CEE/GEE could either confirm that the disk grows to ~0.01 M_sun via jet feedback or fail, in which case the energy budget collapses. This makes the paper a useful hypothesis-generating contribution. Its main weakness is that the central growth mechanism is asserted rather than quantified, and the paper's own Section 4 acknowledges this gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The pressure-release-valve feedback is the load-bearing element of the paper, but it is not calculated. The disk mass M_d enters the energy budget linearly in Eq. (12), and the claim in Section 3 that 'within a year, the disk mass can be ~0.03 M_sun' assumes a net accretion rate onto the disk of ~0.01-0.03 M_sun/yr. The mechanism by which the jets remove high-entropy gas from the disk outskirts and from the WD's inflated envelope faster than it is resupplied is not quantified. A comparison of the removal timescale with the envelope-inflation or refill timescale, or at least a criterion expressed in terms of jet power versus the energy needed to remove high-entropy gas, is needed before the central claim can be evaluated. The sentence in Section 4 that numerical simulations 'must confirm this assumed flow structure' explicitly concedes this gap.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (8) and (11)] The mass budget is incomplete. Equation (8) gives a BHL accretion rate of ~0.19 M_sun/yr for the fiducial parameters, while Eq. (11) scales the disk luminosity using Mdot_d = 0.01 M_sun/yr. The text's example uses an inflowing rate of 5 Mdot_d = 0.05 M_sun/yr, which is a factor ~4 smaller than the BHL rate. The fraction of the incoming gas that actually reaches the disk, the fraction ejected in jets, and the fraction expelled without interacting with the disk are not specified. This matters because the disk radius and growth rate depend on the specific angular momentum of the gas that is retained; the eta = 0.2 scaling cannot be applied blindly to the full BHL inflow without an order-of-magnitude justification of the partition.
  3. [Section 3, after Eq. (12)] The conversion of disk energy E_d into unbinding of the giant envelope is treated too optimistically. The statement that 10^46 erg can remove ~0.4 M_sun with an escape velocity of ~50 km/s assumes 100% of the disk energy is deposited as kinetic energy of the envelope. In reality the jets are launched inside a dense envelope, so some fraction of the energy will be radiated, dissipated in shocks, or lost through the polar directions without contributing to bulk envelope removal. The effective efficiency should be bounded, or the 'mass removed' claim should be explicitly labeled as an upper limit.
  4. [Section 3, first paragraph] The scenario assumes that the WD already has an accretion disk when it enters the giant envelope, formed via Roche lobe overflow before CEE, citing Juarez-Garcia et al. (2025). If this pre-existing disk is absent, the disk must be assembled during the rapid plunge-in phase, which lasts weeks to months. The angular momentum of the BHL flow may be insufficient to form a disk at R_d ~ 1 R_sun on that timescale, or the disk may be disrupted before it can grow. The dependence of the scenario on this initial condition should be stated more prominently, and the alternative case (disk formation solely from BHL accretion during plunge-in) should be discussed, even if only qualitatively.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 vs Section 3] Section 4 states that the net disk accretion rate is '~10% of the accretion rate according to equation (8)', while Section 3 says Mdot_d = 0.01 M_sun/yr is '~5%' of 0.19 M_sun/yr. These numbers should be reconciled.
  2. [Figure 1] The Figure 1 caption contains garbled symbols ('WD acc0.01 ;R R M M' and 'acc0 dMM<'); the intended equations should be restored.
  3. [Equation (11)] The notation '5Enuc' should likely be '5 L_nuc' to make the dimensions consistent; as written, the physical meaning is unclear.
  4. [Sections 2 and 4] Section 2 refers to the 'negative jet feedback mechanism' while Section 4 emphasizes the 'positive component of the jet feedback mechanism'. Please define both signs at first use so the terminology is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity exhibited: the energy budget is an explicit scaling from stated inputs, and the feedback loop is acknowledged as an untested assumption rather than a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative chain is a set of analytic scalings. Equation (8) is a standard BHL accretion-rate estimate with an explicit suppression factor chi_j; Equation (10) converts an assumed accreted specific angular momentum into a disk radius; Equations (11) and (12) are the standard accretion luminosity and gravitational energy release evaluated at the explicitly stated choices Mdot_d = 0.01 Msun/yr and Md = 0.01 Msun. None of these quantities is fitted to the E_ILOT ~ 1e46-1e47 erg range; rather, the assumed disk mass is what produces that scale. The 'pressure release valve' loop (jets remove high-entropy gas, enabling disk growth) is explicitly presented as a speculative assumption: 'The accretion scenario I proposed here has speculative parts, like the assumption that the disk can grow in mass... Numerical simulations of accretion by a WD in a CEE or GEE must confirm this assumed flow structure' (Section 4). A seed disk is already present before CEE via Roche-lobe overflow, so the loop is not definitional. The paper does contain several self-citations (e.g., Soker 2025 for 'jets are CEE's most robust observable ingredient'; Bear & Soker 2025 and Scolnic et al. 2025 for main-sequence accretion with jets), but these are used as motivation and analogy, not as the mathematical content of the scalings; the central claim is a proposed scenario with clearly stated assumptions, not a theorem forced by a self-citation chain. The load-bearing weakness is therefore an unvalidated assumption (a correctness risk), not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The scenario depends on a handful of hand-picked parameters (eta, xi, chi_j, Mdot_d, M_d) and several domain assumptions. The most fragile is the ad hoc assumption that jets remove high-entropy gas fast enough for the disk to grow, which is not demonstrated here. Because the energy output scales directly with the assumed disk mass and accretion rate, the quantitative predictions are not independent of the inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • eta (angular momentum accretion ratio) = 0.2
    Sets the specific angular momentum of accreted gas and fixes the disk radius at ~1Rsun (Eq. 10). Chosen from Livio et al. (1986) scaling; the paper notes it is smaller for lower accretion rates.
  • dot{M}_d (net accretion rate onto disk) = 0.01 Msun/yr
    Assumed net accretion rate onto the disk, about 5% of the BHL rate from Eq. (8). Sets the disk luminosity and energy budget in Eqs. (11) and (12).
  • M_d (disk mass) = 0.01-0.03 Msun
    Assumed mass increment of the disk over months to a year, directly sets the released energy Ed ~ 1e46 erg in Eq. (12).
  • chi_j (jet feedback density reduction) = 0.1-0.6 depending on companion type
    Reduces the ambient density and hence the BHL accretion rate in Eq. (8); values from prior simulations for neutron-star and main-sequence companions, assumed similar for a WD.
  • xi (BHL accretion efficiency) = 0.5
    Reduction factor in Eq. (5) from ideal BHL accretion; a typical value quoted from the literature.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The giant envelope density profile is rho proportional to r^-2 (Eq. 1) with Me = 1 Msun and Re = 200 Rsun.
    Used in all accretion-rate scalings; a simplified AGB structure adequate only away from the photosphere.
  • domain assumption Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion formula with xi ~ 0.5 applies to the WD in the CEE (Eqs. 4-8).
    Standard approximation, but pushed to the regime where RBHL is comparable to the orbital separation; the paper acknowledges factor-of-a-few accuracy.
  • domain assumption The specific angular momentum of accreted gas is given by Eq. (9) with eta = 0.2, yielding a ~1Rsun disk.
    From prior literature (Livio et al. 1986; Dori et al. 2023), but eta is uncertain and lower accretion rates reduce it.
  • ad hoc to paper Jets remove high-entropy gas from the disk outskirts and the WD's inflated envelope, allowing the disk to grow (the pressure release valve).
    Central feedback assumption; not verified by simulation in this paper. Sections 3 and 4 explicitly call for numerical confirmation.
  • ad hoc to paper A pre-existing accretion disk surrounds the WD when it enters the giant envelope.
    Needed so that super-Eddington disk accretion can start immediately; supported only by a cited pre-CEE Roche lobe overflow simulation.
  • domain assumption The WD nuclear burning limit of ~1e-7 to 1e-6 Msun/yr from Hachisu et al. (1999) caps direct WD accretion.
    Standard result used to justify why the disk, rather than the WD, must accrete the majority of the inflow.
invented entities (1)
  • Super-Eddington mass-growing accretion disk around the WD during CEE/GEE
    purpose: Acts as the intermediate reservoir that accretes at rates far above the WD's nuclear burning limit and powers the proposed jets with gravitational energy.
    The disk's ability to grow to 0.01-0.03 Msun under jet feedback is assumed and explicitly flagged as needing numerical confirmation. A pre-CEE disk is supported by a cited simulation, but the super-Eddington growth phase is not.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass-feeding of jet-launching white dwarfs in grazing and common envelope evolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DJTMZW6L

@misc{pith2026250522621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass-feeding of jet-launching white dwarfs in grazing and common envelope evolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DJTMZW6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22621}
}
read the original abstract

I propose a scenario that allows white dwarfs (WDs) to launch relatively powerful jets when they enter a common envelope evolution (CEE) or experience a grazing envelope evolution (GEE) with a red giant branch star (RGB) or an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star. In this, still a speculative scenario, the accretion for a time is mainly onto an accretion disk with a radius of ~1Ro that increases in mass. The accretion disk launches the powerful two opposite jets by releasing gravitational energy, up to several times super-Eddington, as its mass increases. The jets launched by the disk remove high-entropy gas from its outskirts and the envelope that the WD inflates due to nuclear burning on its surface. The motivations to allow WDs to launch powerful jets are recent findings, from the morphologies of post-CEE planetary nebulae, that jets play a major role in the CEE and the accumulating evidence that jets power luminous red novae by jets, as their morphologies indicate. I strengthen my call to include jets in the simulation and modeling of the CEE, consider the GEE as a phase preceding the CEE in many (but not all) cases, and include jets as a major ingredient in modeling and simulating all energetic luminous red novae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22621 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — A schematic presentation of the proposed scenario (not to scale) in the meridional plane; there is an axial symmetry around an axis through the WD and perpendicular to the accretion disk. The main energy source of the jets is the gravitational energy due to the mass increase of the accretion disk. The WD accretes at a rate below the one that leads to envelope inflation. key ingredients. (1) The accretion is mainly… view at source ↗

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. The jet-feedback mechanism in common envelope evolution of planetary nebula progenitors

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    From 1D MESA simulations with spherically symmetric energy injection, the authors derive crude negative jet feedback coefficients chi_AGB ≈ 0.5 (M2/0.1 M_sun)^-1 and chi_RGB ≈ 0.8 (M2/0.1 M_sun)^-1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    2018, , 481, 2754, 10.1093/mnras/sty2479

    Akashi , M., & Soker , N. 2018, , 481, 2754, 10.1093/mnras/sty2479

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2479 2018

  3. [3]

    A., Imai , H., & Orosz , G

    Baan , W. A., Imai , H., & Orosz , G. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 275, 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/275

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/275 2021

  4. [4]

    1987, , 94, 671, 10.1086/114504

    Balick , B. 1987, , 94, 671, 10.1086/114504

    doi:10.1086/114504 1987

  5. [5]

    2020, , 889, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    Balick , B., Frank , A., & Liu , B. 2020, , 889, 13, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5651 2020

  6. [6]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025010, 10.1088/1674-4527/ada8ef

    Bear , E., & Soker , N. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025010, 10.1088/1674-4527/ada8ef

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ada8ef 2025

  7. [7]

    C., De Marco , O., Siess , L., et al

    Berm \'u dez-Bustamante , L. C., De Marco , O., Siess , L., et al. 2024, , 533, 464, 10.1093/mnras/stae1841

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1841 2024

  8. [8]

    G., & Lucchini , S

    Blackman , E. G., & Lucchini , S. 2014, , 440, L16, 10.1093/mnrasl/slu001

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu001 2014

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    2001, , 377, 868, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011090

    Bujarrabal , V., Castro-Carrizo , A., Alcolea , J., & S \'a nchez Contreras , C. 2001, , 377, 868, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011090

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Frank , A., et al

    Chamandy , L., Blackman , E. G., Frank , A., et al. 2019, , 490, 3727, 10.1093/mnras/stz2813

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    G., et al

    Chamandy , L., Carroll-Nellenback , J., Blackman , E. G., et al. 2024, , 528, 234, 10.1093/mnras/stae036

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    G., et al

    Chamandy , L., Frank , A., Blackman , E. G., et al. 2018, , 480, 1898, 10.1093/mnras/sty1950

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2014, , 569, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424458

    Chesneau , O., Millour , F., De Marco , O., et al. 2014, , 569, L3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424458

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1993, , 411, L33, 10.1086/186905

    1993 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, , 752, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    ---. 2012, , 752, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/752/1/L2

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    H., & Arendt , R

    Chu , Y.-H., Jacoby , G. H., & Arendt , R. 1987, , 64, 529, 10.1086/191207

    1987 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, , 516, 2711, 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    Clairmont , R., Steffen , W., & Koning , N. 2022, , 516, 2711, 10.1093/mnras/stac2375

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Corradi , R. L. M., & Schwarz , H. E. 1995, , 293, 871

    1995

  11. [19]

    2022, , 260, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    Danehkar , A. 2022, , 260, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5cca

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, , 530, 3327, 10.1093/mnras/stae1013

    Derlopa , S., Akras , S., Amram , P., et al. 2024, , 530, 3327, 10.1093/mnras/stae1013

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, , 954, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced97

    Dori , N., Bear , E., & Soker , N. 2023, , 954, 143, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced97

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2004, , 48, 843, 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    Edgar , R. 2004, , 48, 843, 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    F., Esquivel , A., & Raga , A

    Estrella-Trujillo , D., Hern \'a ndez-Mart \' nez , L., Vel \'a zquez , P. F., Esquivel , A., & Raga , A. C. 2019, , 876, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab12e1

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, , 683, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348383

    Gagnier , D., & Pejcha , O. 2024, , 683, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348383

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Glanz , H., & Perets , H. B. 2021 a , , 500, 1921, 10.1093/mnras/staa3242

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2021 b , , 507, 2659, 10.1093/mnras/stab2291

    ---. 2021 b , , 507, 2659, 10.1093/mnras/stab2291

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Siess , L., & Price , D

    Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var , M., De Marco , O., Berm \'u dez-Bustamante , L. C., Siess , L., & Price , D. J. 2024, , 527, 9145, 10.1093/mnras/stad3748

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var , M., De Marco , O., Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., & Price , D. J. 2022, , 517, 3181, 10.1093/mnras/stac2301

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, , 922, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23dd

    Grichener , A., Cohen , C., & Soker , N. 2021, , 922, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23dd

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, , 512, 2154, 10.1093/mnras/stac513

    Gruzinov , A. 2022, , 512, 2154, 10.1093/mnras/stac513

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Zou , A., et al

    Gurjar , D., Chamandy , L. R., Zou , A., et al. 2024, in EAS2024, European Astronomical Society Annual Meeting, 438

    2024

  24. [32]

    1999, , 522, 487, 10.1086/307608

    Hachisu , I., Kato , M., & Nomoto , K. 1999, , 522, 487, 10.1086/307608

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    2022, , 514, 3212, 10.1093/mnras/stac1341

    Hillel , S., Schreier , R., & Soker , N. 2022, , 514, 3212, 10.1093/mnras/stac1341

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, , 955, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf19a

    ---. 2023, , 955, 7, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf19a

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Frew , D

    Hillwig , T. C., Frew , D. J., Reindl , N., et al. 2017, , 153, 24, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/24

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    C., & Chevalier , R

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

    1991 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, , 464, 4028, 10.1093/mnras/stw2377

    Iaconi , R., Reichardt , T., Staff , J., et al. 2017, , 464, 4028, 10.1093/mnras/stw2377

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 28, 10.3390/galaxies8020028

    Jones , D. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 28, 10.3390/galaxies8020028

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06831, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06831

    ---. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.06831, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06831

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jones , D., Boffin , H. M. J., Rodr \' guez-Gil , P., et al. 2015, , 580, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425454

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    C., & Reindl , N

    Jones , D., Hillwig , T. C., & Reindl , N. 2023, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics XI, ed. M. Manteiga , L. Bellot , P. Benavidez , A. de Lorenzo-C \'a ceres , M. A. Fuente , M. J. Mart \' nez , M. V \'a zquez Acosta , & C. Dafonte , 216, 10.48550/arXiv.2304.06355

    2023 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Jones , D., Boffin , H. M. J., Hibbert , J., et al. 2020, , 642, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038778

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Jones , D., Munday , J., Corradi , R. L. M., et al. 2022, , 510, 3102, 10.1093/mnras/stab3736

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    L., De Marco , O., De Colle , F., et al

    Juarez-Garcia , A. L., De Marco , O., De Colle , F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.02933, 10.48550/arXiv.2502.02933

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.03919, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03919

    Kaminski , T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.03919, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.03919

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    M., Tylenda , R., et al

    Kami \'n ski , T., Menten , K. M., Tylenda , R., et al. 2020, , 644, A59, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038648

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2021 a , , 646, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039634

    Kami \'n ski , T., Steffen , W., Bujarrabal , V., et al. 2021 a , , 646, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039634

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2018, , 617, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833165

    Kami \'n ski , T., Steffen , W., Tylenda , R., et al. 2018, , 617, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833165

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2021 b , , 655, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141526

    Kami \'n ski , T., Tylenda , R., Kiljan , A., et al. 2021 b , , 655, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141526

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09691, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09691

    Karambelkar , V., Kasliwal , M., De , K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09691, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09691

    2025 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    2022, , 516, 3193, 10.1093/mnras/stac1912

    Kashi , A., Michaelis , A., & Kaminetsky , Y. 2022, , 516, 3193, 10.1093/mnras/stac1912

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    L., Staff , J., & De Marco , O

    Kuruwita , R. L., Staff , J., & De Marco , O. 2016, , 461, 486, 10.1093/mnras/stw1414

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Renzo , M., Rau , S., & Vigna-G \'o mez , A

    Landri , C., Ricker , P. M., Renzo , M., Rau , S., & Vigna-G \'o mez , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.15932, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.15932

    2024 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

    Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var , M., et al. 2022 a , , 512, 5462, 10.1093/mnras/stac049

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., Price , D. J., & Mandel , I. 2022 b , , 516, 4669, 10.1093/mnras/stac2490

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Law-Smith , J. A. P., Everson , R. W., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.06630, 10.48550/arXiv.2011.06630

    2020 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Livio , M., Soker , N., de Kool , M., & Savonije , G. J. 1986, , 222, 235, 10.1093/mnras/222.2.235

    1986 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, , 482, 3646, 10.1093/mnras/sty2959

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., De Colle , F., & Moreno M \'e ndez , E. 2019, , 482, 3646, 10.1093/mnras/sty2959

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    2022, , 513, 3634, 10.1093/mnras/stac932

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., De Colle , F., Moreno M \'e ndez , E., Shiber , S., & Iaconi , R. 2022, , 513, 3634, 10.1093/mnras/stac932

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    2020, , 497, 2057, 10.1093/mnras/staa1983

    L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., Moreno M \'e ndez , E., & De Colle , F. 2020, , 497, 2057, 10.1093/mnras/staa1983

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    F., V \'a zquez , R., Olgu \' n , L., Guill \'e n , P

    Miranda , L. F., V \'a zquez , R., Olgu \' n , L., Guill \'e n , P. F., & Mat \' as , J. M. 2024, , 687, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348173

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    2019, , 487, 1040, 10.1093/mnras/stz1315

    Miszalski , B., Manick , R., Van Winckel , H., & Miko ajewska , J. 2019, , 487, 1040, 10.1093/mnras/stz1315

    2019 doi

  55. [63]

    Z., Kami \'n ski , T., Matter , A., Wittkowski , M., & Paladini , C

    Mobeen , M. Z., Kami \'n ski , T., Matter , A., Wittkowski , M., & Paladini , C. 2021, , 655, A100, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142297

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    Z., Kami \'n ski , T., & Potter , S

    Mobeen , M. Z., Kami \'n ski , T., & Potter , S. 2025, Preprint

    2025

  57. [65]

    Z., Kami \'n ski , T., Matter , A., et al

    Mobeen , M. Z., Kami \'n ski , T., Matter , A., et al. 2024, , 686, A260, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347322

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    H., Balick , B., Montez , R., & Bublitz , J

    Moraga Baez , P., Kastner , J. H., Balick , B., Montez , R., & Bublitz , J. 2023, , 942, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca401

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    2017, , 470, 2929, 10.1093/mnras/stx1385

    Moreno M \'e ndez , E., L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D., & De Colle , F. 2017, , 470, 2929, 10.1093/mnras/stx1385

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    1987, , 99, 1115, 10.1086/132089

    Morris , M. 1987, , 99, 1115, 10.1086/132089

    1987 doi

  61. [69]

    T., R \"o pke , F

    Ohlmann , S. T., R \"o pke , F. K., Pakmor , R., & Springel , V. 2016, , 816, L9, 10.3847/2041-8205/816/1/L9

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    2017, , 153, 119, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/119

    Orosz , G., Imai , H., Dodson , R., et al. 2017, , 153, 119, 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/119

    2017 doi

  63. [71]

    Parker , Q. A. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 895287, 10.3389/fspas.2022.895287

    2022

  64. [72]

    A., Boji c i \'c , I

    Parker , Q. A., Boji c i \'c , I. S., & Frew , D. J. 2016, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 728, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 032008, 10.1088/1742-6596/728/3/032008

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Glanz , H., Bildsten , L., Perets , H

    Prust , L. J., Glanz , H., Bildsten , L., Perets , H. B., & R \"o pke , F. K. 2024, , 966, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3732

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2025, , 10.1093/mnras/staf719

    Qiao , E., Wu , Y., Lin , Y., et al. 2025, , 10.1093/mnras/staf719

    2025 doi

  67. [75]

    S., Guerrero , M

    Rechy-Garc \' a , J. S., Guerrero , M. A., Duarte Puertas , S., et al. 2020, , 492, 1957, 10.1093/mnras/stz3326

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08037, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08037

    Rosselli-Calderon , A., Yarza , R., Murguia-Berthier , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08037, 10.48550/arXiv.2404.08037

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    2008, , 680, 483, 10.1086/587638

    Sahai , R., Claussen , M., S \'a nchez Contreras , C., Morris , M., & Sarkar , G. 2008, , 680, 483, 10.1086/587638

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    2007, , 134, 2200, 10.1086/522944

    Sahai , R., Morris , M., S \'a nchez Contreras , C., & Claussen , M. 2007, , 134, 2200, 10.1086/522944

    2007 doi

  71. [79]

    R., & Villar , G

    Sahai , R., Morris , M. R., & Villar , G. G. 2011, , 141, 134, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/4/134

    2011 doi

  72. [80]

    Sahai , R., & Trauger , J. T. 1998, , 116, 1357, 10.1086/300504

    1998 doi

  73. [81]

    Sahai , R., Vlemmings , W. H. T., & Nyman , L. A . 2017, , 841, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6d86

    2017 doi

  74. [82]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038

    Sahai , R., Alcolea , J., Balick , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06038. 2409.06038

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    2023, , 520, 4182, 10.1093/mnras/stad360

    Schreier , R., Hillel , S., & Soker , N. 2023, , 520, 4182, 10.1093/mnras/stad360

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09663, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09663

    ---. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09663, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09663

    2025 doi arXiv

  77. [85]

    E., Corradi , R

    Schwarz , H. E., Corradi , R. L. M., & Melnick , J. 1992, , 96, 23

    1992

  78. [86]

    2025, , 137, 034201, 10.1088/1538-3873/adb5c2

    Scolnic , A., Bear , E., & Soker , N. 2025, , 137, 034201, 10.1088/1538-3873/adb5c2

    2025 doi

  79. [87]

    M., Moffat , A

    Shara , M. M., Moffat , A. F. J., & Webbink , R. F. 1985, , 294, 271, 10.1086/163296

    1985 doi

  80. [88]

    2024, , 532, 692, 10.1093/mnras/stae1500

    Shiber , S., & Iaconi , R. 2024, , 532, 692, 10.1093/mnras/stae1500

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    2019, , 488, 5615, 10.1093/mnras/stz2013

    Shiber , S., Iaconi , R., De Marco , O., & Soker , N. 2019, , 488, 5615, 10.1093/mnras/stz2013

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    2018, , 477, 2584, 10.1093/mnras/sty843

    Shiber , S., & Soker , N. 2018, , 477, 2584, 10.1093/mnras/sty843

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    1990, , 99, 1869, 10.1086/115465

    Soker , N. 1990, , 99, 1869, 10.1086/115465

    1990 doi

  84. [92]

    2004, , 9, 399, 10.1016/j.newast.2004.01.004

    ---. 2004, , 9, 399, 10.1016/j.newast.2004.01.004

    2004 doi

  85. [93]

    2017, , 471, 4839, 10.1093/mnras/stx1978

    ---. 2017, , 471, 4839, 10.1093/mnras/stx1978

    2017 doi

  86. [94]

    2018, Galaxies, 6, 58, 10.3390/galaxies6020058

    ---. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 58, 10.3390/galaxies6020058

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    2019, , 483, 5020, 10.1093/mnras/sty3496

    ---. 2019, , 483, 5020, 10.1093/mnras/sty3496

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    2020, Galaxies, 8, 26, 10.3390/galaxies8010026

    ---. 2020, Galaxies, 8, 26, 10.3390/galaxies8010026

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 122003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9782

    ---. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 122003, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac9782

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    2024, Galaxies, 12, 33, 10.3390/galaxies12040033

    ---. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 33, 10.3390/galaxies12040033

    2024 doi

  91. [99]

    2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025023, 10.1088/1674-4527/adb15b

    ---. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 025023, 10.1088/1674-4527/adb15b

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    2012, , 746, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/100

    Soker , N., & Kashi , A. 2012, , 746, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/100

    2012 doi

  93. [101]

    E., De Marco , O., Macdonald , D., et al

    Staff , J. E., De Marco , O., Macdonald , D., et al. 2016, , 455, 3511, 10.1093/mnras/stv2548

    2016 doi

  94. [102]

    Tafoya , D., Orosz , G., Vlemmings , W. H. T., Sahai , R., & P \'e rez-S \'a nchez , A. F. 2019, , 629, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834632

    2019 doi

  95. [103]

    K., Schneider , F

    Vetter , M., Roepke , F. K., Schneider , F. R. N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07841, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07841

    2024 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    K., Schneider , F

    Vetter , M., Roepke , F. K., Schneider , F. R. N., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.12213, 10.48550/arXiv.2504.12213

    2025 doi arXiv

  97. [105]

    2025, Preprint

    Weiner , Y., & Soker , N. 2025, Preprint

    2025

  98. [106]

    G., & Frank , A

    Zou , Y., Chamandy , L., Carroll-Nellenback , J., Blackman , E. G., & Frank , A. 2022, , 514, 3041, 10.1093/mnras/stac1529

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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