Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

New line-driven wind mass-loss rates for OB stars with metallicities down to $0.01\,Z_\odot$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read OB-star wind mass loss steepens sharply below one-tenth solar metallicity, according to a new NLTE wind grid reaching 0.01 Zsun.

desk verdict First self-consistent NLTE wind grid down to 0.01 Z_sun with a real steepening result; the SMC agreement leans on a physically motivated but weakly calibrated shock-cooling cutoff, yet the paper is honest about it and deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21702 v1 pith:EGPSDT6V submitted 2025-08-29 astro-ph.SR

Jiri Krticka , Jiri Kubat , Iva Krtickova This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords OBstarsline-drivenwindsmass-lossratesmetallicityweak-windproblemshockcoolingNLTEwindmodelsMagellanicClouds
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

This paper extends self-consistent line-driven wind models for OB stars down to 0.01 times the solar metallicity, predicting mass-loss rates and terminal velocities from stellar parameters alone. The central result is that the familiar power-law scaling Mdot ~ Z^alpha, with alpha near 0.6 for Galactic and Magellanic Cloud metallicities, steepens to alpha > 1 once Z drops below about 0.1 Zsun. The authors argue the steepening is physical: at such low metallicities, only a handful of resonance lines remain optically thick enough to accelerate the wind, so mass loss becomes sensitive to the detailed ionization structure and to which elements happen to dominate. The same models reproduce observed mass-loss rates in the Galaxy, LMC, and SMC, except for SMC O stars with very low rates; the paper attributes that residual discrepancy to inefficient shock cooling (the weak-wind problem), not to overprediction. Fits supplied with the paper make the new grid usable in stellar evolution codes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the METUJE global (unified) wind code, which solves the wind equations from a nearly hydrostatic photosphere to the supersonic flow together with NLTE statistical-equilibrium and comoving-frame radiative-transfer equations, so the line acceleration is derived frequency-by-frequency and the mass-loss rate and terminal velocity come out of the solution rather than being assumed. Two derived quantities carry the argument: the effective metallicity power alpha = d log Mdot / d log Z, which changes from about 0.6 to above 1 as Z falls below about 0.1 Zsun; and an order-of-magnitude shock-cooling estimate (Eq. 11) based on Rankine-Hugoniot post-shock temperatures, the Sc

What would settle it

Measure the hot post-shock gas in SMC O stars with observed Mdot < 3e-8 M_sun/yr: inefficient shock cooling predicts X-ray emitting gas at a few MK and weakened low-ionization UV wind lines, while the overprediction alternative predicts normal cool winds. JWST MIR forbidden-line spectroscopy of a small SMC sample, mirroring the 10 Lac observation, would distinguish the two.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the metallicity dependence of line-driven mass loss is not a single power law. Using the METUJE global wind code—solving hydrodynamics, comoving-frame radiative transfer, and statistical equilibrium from the photosphere into the supersonic wind—the authors compute wind mass-loss rates and terminal velocities for OB stars at Z = Zsun/10, Zsun/30, and Zsun/100, and combine them with earlier METUJE grids at solar, LMC, and SMC abundances. Down to Magellanic Cloud metallicities (Z >= 0.2 Zsun), the mass-loss rate scales as Z^0.6; below about 0.1 Zsun the scaling steepens, with alpha reaching values above 1 and even near 1.4 in places. The steepenin

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the poor agreement between predicted and observed mass-loss rates for SMC O stars with low rates is explained by inefficient shock cooling—an order-of-magnitude estimate based on post-shock temperatures, a compression ratio of 4, and a chosen cooling function—rather than by the models themselves overpredicting mass loss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted Mdot and v_inf relations (Eqs. 2-7) can be plugged directly into stellar evolution codes for metallicities down to 0.01 Zsun, replacing extrapolations of the high-Z scaling.
  • Below Z ~ 0.1 Zsun, a single alpha ~ 0.6 power law will systematically overestimate mass loss in O stars near 40 kK and underestimate it near 15 kK, where alpha peaks.
  • At the lowest grid metallicities, some models predict no wind at all; the wind limit shifts to higher effective temperatures in lower-metallicity main-sequence stars, so chemically peculiar atmospheres may appear at hotter temperatures in metal-poor galaxies.
  • For SMC and subMagellanic stars with Mdot below roughly 1e-7 M_sun/yr, observational mass-loss estimates may miss a large fraction of the wind because post-shock gas stays too hot to produce the usual UV and optical wind signatures.
  • Element abundance ratios (e.g., oxygen depletion from CNO mixing) can change low-Z mass-loss rates significantly because just a few lines carry the acceleration at the lowest metallicities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the steepening to alpha > 1 holds, then the common canonical alpha = 0.5-0.6 scaling used in low-metallicity stellar population and early-universe models would need to be replaced by a temperature- and metallicity-resolved grid, with consequences for the mass budget and supernova progenitors of the first-generation OB stars.
  • The shock-cooling explanation implies a testable prediction beyond the paper: weak-wind SMC O stars should show X-ray emission or mid-infrared forbidden lines from hot post-shock gas at roughly the level seen for 10 Lac, while stars with higher mass-loss rates should not.
  • Because only a few lines drive the wind at low Z, alpha should depend on the actual element mixture rather than total Z alone; a star enriched in carbon or silicon could have a noticeably different Mdot from one enriched in oxygen at the same Z, something stellar evolution mixing could produce.
  • The same few-line driving suggests the scatter at low Z is not pure noise: it encodes the ionization state and abundance pattern of the wind, so comparing model scatter with observed scatter could indirectly map mixing or surface abundance anomalies in metal-poor stars.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents new METUJE global wind models for OB stars at Z = 0.1, 0.03, and 0.01 Z_sun, combined with earlier models at Z_sun, 0.5 Z_sun, and 0.2 Z_sun. The authors report grid predictions for mass-loss rates and terminal velocities, provide analytic fitting formulae (Eqs. 2-7, Tables 3-6), and compare the predicted rates with observations in the Galaxy, LMC, SMC, and sub-SMC dwarf galaxies. The main physical claims are that the metallicity scaling Mdot ~ Z^alpha is weak (alpha ~ 0.6) for Z >= 0.2 Z_sun but steepens to alpha > 1 below Z ~ 0.1 Z_sun, that the low-Z wind is driven by a small number of lines, and that the SMC discrepancy for weak winds is due to inefficient shock cooling rather than model overprediction.

Significance. If correct, this is the first self-consistent NLTE line-driven wind grid extending to 0.01 Z_sun that predicts mass-loss rates and terminal velocities directly from stellar parameters. The steepening of the metallicity dependence at low Z is a physically plausible and testable result, and the fits are useful for evolutionary calculations. The paper is commendably explicit about the limitations of the fits and about the sparse observational sample below SMC metallicity. The main weakness is the load-bearing use of an order-of-magnitude shock-cooling estimate to justify excluding low-mass-loss SMC stars; this step needs substantial strengthening before the observational agreement claim can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (11); §4, Fig. 10, Table 7] The SMC agreement (r = 1.01 in Table 7) is obtained only after excluding stars with observed Mdot < 3e-8 M_sun/yr. The threshold comes from Eq. (11), an order-of-magnitude estimate with weakly constrained inputs: V0 = v_inf/2 is taken from 10 Lac alone, the compression ratio is fixed at 4, and the Schure et al. cooling function is acknowledged to be uncertain near 1e5 K. Varying V0 between 0.3 and 1.0 v_inf changes the limiting Mdot by an order of magnitude, and a factor 2 in Lambda changes it by a factor 2. Since the uncut SMC ratio is 2.8, the conclusion that the discrepancy is caused by inefficient shock cooling is not robust to plausible changes in these inputs. I ask for a sensitivity analysis of Eq. (11), an independent justification of V0 and Lambda at SMC metallicity, and explicit SMC ratios for thresholds bracketing 3e-8 (e.g., 1e-8 and 1e-7).
  2. [§4, Fig. 10] The exclusion is applied to the observed mass-loss rates, not to a model-predicted threshold. If the models overpredict weak winds, removing low observed Mdot points removes exactly the discrepant stars, so the post-cut agreement is partly by construction. To support the shock-cooling interpretation, the excluded stars should be identifiable by an independent criterion: for example, predicted Mdot below the Eq. (11) limit, or direct evidence of hot post-shock gas in those stars. Please report the number of excluded SMC stars, the predicted Mdot values of the excluded stars, and the full-sample ratio (2.8) in the same table as the cut ratio, so that the reader can assess the selection effect.
  3. [§4, Fig. 11] The abstract says that predicted mass-loss rates 'even lower' than SMC metallicity reasonably agree with observations, but the sub-SMC comparison rests on only three stars with clumping-corrected Mdot > 1e-7 M_sun/yr. The remaining points in Fig. 11 show large scatter and include estimates without clumping corrections. This is a very small empirical base. I recommend softening the 'reasonable agreement' claim for subMagellanic metallicities, or restricting it explicitly to the clumping-corrected, high-Mdot subset, with the small-sample caveat stated in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (3), text after Table 4] Typo: 'This this fit does not represent...' should read 'This fit does not...'.
  2. [§3, Eq. (1) and Fig. 2] Because alpha is evaluated using backward differences, alpha(0.01 Z_sun) is undefined. The text should state explicitly that the steepening claim is based on Z = 0.1 and 0.03 Z_sun, not on the 0.01 Z_sun models.
  3. [§5.1 and Fig. 12] The text says the models underpredict v_inf for Teff > 30 kK, but the conclusions say an extrapolation of the Eq. (7) fit to higher Teff agrees with observations. Clarify whether Fig. 12 compares the direct METUJE models or the extrapolated fit, and define the range of validity of each statement.
  4. [Table 2 and fits] Several 0.01 Z_sun models have 'no wind'. It would be helpful to state explicitly how these non-detections are treated in the fits (Eqs. 2-3) and in the alpha determination, since ignoring them may bias the derived scaling.
  5. [§4, Fig. 10] Please specify how many SMC stars are removed by the 3e-8 M_sun/yr cut, and give the mean ratio with and without each threshold in Table 7 rather than only in the text.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement is generic; please include the actual CDS catalog number or a DOI once assigned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are physical code outputs, fits are to the model grid, and the SMC weak-wind cutoff is an empirically anchored physical estimate rather than a data-fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. METUJE solves the hydrodynamical equations, kinetic equilibrium equations, and comoving-frame radiative transfer; the stellar parameters (Teff, M, R, composition) are the only inputs, and Mdot and v_inf are outputs (Sect. 2). The analytic fits in Eqs. (2)-(7) are fits to the computed model grid, with quoted rms residuals of 0.17-0.28 dex; they are not used to fabricate the grid. The alpha steepening is computed from the grid directly via Eq. (1) and from the contribution of individual lines (Figs. 2-4), not from fitted constants. The comparison with observations (Sect. 4) uses independent published data sets; Galactic/LMC ratios are 0.94 and 1.31 before any cuts. The only caveat is the SMC weak-wind cutoff: the 3e-8 Msun/yr threshold is derived from Eq. (11) in Sect. 5.3, with V0=v_inf/2 calibrated on 10 Lac and checked against the 10 Lac MIR lower limit; it is not fitted to the SMC residuals. The cutoff therefore rests on an order-of-magnitude physical estimate (Schure et al. 2009 cooling function, compression ratio 4, V0 choice) that could shift, as the paper itself notes the cooling function may be overestimated near 1e5 K (Sect. 5.3). That is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity. Heavy self-citations (METUJE code papers, Krticka & Kubat 2009a wind-limit estimate) document the code and prior cross-checks; the new predictions do not reduce to these citations for their evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the METUJE code and on the mapping between model abundance scalings and real galaxies. No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted numbers are the analytic representation of the model grid.

free parameters (1)
  • Analytic fit coefficients in Eqs. (2) to (7), Tables 3 to 6 = See Tables 3-6
    These coefficients are fitted to the model grid, not to observations. They do not drive the central metallicity trend, but they are the paper's compact presentation of the grid and would be needed to reproduce the fits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spherically symmetric, stationary, smooth (unclumped) wind as modeled by METUJE.
    Sect. 2 states the code assumes spherical symmetry and stationarity and neglects small-scale clumping; clumping is later invoked to explain terminal velocity discrepancies for Teff > 30 kK.
  • domain assumption Element-wise scaled solar abundances (Asplund et al. 2009) represent low-metallicity stellar surfaces.
    Sect. 2: models use solar composition scaled for each element to Z_sun/10, /30, and /100; real low-Z galaxies may have non-solar abundance patterns.
  • domain assumption The Sobolev approximation is adequate for the line-force decomposition analysis in Figs. 3 to 4.
    Figures 3 and 4 use the Sobolev approximation to attribute radiative force to elements; the full METUJE models use comoving-frame transfer, so the decomposition is only illustrative.
  • domain assumption The shock-cooling estimate (Eq. 11) with Rankine-Hugoniot compression ratio 4 and the Schure et al. (2009) cooling function is representative.
    Sect. 5.3 derives a limiting mass-loss rate for inefficient shock cooling; adopted V1 = v_inf/2 for 10 Lac and the cooling function values determine the numerical factors.
  • domain assumption The adopted stellar parameter grid (Martins et al. 2005 for O stars; Crowther et al. 2006 for B supergiants) covers typical OB stars.
    Sect. 2: grid parameters are taken from these relations; actual low-Z stars may differ in evolution and in the mass-luminosity relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New line-driven wind mass-loss rates for OB stars with metallicities down to $0.01\,Z_\odot$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGPSDT6V

@misc{pith2026250821702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New line-driven wind mass-loss rates for OB stars with metallicities down to $0.01\,Z_\odot$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGPSDT6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21702}
}
abstract

We provide new line-driven wind models for OB stars with metallicities down to $0.01\,Z_\odot$. The models were calculated with our global wind code METUJE, which solves the hydrodynamical equations from nearly hydrostatic photosphere to supersonically expanding stellar wind together with the equations of statistical equilibrium and the radiative transfer equation. The models predict the basic wind parameters, namely, the wind mass-loss rates and terminal velocities just from the stellar parameters. In general, the wind mass-loss rates decrease with decreasing metallicity and this relationship steepens for very low metallicities, $Z\lesssim0.1\,Z_\odot$. Down to metallicities corresponding to the Magellanic Clouds and even lower, the predicted mass-loss rates reasonably agree with observational estimates. However, the theoretical and observational mass-loss rates for very low metallicities exhibit significant scatter. We show that the scatter of observational values can be caused by inefficient shock cooling in the stellar wind, which leaves a considerable fraction of the wind at too high temperatures with waning observational signatures. The scatter of theoretical predictions is caused by a low number of lines that effectively accelerate the wind at very low metallicities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wind mass-loss rate as a function of the stellar luminosity from METUJE models at different metallicities for stars with Teff ≥ 27.5 kK. timate of atmospheric structure is derived from TLUSTY stel￾lar atmosphere code (Lanz & Hubeny 2003, 2007). We typi￾cally calculate the TLUSTY models for the same parameters as METUJE models; however, for subMagellanic metallicities, us￾ing models with SMC composition was sufficien… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Power of the metallicity dependence of the mass-loss rate M˙ ∼ Z α (Eq. 1) plotted as a function of the stellar effective temperature for models at different metallicities. Dashed lines describe mean relation￾ship derived for individual metallicities. the luminosity dependence of the mass-loss rate is monotonic for higher metallicities, for subMagellanic metallicities (Z . 0.1Z⊙), the luminosity relationship shows s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative contribution of selected elements to the line radiative force as a function of the effective temperature, plotted at the wind critical point for O giants and B supergiants with M = 40 M⊙. While line colors denote individual elements, line styles differentiate between metallicity, with the solid line corresponding to Z⊙, dashed line to 0.1Z⊙, and dotted line to 0.01Z⊙. The thick blue line gives the mean ioni… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative contribution of three lines that drive the wind most strongly to the radiative force. Plotted as a function of the stellar ef￾fective temperature for different metallicities at the critical point using the Sobolev approximation for O giants and 40 M⊙ B supergi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted ratio of the wind terminal velocity, v∞, and escape speed, vesc, as a function of the effective temperature. Solid lines col￾ored according to the metallicity give fit to theoretical predictions (see Eq. (4)) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratio of the predicted mass-loss rates and their obser￾vational estimates plotted as a function of the stellar effective temperature for stars from our Galaxy. The theoretical mass-loss rates from Vink et al. (2001), Björklund et al. (2023), and this paper are compared…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratio of the predicted mass-loss rates and their observational estimates plotted as a function of the effective temperature for stars from the SMC. The theoretical mass-loss rates from Vink et al. (2001), Björklund et al. (2023), and this paper are compared with obser…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ratio of the predicted mass-loss rates and their observational estimates plotted as a function of the effective temperature for stars from galaxies with subMagellanic metallicities. Pink box denotes the only three stars with clumping-corrected mass-loss rate M˙ > 10−7…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Observational values of the wind terminal velocities (Crowther et al. 2006; Hawcroft et al. 2024b) compared with theoreti￾cal predictions Eq. (7) for stars from the Galaxy, LMC, and SMC. the β parameter, which determines the steepness of the radial ve￾locity profile, …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Observational values of the wind terminal velocities (Bouret et al. 2015; Telford et al. 2024; Furey et al. 2025) compared with theoretical values for stars with subMagellanic metallicities. values determined from observations. While the Sobolev-based models with Abbo…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Stellar Winds Atlas II: Black Hole Formation at Solar Metallicity

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Black hole masses at solar metallicity are set by whether a star becomes a Wolf-Rayet star before collapse, and cool supergiant winds control that split.

  2. Twin Peaks: Resolving Features in the Binary Black Hole Mass Function with COSMIC-METISSE

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    New MESA stellar tracks with varied winds and convective mixing produce a primary black hole mass function with twin peaks near 8 and 13 solar masses in most variations, the higher peak dominated by mass-ratio-reversa...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott, D. C. 1982, ApJ, 259, 282

    1982

  2. [2]

    I., Owocki, S

    Antokhin, I. I., Owocki, S. P ., & Brown, J. C. 2004, ApJ, 611, 4 34

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P . 2009, AR A&A, 47, 481

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    A., de Koter, A., et al

    Backs, F., Brands, S. A., de Koter, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A 88

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 3818

    Bednarek, W. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3818

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bernini-Peron, M., Marcolino, W. L. F., Sander, A. A. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A50

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Bernini-Peron, M., Sander, A. A. C., Najarro, F., et al. 2025 , A&A, 697, A41

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Bernini-Peron, M., Sander, A. A. C., Ramachandran, V ., et al . 2024, A&A, 692, A89 Björklund, R., Sundqvist, J. O., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2021 , A&A, 648, A36 Björklund, R., Sundqvist, J. O., Singh, S. M., Puls, J., & Naj arro, F. 2023, A&A, 676, A109

    work page 2024

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    J., et al

    Bouret, J.-C., Lanz, T., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2003, ApJ, 595 , 1182

    2003

  2. [10]

    J., et al

    Bouret, J.-C., Lanz, T., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 4 49, 1545

    2015

  3. [11]

    2013, A&A, 555, A 1

    Bouret, J.-C., Lanz, T., Martins, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A 1

    2013

  4. [12]

    C., Martins, F., Hillier, D

    Bouret, J. C., Martins, F., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 6 47, A134

    2021

  5. [13]

    A., Backs, F., de Koter, A., et al

    Brands, S. A., Backs, F., de Koter, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A 54

    2025

  6. [14]

    A., de Koter, A., Bestenlehner, J

    Brands, S. A., de Koter, A., Bestenlehner, J. M., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A36

    2022

  7. [15]

    P ., Puls, J., Sundqvist, J

    Carneiro, L. P ., Puls, J., Sundqvist, J. O., & Ho ffmann, T. L. 2016, A&A, 590, A88

    2016

  8. [16]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, ApJ, 195, 157

    1975

  9. [17]

    H., Kuhn, M

    Cohen, D. H., Kuhn, M. A., Gagné, M., Jensen, E. L. N., & Miller , N. A. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1855

    2008

  10. [18]

    H., Wollman, E

    Cohen, D. H., Wollman, E. E., Leutenegger, M. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 908

    2014

  11. [19]

    A., Lennon, D

    Crowther, P . A., Lennon, D. J., & Walborn, N. R. 2006, A&A, 446 , 279

    2006

  12. [20]

    2020, Theoretical Fluid Dynamics (Springer)

    Feldmeier, A. 2020, Theoretical Fluid Dynamics (Springer)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Feldmeier, A., Puls, J., & Pauldrach, A. W. A. 1997, A&A, 322, 878

    1997

  14. [22]

    G., de Koter, A., et al

    Furey, C., Telford, O. G., de Koter, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A9

    2025

  15. [23]

    J., & Urbane ja, M

    Garcia, M., Herrero, A., Najarro, F., Lennon, D. J., & Urbane ja, M. A. 2014, ApJ, 788, 64

    2014

  16. [24]

    C., Curé, M., Hillier, D

    Gormaz-Matamala, A. C., Curé, M., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2021 , ApJ, 920, 64

    2021

  17. [25]

    C., Curé, M., Meynet, G., et al

    Gormaz-Matamala, A. C., Curé, M., Meynet, G., et al. 2022, A& A, 665, A133 Gräfener, G. & Hamann, W.-R. 2005, A&A, 432, 633 Gräfener, G. & Hamann, W.-R. 2008, A&A, 482, 945

    2022

  18. [26]

    V ., Alexashov, D

    Gvaramadze, V . V ., Alexashov, D. B., Katushkina, O. A., & Kniazev, A. Y . 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4421

    2018

  19. [27]

    2021, A&A, 655, A67

    Hawcroft, C., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A67

    2021

  20. [28]

    Hillier, D. J. & Miller, D. L. 1999, The Astrophysical Journa l, 519, 354

    1999

  21. [29]

    & Mihalas, D

    Hubeny, I. & Mihalas, D. 2014, Theory of Stellar Atmospheres (Princeton Uni- versity Press)

    2014

  22. [30]

    J., & Zezas, A

    Kaaret, P ., Ward, M. J., & Zezas, A. 2004, MNRAS, 351, L83

    2004

  23. [31]

    Keszthelyi, Z., Puls, J., & Wade, G. A. 2017, A&A, 598, A4

    2017

  24. [32]

    A., Chick, W

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Chick, W. T., & Povich, M. S. 2019, AJ, 158, 73 Krtiˇcka, J. & Kubát, J. 2010, A&A, 519, A50 Krtiˇcka, J. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1282 Krtiˇcka, J. & Kubát, J. 2001, A&A, 377, 175 Krtiˇcka, J. & Kubát, J. 2009a, A&A, 493, 585 Krtiˇcka, J. & Kubát, J. 2009b, MNRAS,...

    2019

  25. [33]

    & Puls, J

    Kudritzki, R.-P . & Puls, J. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 613

    2000

  26. [34]

    A., Hennicker, L., Kee, N

    Lagae, C., Driessen, F. A., Hennicker, L., Kee, N. D., & Sundq vist, J. O. 2021, A&A, 648, A94

    2021

  27. [35]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Snow, T. P ., & Lindholm, D. M. 1995, ApJ, 455, 269

    1995

  28. [36]

    & Hubeny, I

    Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417

    2003

  29. [37]

    & Hubeny, I

    Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2007, ApJS, 169, 83

    2007

  30. [38]

    R., Hawcroft, C., Smith, L

    Law, D. R., Hawcroft, C., Smith, L. J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, L 25

    2024

  31. [39]

    Marcolino, W. L. F., Bouret, J. C., Lanz, T., Maia, D. S., & Aud ard, M. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2710

    2017

  32. [40]

    Marcolino, W. L. F., Bouret, J.-C., Martins, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 498, 837

    2009

  33. [41]

    Vink, J. S. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5104

    2022

  34. [42]

    Martins, F., Schaerer, D., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 436, 10 49

    2005

  35. [43]

    J., & Heydari-Malaye ri, M

    Martins, F., Schaerer, D., Hillier, D. J., & Heydari-Malaye ri, M. 2004, A&A, 420, 1087

    2004

  36. [44]

    2011, A&A, 534, A18

    Michaud, G., Richer, J., & Vick, M. 2011, A&A, 534, A18

    2011

  37. [45]

    B., & Hummer, D

    Mihalas, D., Kunasz, P . B., & Hummer, D. G. 1975, ApJ, 202, 465 Müller, P . E. & Vink, J. S. 2008, A&A, 492, 493

    1975

  38. [46]

    M., & Puls, J

    Najarro, F., Hanson, M. M., & Puls, J. 2011, A&A, 535, A32

    2011

  39. [47]

    P ., Castor, J

    Owocki, S. P ., Castor, J. I., & Rybicki, G. B. 1988, ApJ, 335, 9 14

    1988

  40. [48]

    Owocki, S. P . & Puls, J. 2002, ApJ, 568, 965

    2002

  41. [49]

    Pauldrach, A., Puls, J., & Kudritzki, R. P . 1986, A&A, 164, 86

    1986

  42. [50]

    Pauldrach, A. W. A. & Puls, J. 1990, A&A, 237, 409

    1990

  43. [51]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 530

    Peron, G., Casanova, S., Gabici, S., Baghmanyan, V ., & Aharo nian, F. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 530

    2024

  44. [52]

    S., & Gräfener, G

    Petrov, B., Vink, J. S., & Gräfener, G. 2014, A&A, 565, A62

    2014

  45. [53]

    S., & Gräfener, G

    Petrov, B., Vink, J. S., & Gräfener, G. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1999

    2016

  46. [54]

    K., Barlow, M

    Prinja, R. K., Barlow, M. J., & Howarth, I. D. 1990, ApJ, 361, 6 07

    1990

  47. [55]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 23

    Puls, J., Springmann, U., & Lennon, M. 2000, A&AS, 141, 23

    2000

  48. [56]

    D., Shore, S

    Renzo, M., Ott, C. D., Shore, S. N., & de Mink, S. E. 2017, A&A, 6 03, A118 Reyero Serantes, S., Oskinova, L., Hamann, W. R., et al. 2024 , A&A, 690, A347

    2017

  49. [57]

    Sander, A. A. C. & Vink, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 873

    2020

  50. [58]

    M., Kosenko, D., Kaastra, J

    Schure, K. M., Kosenko, D., Kaastra, J. S., Keppens, R., & Vin k, J. 2009, A&A, 508, 751

    2009

  51. [59]

    Springmann, U. W. E. & Pauldrach, A. W. A. 1992, A&A, 262, 515

    1992

  52. [60]

    Stift, M. J. & Alecian, G. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2715

    2012

  53. [61]

    O., Björklund, R., Puls, J., & Najarro, F

    Sundqvist, J. O., Björklund, R., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2019 , A&A, 632, A126 Szécsi, D. & Wünsch, R. 2019, ApJ, 871, 20

    2019

  54. [62]

    G., Chisholm, J., Sander, A

    Telford, O. G., Chisholm, J., Sander, A. A. C., et al. 2024, Ap J, 974, 85

    2024

  55. [63]

    Tramper, F., Sana, H., de Koter, A., Kaper, L., & Ramírez-Agu delo, O. H. 2014, A&A, 572, A36 Štofanová, L., Kaastra, J., Mehdipour, M., & de Plaa, J. 2021 , A&A, 655, A2 Šurlan, B., Hamann, W.-R., Aret, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A1 30 V erhamme, O., Sundqvist, J., de Koter, ...

    2014

  56. [64]

    Vink, J. S. 2018, A&A, 619, A54

    2018

  57. [65]

    Vink, J. S. 2022, ARA&A, 60, 203

    2022

  58. [66]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 1999, A&A, 350 , 181

    1999

  59. [67]

    S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369 , 574

    2001

  60. [68]

    S., Mehner, A., Crowther, P

    Vink, J. S., Mehner, A., Crowther, P . A., et al. 2023, A&A, 675 , A154 Article number, page 11 of 11

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.