Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Circumbinary disk formation through AGB star winds

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-07 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Slow winds and massive companions forge circumbinary disks

desk verdict Long-term (600+ orbit) SPH simulations of circumbinary disk formation through WRLOF — a genuine advance in timescale, but the thermodynamic treatment is load-bearing and under-tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05275 v1 pith:JVZZGU4X submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.SR

Shunquan Huang , Rebecca G. Martin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords circumbinarydiskAGBstarwindRoche-lobeoverflowbinarymasstransferpost-AGBstarssmoothed-particlehydrodynamicsangularmomentumtransport
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 uses smoothed-particle hydrodynamics simulations of AGB star binaries, run for over 600 orbital periods, to show that circumbinary disks form naturally when a slow stellar wind from an aging giant star interacts with a sufficiently massive companion. In this regime, called wind Roche-lobe overflow (WRLOF), the companion captures wind material into a small disk around itself, and that disk transfers angular momentum to the outflow, letting material escape through the outer Lagrange point (L2) and accumulate into a larger circumbinary disk. The authors demonstrate that the resulting disk morphology — its radial extent, eccentricity, and density — depends sensitively on the binary's eccentricity and mass ratio: higher eccentricity produces more extended and more eccentric disks, while lower-mass companions yield thinner, more slowly growing disks. They also find that angular momentum transport within the circumbinary disk is driven primarily by spiral arms and shocks from the binary-wind interaction, rather than by the imposed numerical viscosity.

What carries the argument

The specific energy ratio η = e_max / (e_max − e_min) governs whether wind material remains bound to the binary. When 0 ≤ η ≤ 1, a fraction of the wind is captured, enabling the WRLOF → L2 outflow → circumbinary disk formation chain.

What would settle it

If simulations with self-consistent radiative transfer and realistic cooling (H/R ≈ 0.2–0.3) fail to produce circumbinary disks in the WRLOF regime for the same binary parameters, the formation pathway demonstrated here would be an artifact of the simplified thermodynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is a two-step angular-momentum transfer chain: the AGB wind fills the companion's Roche lobe, forms a circumsingle disk, and that disk feeds material through the L2 point into circumbinary orbits. Whether this chain activates depends on a dimensionless energy ratio η that compares the specific energy of injected wind particles to the binary's gravitational potential. When η < 1 (slow winds, massive companions), enough material remains gravitationally bound for the WRLOF pathway to operate and build a circumbinary disk. When η > 1 (fast winds or low-mass companions), the wind stays unbound and only produces a spiral density pattern. Over 600 orbits, the circumbinary disk

Load-bearing premise

The simulations adopt a locally isothermal equation of state with a disk aspect ratio of H/R = 0.1, which assumes efficient cooling and relatively cool gas. Observations and other simulations suggest the real value could be 0.17–0.3, and higher thermal energy would make wind capture less efficient and disk formation harder. The authors acknowledge this likely biases their results in favor of disk formation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The diversity of observed circumbinary disk morphologies around post-AGB stars can be explained by varying binary eccentricity and mass ratio, without invoking additional formation channels like common-envelope ejection.
  • Extended low-density disks around post-AGB systems like AC Her may form directly from low-density material without passing through a compact high-density phase, consistent with the low mass-ratio simulations.
  • Angular momentum transport in these disks is dominated by binary-induced spiral shocks rather than turbulent viscosity, which affects how one models disk evolution and accretion in post-AGB systems.
  • The polar-aligned circumbinary disk observed in AC Her cannot be explained by this co-planar wind-binary interaction mechanism, indicating an additional physical process is needed for polar disk alignment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the disk aspect ratio H/R is as large as observations suggest (0.17–0.3), the WRLOF disk-formation pathway may operate only in a narrower region of parameter space than these simulations imply, potentially requiring even slower winds or more massive companions.
  • The sensitivity of disk properties to binary eccentricity suggests that observed circumbinary disk eccentricities could be used to infer or constrain the orbital eccentricity of the underlying binary, even when direct orbital parameters are difficult to measure.
  • Since the companion supplies all angular momentum to the disk, systems with very low mass ratios may produce disks too tenuous to be detectable, potentially explaining why some post-AGB binaries lack observed circumbinary disks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents SPH simulations of AGB wind-binary interactions using PHANTOM, investigating the formation of circumbinary disks in both the Bondi-Hoyle and WRLOF regimes. The key finding is that in the WRLOF regime (slow winds, massive companions), a circumsingle disk forms around the companion and transfers material through the L2 point into circumbinary orbits, producing a long-lived circumbinary disk. Simulations extend over 600 orbital periods—significantly longer than most prior work—and systematically explore the effects of binary eccentricity (e_b = 0, 0.2, 0.4) and mass ratio (q = 0.52, 1.0, 1.92). The authors find that higher eccentricities produce more extended and eccentric disks, while lower mass ratios yield lower-density disks. Angular momentum transport is shown to be dominated by spiral structures and shocks rather than the imposed artificial viscosity. The paper is clearly written and the physical picture is well-motivated.

Significance. The primary contribution is the long-term evolution of circumbinary disks formed via WRLOF, extending to 600 orbital periods where most prior simulations stop at ~100. The distinction between BH and WRLOF regimes via the specific energy ratio η (Eq. 2) provides a useful diagnostic. The α_eff analysis (Eq. 10) demonstrating that physical stresses dominate over imposed viscosity is a valuable check. Comparisons with Esseldeurs et al. (2023) for spiral structure and Chen et al. (2017, 2020) for disk formation provide external validation. However, the significance of the central claim is tempered by the thermodynamic treatment: the locally isothermal EoS with H/R = 0.1 is acknowledged by the authors as likely favoring disk formation, and no simulation with H/R > 0.1 is presented to test robustness across the observationally motivated range (0.17–0.3).

major comments (1)
  1. Section 2 and Section 4 (Discussion): The locally isothermal EoS with H/R = 0.1 is load-bearing for the central claim that WRLOF naturally produces circumbinary disks. The authors themselves cite Malfait et al. (2024a) finding that no disk forms when H-I cooling is neglected, and note that observational estimates place H/R at 0.17–0.3. The partial mitigation (run 10, binary isothermal) does not address this concern because it retains the same H/R = 0.1 and isothermal treatment—cooling is still effectively instantaneous. No simulation with H/R > 0.1 is presented. The claim in the abstract and conclusions that WRLOF 'naturally' produces circumbinary disks should be qualified to state that this result holds under the assumption of efficient cooling (small H/R), and that robustness at observationally motivated H/R values remains untested. At minimum, the authors should add a simulation at HR
minor comments (6)
  1. Table 1: The EoS column lists 'Locally Isothermal' and 'Binary Isothermal' but the distinction between these two prescriptions is only explained in Section 4. A brief footnote in the table caption would help.
  2. Equation (10): The alpha_eff stress proxy is defined but the spatially averaged or rms value is not reported quantitatively in the text. The statement that typical values range between -0.3 and 0.3 is given, but a radial profile or azimuthally averaged comparison with alpha = 0.1 would make the claim more quantitative.
  3. Section 2: The statement that the injection rate is 'not equivalent to the physical mass loss rate' because particles fall back is important but briefly stated. A quantitative estimate of the fraction of injected mass that is re-accreted versus escaping would clarify the effective mass-loss rate.
  4. Figure 5: The y-axis label uses e_d for disk-averaged eccentricity, but the text sometimes refers to 'disk eccentricity' and sometimes to particle eccentricity e_p. Please ensure consistent terminology.
  5. Section 3.1: The terminal wind velocities of ~20 and ~14 km/s are compared to Esseldeurs et al. (2023) values of 15–25 km/s. The injection velocity for runs 1–2 is 42 km/s. A brief discussion of the deceleration mechanism would help the reader assess this comparison.
  6. The reference to 'S. Huang et al. 2025' in the conclusions appears to be self-referential; please ensure this is properly cited and that readers unfamiliar with that work are given sufficient context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee's central concern regarding the thermodynamic treatment and its potential impact on disk formation is well-taken. We address it below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The locally isothermal EoS with H/R = 0.1 is load-bearing for the central claim that WRLOF naturally produces circumbinary disks. The authors cite Malfait et al. (2024a) finding no disk when H-I cooling is neglected, and note observational estimates place H/R at 0.17–0.3. The partial mitigation (run 10, binary isothermal) does not address this because it retains H/R = 0.1. No simulation with H/R > 0.1 is presented. The claim that WRLOF 'naturally' produces circumbinary disks should be qualified, and at minimum a simulation at H/R > 0.1 should be added.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the thermodynamic treatment is the most important caveat in our work, and we appreciate the referee pushing us on this point. We will make the following changes in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Qualify the claim in the abstract and conclusions that WRLOF 'naturally' produces circumbinary disks to state that this result holds under the assumption of efficient cooling (small H/R), and that robustness at observationally motivated H/R values remains untested.

    Authors: We agree. The word 'naturally' in the abstract and conclusions overstates what our simulations demonstrate, given that H/R = 0.1 assumes efficient cooling and sits at the lower end of the observationally inferred range. We will revise the abstract to read that wind-binary interactions 'can generate' rather than 'can naturally generate' diverse circumbinary disk morphologies, and we will add an explicit caveat in both the abstract and the conclusions stating that our results assume efficient cooling (H/R = 0.1) and that robustness at the observationally motivated range H/R ~ 0.17–0.3 has not yet been tested. The Discussion (Section 4) already acknowledges this limitation; we will strengthen the language there as well to make clear that H/R = 0.1 likely favors disk formation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: At minimum, add a simulation at H/R > 0.1 to test robustness.

    Authors: We agree that this is the most direct way to address the concern. We will add a new simulation with H/R = 0.2 (within the observationally inferred range of 0.17–0.3, citing Gallardo Cava et al. 2021 and Malfait et al. 2024a), using the same binary parameters as run 5 (e_b = 0, q = 1.92, eta = 0.781, Gaussian injection). Given computational constraints, we will run this simulation for at least 200 orbital periods, which is sufficient to determine whether a circumsingle disk forms around the companion and whether material is transferred through L2 into circumbinary orbits — the key qualitative question. We will present the results in a new figure and discuss them in the context of the referee's concern. If disk formation is suppressed or significantly weakened at H/R = 0.2, we will state this explicitly and further temper our conclusions. If a disk still forms, we will note that the result is robust to at least this value of H/R, while acknowledging that the full parameter space remains to be explored. We note that a full 600-orbit simulation at higher H/R would be computationally expensive and is beyond what we can complete within the revision timeframe, but the shorter run will directly address whether the qualitative disk-formation mechanism survives at a more realistic disk thickness. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; self-citations are observational references, not load-bearing theoretical premises

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The specific energy ratio η (Eq. 2) is defined from first principles (kinetic + potential energy at injection) and used to classify wind regimes — it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The α_eff stress proxy (Eq. 10) is computed directly from SPH particle velocities, not fitted to any target. The central claims (spiral structure in the BH regime, circumbinary disk formation in the WRLOF regime) are validated against external simulations: Esseldeurs et al. (2023) for spiral morphology and terminal velocities, Chen et al. (2017, 2020) for disk formation, and Malfait et al. (2024a) for the thermodynamic dependence. The self-citations present (Huang et al. 2025, Martin et al. 2023) refer to observational properties of the AC Her system (disk extent, polar alignment) and are not invoked as theoretical premises that would make the derivation circular. The H/R = 0.1 assumption and the locally isothermal EoS are acknowledged limitations that may favor disk formation, but these are correctness/robustness concerns — the authors explicitly state this — not circularity, since no prediction is defined in terms of these assumptions in a way that reduces to the input by construction. The binary-isothermal comparison (run 10) is a partial sensitivity test, not a circular step. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation to Huang et al. (2025) for observational context, which is not load-bearing for the simulation results.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. All free parameters are standard simulation inputs (viscosity, injection rate, accretion radii, disk aspect ratio). The key parameter η is derived from first principles (specific energy of injected particles) and is not fitted to the target result. The main concern is the H/R=0.1 choice, which the authors themselves flag as potentially favoring disk formation.

free parameters (6)
  • H/R (disk aspect ratio) = 0.1
    Chosen by hand; authors acknowledge observational values are 0.17-0.3 and that this value likely favors disk formation (Section 4).
  • α (effective viscosity) = ~0.1
    Derived from PHANTOM artificial viscosity parameters via Eq. 1; not independently constrained but shown to be subdominant to spiral-shock stresses.
  • Ṁ (injection rate) = 1×10^-6 M☉/yr
    Fixed injection rate; authors note this is not the physical mass-loss rate since many particles fall back.
  • R_s,1 (AGB accretion radius) = 1.0 AU
    Set to approximate AGB star radius; standard choice.
  • R_s,2 (companion accretion radius) = 0.4 AU
    Chosen for the companion; affects whether circumsingle disk is resolved (not resolved for q=0.52).
  • Δ (Gaussian angular width) = 0.5
    Controls equatorial bias of wind injection; chosen to enhance mid-plane resolution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Locally isothermal equation of state: c_s/v_Kep = H/R = 0.1, with c_s^2 = c_{s,0}^2 · R^{-1}
    Section 2. Assumes efficient cooling maintains a fixed temperature profile; authors acknowledge this likely favors disk formation (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Wind is injected as supersonic particles at R1=1.1 AU with constant radial velocity, rather than self-consistently driven by dust formation and radiative transfer
    Section 2. Simplifies the wind-launching physics; the authors discuss this limitation in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Binary parameters based on AC Her system (M1=0.73 M☉, M2=1.4 M☉, a=5 AU)
    Section 2. Specific system choice; the model is described as scale-free when combined with injection velocity via η.
  • standard math Stars treated as sink particles with fixed accretion radii
    Section 2. Standard SPH treatment following Bate et al. (1995).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circumbinary disk formation through AGB star winds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JVZZGU4X

@misc{pith2026260705275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circumbinary disk formation through AGB star winds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JVZZGU4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05275}
}
read the original abstract

Circumbinary disks are commonly observed around post-asymptotic giant branch (post-AGB) star binaries, yet their formation and especially their long-term evolution remain unclear. We investigate this process using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics simulations of AGB star wind-binary interactions across different wind velocities, binary eccentricities, and mass ratios. When the wind is fast, or the companion is relatively low-mass, corresponding to the Bondi-Hoyle regime, the outflow remains largely unbound and forms a spiral density pattern. In contrast, slower winds and more massive companions lead to wind Roche-lobe overflow (WRLOF), where a circumsingle disk forms around the companion and efficiently transfers angular momentum to the outflow, producing a circumbinary disk. We perform simulations for over 600 binary orbital periods and find that the resulting disk properties depend sensitively on binary parameters, with higher eccentricities producing more extended and eccentric circumbinary disks, while lower mass companions reduce the disk density and growth rate. We further find that angular momentum transport within the circumbinary disk is dominated by spiral structures and shocks generated by the binary-wind interaction, corresponding to effective stresses comparable to or larger than the imposed viscosity. These results show that wind-binary interactions can naturally generate diverse circumbinary disk morphologies observed in AGB and post-AGB star systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A particle with ein > 0 tends to outflow from the binary system while ein < 0 tends to be accreted or remain bound. Since all injected particles have the same initial distance from the AGB star, R1 = 1.1, AU, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of the projected density at 600 orbital periods. The top and bottom rows show the density projected along the z- and y-axes, respectively. From left to right, the columns correspond to simulations with η = 3.14 for Uniform and Gaussian injection (runs 1 and 2; BH accretion) and η = −0.200 for Uniform and Gaussian injection (runs 3 and 4; WRLOF). The red and blue circles mark the AGB star and the companion,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scatter plots of particle velocities in a snapshot at 600 orbital periods. The top panel shows the particle ra￾dial velocity (vR) as a function of the spherical radius (R) for runs 1 and 2, which form the spiral structure. The bottom panel shows the particle angular frequency (Ω) as a function of the cylindrical radius (r) for runs 3 and 4, which form circumbinary disks. Blue and orange dots represent the uni￾form a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots of projected density for different binary eccentricity eb and mass ratio q. From left to right, the columns correspond to t = 383.03 yr, 1532.13 yr, 3064.26 yr, and 4596.39 yr, (50, 200, 400, and 600 binary orbital periods,) respectively. From top to bottom, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface density and eccentricity evolution for the circumbinary disk. Here ed represents the mass-averaged particle eccentricity magnitude and is used as a statistical measure of orbital non-circularity. From top to bottom, the rows show the results for models with (eb…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Snapshots of the projected density at t = 2681.22 yr (350 binary orbital periods) for simulations employing different equations of state. The left and right columns show the locally isothermal (run 5) and binary isothermal (run 10) models, respectively. The bottom row …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mink, S. E. 2013, A&A, 552, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220007

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220007 2013

  2. [2]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 4168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1968

    Andrych, K., Kamath, D., Kluska, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4168, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1968

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1968 2023

  3. [3]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd1e6

    Anugu, N., Kluska, J., Gardner, T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd1e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd1e6 2023

  4. [4]

    R., Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Price, N. M. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

  5. [5]

    1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    Bondi, H., & Hoyle, F. 1944, MNRAS, 104, 273, doi: 10.1093/mnras/104.5.273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/104.5.273 1944

  6. [6]

    2013, A&A, 557, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322232

    Bujarrabal, V., Castro-Carrizo, A., Alcolea, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 557, L11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322232

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322232 2013

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 4465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx680

    Carroll-Nellenback, J. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx680

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx680 2017

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b6e de Ruyter, S., van Winckel, H., Maas, T., et al

    Chen, Z., Ivanova, N., & Carroll-Nellenback, J. 2020, ApJ, 892, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b6e de Ruyter, S., van Winckel, H., Maas, T., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 641, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054062

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b6e 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Decin, L., Montarg` es, M., Richards, A. M. S., et al. 2020, Science, 369, 1497, doi: 10.1126/science.abb1229

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2004, NewAR, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

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

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Nordhaus, J., Blackman, E

    Edgar, R. G., Nordhaus, J., Blackman, E. G., & Frank, A. 2008, ApJL, 675, L101, doi: 10.1086/533436

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, A&A, 674, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346282

    Esseldeurs, M., Siess, L., De Ceuster, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346282

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    S., & Gail, H.-P

    Ferrarotti, A. S., & Gail, H.-P. 2006, A&A, 447, 553, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041198

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    1999, A&A, 347, 594 Gallardo Cava, I., G´ omez-Garrido, M., Bujarrabal, V., et al

    Gail, H.-P., & Sedlmayr, E. 1999, A&A, 347, 594 Gallardo Cava, I., G´ omez-Garrido, M., Bujarrabal, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039604

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    P., & Sedlmayr, E

    Gauger, A., Gail, H. P., & Sedlmayr, E. 1990, A&A, 235, 345

    1990

  10. [18]

    J., & Olofsson, H

    Habing, H. J., & Olofsson, H. 2004, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3876-6

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Menu, J., et al

    Hillen, M., de Vries, B. L., Menu, J., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A40, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425372 H¨ ofner, S. 2008, A&A, 491, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810641 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Hoyle, F., & Lyttleton, R. A. 1939, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 35, 405, doi: 10.1017/S0305004100021150

    1939 doi

  13. [21]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Huang, S., Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2025, ApJ, 985, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcf1f Hubov´ a, D., & Pejcha, O. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 891, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2208

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    1993, PASP, 105, 1373, doi: 10.1086/133321

    Iben, Icko, J., & Livio, M. 1993, PASP, 105, 1373, doi: 10.1086/133321

    1993 doi

  15. [23]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    G., & Jermyn, A

    Izzard, R. G., & Jermyn, A. S. 2018, Galaxies, 6, 97, doi: 10.3390/galaxies6030097

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    G., & Jermyn, A

    Izzard, R. G., & Jermyn, A. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 35, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2899 12

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Adams, S

    Karambelkar, V. R., Adams, S. M., Whitelock, P. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1a41

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19361.x

    Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19361.x

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Kervella, P., Homan, W., Richards, A. M. S., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629877

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    2015, ApJ, 814, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/61

    Kim, H., Liu, S.-Y., Hirano, N., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/61

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, A&A, 658, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141690

    Kluska, J., Van Winckel, H., Copp´ ee, Q., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141690

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Lodato, G., & Price, D. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1212, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16526.x

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Lubow, S. H. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5446, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2636

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Maercker, M., Mohamed, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2012, Nature, 490, 232, doi: 10.1038/nature11511

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    2024a, A&A, 691, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450338

    Malfait, J., Siess, L., Esseldeurs, M., et al. 2024a, A&A, 691, A84, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450338

    doi

  28. [36]

    2024b, A&A, 691, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450844

    Malfait, J., Siess, L., Vermeulen, O., et al. 2024b, A&A, 691, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450844

    doi

  29. [37]

    G., Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., Lubow, S. H., Vallet, D., Anugu, N., & Gies, D. R. 2023, ApJL, 957, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0730

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    1998, ApJ, 497, 303, doi: 10.1086/305465

    Mastrodemos, N., & Morris, M. 1998, ApJ, 497, 303, doi: 10.1086/305465

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    Mauron, N., & Huggins, P. J. 2006, A&A, 452, 257, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054739

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Mohamed, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 372, 15th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. R. Napiwotzki & M. R. Burleigh, 397

    2007

  33. [41]

    2018, A&A, 618, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833366 Mu˜ noz, D

    Mowlavi, N., Lecoeur-Ta¨ ıbi, I., Lebzelter, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A58, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833366 Mu˜ noz, D. J., Lai, D., Kratter, K., & Miranda, R. 2020, ApJ, 889, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d33

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816 Paczy´ nski, B

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816 Paczy´ nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.09.090171.001151

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

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

    1976

  36. [44]

    D., & Tomida, K

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016a, MNRAS, 455, 4351, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2592

    doi

  37. [45]

    D., & Tomida, K

    Pejcha, O., Metzger, B. D., & Tomida, K. 2016b, MNRAS, 461, 2527, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1481

    doi

  38. [46]

    A., & Yungelson, L

    Postnov, K. A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-3

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    J., & Federrath, C

    Price, D. J., & Federrath, C. 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1659, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16810.x

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Price, D. J. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 631, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3485

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    I., Pols, O

    Saladino, M. I., Pols, O. R., & Abate, C. 2019, A&A, 626, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834598

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067

    Scherbak, P., Lu, W., & Fuller, J. 2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, A&A Rv, 32, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00151-2

    Schneider, R., & Maiolino, R. 2024, A&A Rv, 32, 2, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00151-2

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2014, MNRAS, 442, 1440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu861

    Schneider, R., Valiante, R., Ventura, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 1440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu861

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  48. [56]

    H., Lubow, S

    Shu, F. H., Lubow, S. H., & Anderson, L. 1979, ApJ, 229, 223, doi: 10.1086/156948

    1979 doi

  49. [57]

    Siess, L., Homan, W., Toupin, S., & Price, D. J. 2022, A&A, 667, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243540

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47c1 van Loon, J

    Sun, M., Levina, S., Gossage, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad47c1 van Loon, J. T., Cioni, M.-R. L., Zijlstra, A. A., & Loup, C. 2005, A&A, 438, 273, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042555

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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