Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Early Post Asymptotic Giant Branch Instability: Does it Affect White Dwarf Hydrogen Envelope Mass?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A thermally driven instability after the AGB produces HRD loops whose period falls with stellar mass, offering a new mass diagnostic and sending 7Be to the surface.

desk verdict New predictions for EPAGBI loops and 7Be are worth a look, but the MH answer isn't settled because the hydrostatic continuation limits what the models can claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13313 v2 pith:LI4B5RTF submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.SR

James MacDonald This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords earlypost-AGBinstabilitywhitedwarfhydrogenenvelopesHertzsprung-Russelldiagramloops7Beconvectivedredge-upDAVasteroseismologyasymptoticgiantbranchevolutionplanetarynebulacentralstarsstellarmassdetermination
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

The paper asks whether the Early Post-AGB Instability (EPAGBI), a recently identified thermal and dynamical instability in stars just after they leave the asymptotic giant branch, can explain why white dwarfs have much thinner hydrogen envelopes than standard evolution predicts. Evolving 1 and 2 solar-mass models through the AGB and onto the white-dwarf cooling track, the author finds that the final hydrogen envelope masses fall in the range inferred from asteroseismology, not the canonical $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$. However, because the hydrostatic code cannot follow the dynamical phase and the outer layers are forced into thermal equilibrium, these masses are upper limits and it remains possible that all hydrogen is ejected. The paper's central new result is that the instability produces characteristic loops in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram whose period shrinks with stellar mass, about 100 years at $0.567\,M_\odot$, 10 years at $0.642\,M_\odot$, and an estimated 1 year near $0.72\,M_\odot$, making the loop timescale a potential stellar-mass diagnostic. It also finds that $^7$Be, the lithium precursor, is convected to the photosphere at up to about 400 times the solar photospheric mass fraction, offering a spectroscopic signature via the Be II doublet.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Early Post-AGB Instability itself: a thermally driven radial pulsation of the hydrogen-burning shell that develops after a model leaves the AGB, with driving in the partial-ionization zones of hydrogen and helium. In the hydrostatic stellar evolution code used here, the instability appears as an exponentially growing oscillation of hydrogen-burning luminosity; when the envelope exceeds the local Eddington luminosity and develops a density inversion, the calculation is continued only by forcing the outer layers ($T<10^6$ K) into thermal equilibrium. This machinery produces the HRD loops, the episodic dredge-up that mixes helium-burning products into the photosphere, and the convective transport of $^7$Be to the surface. The comparison calculation suppresses the instability by forcing time steps larger than the growth time, showing that the loops disappear and that the final hydrogen mass differs only modestly.

What would settle it

A long-term photometric monitoring campaign of post-AGB stars and planetary nebula central stars that finds no HRD loops on the predicted 1 to 100 yr timescales would falsify the loop signature; likewise, a detection or non-detection of the Be II 313 nm doublet at the predicted EPAGBI phase would test the $^7$Be transport. A hydrodynamic simulation showing complete ejection of the hydrogen layer would falsify the paper's conclusion that the EPAGBI can leave thin but nonzero hydrogen envelopes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the EPAGBI does not by itself settle the hydrogen-envelope-mass conflict, because the computed $M_{\mathrm{H}}$ values, though consistent with DAV asteroseismology, depend on a hydrostatic treatment that is known to break down; the author states directly that all hydrogen could be removed dynamically. What the instability does produce is a distinctive observable: repeated loops in the HRD caused by thermal pulsations of the hydrogen-burning shell, with a loop period that decreases steeply with the mass at AGB departure. In the 1 $M_\odot$ model (departure mass $0.567\,M_\odot$) the loop period is about 100 yr with a period-doubling route to slightly chaotic behavior before a final thermal pulse; in the 2 $M_\odot$ model (departure mass $0.642\,M_\odot$) the period is about 10 yr and no thermal pulse develops during the loop phase. The loop timescale-mass relation, extrapolated to about 1 yr at $0.72\,M_\odot$, is proposed as a way to measure the mass of a star just after AGB departure if the loops are detected. The other predicted signature is surface $^7$Be enhancement through the Cameron-Fowler process, reaching approximately 400 times the solar photospheric $^7$Be fraction, which should be sought in the Be II 313 nm resonance doublet.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation relies on a hydrostatic code and continues through dynamic instability only by forcing outer layers with $T<10^6$ K into thermal equilibrium, so the computed hydrogen masses are upper limits and all hydrogen could in reality be ejected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HRD loops with periods of roughly 100 yr at $0.567\,M_\odot$ and 10 yr at $0.642\,M_\odot$ should be absent when the EPAGBI is suppressed, so their presence is a direct test of the instability.
  • If the loop timescale-mass relation holds, measuring the period of HRD looping in a post-AGB star or planetary nebula central star gives the stellar mass just after AGB departure, especially for masses above about $0.72\,M_\odot$ where the period is about 1 yr.
  • Final hydrogen envelope masses in both the 1 and 2 $M_\odot$ models are much lower than the canonical $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ and fall in the range inferred from DAV asteroseismology, but should be read as upper limits because hydrodynamics is not included.
  • $^7$Be is brought to the photosphere at up to about 400 times the solar photospheric mass fraction during the EPAGBI phase and may be detectable through the Be II 313.0 and 313.1 nm resonance doublet, whereas Li I detection is not expected.
  • EPAGBI-induced cyclic mass loss may leave an imprint on planetary nebula morphology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the HRD loops are real, photometric monitoring campaigns of bright post-AGB stars over decades could catch the roughly 10 yr loop for $0.64\,M_\odot$ stars, turning a theoretical instability into a mass measurement independent of atmospheric modeling.
  • A hydrodynamic simulation of the same models would settle whether the hydrogen envelope survives; if it is fully ejected, the EPAGBI would point toward the origin of hydrogen-deficient central stars rather than of thin-hydrogen white dwarfs.
  • The $^7$Be surface enhancement is a clean diagnostic of deep convective mixing during the EPAGBI, so surveying post-AGB stars for the Be II doublet would test both the instability and the mixing physics.
  • The loop timescale-mass relation, if calibrated with more masses, might extend the empirical initial-final mass relation to the post-AGB boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether the Early Post-AGB Instability (EPAGBI) affects the final hydrogen envelope mass of white dwarfs. Using the DEUCES stellar evolution code, the author evolves 1 and 2 solar-mass, solar-metallicity models from the pre-main sequence through the AGB and post-AGB phases to the white dwarf cooling track, computing cases with the EPAGBI followed in detail and with the EPAGBI suppressed by enforcing large time steps. The reported hydrogen masses at the start of the white dwarf cooling phase are in the range inferred from asteroseismology, but the author cautions that hydrodynamic behavior is not modeled and that all hydrogen might be removed. The paper argues that the main observable impact of EPAGBIs is the production of loops in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, with loop timescales that decrease with mass, and the convective transport of 7Be to the photosphere in amounts up to about 400 times the solar photospheric value.

Significance. The paper is an honest and clearly written exploration of a recently identified instability, with explicit statements of its limitations and a control calculation in which the EPAGBI is suppressed. The proposed HRD loop timescale as a potential stellar mass indicator is an interesting, falsifiable prediction, and the predicted 7Be enhancement is a concrete observable signature. The use of a stellar evolution code without free parameters tuned to the target quantities, and the explicit comparison between EPAGBI and EPAGBI-suppressed runs, are strengths. However, the central quantitative conclusion about hydrogen envelope mass is undermined by the need to force the outer layers into thermal equilibrium when the envelope becomes dynamically unstable, so the paper's main claim about MH is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, §2.2, §2.4, Tables 1–2, Fig. 7] The central quantitative claim that the EPAGBI does not significantly affect the final hydrogen envelope mass is not established by the present calculations. In both the EPAGBI and EPAGBI-suppressed runs, the evolution is continued past the hydrodynamic instability by forcing the outer layers at T < 10^6 K to be in thermal equilibrium, which is a numerical continuation procedure rather than a physical treatment of envelope ejection. Because this same forced equilibrium is applied in both branches, the comparison in Fig. 7 measures differences in the timing and outcome of the imposed continuation, not the dynamical effect of the EPAGBI on the hydrogen envelope. The abstract and §3 correctly state that all hydrogen might be removed hydrodynamically; this caveat should be carried through to the wording of the conclusion in §2.2 that 'EPAGBI does not lead to significant additional mass loss,' which currently overstates what a hydrostatic calculation can establish.
  2. [§3, Figs. 2 and 9] The loop timescale–mass relation is a central positive result, but it rests on only two computed models with AGB-departure masses of 0.567 and 0.642 M_sun and one extrapolated estimate near 0.72 M_sun. No uncertainty estimate is given, nor is the sensitivity to input assumptions such as convective overshoot, mass-loss prescription, or metallicity explored. The statement that the timescale 'could provide a way to determine the stellar mass just after AGB departure' is therefore plausible but not demonstrated; the paper should either add intermediate-mass models or present the relation as a tentative suggestion with explicit caveats about the sparse calibration.
  3. [§2.3, Table 2, Fig. 12] For the 2 M_sun model, the photospheric heavy-element abundance reaches Z = 0.48, and the author notes that the low-temperature opacity tables do not cover such high Z values. This means that the later evolutionary phases, including the final MH value in Table 2 and the second blue loop in Fig. 12, are computed with opacity data outside their stated domain. The 2 M_sun results should be explicitly labeled as exploratory, and the mass-dependence argument in §3 should not rely heavily on them without additional justification or a test of the opacity extrapolation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7 and text] The sentence 'The red vertical marks correspond to evolutionary stages given in table 2' should refer to Table 1, since Fig. 7 displays the 1 M_sun models and the stages listed in the text are those of Table 1.
  2. [§2.2 and Fig. 3] There are typographical inconsistencies in the abbreviation: 'EAGBI' appears instead of 'EPAGBI' in §2.2, and the axis label in Fig. 3 reads 'Time from EAGPI' rather than 'Time from EPAGBI onset'.
  3. [§2.2] The phrase 'the the EPAGBI' contains a duplicated article, and 'radiative driven winds' should be 'radiatively driven winds'.
  4. [§2.1 and §2.4] Since the forced thermal equilibrium in the outer layers with T < 10^6 K is central to the limitation of the models, the paper would benefit from a brief technical description of how this constraint is imposed (for example, which variables are adjusted and over what timescale), so that readers can assess the effect of the procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MH values, HRD loop timescales, and 7Be abundances are model outputs, not fitted inputs; the acknowledged hydrostatic limitation is a validity caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. Stellar models are evolved from the pre-main sequence with the DEUCES code using standard, externally sourced physics (e.g., Schröder et al. convective overshoot, Vink et al. mass-loss rates). The central outputs—MH at the end of the evolution, HRD loop timescales, and photospheric 7Be abundances—are computed from the models, not imposed as inputs. The comparison run with the EPAGBI suppressed is a control calculated with the same code and physics, so the conclusion that EPAGBI does not cause significant additional mass loss is a difference between two model outputs, not a tautology. The final MH values are compared with asteroseismic determinations as an external benchmark, but no parameter is fitted to those determinations. The self-citation to Lawlor & MacDonald (2023) is for the DEUCES code itself, which is the computational tool rather than a load-bearing cited theorem or uniqueness claim; using one's own code is not circularity. The continuation procedure in which outer layers with T < 10^6 K are forced into thermal equilibrium is an acknowledged limitation, and the paper explicitly cautions that hydrodynamic behavior is not included and that all hydrogen could be removed. This weakens the quantitative reliability of the MH results but is a stated validity caveat, not a circular reduction: the final MH is not assumed by construction, and the same caveat applies to both the EPAGBI and suppressed-EPAGBI runs. No equation in the paper is identical by construction to an input quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore, the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. The central claims rest on the DEUCES stellar evolution code with standard hydrostatic assumptions, tabulated opacities, mixing length convection, and literature mass loss rates. No parameter is fitted to the asteroseismic MH values; the model outputs are compared with observations only after the fact. The key computational assumptions, especially hydrostatic equilibrium and instantaneous convection, are flagged in the text as potentially unreliable precisely where the new predictions are made.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial stellar mass = 1 M_sun and 2 M_sun
    Two evolutionary sequences are chosen to represent low and intermediate mass progenitors; the central loop timescale scaling is derived from these two points.
  • Initial metallicity = Z = 0.01661
    Solar composition is assumed for both models, which sets the opacity and nuclear burning inputs.
  • Convective overshoot parameter = on (Schroder et al. 1997) for 2 M_sun; off for 1 M_sun baseline
    The author states that without overshoot the 2 M_sun model becomes unstable during the TPAGB and cannot be evolved to the post-AGB phase, so overshoot is included to reach the EPAGBI phase.
  • Time step floor for EPAGBI suppression = 10 yr (minimum) until Teff = 9700 K
    The comparison run suppresses the instability by forcing time steps larger than the pulsation period; this is a numerical choice made by hand and affects the definition of the 'suppressed' control.
  • Mass loss prescriptions = Reimers (eta_r = 0.477), Vink et al. (1999), radiatively driven wind
    The mass loss rates determine how much hydrogen is removed and thus influence the final MH; the parameter choices are from the literature but carry their own uncertainties.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic equilibrium holds for the stellar structure during almost all of the evolution
    The DEUCES code solves hydrostatic stellar structure equations. The paper explicitly notes hydrodynamic behavior occurs in later stages and that the evolution can only be continued by forcing outer layers with T < 10^6 K into thermal equilibrium (§2.1, §2.4).
  • domain assumption Instantaneous convective adjustment with mixing length theory is valid
    The convection zones are treated with instantaneous mixing. The paper cites Gautschy (2023) noting that convective timescales in the driving regions are comparable to the oscillation timescales, so this assumption could affect whether the instability grows (§3).
  • domain assumption Low temperature opacity tables are valid for the modeled compositions
    The author states that for the 2 M_sun model after the VLTP, the low temperature opacity tables do not cover high enough Z values (Z = 0.48), so the model is evolved beyond the range of tabulated opacities (§2.3).
  • domain assumption Mass loss is described by literature prescriptions
    The wind mass loss rates use Reimers, Vink et al., and radiation driven wind prescriptions. The mass loss is a main determinant of MH, and the prescriptions are not derived in this paper (§2.1, §2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Post Asymptotic Giant Branch Instability: Does it Affect White Dwarf Hydrogen Envelope Mass?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LI4B5RTF

@misc{pith2026250513313,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Post Asymptotic Giant Branch Instability: Does it Affect White Dwarf Hydrogen Envelope Mass?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LI4B5RTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13313}
}
read the original abstract

Although most white dwarf stars have hydrogen-dominated atmospheres, a significant fraction have atmospheres in which hydrogen is spectroscopically absent, with the fraction of hydrogen-free atmospheres varying with effective temperature. Estimates of the total mass of hydrogen, MH, in the stellar envelope from either asteroseismology or spectral evolution are at odds with predicted values from theoretical stellar evolution modeling. Recent work has found that models in the early post Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) phase of evolution can exhibit thermally and dynamical unstable behavior. Here we investigate whether this Early Post AGB Instability (EPAGBI) can help resolve the conflict in MH values determined from white dwarf spectral evolution, analysis of DAV pulsations and canonical stellar evolution modeling, by evolving models of mass 1 and 2Msun through the AGB phases and to the white dwarf cooling track. The MH values at the end of the calculations are in the range consistent with asteroseismic determinations. The major impact of EPAGBIs is that they cause loops in the HRD, which are absent when the EPAGBI is suppressed. Such loops might be detectable in a long-term monitoring program, or by their imprint on planetary nebula morphology imparted by the cyclically varying mass loss rate. Since the characteristic timescale of the looping in the HRD depends on the stellar mass, it could provide a way to determine the stellar mass just after AGB departure. Another EPAGBI signature is the production of Li by the Cameron-Fowler process. During the EPAGBI phase the photospheric temperature is always too high for the Li I resonance line to be detected. However, 7Be is convected to the photosphere in significant amounts (up to 400 times the solar photospheric mass fraction) at various times in the EPAGBI phase, which may be detectable by observing the Be II resonance doublet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13313 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Evolution in the HRD of the 1 M⊙ model from the ZAMS up to the onset of the EPAGBI (open star). 2.1. Evolution of the 1 M⊙ model In figure 1, we show the evolutionary track in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HRD) of our 1 M⊙ model from the Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS) up to the point at which the EPAGBI begins (marked by the open star). This model experiences 9 helium flashes on the thermally pulsing asymptotic … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Evolution of the hydrogen and helium burning lumi￾nosities together with the stellar luminosity from the onset of the EPAGBI in the 1 M⊙ model. supported by gas pressure. With further evolution, the mass in the shell increases up to a point where it can￾not be supported by gas pressure and it rapidly collapses inwards in a hydrodynamic matter. We find that the evolution can be continued by forcing the outer parts … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. — Convection zone evolution from 500 to 1000 yr after the onset of the EPAGBI in the 1 M⊙ model. 1.1x103 1.2x103 1.3x103 1.4x103 10−8 10−7 10−6 10−5 10−4 M *-m (M ⊙ ) Age (yr) Convective Radiative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Convection zone evolution from 1100 to 1400 yr after the onset of the EPAGBI in the 1 M⊙ model. EPAGBI. For figure 4, the time span is from 500 to 1000 yr after the onset of the EPAGBI. During this time inter￾val, the number of convection zones alternates between 2 a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows how MH evolves with the time from the onset of the EPAGBI for the two cases with and without suppression of the EPAGBI. The red vertical marks correspond to evolutionary stages given in table 2. We see that the EPAGBI does not lead to significant additional mass …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Evolution in the HRD of the 2 M⊙ model from the ZAMS up to the onset of the EPAGBI (open star). considered as upper estimates. 2.3. Evolution of the 2 M⊙ model In figure 8, we show the evolutionary track in the Hertzsprung-Russell (HRD) of our 2 M⊙ model up to the po…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Evolution in the HRD of the 2 M⊙ model from the onset of the EPAGBI (open star) to just before the white dwarf cooling track. due to the bi-stability jumps in the wind mass loss rate, that result from increased Fe III line acceleration interior to the sonic point (Vi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Convection zone evolution from 0 to 250 yr after the onset of the EPAGBI in the 2 M⊙ model. giant branch. When the model evolves to the blue for the second time, it does so with a higher luminosity than the first time and also with an atmosphere that has been signif…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Post EPAGBI evolution of the 2 M⊙ models in the HRD. The black and red lines are for the cases in which the EPAGBI is included and suppressed, respectively convective energy transport to occur, the outer layers become unstable and the evolution can no longer be fol￾…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1998, A&A, 330, 641, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710158 B´ edard, A

    Asplund, M. 1998, A&A, 330, 641, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710158 B´ edard, A. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 43, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04307-5 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., & Brassard, P. 2023, ApJ, 946, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbb62 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9710158 1998

  2. [2]

    Bergeron, P., Fontaine, G., Bill` eres, M., Boudreault, S., & Green, E. M. 2004, ApJ, 600, 404, doi: 10.1086/379808 Bl¨ ocker, T. 2001, Ap&SS, 275, 1, doi:10.1023/A:1002777931450

    doi:10.1086/379808 2004

  3. [3]

    M., Deliyannis, C

    Boesgaard, A. M., Deliyannis, C. P., Lum, M. G., & Chontos, A. 2022, ApJ, 941, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9625

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac9625 2022

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    Buder, S., Asplund, M., Duong, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 4513, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1281 2018

  5. [5]

    Cameron, A. G. W., & Fowler, W. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 111, doi: 10.1086/150821

    doi:10.1086/150821 1971

  6. [6]

    W., & Lattanzio, J

    Campbell, S. W., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2008, A&A, 490, 769, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809597

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809597 2008

  7. [7]

    G., & Kepler, S

    Castanheira, B. G., & Kepler, S. O. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1709, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14855.x

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    1993, ApJ, 407, 649, doi: 10.1086/172547

    Castellani, M., & Castellani, V. 1993, ApJ, 407, 649, doi: 10.1086/172547

    doi:10.1086/172547 1993

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    D., Kalirai, J

    Cummings, J. D., Kalirai, J. S., Tremblay, P. E., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Choi, J. 2018, ApJ, 866, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6 D’Cruz, N. L., Dorman, B., Rood, R. T., & O’Connell, R. W. 1996, ApJ, 466, 359, doi: 10.1086/177515

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    1987, in IAU Colloq

    Fontaine, G., & Wesemael, F. 1987, in IAU Colloq. 95: Second Conference on Faint Blue Stars, ed. A. G. D. Philip, D. S. Hayes, & J. W. Liebert, 319–326

    1987

  3. [11]

    Fujimoto, M. Y. 1977, PASJ, 29, 331

    1977

  4. [12]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11374, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11374

    Gautschy, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11374, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11374

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Gianninas, A., Bergeron, P., Dupuis, J., & Ruiz, M. T. 2010, ApJ, 720, 581, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/720/1/581

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    G., & Bischoff-Kim, A

    Hall, W., Castanheira, B. G., & Bischoff-Kim, A. 2023, ApJ, 948, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc52c

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    1965, ApJ, 141, 993, doi: 10.1086/148193 —

    Iben, I. 1965, ApJ, 141, 993, doi: 10.1086/148193 —. 1984, ApJ, 277, 333, doi: 10.1086/161700

    1965 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Truran, J

    Iben, I., Kaler, J. B., Truran, J. W., & Renzini, A. 1983, ApJ, 264, 605, doi: 10.1086/160631

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    1985, ApJ, 296, 540, doi: 10.1086/163473 —

    Iben, I., & MacDonald, J. 1985, ApJ, 296, 540, doi: 10.1086/163473 —. 1995, in White Dwarfs, ed. D. Koester & K. Werner, Vol. 443, 48

    1985 doi

  10. [18]

    Iben, I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJ, 282, 615, doi: 10.1086/162241

    1984 doi

  11. [19]

    C., Salpeter, E

    Joss, P. C., Salpeter, E. E., & Ostriker, J. P. 1973, ApJ, 181, 429, doi: 10.1086/152060

    1973 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & MacDonald, J

    Lawlor, T. M., & MacDonald, J. 2003, ApJ, 583, 913, doi: 10.1086/345411 —. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 263, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10641.x —. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4700, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2582

    2003

  13. [21]

    J., et al

    Liebert, J., Wesemael, F., Hansen, C. J., et al. 1986, ApJ, 309, 241, doi: 10.1086/164595 L´ opez-Sanjuan, C., Tremblay, P. E., Ederoclite, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141746

    1986 doi

  14. [22]

    1991, ApJ, 371, 719, doi: 10.1086/169937

    MacDonald, J., & Vennes, S. 1991, ApJ, 371, 719, doi: 10.1086/169937

    1991 doi

  15. [23]

    McDonald, I., & Zijlstra, A. A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 502, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv007 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.18035, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.18035 Miller Bertolami, M. M., Althaus, L. G., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Paci...

    2015 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Gaensicke, & T

    Tremblay, B. Gaensicke, & T. Marsh, 435, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1609.08683

    doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2018, ApJ, 857, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713

    Rolland, B., Bergeron, P., & Fontaine, G. 2018, ApJ, 857, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    D., C´ orsico, A

    Romero, A. D., C´ orsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1462, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20134.x

    2012

  19. [27]

    1979, A&A, 79, 108 —

    Schoenberner, D. 1979, A&A, 79, 108 —. 1981, A&A, 103, 119 Schr¨ oder, K.-P., Pols, O. R., & Eggleton, P. P. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 696, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.4.696

    1979 doi

  20. [28]

    2000, A&A, 359, 1042

    Unglaub, K., & Bues, I. 2000, A&A, 359, 1042

    2000

  21. [29]

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

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 1999, A&A, 350, 181, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9908196

    1999 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    1994, A&A, 290, 807

    Wagenhuber, J., & Weiss, A. 1994, A&A, 290, 807

    1994

  23. [31]

    A., Mari, M

    Weidmann, W. A., Mari, M. B., Schmidt, E. O., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037998

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    F., & Liebert, J

    Wesemael, F., Green, R. F., & Liebert, J. 1985, ApJS, 58, 379, doi: 10.1086/191046 This paper was built using the Open Journal of As- trophysics LATEX template. The OJA is a journal which provides fast and easy peer review for new papers in the astro-ph section of the arXiv, m...

    1985 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.