Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Southern massive stars at high angular resolution. Physical separations and mass ratios

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive-star binaries beyond roughly 1000 AU are deficient in near-equal-mass companions, with an upper mass-ratio limit that declines toward larger separations.

desk verdict Solid conversion of smash+ to physical units with a robust qualitative result—no equal-mass companions beyond ~100 AU—but the abstract's kappa-trend claim and the by-eye qcrit envelope overreach their uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.18431 v3 pith:NUO3FM22 submitted 2025-09-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

F. Tramper , H. Sana , A. de Koter , T. Pauwels This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords massivestarsO-typebinarymultiplicitymassratiosorbitalseparationhigh-angular-resolutionimagingspectrophotometricdistances
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 takes the smash+ survey of southern O-type stars — a high-angular-resolution census of companions from about 1 milli-arcsecond to 8 arcseconds — and converts the observed angular separations and brightness contrasts into physical separations and mass ratios. Its central claim is that, within the survey's sensitivity window, binary detection is nearly complete and uniform, so the observed distributions represent the true ones without bias correction. Those distributions are flat in log-separation, and the mass-ratio distribution is a power law whose slope steepens toward wider orbits. The standout result is an avoidance zone: beyond about 1000 AU, near-equal-mass companions are essentially absent, with the upper mass ratio declining smoothly to about 0.5 by 10,000 AU. If correct, this says that wide massive binaries form and survive with a mass-ratio ceiling that depends on separation, a constraint on any model of binary formation.

What carries the argument

The analysis runs on two coupled tools. First, a spectrophotometric calibration uses existing grids of O-star parameters (absolute magnitudes, bolometric corrections, mass–luminosity relations) to turn spectral type, luminosity class, and H-band photometry into distances, primary masses, and companion masses, with companions assumed to be main-sequence dwarfs unless that would give a mass ratio above unity. Second, Monte Carlo detection maps simulate 10,000 mock observations of the survey, drawing companions with uniformly distributed mass ratios and orbital configurations (eccentricities uniform between 0 and 0.9, random 3D orientations), and comparing predicted magnitude contrasts and proj

What would settle it

A targeted follow-up of the widest pairs (Sep > 1000 AU, q < 0.7) measuring radial velocities or proper motions would test whether they are physically bound; if a large fraction are chance alignments, the mass-ratio envelope is not a property of binaries. Conversely, a deeper survey reaching q < 0.5 at 10^4 AU would test whether the declining upper mass ratio is a real limit or a sensitivity effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the sensitivity limits of smash+, the detection probability for companions is very uniform across projected separations of roughly 1 to 10^4 AU and mass ratios down to about 0.2, with the one exception near 500 AU where two instruments overlap. The paper therefore treats the observed sample as directly representative of the underlying population in that window. It derives projected separations that follow a flat power law in log-separation, and mass ratios following f_q ∝ q^κ with κ decreasing from values compatible with spectroscopic-binary results inside ~100 AU (κ ≈ −0.6, consistent both with roughly flat distributions and with a steeper slope suggested in earlier work) to a clear

Load-bearing premise

The whole conclusion hangs on the assumption that every detected pair within the survey's field is a real binary and that companions are main-sequence dwarfs on orbits with a uniform spread of eccentricities; if chance alignments or evolved companions are common, the completeness and the mass-ratio envelope would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed smash+ sample needs no completeness corrections for binaries with 1 < log(a/AU) < 4 and q > 0.2, so its separation and mass-ratio statistics are the population's statistics.
  • The separation distribution being log-uniform implies a roughly constant number of companions per decade of separation in the intermediate regime, bridging the spectroscopic and wide-imaging domains.
  • The mass-ratio power-law index κ decreases with separation, meaning wide companions are progressively more skewed toward low masses relative to their primaries.
  • Beyond ~1000 AU, mass ratios above ~0.7 are rare, and beyond 10^4 AU none above ~0.5 are found, defining an avoidance zone in the q–Sep plane.
  • The calibration can be paired with independent distances to flag stars whose photometry signals a different evolutionary history, such as merger or mass-transfer products.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not explored in the paper: use the same detection maps to invert the observed q–Sep plane into formation constraints — if the dwarf and eccentricity priors are right, the declining q_max points to wide binaries forming as largely independent draws of mass rather than fragmenting into correlated pairs.
  • The empirical envelope q_crit ≈ 1 − 0.2 log10(Sep/100 AU) should be testable in other massive-star populations, e.g. B-type stars or extragalactic OB associations; a steeper or absent envelope would indicate environment-dependent formation.
  • Because chance alignments were not statistically subtracted for the widest pairs, re-observing the claimed wide companions with astrometry or radial velocities would separate true binaries from field stars; a large contamination fraction would lower the wide-pair statistics but leave the mass-ratio ceiling as an upper limit.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper converts the high-angular-resolution smash+ observations of southern O stars into physical units. It constructs an H-band absolute-magnitude/bolometric-correction/mass calibration from Martins & Plez (2006) and Brott et al. (2011), derives spectrophotometric distances and primary/companion masses, and validates these against cluster distances, ALS III/Gaia distances, and dynamical masses. It then computes Monte Carlo detection maps to quantify completeness. The main results are that the survey is nearly complete for 1<log(a/AU)<4 and q>0.2, that projected separations follow an Oepik-like log-uniform distribution, that mass ratios follow f_q∝q^κ with κ≈−0.6 within 100 AU and decreasing beyond 1000 AU, and that there is a deficit of near-equal-mass companions at >100 AU, quantified by an upper limit qcrit≈1−0.2[log10(Sep/AU)−2].

Significance. If these results hold, they fill the observational gap between spectroscopic and wide visual binaries for massive stars and provide important constraints on binary formation and evolution. The paper is careful in its calibration and validation: the appendices give explicit polynomial coefficients, the distances are checked against cluster and ALS III/Gaia values, and primary masses are checked against dynamical masses. The Monte Carlo completeness treatment is also clearly described. However, the most novel claim—the declining upper mass-ratio envelope—depends on model assumptions and censored upper limits that need to be tested quantitatively.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2.2 and Figs. 13–14, Eq. (6)] The headline upper mass-ratio envelope is entangled with the companion-mass assumption. When the dwarf assumption yields q>1, the companion is assigned the least evolved luminosity class that gives q<1, and the mass is reported as an upper limit. Thus the near-unity points beyond 100 AU in Figs. 13–14 are not independent measurements; they are censored by construction. Eq. (6) is then fitted by eye to this censored envelope. Please show the q–Sep diagram with the uncensored dwarf-assumption values and with an alternative evolved-companion calibration, and quantify how the location and slope of Eq. (6) change. Without this, the claimed avoidance zone is not distinguishable from a modeling artifact.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 9 and §2.2.2] The 'near-complete' claim rests on Monte Carlo maps that assume all companions are main-sequence dwarfs, the same assumption used to convert ΔH to q. The completeness maps therefore do not test the hypothesis that a substantial fraction of wide companions are evolved; if evolved companions are brighter at fixed mass, both the detection probability and the derived q change. Please compute detection maps with alternative companion luminosity-class distributions (e.g., drawn from the primary LC distribution) and report the completeness at q>0.5 and a>1000 AU. This is load-bearing because the paper uses the uniformity of the maps to justify skipping bias corrections.
  3. [§4.2, Fig. 11] The decrease of the mass-ratio power-law index with separation is based on N=44 (Sep<100 AU) and N=27 (Sep>1000 AU). The reported 95% intervals (κ<100 = −0.6^{+0.9}_{−0.7}; κ>1000 ≈ −1.6 with lower bound ≈ −2.8) overlap substantially. A formal test of the difference between the two κ values, or a joint fit with log(Sep) as a covariate, is required before claiming a decrease. Similarly, Eq. (6) is a by-eye envelope without uncertainties; it should be fitted with a defined method (e.g., treating upper limits as censored) and its slope tested against zero.
  4. [Table F.1 and §2.2.2] The upper-limit rule is not reflected in the catalog: Table F.1 contains multiple mass ratios q>1 (e.g., HD 113904 B-A q≈161; HD 167971 Aa-Ab q≈1.86; HD 93161A A-C q≈1.49) and no upper-limit flag. This contradicts the statement in §4.3 that no companions with q>0.8 exist beyond 100 AU except those with upper limits, or the table entries are exceptions that need documentation. Please enforce the rule consistently, add flags, or explain why these entries bypass it; the mass-ratio distributions and figures are not reproducible without this.
  5. [§4, Figs. 10–14] All detected pairs within 8'' are treated as physical, with no assessment of chance-alignment contamination. At the mean distance of ~2 kpc, 8'' corresponds to ~1.6×10^4 AU; the widest bins, including the N=27 sample beyond 1000 AU, are the most likely to be contaminated by background/foreground stars. A few unrelated faint stars would steepen the apparent wide-separation κ and would not be identifiable in these plots. Please estimate the expected number of chance alignments (e.g., using a Galactic model or Gaia proper motions) and show the results with and without the widest, unverified pairs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1.2, Eq. (1)] The text states the systematic distance offset is about 5%, but Eq. (1) gives d_H = −122.3 + 1.19 d_Gaia, which at the mean distance of 1915 pc implies an overestimate of roughly 12%. Please reconcile the stated percentage with the fitted relation.
  2. [§5 and throughout] There are several typos: 'acrement' should be 'agreement', 'teh' should be 'the', 'independant' should be 'independent', 'polynamial' should be 'polynomial', and 'seperation' should be 'separation'. In §3.1, 'the -semi major axis' has a stray hyphen.
  3. [Fig. 11] The κ values and confidence intervals are difficult to read from the figure; please print the fitted value and 95% intervals in the caption or in the text for each panel.
  4. [§5] The phrase 'we have converted the smash+of Paper I into physical units' is missing a word; it should read 'the smash+ observations of Paper I'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conversion to physical units, completeness maps, and empirical q-Sep envelope rest on external calibrations and observational data, with at most a mild consistency loop in the dwarf-companion assumption.

full rationale

The paper's conversion chain is not definitionally circular. Distances are derived from an absolute-magnitude calibration anchored to Martins & Plez (2006) and are externally checked against cluster distances and ALSIII-Gaia distances (Sect. 2.1.2, Figs. 3-4). Primary masses come from Martins et al. (2005) and Brott et al. (2011) and are validated against dynamical masses in Table 1 and Fig. 5. Companion masses use the same external dwarf mass-luminosity relation, with the explicit caveat that a dwarf assumption is adopted and that bright companions near evolved primaries are assigned upper limits (Sect. 2.2.2). The detection probability maps (Sect. 3.2) are a Monte-Carlo sensitivity model, not a fit to the target distributions; they reuse the dwarf assumption and the adopted primary masses, which creates a consistency loop but does not make the observed separation or mass-ratio distributions equal to the model by construction. The claimed near-completeness is an inference from the maps, conditional on stated orbital assumptions. The qcrit envelope (Eq. 6) is an explicitly tentative by-eye fit to the same data it describes, but it is presented as a description of the data, not as an independent prediction. The documented ~5% distance offset is explicitly shown not to affect log(Sep) (Delta log Sep ~ 0.02) and would shift primary and companion masses in the same direction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggling citation, or renaming of a known result carries the argument. The mild reuse of the dwarf assumption across mass derivation and detection completeness is a modeling limitation, not a circular reduction.

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

The central derivation rests on external stellar calibrations, the dwarf-companion assumption, and the assumed orbital-parameter priors in the completeness simulations. The polynomial fits to external grids are numerous and propagate through all distances and masses. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Polynomial coefficients for M_K as function of LC and SpT (Tables A.1 and A.2) = Numerous, e.g., LC V SpT relation: a=-0.00096, b=0.29395, c=-5.85071
    Fitted to Martins and Plez 2006 absolute magnitudes; propagate into every distance via Eq. 2.
  • Polynomial coefficients for BC_H (Tables D.1, D.2, D.3) = Numerous, e.g., LC V: a=0.0584, b=1.0719, c=-0.8398 for BC_H(M_H)
    Fitted to Martins and Plez 2006 and Brott et al. 2011; used to convert H-band magnitudes to luminosities and hence masses.
  • Mass-luminosity exponent fit coefficients (Table E.1) = Brott ZAMS: a=-2.449e-4, b=-3.502e-3, c=3.050e-2, d=-0.211, e=4.331
    Fitted to stellar models; converts luminosity to mass for primaries and companions.
  • (H-K)_0 color = -0.10 mag
    Assumed constant for all O-star spectral subtypes and luminosity classes to convert K-band calibrations to H-band.
  • Total-to-selective extinction R_V = 3.1
    Assumed for all sightlines in the extinction correction in Appendix C.
  • qcrit envelope slope and normalization (Eq. 6) = qcrit approximately 1 - 0.2 * (log10(Sep/AU) - 2)
    An upper envelope drawn through the data delimiting the avoidance zone; not used elsewhere, but is a fitted description of the main result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Martins and Plez 2006 absolute K-band magnitudes and the adopted (H-K)_0 are valid for all O stars in the sample.
    Basis of the distance calibration in Section 2.1.1.
  • domain assumption The mass-luminosity relations from Martins et al. 2005 and Brott et al. 2011 correctly give masses for O primaries and dwarf companions.
    Used throughout Section 2.2 and Appendices D and E.
  • domain assumption Detected companions are predominantly main-sequence dwarfs.
    Section 2.2.2; used to assign companion masses and in the detection map simulations.
  • domain assumption Orbital orientations are random in 3D and eccentricities are uniformly distributed between 0 and 0.9.
    Used in the Monte Carlo detection probability simulations in Section 3.2.
  • standard math The Keplerian projection equations in Section 3.1 relate instantaneous projected separation to semi-major axis.
    Standard orbital mechanics used to interpret snapshot separations.
  • domain assumption All detected pairs within 8 arcseconds are physically associated rather than chance projections.
    No chance-alignment contamination analysis is presented for the widest pairs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Southern massive stars at high angular resolution. Physical separations and mass ratios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NUO3FM22

@misc{pith2026250918431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Southern massive stars at high angular resolution. Physical separations and mass ratios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NUO3FM22}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.18431}
}
abstract

Context. A key property of massive stars is their high degree of multiplicity, which can impact their evolution and end-of-life products. The Southern Massive Stars at High Angular Resolution survey (smash+) use interferometric and high-angular resolution techniques to detect companions at intermediate separations, from about 1 milli-arsec to 8$\arcsec$, a domain that so far has remained largely unexplored. Aims. In this paper, we convert the angular separations and magnitude contrasts into physical units, i.e. projected physical separations and mass ratios. We also derive the sensitivity of the survey for various physical and orbital parameters and we investigate the orbital separation and mass distributions. Methods. We develop a spectral type/luminosity class - H-band luminosity - mass calibration based on existing grids of physical parameters of O stars and we use these to obtain the photometric distance to each system. We also derive the individual masses of the primaries and of each detected companion. Results. The probability of detecting companions is very uniform within the sensitivity limits of the smash+ survey, which can be considered near-complete for binaries with 1 $<$ log(a/AU ) $<$ 4 and q = M2/M1 $>$ 0.2. The projected separations follow a uniform distribution in log-separation. The mass ratios follow a power-law distribution $f_q \propto q^{\kappa}$ with $\kappa$ values that decrease towards larger separation. For resolved companions within 100 AU, we find $\kappa_{<100} = -0.6^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ which is both compatible with the power-law distributions derived for spectroscopic binaries ($\kappa \sim 0$) and that proposed in an earlier study by Moe \& Di Stefano ($\kappa = -1.4 \pm 0.4$). Beyond $\sim$1000 AU, we observe a clear lack of (near)equal-mass companions, with an upper mass-ratio limit declining towards larger separations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.18431 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnitude difference of SB2 systems resolved by PIONIER versus those obtained from the absolute magnitude calibration. and for binary systems can be unreliable, especially when dealing with binary systems in the range of separation that we are covering. Specifically, the astrometric measurements of the photocenter can be impacted by the scanning direc￾tion of Gaia with respect to the instantaneous orientation of the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Derived distances for clusters with at least four members in the smash+ sample. Black stars indicate the distances for the individual stars and green stars the median. Blue stars indicate literature values for the cluster distances, and red stars the dis￾tances based on Tycho-2 (Kharchenko et al. 2005; Mel’Nik & Dambis 2009). nitudes need to be corrected for the contribution from nearby companions. The photometry li… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Dynamical masses versus the masses derived in this work. Systems that are in a (post-)interaction state (see text) are indicated by red triangles. HD 135240 has an ambiguous luminosity class (III-V), the blue triangles indicate masses de￾rived for LC III and V (20.3 and 26.7 M⊙, respectively). The dynamical mass of HD 159176 relies on the analysis of ellipsoidal variation and is quite uncertain, see discussion in Ap… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of the luminosity classes of the primaries and companions. allows us to use the dwarf calibration at low luminosities, which can then also be applied to the companion stars. The latter are indeed expected to be predominantly dwarfs (see Section 2.2.2). For lu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratio of the projected instantaneous separation Sep to the instantaneous separation r (top) panel and the semi-major axis (bottom panel) as a function of the orbital phase for various geometry of the orbit (see legend) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Probability density functions (PDFs) of Sep/a for var￾ious orbital configurations. The bottom panel gives the PDF marginalised over the 3D orientation and uniform eccentricity distribution between e = 0.0 and 0.9. The bottom panel also provides the boundaries of the 50…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Binary detection probabilities of the smash+ survey projected on the mass ratio vs. orbital period (left), vs. semi-major axis (middle) and companion mass vs. semi-major axis (right) planes. Only stars that have been observed both by PIONIER and by NACO have been inclu…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows the cumulative distribution of the pro￾jected separations of all found companions in the sample (blue curve). The distribution shows two areas where the amount of detected companions increases more sharply, at around 100 AU and 5000 AU. The first increase coinci…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Cumulative distribution of the mass ratios of all detected companions within 8′′(blue), and of detected companions with ∆m ≤ 4 mag, of systems that were observed by both PIONIER and SAM (green). The red line shows a fit to the green distributions with its 95% co…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative distributions of the masses of all primaries (blue) and companions (red) with masses 16M⊙ ≤ M ≤ 50M⊙. Also shown is the Salpeter mass function in this mass range (green). 5. Summary and conclusions In this paper we have converted the smash+ of Paper I into …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]

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. Southern Massive Stars at High Angular Resolution (SMaSH+): Properties of hierarchical massive triples

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SMaSH+ survey data yields the first observationally grounded distributions of key parameters for 26 hierarchical massive triples, dominated by tight inner binaries and wider tertiaries with no strong mass-separation c...

  2. Star cluster formation from turbulent clumps. V. Stellar clustering around massive stars

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    N-body simulations show massive stars in TCCA clusters rapidly acquire triple or higher multiples and local density enhancements via dynamics, with multiplicity trends and shallower N_* profiles than competitive accre...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167

    2022

  4. [4]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123

    2018

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33

    2013

  6. [6]

    2022, , 658, A69

    Banyard , G., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2022, , 658, A69

    2022

  7. [7]

    E., Cantiello , M., et al

    Brott , I., de Mink , S. E., Cantiello , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A115

    2011

  8. [8]

    R., Dufton , P

    Dunstall , P. R., Dufton , P. L., Sana , H., et al. 2015, , 580, A93

    2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    2012, , 537, A146

    Ekstr \"o m , S., Georgy , C., Eggenberger , P., et al. 2012, , 537, A146

    2012

  2. [10]

    & Rix , H.-W

    El-Badry , K. & Rix , H.-W. 2019, , 482, L139

    2019

  3. [11]

    2019, , 489, 5822

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Tian , H., Duch \^e ne , G., & Moe , M. 2019, , 489, 5822

    2019

  4. [12]

    2013, , 433, 1300

    Ferrero , G., Gamen , R., Benvenuto , O., & Fern \'a ndez-Laj \'u s , E. 2013, , 433, 1300

    2013

  5. [13]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63

    1999

  6. [14]

    J., Sana , H., Le Bouquin , J

    Frost , A. J., Sana , H., Le Bouquin , J. B., et al. 2025, , 701, A171

    2025

  7. [15]

    J., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al

    Frost , A. J., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2024, Science, 384, 214

    2024

  8. [16]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Johnston , C., Buysschaert , B., Tkachenko , A., Aerts , C., & Neiner , C. 2017, ArXiv e-prints

    2017

  9. [17]

    V., Piskunov , A

    Kharchenko , N. V., Piskunov , A. E., R \"o ser , S., Schilbach , E., & Scholz , R.-D. 2005, , 438, 1163

    2005

  10. [18]

    Kiminki , M. M. & Smith , N. 2018, , 477, 2068

    2018

  11. [19]

    A., Kiminki , D

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Kiminki , D. C., Lundquist , M. J., et al. 2014, , 213, 34

    2014

  12. [20]

    2011, The Messenger, 146, 18

    Lacour , S., Tuthill , P., Ireland , M., Amico , P., & Girard , J. 2011, The Messenger, 146, 18

    2011

  13. [21]

    2012, , 50, 107

    Langer , N. 2012, , 50, 107

    2012

  14. [22]

    2011, , 535, A67

    Le Bouquin , J.-B., Berger , J.-P., Lazareff , B., et al. 2011, , 535, A67

    2011

  15. [23]

    2008, , 489, 713

    Linder , N., Rauw , G., Martins , F., et al. 2008, , 489, 713

    2008

  16. [24]

    2017, ArXiv e-prints

    Mahy , L., Damerdji , Y., Gosset , E., et al. 2017, ArXiv e-prints

    2017

  17. [25]

    2010, , 708, 1537

    Mahy , L., Rauw , G., Martins , F., et al. 2010, , 708, 1537

    2010

  18. [26]

    H., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., et al

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Barb \'a , R. H., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., et al. 2018, , 615, A161

    2018

  19. [27]

    2019, , 626, A20

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Trigueros P \'a ez , E., Negueruela , I., et al. 2019, , 626, A20

    2019

  20. [28]

    & Plez , B

    Martins , F. & Plez , B. 2006, , 457, 637

    2006

  21. [29]

    Martins , F., Schaerer , D., & Hillier , D. J. 2005, , 436, 1049

    2005

  22. [30]

    D., Gies , D

    Mason , B. D., Gies , D. R., Hartkopf , W. I., et al. 1998, , 115, 821

    1998

  23. [31]

    D., Hartkopf , W

    Mason , B. D., Hartkopf , W. I., Gies , D. R., Henry , T. J., & Helsel , J. W. 2009, , 137, 3358

    2009

  24. [32]

    Mel'Nik , A. M. & Dambis , A. K. 2009, , 400, 518

    2009

  25. [33]

    & Di Stefano , R

    Moe , M. & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15

    2017

  26. [34]

    I., Barb \'a , R

    Morrell , N. I., Barb \'a , R. H., Niemela , V. S., et al. 2001, , 326, 85

    2001

  27. [35]

    2014, , 568, A94

    Nasseri , A., Chini , R., Harmanec , P., et al. 2014, , 568, A94

    2014

  28. [36]

    1924, Tartu Obs

    \"O pik , E. 1924, Tartu Obs. Publ, 26

    1924

  29. [37]

    2025, , submitted

    Pantaleoni, G., Maíz Apellániz, J., et al. 2025, , submitted

    2025

  30. [38]

    2024, , 168, 209

    Pauwels , T., Reggiani , M., Sana , H., & Mahy , L. 2024, , 168, 209

    2024

  31. [39]

    R., Epps , J

    Penny , L. R., Epps , J. G., & Snyder , J. D. 2016, , 832, 211

    2016

  32. [40]

    R., Gies , D

    Penny , L. R., Gies , D. R., Wise , J. H., Stickland , D. J., & Lloyd , C. 2002, , 575, 1050

    2002

  33. [41]

    R., Ouzts , C., & Gies , D

    Penny , L. R., Ouzts , C., & Gies , D. R. 2008, , 681, 554

    2008

  34. [42]

    R., Seyle , D., Gies , D

    Penny , L. R., Seyle , D., Gies , D. R., et al. 2001, , 548, 889

    2001

  35. [43]

    Perets , H. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02939

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    2022, , 658, A198

    Rainot , A., Reggiani , M., Sana , H., Bodensteiner , J., & Absil , O. 2022, , 658, A198

    2022

  37. [45]

    2016, , 594, A33

    Rauw , G., Rosu , S., Noels , A., et al. 2016, , 594, A33

    2016

  38. [46]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  39. [47]

    & Evans , C

    Sana , H. & Evans , C. J. 2011, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 272, Active OB Stars: Structure, Evolution, Mass Loss, and Critical Limits, ed. C. Neiner , G. Wade , G. Meynet , & G. Peters , 474--485

    2011

  40. [48]

    2011, , 416, 817

    Sana , H., James , G., & Gosset , E. 2011, , 416, 817

    2011

  41. [49]

    2014, , 215, 15

    Sana , H., Le Bouquin , J.-B., Lacour , S., et al. 2014, , 215, 15

    2014

  42. [50]

    2013, , 553, A131

    Sana , H., Le Bouquin , J.-B., Mahy , L., et al. 2013, , 553, A131

    2013

  43. [51]

    2001, , 370, 121

    Sana , H., Rauw , G., & Gosset , E. 2001, , 370, 121

    2001

  44. [52]

    I., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al

    Villase \ n or , J. I., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2025, , 698, A41

    2025

  45. [53]

    I., Taylor , W

    Villase \ n or , J. I., Taylor , W. D., Evans , C. J., et al. 2021, , 507, 5348

    2021

  46. [54]

    White , R. J. & Ghez , A. M. 2001, , 556, 265

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.