Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

White dwarfs in wide binaries: the strong effects of stellar evolution and mass loss

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wide binaries containing white dwarfs reveal that the final mass-loss phase of massive stars lasts about a thousand years—a thousand times shorter than for Sun-like stars.

desk verdict Strong new Gaia measurements of WD wide binary fractions and eccentricities; the dynamical claim of a mass-dependent mass-loss timescale is plausible but not quantitatively nailed, and the short-timescale inference is partly degenerate with unknown birth eccentricities of massive stars. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.08364 v2 pith:PH5WQNF6 submitted 2025-08-11 astro-ph.SR

Hsiang-Chih Hwang (IAS) , Nadia Zakamska (JHU , IAS) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords binarystarswhitedwarfswidebinariesstellarmasslossGaiaeccentricitydistributionpopulationsynthesislateevolution
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 claims that wide binaries—pairs of stars bound at separations from a few hundred to tens of thousands of times the Earth–Sun distance—record the final mass-loss phase of stellar evolution, and that Gaia's census of white dwarf companions allows that phase to be timed. The observations show two opposing trends: white dwarfs become much less likely to have a wide main-sequence companion as their mass rises above $0.6\,M_\odot$, even though main-sequence stars become more likely to have wide companions with mass; and white dwarf binaries are significantly less eccentric than main-sequence binaries at the same separation. A population model including slow (adiabatic) and fast (impulsive) mass loss, plus velocity recoil tied to the mass loss, reproduces both trends only when the mass-loss timescale drops sharply with mass—from roughly two million years at $1\,M_\odot$ to a thousand to ten thousand years at $6\,M_\odot$. Slow mass loss inflates orbits and explains the low eccentricities; fast mass loss in massive stars disrupts their wide companions and explains the falling binary fraction. This gives a dynamical, observation-based handle on a stellar phase that is hard to see directly.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the dynamical response of a binary to mass loss and recoil across three timescale regimes, plus one mass-dependent curve that picks the regime. When the mass-loss timescale $\tau_{\rm AGB}$ greatly exceeds the orbital period, the Delaunay action $L$—an adiabatic invariant—is conserved and the orbit expands, $a \propto 1/(m_1+m_2)$; when $\tau_{\rm AGB}$ is much shorter, mass is lost impulsively and the widest orbits are disrupted. Systems in between are integrated numerically. Recoil is tied to mass loss by momentum conservation, $d v_k/dt = v_{\rm asym}\,(\dot m_2/m_2)$, and in the slow regime acts as a Stark-like secular perturbation on eccentricity. The pivotal adjustable

What would settle it

Measure the eccentricities of high-mass ($m_{\rm WD} > 0.8\,M_\odot$) versus low-mass ($0.5$–$0.8\,M_\odot$) WD-MS binaries at $1000$–$3000$ AU with a larger sample. The model predicts $\alpha \approx 1.2$–$1.4$ for massive WD-MS binaries if the mass-loss timescale is $\sim 10^3$ yr, versus $\alpha \approx 0.6$–$0.8$ if it is $\sim 10^5$ yr, so a clean measurement of the split would confirm or reject the fast mass-loss scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two Gaia findings anchor the paper: the fraction of white dwarfs with a main-sequence wide companion is flat near 3% below $0.6\,M_\odot$ and falls about sixfold by $1.2\,M_\odot$, while white-dwarf–containing binaries are markedly less eccentric than MS-MS binaries at the same separations. The model's key move is to let mass loss act on any timescale relative to the orbit. Slow adiabatic loss inflates orbits, $a \propto 1/(m_1+m_2)$, pulling tighter, rounder binaries into the observed separation range and explaining the low eccentricities. The steep decline then forces a mass-loss timescale that drops with mass—from $\sim 2\times10^6$ yr at $1\,M_\odot$ to $\sim 10^3$ yr at $6\,M_\odot$ in

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that wide binaries that will become massive white-dwarf systems are born with the same separation-dependent eccentricity distribution measured for lower-mass main-sequence binaries, but that birth distribution is not well known for high-mass stars; if it differs, the inferred mass-loss timescale changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massive stars (≳3 $M_\odot$) must shed their envelopes on ≲10^4-year timescales; stellar evolution models that keep such stars in a slow-loss regime will fail to explain Gaia's white dwarf binary statistics.
  • The low eccentricities of WD-MS and WD-WD binaries are a signature that their orbits expanded adiabatically: the binaries observed at 10^3–10^4 AU were born at smaller separations, so eccentricity measurements become a tracer of orbital expansion.
  • Recoil velocities of order 0.25–1 km/s, tied to mass loss via momentum conservation, are required to steepen the wide-separation distribution; zero-recoil models are excluded.
  • White dwarfs below 0.5 $M_\odot$ in wide binaries are predominantly the surviving bright components of close binaries in hierarchical triples, so their statistics open a separate window into common-envelope evolution and triple dynamics.
  • High-mass white dwarfs should retain fewer exo-Oort comets and show less metal pollution than low-mass ones, a testable prediction for white dwarf atmospheric abundances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass-dependent $\tau_{\rm AGB}$ is a real clock, then wide-binary statistics at fixed white dwarf mass can be used to map how the AGB/post-AGB transition depends on metallicity and age—something the single-population model here does not split.
  • The same adiabatic-versus-impulsive framework could be applied to wide binaries containing neutron stars or black holes, potentially constraining their kicks and the timescale of core-collapse mass loss, once such samples become large enough.
  • The model's factor-of-two decline in the fiducial case falls short of the observed factor-of-six; a fully self-consistent treatment of hierarchical triples, which the paper only discusses qualitatively, may close the gap or force an even steeper $\tau_{\rm AGB}(m)$.
  • Future Gaia data releases with more massive MS-MS binaries could measure the birth eccentricity distribution at the high-mass end directly, turning the eccentricity split in Figure 9 into a clean empirical determination of the mass-loss duration for ~3–4 $M_\odot$ stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines Gaia wide-binary catalogs with population synthesis to study how post-main-sequence mass loss and recoil shape the orbits of wide binaries containing white dwarfs. Observationally, it reports that the WD-MS wide-binary fraction (10^3–10^4 AU) is roughly constant at low WD mass and then declines steeply by a factor ~6 above 0.6 Msun, that WD-WD binary fractions mirror this decline, and that WD-MS and WD-WD binaries have lower eccentricities than MS-MS binaries at the same separations. The modeling part computes orbital evolution for mass-loss timescales spanning the secular to impulsive regimes, with a recoil tied to mass loss through momentum conservation (Eq. 4). The authors find that adiabatic expansion explains the low eccentricities, while reproducing the steep mass-dependent binary fraction requires a mass-dependent mass-loss timescale, declining from 2×10^6 yr at 1 Msun to 10^3 yr at 6 Msun. They interpret the data as requiring short (10^3–10^4 yr) mass-loss timescales for high-mass stars, and they confirm earlier recoil constraints of ~0.25–4 km/s.

Significance. If the central inference holds, the paper provides a novel dynamical constraint on the poorly observed post-AGB mass-loss phase, and it does so with an unusually careful treatment of timescales from adiabatic to impulsive regimes. The observational sample is thoughtfully selected, with explicit completeness and robustness checks (parallax cuts, ruwe, photometry), and the paper is transparent about its model limitations, including the unmeasured initial eccentricity distribution of high-mass binaries and the quantitative mismatch with the observed factor >6 decline. A significant strength is the public availability of the population-synthesis code (GitHub/Zenodo), which makes the modeling reproducible. The predicted eccentricity difference between massive and low-mass WD-MS binaries (Fig. 9) is a falsifiable signature that could be tested with larger samples or independent high-mass eccentricity constraints. The paper should be considered a valuable contribution if the main degeneracy is addressed and the central claim is appropriately re-scaled to what the models actually demonstrate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.4 and Sec. 3.2] The inference of short tau_AGB for high-mass stars is degenerate with the unmeasured initial eccentricity distribution of high-mass MS binaries. The paper states this explicitly: the initial eccentricity distribution from Hwang et al. (2022b) 'is not well known for high-mass MS stars.' Because both the binary-fraction decline (Fig. 8) and the eccentricity split (Fig. 9) are generated from p(e) ∝ e^α with α(a) calibrated on solar-type binaries, a higher birth α for massive progenitors would steepen the disruption-driven decline and raise the final eccentricities of survivors, mimicking the signature attributed to short tau_AGB. This is a load-bearing degeneracy for the central claim. Please quantify it by repeating the population synthesis with α(a) varied over plausible ranges for high-mass stars, or by using independent eccentricity constraints for B-type / massive MS binaries. Without
  2. [Sec. 5 and Fig. 8] The quantitative mismatch between the fiducial model and the data is admitted: the model produces only a factor ~2 decline in WD-MS, WD-WD, and retention fractions, while the observed decline is a factor >6. This limits the strength of the conclusion. The statement that the steep decline 'requires' short tau_AGB should be softened to something like 'is directionally consistent with' or 'is necessary but not sufficient' until the model can reproduce the observed amplitude. Moreover, the tau_AGB=10^4 yr model is said to 'perform similarly' to the fiducial 10^3 yr model, so the upper bound rests on a factor-2 reproduction of a much steeper trend. Please provide a quantitative goodness-of-fit or likelihood criterion for what counts as reproducing the mass dependence, and discuss whether the gap can be closed by plausible ingredients discussed qualitatively in Sec. 4.5 (mass-dependent triple
  3. [Sec. 4.3–4.4] The mass-dependent tau_AGB is a free parameter chosen to fit the observed mass dependence of the binary fraction, and then the same model is used to interpret the eccentricity data. This is a partial circularity: the eccentricity split in Fig. 9 is not an independent confirmation if the tau_AGB(m) relation was already tuned to the mass-dependent binary fraction. To strengthen the predictive claim, fix tau_AGB(m) independently from stellar evolution models (e.g., Miller Bertolami 2016, with an explicit uncertainty band) and test whether the eccentricity predictions still match; alternatively, report a joint fit statistic over binary fraction and eccentricity. As written, the eccentricity comparison is a consistency check, not a confirmation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] Typo: 'dusty think disk' should be 'dusty thin disk'.
  2. [Sec. 2.4] The text refers to 'Cumming et al. (2008)' for the initial-to-final mass relation, but the intended reference appears to be Cummings et al. (2018). Please correct the citation.
  3. [Eq. (5)-(6) and Sec. 3.2] Equation (6) is derived for a power-law distribution on e ∈ [0,1], but the text says alpha is computed over truncated ranges e ∈ [0,e_max] and then the median over several e_max is reported. Please state explicitly which likelihood is maximized when e_max < 1, since Eq. (6) does not apply verbatim in that case.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The paper says 'we ignore the differences between intrinsic semi-major axes and observed separations for the purposes of this calculation.' Given that the eccentricity comparison uses observed projected separations, please quantify the impact of projection effects on the inferred alpha, or justify why they are subdominant.
  5. [Fig. 5] The left panel would benefit from an explicit note that the horizontal dashed line is the predicted v-r angle distribution for a thermal eccentricity distribution after folding at 90 deg; the current caption is slightly terse.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild partial circularity: the mass-dependent tau_AGB is tuned to the observed binary-fraction decline, then presented as a required physical timescale; the eccentricity split provides an independent check.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.3 (Fig. 8) and Abstract / Sec. 5]
    "The most successful model we have for simultaneously explaining these two observables involves a mass-dependent tau_AGB. Specifically, ... tau_AGB ... declines as a power-law function of mass from 2e6 years at m = 1 Msun to 1e3 years at m = 6 Msun. ... The steeply declining white dwarf binary fraction as a function of mass requires that the timescale for mass loss must be significantly shorter for high-mass stars (1e3-1e4 years) than for the low-mass ones."

    The mass-dependent tau_AGB is not derived from an independent first-principles calculation; it is selected because it makes the population-synthesis model reproduce the observed steep decline of the WD-MS binary fraction (Fig. 1 vs Fig. 8). The abstract then presents this fitted choice as a physical requirement: 'the timescale for mass loss must be significantly shorter for high-mass stars.' This is the parameterization itself being promoted to a conclusion. The circularity is partial because the eccentricity split (Sec. 4.4) was not used to set tau_AGB and provides an independent (though statistically weak and degenerate with unknown birth eccentricities) test.

full rationale

The central derivation is mostly an honest forward-model inference. The paper explicitly searches over tau_AGB values, admits that constant-tau_AGB models fail, and tests the chosen mass-dependent tau_AGB against a different observable (the high-vs-low-mass WD-MS eccentricity split). The main circularity concern is that the 'requirement' of a short tau_AGB for massive stars is essentially the curve that was used to select the model; it is not an independent prediction. However, the paper does not hide this, and the eccentricity comparison is a genuine, if degenerate, check. The initial eccentricity distribution of high-mass MS stars is taken from Hwang et al. (2022b) and is acknowledged to be 'not well known for high-mass MS stars'; this is a load-bearing assumption and a source of degeneracy, but not circularity, since that prior measurement is an external empirical input rather than the paper's own target result. Given the self-citation and the fitted-parameter-as-requirement framing, a score of 2 is appropriate; the central claim retains independent content via the eccentricity test and the reference to Miller Bertolami (2016) models.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the recoil and mass-loss physics are standard. The main burden rests on the mass-dependent τAGB, which is an adjustable function, and on external calibrations: the initial-final mass relation, the initial eccentricity distribution, and the period distributions.

free parameters (3)
  • v_asym = 0.25 km/s (fiducial); explored 0.25-1.5 km/s
    Degree of asymmetry of mass loss; sets recoil via dv_k/dt = v_asym * (dm2/dt)/m2. Chosen to match separation and eccentricity distributions; models with v_asym=0 fail.
  • τAGB(mass) = 2e6 yr at 1 Msun declining as power law to 1e3 yr at 6 Msun (fiducial); 1e4 yr also acceptable, 1e5 yr fails
    Characteristic mass-loss timescale. Introduced as mass-dependent specifically to reproduce the observed steep decline of WD-MS and WD-WD binary fractions with WD mass (Sec 4.3).
  • Nbinaries/Nsingles (overall wide binary fraction) = set to 2.4% wide binary fraction (33% total binary fraction)
    Normalizes the model to the observed overall wide binary fraction of MS stars (Sec 4.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Single-star evolution: wide binaries experience no mass transfer, so components evolve independently
    Used throughout Sections 3-4 to justify applying mass loss to one component.
  • domain assumption Initial eccentricity distribution p(e) ∝ e^α with α(a) from Hwang et al. (2022b)
    Sec 3.2; applied to all WD progenitors, though not verified for high-mass stars (Sec 4.4).
  • domain assumption Initial-to-final mass relation of Cummings et al. (2018)
    Sec 2.2 and 3.3; sets fractional mass loss and WD mass from progenitor mass.
  • domain assumption Kroupa (2001) IMF, Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) and Fischer & Marcy (1992) period distributions, constant star formation over 12 Gyr
    Sec 3.2 population synthesis inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper Mass loss rate is constant in time, m2(t) declines linearly over τAGB
    Sec 3.3; the functional form of mass loss is poorly known, and the timescale conclusions may depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Recoil is unidirectional with fixed direction and tied to mass loss via momentum conservation (eq. 4)
    Sec 3.1; stochastic wind directions could accommodate larger individual kicks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of White dwarfs in wide binaries: the strong effects of stellar evolution and mass loss." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PH5WQNF6

@misc{pith2026250808364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: White dwarfs in wide binaries: the strong effects of stellar evolution and mass loss},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PH5WQNF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.08364}
}
read the original abstract

We examine the statistics of main-sequence / main-sequence, main-sequence / white-dwarf and white-dwarf / white-dwarf wide binaries at 10^2.5-10^4 AU separations in Gaia data. For binaries containing a white dwarf, we find a complex dependence of the wide binary fraction on the white dwarf mass, including a steep decline as a function of mass at >0.6Msun. Furthermore, we find that wide binaries containing white dwarfs have significantly lower eccentricities than main-sequence binaries at the same separations. To model these observations, we compute the effects of post-main-sequence mass loss on the orbital parameters of wide binaries in all regimes of timescales, from secular to impulsive, and incorporate this dynamics in a population synthesis model. We find that adiabatic expansion of the orbits in binaries with slow enough evolutionary processes is the most likely explanation for the puzzling eccentricity distribution of white dwarf wide binaries. The steeply declining white dwarf binary fraction as a function of mass requires that the timescale for mass loss must be significantly shorter for high-mass stars (10^3-10^4 years) than for the low-mass ones. We confirm previous studies that suggested that recoil in the range 0.25-4 km/s is required to explain the observed distribution of separations of white dwarf wide binaries. Finally, for low-mass white dwarfs (<0.5Msun), we see interesting signatures of their formation due to close binary evolution in their wide binary statistics. Our observations and modeling provide a novel dynamical constraint on the mass-loss stages of stellar evolution that are difficult to probe with direct observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.08364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. White dwarfs’ wide binary fractions as a function of white dwarf masses. Above 0.5 M⊙ white dwarf masses, the trends of the two lines are similar, reflecting a nearly con￾stant main-sequence-to-white-dwarf ratio in the wide com￾panions at different white dwarf masses. The two lines show drastically different trends at < 0.5 M⊙, likely due to the nature of the low-mass white dwarfs. The blue line represents the white… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The mass distribution of the main-sequence com￾panions to the white dwarfs in wide WD-MS binaries split into two bins of mass. Low-mass white dwarfs have wide companions that have slightly higher mass than high-mass white dwarfs. We have also checked different WD mass bins above 0.5 M⊙ and did not find any differences in the mass distributions of their MS companions. A conservative parallax> 4 mas cut was used to mi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the retention fraction computed by diving the WD-MS wide binary fraction (red) by the MS-MS wide binary fraction (black+grey) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Eccentricity measurements for WD-MS and WD-WD wide binaries. Left: raw v − r angle distributions for a model population with a thermal eccentricity distribution (p(e) = 2e, horizontal dashed black line), and for WD-MS and WD-WD wide binaries (red and blue, respectively…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mass dependence of the MS-MS binary fraction at birth (purple) and evolved to present day (orange). Left: the dependence of the binary fraction on mass assuming that the overall present-day binary fraction (including binaries of all separations) is 33%. While at birth …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The results of our fiducial model with vasym = 0.25 km s−1 and τAGB declining with mass from 2 × 106 years at 1 M⊙ to 103 years at 6 M⊙. We show the distributions of separations (left) and eccentricities (right) of MS-MS binaries (black), WD-MS binaries (red), and WD-W…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass-dependent MS-MS and WD-MS wide binary fractions (left), the retention rate (middle) and the WD-MS and WD-WD binary fractions (right) in the fiducial model with vasym = 0.25 km s−1 and a mass-dependent τAGB which declines as a power-law function of mass from 2 × 10…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The fate of Gaia's wide binaries: Interplay of white-dwarf recoil and tidal capture

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    White-dwarf recoil from asymmetric AGB mass loss can drive up to 30% of wide binaries into tidal capture, forming tight WD+MS and WD+WD binaries and slow red transients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., & Levy, S

    Abt, H. A., & Levy, S. G. 1976, ApJS, 30, 273 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167

    work page 1976

  2. [2]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    Belokurov, V., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    2020

  3. [3]

    A., & Rafikov, R

    Belyaev, M. A., & Rafikov, R. R. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1718

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition (Princeton University Press)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42

    2021

  6. [6]

    M., Kilic, M., Brown, W

    Brown, J. M., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Kenyon, S. J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 67

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Gianninas, A. 2016, ApJ, 824, 46 3 https://pypi.org/project/mcint/

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 94

    work page 2022

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 49

    2020

  2. [10]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., C´ orsico, A. H., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A87

    2019

  3. [11]

    D., & M´ enard, B

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, ApJ, 886, 100

    2019

  4. [12]

    R., Chandra, V., Zakamska, N

    Crumpler, N. R., Chandra, V., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 237

    2024

  5. [13]

    P., Marcy, G

    Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 531

    2008

  6. [14]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 21

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Choi, J. 2018, ApJ, 866, 21

    2018

  7. [15]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 408

    Decin, L., Homan, W., Danilovich, T., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 408

    2019

  8. [16]

    Lau, H. H. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599

    2015

  9. [17]

    2023, A&A, 675, A89 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A

    Donada, J., Anders, F., Jordi, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A89 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

    2023

  10. [18]

    1991, A&A, 248, 485 20

    Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485 20

    1991

  11. [19]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884

    2018

  12. [20]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269

    2021

  13. [21]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 528

    El-Badry, K., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 528

    2018

  14. [22]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

    2018

  15. [23]

    B., Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N

    Fezenko, G. B., Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3881

    2022

  16. [24]

    A., & Marcy, G

    Fischer, D. A., & Marcy, G. W. 1992, ApJ, 396, 178

    1992

  17. [25]

    2001, PASP, 113, 409

    Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Bergeron, P. 2001, PASP, 113, 409

    2001

  18. [26]

    M., Richer, H

    Fregeau, J. M., Richer, H. B., Rasio, F. A., & Hurley, J. R. 2009, ApJL, 695, L20 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4570 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P. E., Cukanovaite, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3877

    2009

  19. [27]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403

    2017

  20. [28]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9

    2023

  21. [29]

    H., & Schlaufman, K

    Hamer, J. H., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2019, AJ, 158, 190

    2019

  22. [30]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L29

    Hamilton, C. 2022, ApJL, 929, L29

    2022

  23. [31]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2425

    Hamilton, C., & Modak, S. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2425

    2024

  24. [32]

    D., & L´ epine, S

    Hartman, Z. D., & L´ epine, S. 2020, ApJS, 247, 66

    2020

  25. [33]

    1986, Icarus, 65, 13 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H

    Heisler, J., & Tremaine, S. 1986, Icarus, 65, 13 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1

    1986

  26. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1750

    Hwang, H.-C. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1750

    2023

  27. [35]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., Cheng, S., & Speagle, J. S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4272

    2024

  28. [36]

    C., Zakamska, N

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., Schlaufman, K. C., Zakamska, N. L., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4329

    2021

  29. [37]

    Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N. L. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2271

    2020

  30. [38]

    1990, ApJ, 353, 215

    Iben, Icko, J. 1990, ApJ, 353, 215

    1990

  31. [39]

    G., Dermine, T., & Church, R

    Izzard, R. G., Dermine, T., & Church, R. P. 2010, A&A, 523, A10

    2010

  32. [40]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 977

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Tremaine, S. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 977

    2010

  33. [41]

    C., Bergeron, P., Genest-Beaulieu, C., & Rowell, N

    Kilic, M., Hambly, N. C., Bergeron, P., Genest-Beaulieu, C., & Rowell, N. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L113

    2018

  34. [42]

    Y., & Katz, B

    Klein, Y. Y., & Katz, B. 2017, MNRAS, 465, L44

    2017

  35. [43]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  36. [44]

    U., Neunteufel, P

    Kruckow, M. U., Neunteufel, P. G., Di Stefano, R., Gao, Y., & Kobayashi, C. 2021, ApJ, 920, 86

    2021

  37. [45]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Levesque, E. M. 2017, Understanding Stellar Evolution (Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing), doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-1278-3

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    West, A. A. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1727

    2010

  39. [47]

    1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719

    Lidov, M. 1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719

    1962

  40. [48]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2

    Lindegren, L., Hernandez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2

    2018

  41. [49]

    Burleigh, M. R. 2006, Nature, 442, 543 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25

    2006

  42. [50]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3102

    Modak, S., & Hamilton, C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3102

    2023

  43. [51]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15

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

    2017

  44. [52]

    D., & Dermott, S

    Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. 1999, Solar system dynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press) O’Connor, C. E., Lai, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6181 Paczy´ nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183

    1999

  45. [53]

    2024, MNRAS, 530, 2526

    Pham, D., & Rein, H. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2526

    2024

  46. [54]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1

    2010

  47. [55]

    2012, A&A, 537, A128

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128

    2012

  48. [56]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Renedo, I., Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 183

    2010

  49. [57]

    1998, A&A, 337, 149

    Steffen, M., Szczerba, R., & Schoenberner, D. 1998, A&A, 337, 149

    1998

  50. [58]

    2014, AJ, 147, 87

    Tokovinin, A. 2014, AJ, 147, 87

    2014

  51. [59]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 3461

    Tokovinin, A. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3461

    2017

  52. [60]

    2006, A&A, 450, 681

    Tokovinin, A., Thomas, S., Sterzik, M., & Udry, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 681

    2006

  53. [61]

    Tokovinin, A. A. 1998, Astronomy Letters, 24, 178 van Roestel, J., Kupfer, T., Bell, K. J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L26

    1998

  54. [62]

    Vassiliadis, E., & Wood, P. R. 1994, ApJS, 92, 125

    1994

  55. [63]

    Weiss, A., & Ferguson, J. W. 2009, A&A, 508, 1343

    2009

  56. [64]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L28

    Xu, S., Hwang, H.-C., Hamilton, C., & Lai, D. 2023, ApJL, 949, L28

    2023

  57. [65]

    Zakamska, N., & Hwang, H.-C. 2025, Software for computing the effects of stellar evolution and mass loss on orbits of wide stellar binaries, urlhttps://zenodo.org/record/15991774, v.1.0, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.15991774

    2025

Pith tools

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