Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Improving 1D stellar atmosphere models with insights from multi-dimensional simulations I. 1D vs 2D stratifications and spectral comparison for O stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Standard 1D O-star atmosphere models need a turbulent pressure term to match multi-dimensional simulations, and doing so can reconcile spectroscopic and evolutionary masses.

desk verdict A useful, honestly-flagged prototype: the constant-turbulence term in the hydrostatic equation reproduces the 2D-averaged density profiles, but the fitted v_turb values and the mass-discrepancy conclusion are not yet cleanly separated from the known temperature bias in the 2D target models. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14511 v1 pith:Q6RFD4QF submitted 2025-01-24 astro-ph.SR

G. González-Torà , A. A. C. Sander , J. O. Sundqvist , D. Debnath , L. Delbroek , J. Josiek , R. R. Lefever , N. Moens
show 2 more authors
C. Van der Sijpt O. Verhamme
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords massivestarsOstellaratmospheresturbulentpressureradiation-hydrodynamicsmassdiscrepancywindshydrostaticequilibrium
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

Standard one-dimensional models of O-star atmospheres leave out a physically real ingredient: the pressure of the turbulent, radiation-driven motions that multi-dimensional simulations find just below the photosphere. This paper asks whether that omission matters for how we read O-star spectra, and shows that it does. By fitting 1D models to the averaged density, velocity, and temperature profiles of 2D radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of O8, O4, and O2 supergiants, it finds that a single constant turbulent velocity term in the hydrostatic equation is enough to reproduce the 2D density structure, once the wind connection point is adjusted and the mass-loss rate is raised by roughly 0.2 dex for the earlier types. The same term changes the predicted line wings in the same way a lower surface gravity would, so spectroscopic masses derived without it come out too low. If the paper is right, the standard 1D analysis pipeline has been underestimating O-star masses, and the long-standing mismatch between spectroscopic and evolutionary masses has a straightforward mechanical explanation.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a modified hydrostatic equilibrium. In the subsonic layers the pressure is $P = \rho a_s^2$ with an effective sound speed $a_s^2 = k_B T/(\mu m_H) + v_{\rm turb}^2$, so the turbulent velocity $v_{\rm turb}$ adds a pressure $P_{\rm turb} = \rho v_{\rm turb}^2$; the density follows from $dP/dr = -\rho (g - a_{\rm rad})$, where $a_{\rm rad}$ is the radiative acceleration from the co-moving-frame radiative transfer. Inserting $v_{\rm turb}$ flattens the density gradient exactly as a lower gravity would, and it changes where the hydrostatic solution joins the prescribed $\beta$-law wind velocity field, the standard analytic form $v(r) \propto (1 - R_*/r)^\beta$. The paper shows that a single constant $v_{\rm turb}$ per model is sufficient, even though the 2D simulations exhibit a depth-dependent turbulence, because the deep layers where the turbulence varies are too optically thick to affect the emergent spectrum.

What would settle it

Compute the same 2D models with non-LTE level populations and a proper frequency-dependent treatment of the three opacity means instead of flux-limited diffusion with Planck- and energy-means set equal to the flux mean; if the averaged density stratification then no longer requires a turbulent pressure term for a 1D fit, the paper's central claim collapses. A cheaper observational check is to measure surface gravities of O supergiants with known dynamical masses: if including turbulent pressure pushes the inferred log g above the dynamical value, the correction over-shoots.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a constant turbulent pressure in the hydrostatic equation of a 1D expanding atmosphere model reproduces the density stratification of the averaged 2D simulations well enough to change spectral diagnostics. The paper derives best-fit turbulent velocities of 35, 88, and 106 km/s for its O8, O4, and O2 models, respectively, close to the density-weighted values extracted from the 2D runs. With turbulence included, the 1D model's effective gravity drops, its density scale height grows, and the connection point between the quasi-hydrostatic photosphere and the beta-law wind must move outward; for the earlier O stars a roughly 0.2 dex higher mass-loss rate is also needed. In the synthetic spectra, the turbulent model produces narrower H-zeta and He ii line wings than the zero-turbulence model, mimicking the spectral signature of a lower surface gravity. The paper's conclusion is that spectroscopic masses inferred without turbulent pressure are systematically low, which offers an explanation for the mass discrepancy between spectroscopic and evolutionary masses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unweighted averages of the 2D radiation-hydrodynamic simulations, which use LTE populations, flux-limited diffusion, and flux-mean opacities, give a physically reliable target for fitting 1D models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • O-star atmosphere codes should include turbulent pressure in the hydrostatic solution, because without it the modelled density stratification deviates from the structure that multi-dimensional simulations predict.
  • Spectroscopic masses derived from 1D models that ignore turbulent pressure are underestimated, and including the term shifts the evolutionary-to-spectroscopic mass ratio toward one.
  • Mass-loss rates inferred from 1D fits to early O stars are likely about 0.2 dex too low, with correspondingly larger photospheric radii and lower effective temperatures at fixed luminosity.
  • Turbulent pressure smooths the radiative acceleration profile in the quasi-hydrostatic region and removes the pre-wind dip, so future hydrodynamically consistent mass-loss predictions from 1D models will change once this term is included.
  • A single constant turbulent velocity plus an adjusted hydrostatic-to-wind connection point is enough for the density profile, but reproducing the full 2D wind velocity field still requires improved velocity-law prescriptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same correction should be applied to B supergiants and other stars near the Eddington limit, where sub-photospheric turbulence is expected to be strongest, since the fitted turbulent velocities increase steadily from the O8 to the O2 model.
  • Beyond the paper: replacing the constant $v_{\rm turb}$ with a depth-dependent profile would likely improve the sub-photospheric density fit and may connect the hydrostatic pressure term to the photospheric macroturbulence already seen in observations.
  • Beyond the paper: an observational test can be built from existing high-resolution spectra of O supergiants with independently known masses; if turbulent-pressure models require surface gravities above the independently measured values, the proposed correction is too large.
  • Beyond the paper: the mapping from 2D to 1D depends on how the average is taken, and using mass-weighted averages for velocity while keeping unweighted averages for density could remove part of the wind-onset mismatch the paper reports.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper compares 1D PoWR atmosphere models with laterally and temporally averaged 2D RHD simulation profiles from Debnath et al. (2024) for three O-type supergiant models (O8, O4, O2). The authors add a turbulent pressure term Pturb = rho v_turb^2 to the hydrostatic equation (Eq. 4), and then vary v_turb, the mass-loss rate, the wind beta exponent, and the hydrostatic/wind connection point to reproduce the 2D-averaged density, velocity, and temperature stratifications. Their main results are that a constant turbulent velocity (35, 88, and 106 km/s for O8, O4, O2) is sufficient to reproduce the 2D-averaged density profiles, that the 1D mass-loss rates must be increased by roughly 0.1 to 0.3 dex relative to the 2D values, and that the spectral line wings of the v_turb>0 models can be reproduced by lower-gravity v_turb=0 models. The latter effect is used to argue that turbulent pressure may resolve the long-standing mass discrepancy between spectroscopic and evolutionary masses. The paper also reports that turbulent pressure smooths the radiative acceleration 'dip' in the quasi-hydrostatic domain, with potential consequences for theoretical mass-loss rates.

Significance. If the central result holds, this paper is a useful step toward embedding insights from multi-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamic simulations into practical 1D spectral modeling: it proposes a concrete parameterization (constant v_turb in the hydrostatic equation), documents its spectral consequences, and connects the turbulent pressure to the mass-discrepancy problem. The authors are transparent about the approximations in both frameworks, and the analytic estimates in Eqs. (7) and (8) and the several appendices are valuable. However, the quantitative support for the central claim is currently incomplete. The fits to the 2D averages are performed by visual inspection with coarse parameter steps, and the 2D target profiles themselves carry a known temperature/opacity bias (Sections 2.2 and 4.3) that is degenerate with the inferred turbulent pressure. The mass-discrepancy conclusion in Section 4.5 therefore needs a sensitivity analysis before it can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The 'best-fit' values v_turb = 35/88/106 km/s and the mass-loss adjustments are obtained by visual inspection, with v_turb varied in steps of 25 or 50 km/s and log(Mdot) in steps of 0.25 dex, and no figure of merit is reported. Since the derived surface gravities, masses, and the mass-discrepancy ratios in Table 2 and Fig. 9 depend directly on these fitted values, please provide a quantitative residual statistic (e.g., rms or chi-square in log rho over the fitted radial range), report confidence intervals, and discuss the degeneracy among v_turb, Mdot, and the connection point.
  2. [Sections 2.2, 4.3, Eq. (4)] The 2D benchmark models assume the energy- and Planck-mean opacities are equal to the flux mean, which, as the authors themselves state, likely overestimates heating and cooling and forces gas and radiation temperatures to the same value, yielding a higher gas temperature. Because v_turb enters the hydrostatic equation through Eq. (4), a systematically high 2D temperature produces a larger pressure scale height that a 1D model can mimic by increasing v_turb. The fitted values v_turb = 35/88/106 km/s and the mass-loss offsets are therefore not unambiguously attributable to physical turbulent pressure, and the mass-discrepancy argument in Section 4.5 inherits this ambiguity. Please quantify this sensitivity, for example by repeating the fits to 2D averages with a corrected or reduced gas temperature, and report how v_turb and the inferred masses change.
  3. [Sections 4.4, 4.5, Table 2, Fig. 9] For the O2 model, the lower-gravity comparison model did not converge, and Table 2 explicitly lists log g0 < 3.45, Teff0 < 40.6 kK, and M0 < 33.60 Msun as upper limits. Nevertheless, Fig. 9 presents the O2 no-turbulence case as a point in the Mevol/Mspec comparison, and the text in Section 4.5 discusses the trend without distinguishing limits from measurements. Please plot upper limits with appropriate symbols and separate the measured ratios from the bound in the mass-discrepancy claim, since the largest model in the sample is currently the least constrained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The velocity symbol is typeset as '3' in many places (e.g., Eq. 1 and Figure captions), which appears to be a font/encoding problem; please ensure the variable v is consistently and correctly rendered.
  2. [Section 3.1] The text contains typos: 'O4 and 02 models' should be 'O4 and O2 models', and the phrase 'one might now in turn expert offsets' in Section 4.2 should read 'one might in turn expect offsets'.
  3. [Section 4.4] The phrase 'assuming mu ~ 0.6 as of a fully ionized plasma' should be 'assuming mu ~ 0.6 for a fully ionized plasma'.
  4. [Appendix G] The evolutionary masses are selected by eye to the nearest 0.5 Msun in the HRD. For the O8 model, where Mevol/Mspec is close to 1.0 even with turbulence, please state the interpolation uncertainty explicitly or provide a more objective estimate of Mevol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: v_turb is openly fitted to the 2D averages, while the spectral and mass implications are derived consequences, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central 'reproduction' of the 2D-averaged density is an openly described fit: Section 3.1 states that v_turb 'is varied such that the 2D averaged density profile is reproduced as accurate as possible,' giving best-fit values 35, 88, and 106 km/s. The abstract and conclusions then summarize this fit; there is no claim that the density was predicted a priori. The spectral comparisons (Figs. 3-8) are computed from converged PoWR models and compare models with and without turbulent pressure with otherwise identical parameters; they are not fitted to the line data and therefore provide independent, self-contained content. The mass-discrepancy discussion is explicitly framed as conditional ('could potentially solve', 'could diminish'), and the log g shift is obtained from the equation of state (Eqs. 4 and 7), so the inference is a derived consequence rather than a reduction of the conclusion to the input. The 2D benchmark from Debnath et al. (2024) shares authors, making it a self-citation in the evidence chain, but the paper itself flags the key limitation (Section 2.2: energy- and Planck-mean opacities 'assumed to be equal to this flux mean, which very likely significantly overestimates heating and cooling effects'; Section 4.3: 'over-efficient heating and cooling ... forces the gas and radiation temperatures to the same value, the net effect being a higher gas temperature'). That is a correctness or validity risk for the fitted v_turb values, not a circularity in the logical derivation. No self-definitional equation, no fitted quantity relabeled as a prediction, and no invoked uniqueness theorem were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities; turbulent pressure is a parameterization of existing RHD simulation output, not a new entity. The quantitative conclusions rest on several fitted constants (v_turb, mass-loss offsets, beta, connection point) and on the fidelity of the 2D simulations and averaging choices.

free parameters (5)
  • Turbulent velocity v_turb in the hydrostatic equation = 35, 88, 106 km/s for O8, O4, O2; step sizes 25 to 50 km/s
    Varied to match the 2D-averaged density profile in the (quasi-)hydrostatic regime; this is the central fitted quantity and drives the spectral and mass effects.
  • Mass-loss rate offset Delta(log Mdot) = +0.11, +0.29, +0.30 dex for O8, O4, O2 relative to Debnath et al. (2024)
    Increased in steps of 0.25 dex to match the 2D average density; without this increase the wind density is too low.
  • Beta exponent beta of the wind velocity law = 1.01 for all three models
    Changed from 0.8 to improve the velocity profile match to the 2D average (Section 3.1); a larger beta shifts the wind onset outward.
  • Connection point between hydrostatic and wind regime = v_con = 0.95 times the effective sound speed including turbulence
    The connection point is a free setting; using the turbulent sound speed changes the density and velocity fits (Sections 2.1 and 4.2).
  • Microturbulent velocity v_dop for line opacities in structure calculation = 30 km/s (depth-independent)
    A standard PoWR OB-star grid value used for all models; it is hand-set rather than fitted to the 2D data, but it affects the computed radiative acceleration and spectra.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Turbulent pressure enters the hydrostatic equation as P_turb = rho v_turb^2 and the effective sound speed is a_s^2 = k_B T/(mu m_H) + v_turb^2.
    Eq. 4: this parameterization is motivated by 2D simulations but is not derived from first principles in this paper; it is the key added physics.
  • domain assumption Wind velocity follows a beta-law connected to the hydrostatic solution at r_con.
    Eq. 1: standard in 1D atmosphere codes; the paper varies beta and r_con, so the central density fit depends on this functional form.
  • domain assumption The unweighted lateral-temporal average of the 2D RHD fields is the appropriate target for the 1D comparison.
    Section 4.2 and Appendix B: mass-weighted averages give different wind onset and densities; the choice affects the fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption The 2D RHD simulations of Debnath et al. (2024) are sufficiently accurate representations of O-star atmospheres.
    Section 2.2: the 2D models use LTE populations, flux-mean approximations for energy and Planck opacities, and flux-limited diffusion; their fidelity is assumed when used as the benchmark.
  • domain assumption Radiative energy transport dominates; convective enthalpy flux is below 10 percent of luminosity in the layers of interest.
    Section 2.2: this assumption justifies the purely radiative 1D models and is itself justified by the 2D models from Debnath et al. (2024).
  • domain assumption Baseline 1D models are smooth (no clumping, D=1) and use solar abundances from Asplund et al. (2009).
    Section 2.1: clumping is checked in Appendix A for one model and found negligible; the abundance difference from the 2D models (Grevesse and Noels 1993) is claimed to have no significant impact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improving 1D stellar atmosphere models with insights from multi-dimensional simulations I. 1D vs 2D stratifications and spectral comparison for O stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6RFD4QF

@misc{pith2026250114511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improving 1D stellar atmosphere models with insights from multi-dimensional simulations I. 1D vs 2D stratifications and spectral comparison for O stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6RFD4QF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14511}
}
abstract

We compare current 1D and multi-dimensional atmosphere modelling approaches for massive stars to understand their strengths and shortcomings. We calculate averaged stratifications from selected 2D calculations for O stars -- corresponding to the spectral types O8, O4, and O2 -- to approximate them with 1D stellar atmosphere models using the PoWR model atmosphere code and assuming a fixed $\beta-$law for the wind regime. We then study the effects of our approximations and assumptions on current spectral diagnostics. In particular, we focus on the impact of an additional turbulent pressure in the subsonic layers of the 1D models. To match the 2D averages, the 1D stellar atmosphere models need to account for turbulent pressure in the hydrostatic equation. Moreover, an adjustment of the connection point between the (quasi-)hydrostatic regime and the wind regime is required. The improvement between the density stratification of 1D model and 2D average can be further increased if the mass-loss rate of the 1D model is not identical to those of the 2D simulation, but typically $\sim0.2\,$dex higher. Especially for the early type star, this implies a significantly more extended envelope with a lower effective temperature. Already the inclusion of a constant turbulence term in the solution of the hydrostatic equation sufficiently reproduces the 2D-averaged model density stratifications. The addition of a significant turbulent motion also smoothens the slope of the radiative acceleration term in the (quasi-)hydrostatic domain, with several potential implications on the total mass-loss rate inferred from 1D modelling. Concerning the spectral synthesis, the addition of a turbulence term in the hydrostatic equation mimics the effect of a lower surface gravity, potentially presenting a solution to the ``mass discrepancy problem'' between the evolutionary and spectroscopy mass determinations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Profile comparison for the O4 star. For visualization purposes, the 2D averaged model and 1D have been calibrated such that they have the same R2/3. Upper panels: Wind velocity profile, in solid black for the 2D spatially averaged model of Debnath et al. (2024), dashed blue for 1D PoWR model with 3 1D turb = 0 and solid blue for 3 1D turb = 88 km s−1 with the same parameters as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Profile comparison for an O8, O4 and O2 stars. Upper panels: Wind velocity profile, in solid black for the 2D spatially averaged model of Debnath et al. (2024), dashed-red for the 1D PoWR model with the best-fit parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized flux for the Hζ line from top to bottom for the PoWR model spectra calculated for the O8, O4, O2 models. The red spectrum shows the profile resulting from the model incorporating 3turb > 0 to reproduce the 2D average density profile. In black, the spectral lines from a PoWR models with the same parameters, but 3turb = 0 is shown. As reported in Section 3.1, the mass-loss rates of our best￾fit 1D models in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized flux for the Hydrogen Hζ line from top to bottom for the O8, O4 and O2 stars. In solid red for the best-fit 1D PoWR model with 3turb > 0, in dashed green for 3turb = 0 and lower surface gravity. The stellar parameters for the different models are shown in […
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ratio of Mevol/Mspec with respect to the Thomson radiative accel￾eration Γe for the models without turbulence (blue triangles) and with turbulence (red squares). We see a shift when we include a turbulent term in the models, obtaining a Mevol/Mspec ratio closer to one.…

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. 3D Non-LTE radiation transfer: theory and applications to stars, exoplanets, and kilonovae

    astro-ph.SR 2025-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A field review of 3D non-LTE radiative transfer argues that 1D LTE treatments of stellar, exoplanet, and kilonova spectra carry systematic abundance biases that 3D NLTE modeling can now remove.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint 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 ...

  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]

    J., & Scott , P

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

    2009

  4. [4]

    O., Singh , S

    Bj \"o rklund , R., Sundqvist , J. O., Singh , S. M., Puls , J., & Najarro , F. 2023, , 676, A109

    2023

  5. [5]

    C., Hillier , D

    Bouret , J. C., Hillier , D. J., Lanz , T., & Fullerton , A. W. 2012, , 544, A67

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    C., Lanz , T., Hillier , D

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

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    E., Cantiello , M., et al

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

    2011

  8. [8]

    2009, , 499, 279

    Cantiello , M., Langer , N., Brott , I., et al. 2009, , 499, 279

    work page 2009

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    P., Puls , J., Hoffmann , T

    Carneiro , L. P., Puls , J., Hoffmann , T. L., Holgado , G., & Sim \'o n-D \' az , S. 2019, , 623, A3

    2019

  2. [10]

    I., Abbott , D

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

    1975

  3. [11]

    O., Moens , N., et al

    Debnath , D., Sundqvist , J. O., Moens , N., et al. 2024, , 684, A177

    2024

  4. [12]

    & Owocki , S

    Dessart , L. & Owocki , S. P. 2005, , 437, 657

    2005

  5. [13]

    2012, , 537, A146

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

    2012

  6. [14]

    Gayley , K. G. 1995, , 454, 410

    1995

  7. [15]

    Gr \"a fener , G., Koesterke , L., & Hamann , W. R. 2002, , 387, 244

    2002

  8. [16]

    & Noels , A

    Grevesse , N. & Noels , A. 1993, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, ed. N. Prantzos , E. Vangioni-Flam , & M. Casse , 15--25

    1993

  9. [17]

    M., Torrej \'o n , J

    Hainich , R., Oskinova , L. M., Torrej \'o n , J. M., et al. 2020, , 634, A49

    2020

  10. [18]

    2019, , 621, A85

    Hainich , R., Ramachandran , V., Shenar , T., et al. 2019, , 621, A85

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hamann , W. R. 1986, , 160, 347

    1986

  12. [20]

    Hamann , W. R. & Gr \"a fener , G. 2003, , 410, 993

    2003

  13. [21]

    2021, , 655, A67

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

    2021

  14. [22]

    D., & Sundqvist , J

    Hennicker , L., Puls , J., Kee , N. D., & Sundqvist , J. O. 2018, , 616, A140

    2018

  15. [23]

    P., Vilchez , J

    Herrero , A., Kudritzki , R. P., Vilchez , J. M., et al. 1992, , 261, 209

    1992

  16. [24]

    Hillier , D. J. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny , D. Mihalas , & K. Werner , 199

    2003

  17. [25]

    J., Lanz , T., Heap , S

    Hillier , D. J., Lanz , T., Heap , S. R., et al. 2003, , 588, 1039

    2003

  18. [26]

    Hillier , D. J. & Miller , D. L. 1998, , 496, 407

    1998

  19. [27]

    D., Siebert , K

    Howarth , I. D., Siebert , K. W., Hussain , G. A. J., & Prinja , R. K. 1997, , 284, 265

    1997

  20. [28]

    & Lanz , T

    Hubeny , I. & Lanz , T. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny , D. Mihalas , & K. Werner , 51

    2003

  21. [29]

    Iglesias , C. A. & Rogers , F. J. 1996, , 464, 943

    1996

  22. [30]

    2015, , 813, 74

    Jiang , Y.-F., Cantiello , M., Bildsten , L., Quataert , E., & Blaes , O. 2015, , 813, 74

    2015

  23. [31]

    R., & Gr \"a fener , G

    Koesterke , L., Hamann , W. R., & Gr \"a fener , G. 2002, , 384, 562

    2002

  24. [32]

    & Kub \'a t , J

    Krti c ka , J. & Kub \'a t , J. 2018, , 612, A20

    2018

  25. [33]

    Kub \'a t , J., Puls , J., & Pauldrach , A. W. A. 1999, , 341, 587

    1999

  26. [34]

    Kurucz , R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 14

    2005

  27. [35]

    R., Sander , A

    Lefever , R. R., Sander , A. A. C., Shenar , T., et al. 2023, , 521, 1374

    2023

  28. [36]

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

    2009

  29. [37]

    2018, , 613, A12

    Markova , N., Puls , J., & Langer , N. 2018, , 613, A12

    2018

  30. [38]

    G., Hennicker , L., et al

    Moens , N., Poniatowski , L. G., Hennicker , L., et al. 2022 a , , 665, A42

    2022

  31. [39]

    O., El Mellah , I., et al

    Moens , N., Sundqvist , J. O., El Mellah , I., et al. 2022 b , , 657, A81

    2022

  32. [40]

    M., & Puls , J

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

    2011

  33. [41]

    Owocki , S. P. & Puls , J. 1999, , 510, 355

    1999

  34. [42]

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

    1986

  35. [43]

    Pomraning , G. C. 1988, , 40, 479

    1988

  36. [44]

    G., Kee , N

    Poniatowski , L. G., Kee , N. D., Sundqvist , J. O., et al. 2022, , 667, A113

    2022

  37. [45]

    1998, , 334, 505

    Portinari , L., Chiosi , C., & Bressan , A. 1998, , 334, 505

    1998

  38. [46]

    2008, in Massive Stars as Cosmic Engines, ed

    Puls , J. 2008, in Massive Stars as Cosmic Engines, ed. F. Bresolin , P. A. Crowther , & J. Puls , Vol. 250, 25--38

    2008

  39. [47]

    A., Venero , R., et al

    Puls , J., Urbaneja , M. A., Venero , R., et al. 2005, , 435, 669

    2005

  40. [48]

    R., et al

    Ramachandran , V., Hainich , R., Hamann , W. R., et al. 2018, , 609, A7

    2018

  41. [49]

    H., Sana , H., de Koter , A., et al

    Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., Sana , H., de Koter , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A81

    2017

  42. [50]

    2023, , 679, A19

    R \"u bke , K., Herrero , A., & Puls , J. 2023, , 679, A19

    2023

  43. [51]

    N., Vink , J

    Sabhahit , G. N., Vink , J. S., Sander , A. A. C., & Higgins , E. R. 2023, , 524, 1529

    2023

  44. [52]

    2015, , 577, A13

    Sander , A., Shenar , T., Hainich , R., et al. 2015, , 577, A13

    2015

  45. [53]

    Sander , A. A. C. 2015, PhD thesis, University of Potsdam, Germany

    2015

  46. [54]

    Sander , A. A. C. 2017, in The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, ed. J. J. Eldridge , J. C. Bray , L. A. S. McClelland , & L. Xiao , Vol. 329, 215--222

    2017

  47. [55]

    Sander , A. A. C., Bouret , J. C., Bernini-Peron , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03137

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sander , A. A. C., Hamann , W. R., Todt , H., Hainich , R., & Shenar , T. 2017, , 603, A86

    2017

  49. [57]

    Sander , A. A. C., Lefever , R. R., Poniatowski , L. G., et al. 2023, , 670, A83

    2023

  50. [58]

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

    2020

  51. [59]

    Sander , A. A. C., Vink , J. S., & Hamann , W. R. 2020, , 491, 4406

    2020

  52. [60]

    C., Bildsten , L., & Jiang , Y.-F

    Schultz , W. C., Bildsten , L., & Jiang , Y.-F. 2022, , 924, L11

    2022

  53. [61]

    R., et al

    Shenar , T., Oskinova , L., Hamann , W. R., et al. 2015, , 809, 135

    2015

  54. [62]

    2017, , 597, A22

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Godart , M., Castro , N., et al. 2017, , 597, A22

    2017

  55. [63]

    Sobolev , V. V. 1960, Moving Envelopes of Stars

    1960

  56. [64]

    O., Bj \"o rklund , R., Puls , J., & Najarro , F

    Sundqvist , J. O., Bj \"o rklund , R., Puls , J., & Najarro , F. 2019, , 632, A126

    2019

  57. [65]

    O., Owocki , S

    Sundqvist , J. O., Owocki , S. P., & Puls , J. 2018, , 611, A17

    2018

  58. [66]

    O., Puls , J., & Feldmeier , A

    Sundqvist , J. O., Puls , J., & Feldmeier , A. 2010, , 510, A11

    2010

  59. [67]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14937

    Verhamme , O., Sundqvist , J., de Koter , A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14937

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

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

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

    2001

  61. [69]

    S., Mehner , A., Crowther , P

    Vink , J. S., Mehner , A., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2023, , 675, A154

    2023

  62. [70]

    R., Kub \'a t , J., Oskinova , L

    S urlan , B., Hamann , W. R., Kub \'a t , J., Oskinova , L. M., & Feldmeier , A. 2012, , 541, A37

    2012

  63. [71]

    2022, , 668, A92

    We mayer , D., Przybilla , N., & Butler , K. 2022, , 668, A92

    2022

  64. [72]

    2018, , 234, 30

    Xia , C., Teunissen , J., El Mellah , I., Chan \'e , E., & Keppens , R. 2018, , 234, 30

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.