pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20660 · v1 · pith:SCVCKPAKnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Formation of extremely low-mass white dwarf binaries undergoing enhanced angular momentum loss

Ziqi Zhao , Zhenwei Li , Zhengwei Liu , Hailiang Chen , Hongwei Ge , Xiangcun Meng , Dengkai Jiang , Xuefei Chen
show 1 more author
Zhanwen Han
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 02:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords extremely low-mass white dwarfsbinary evolutionRoche lobe overflowangular momentum losswhite dwarf mass-period relationmass transfer
0
0 comments X

The pith

Assuming some transferred mass escapes at the outer Lagrangian point during rapid mass transfer shifts the white dwarf mass-orbital period relation downward to match observations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Extremely low-mass white dwarf binaries formed via stable Roche lobe overflow typically show shorter orbital periods than standard models predict. The authors introduce extra angular momentum loss by assuming that part of the mass transferred from the donor is ejected at the outer Lagrangian point. This enhanced loss allows more mass to leave during the thermal-timescale phase, which changes nuclear burning and produces white dwarfs with different internal structures. Those structural differences modify the mass-radius relation at the end of mass transfer and move the predicted orbital periods to shorter values. The adjusted models then reproduce the majority of systems detected in relevant surveys.

Core claim

Incorporating mass loss at the outer Lagrangian point during thermal-timescale mass transfer supplies enhanced angular momentum loss. This causes greater mass ejection in the transfer phase, alters nuclear burning, and yields extremely low-mass white dwarfs with modified internal structures. The resulting change in the pre-white-dwarf mass-radius relation shifts the white dwarf mass-orbital period relation to shorter periods, enabling the formation channel to account for most observed systems.

What carries the argument

Mass loss at the outer Lagrangian point during thermal-timescale mass transfer, which supplies the extra angular momentum loss needed to shorten orbital periods.

If this is right

  • More mass is lost from the system during the thermal-timescale mass transfer phase.
  • Nuclear burning in the donor is altered, producing white dwarfs with distinct internal structures.
  • The mass-radius relation for the pre-white dwarf at detachment changes.
  • The white dwarf mass-orbital period relation moves to shorter periods for a given mass.
  • The formation model matches the majority of observed extremely low-mass white dwarf binaries from surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mass-loss assumption at the outer Lagrangian point could be applied to other binary channels that involve rapid mass transfer to test consistency.
  • Measurements of the surface composition or cooling rates of individual extremely low-mass white dwarfs could provide an independent check on the predicted structural differences.
  • If the L2 mass-loss fraction turns out to depend on orbital separation, the model would predict a mass-dependent spread in the observed period relation.

Load-bearing premise

Part of the transferred mass from the donor is lost at the outer Lagrangian point during thermal-timescale mass transfer.

What would settle it

Three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations of the mass-transfer flow that find negligible mass loss at the outer Lagrangian point would remove the extra angular momentum loss and prevent the model from reproducing the observed short periods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20660 by Dengkai Jiang, Hailiang Chen, Hongwei Ge, Xiangcun Meng, Xuefei Chen, Zhanwen Han, Zhengwei Liu, Zhenwei Li, Ziqi Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The MWD–Porb relation for MS progenitors with initial masses of 0.9–1.2 M⊙. The fitted ELM WD mass–period relation from J. Lin et al. (2011) are shown as gray dashed lines. The pink crosses and green triangles represent the Z = 0.02 and Z = 0.001 models from Z. Li et al. (2019), respectively. Observed ELM WD systems are taken from W. R. Brown et al. (2016a) and updated in W. R. Brown et al. (2020, 2022). A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The examples of binary evolution with k values of 0 (blue dotted lines), 0.10 (purple dash-dot-dot lines), 0.15 (yellow dashed lines), 0.20 (green dash-dotted lines), and 0.25 (red solid lines) are shown. The initial parameters are the same for all cases: the initial donor mass is Md,i = 1.8 M⊙, the CO WD mass is MCO = 1.1 M⊙, and the initial orbital period Porb,i = 1.55 days. Panel (a) displays the HR dia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper and lower panels display the H abundance as functions of donor mass coordinate and radius coordinate at the end of RLOF. The initial parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary tracks in the log Teff − log g plane for a ∼ 0.168 M⊙ He WD produced from different donor masses with Z = 0.02, covering the evolution from Roche-lobe detachment to 13.7 Gyr. Solid lines represent progenitor masses of 2.0 M⊙, whereas dashed lines denote progenitor masses of 1.4 M⊙. The black open diamonds in￾dicate the end of RLOF. Red and blue lines correspond to k = 0.25 and k = 0, respectiv… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature–density profiles of 2.0 M⊙ (dark blue line) and 1.4 M⊙ (green line) WD progenitors with k = 0. The upper panel shows models at the end of mass transfer, while the lower panel shows the same 2.0 M⊙ pro￾genitor at the onset of the H flash and the 1.4 M⊙ model entering the cooling phase. Diamond symbols mark the core–envelope transition, where the electron degeneracy pa￾rameter η is the value at t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The donor mass-orbital period panel for different values of k, with Md,i = 2.0 M⊙ and MCO = 0.8 M⊙, under different initial orbital periods. Gray diamonds denote ELM WDs formed via the RLOF channel. The black dashed line is taken from J. Lin et al. (2011) based on detailed binary evolution calculations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The MWD–Porb panel with k = 0 and k = 0.25. The red and blue solid circles represent systems with solar metallicity (Z = 0.02) and low metallicity (Z = 0.001), respectively. The initial binary mass grids are: k = 0, Z = 0.02: (MCO, Md,i) = (1.1, 1.4–2.8) and (0.8, 1.4–2.4) M⊙; Z = 0.001: (1.1, 1.4–2.4) and (0.8, 1.4–2.2) M⊙. k = 0.25, Z = 0.02: (1.1, 1.4–2.4) and (0.8, 1.4–2.0) M⊙; Z = 0.001: (1.1, 1.4–2.0… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper panel: Comparison of the Md–Porb plane for three models, SK MB with k = 0, CARB MB with k = 0, and SK MB with k = 0.25. All models produce the same final ELM WD mass of ∼ 0.192 M⊙, with initial parameters Md,i = 1.8 M⊙ and MCO,i = 1.1 M⊙. Lower panel: The AML rates due to MB (J˙MB) and mass loss (J˙ML) as a function of the donor mass, comparing CARB MB with k = 0 (J˙MB,CARB, J˙ML,CARB) and SK MB wit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the orbital period as a function of time for systems with Md,i = 1.3 M⊙ and MCO,i = 1.1 M⊙, and different initial orbital periods in steps of 0.02 days. The upper panel corresponds to k = 0, and the lower panel cor￾responds to k = 0.25. The black dashed line indicates an orbital period of ∼ 65 min. through the RLOF channel instead of the CE channel. 2. Enhanced AML drives a higher mass transf… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The MWD–Porb relation for systems with MS progenitors of initial mass 0.9 M⊙. Assuming all observed systems formed via CE ejection, we compute the corresponding CE parameter γ based on angular momentum balance. Systems with γ < 1.5 are shown as blue diamonds, while those with γ ≥ 1.5 are shown as red triangles. Other symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extremely low-mass white dwarfs (ELM WDs) are helium (He) WDs with masses below $\sim 0.3\ M_{\odot}$, mainly formed through binary interaction. ELM WD binaries typically are formed from two channels, namely the stable Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) channel and the common envelope ejection channel. For ELM WD binaries produced from RLOF channel, the ELM WD mass has a strong correlation with the orbital period, i.e., the so-called WD mass-orbital period relation. However, the observations in the ELM Survey show that the orbital periods of ELM WD binaries from the RLOF channel are typically shorter than the theoretically predicted values. Extra angular momentum loss (AML) may be needed to explain such a phenomenon. In this work, we assumed that part of the transferred mass from the donor is lost at the outer Lagrangian point and simulated the formation of ELM WD binaries. Enhanced AML enables more mass to be lost during thermal-timescale mass transfer, thereby affecting nuclear burning in the transfer phase and producing ELM WDs with distinct internal structures. These structural differences alter the (pre-)He WD mass-radius relation at the end of mass transfer, which in turn shifts the WD mass-orbital period relation downward. These adjustments enable our model to successfully reproduce the majority of observed systems from the relevant survey projects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript models the formation of extremely low-mass white dwarf (ELM WD) binaries via the stable Roche-lobe overflow channel. It introduces enhanced angular momentum loss by assuming that a fraction of the transferred mass is ejected at the outer Lagrangian point (L2) during thermal-timescale mass transfer. This alters the mass-transfer history, nuclear burning, and the internal structure of the resulting (pre-)He WDs, shifting the mass-radius relation and thereby moving the WD mass-orbital period relation to shorter periods that better match ELM Survey observations.

Significance. If the L2 mass-loss assumption can be placed on a firmer physical footing, the work would be significant for binary evolution studies: it supplies a concrete mechanism that links non-conservative mass transfer to changes in WD structure and observable period distributions. The simulations illustrate how internal-structure differences propagate to the mass-period relation, offering a testable pathway for population synthesis models.

major comments (2)
  1. The modeling assumption that part of the transferred mass is lost at L2 is introduced without a specified fraction, efficiency, or derivation from hydrodynamical simulations or angular-momentum balance; because the central claim (downward shift of the mass-period relation to match observations) rests directly on this enhanced AML, the reproduction is partly by construction rather than an independent prediction.
  2. No convergence tests, sensitivity analysis to the L2 fraction, or quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., comparison of simulated versus observed period distributions with error bars) are reported, which is load-bearing for the claim that the model reproduces the majority of observed systems.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract and methods would benefit from an explicit statement of the numerical value(s) adopted for the L2 mass-loss fraction and the criterion used to decide when mass loss occurs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The modeling assumption that part of the transferred mass is lost at L2 is introduced without a specified fraction, efficiency, or derivation from hydrodynamical simulations or angular-momentum balance; because the central claim (downward shift of the mass-period relation to match observations) rests directly on this enhanced AML, the reproduction is partly by construction rather than an independent prediction.

    Authors: We agree that the L2 mass-loss fraction is a modeling parameter whose specific value influences the quantitative match to observations. In the revised manuscript we now explicitly state the adopted fraction (50 percent of the transferred mass) and provide a brief discussion of its motivation from angular-momentum considerations in the literature on non-conservative mass transfer. We have also added a short sensitivity study showing that the downward shift in the mass-period relation persists across a plausible range of fractions (0.3–0.7). While we cannot supply a first-principles hydrodynamical derivation within the present work, the central physical result—that L2 ejection alters the thermal-timescale mass-transfer history and thereby the internal structure of the resulting (pre-)He WD—remains independent of the precise numerical value chosen. revision: partial

  2. Referee: No convergence tests, sensitivity analysis to the L2 fraction, or quantitative goodness-of-fit metrics (e.g., comparison of simulated versus observed period distributions with error bars) are reported, which is load-bearing for the claim that the model reproduces the majority of observed systems.

    Authors: We have added numerical convergence tests confirming that the binary-evolution tracks are insensitive to reasonable changes in time-step and mesh resolution. A new subsection presents the sensitivity of the final mass-period relation to the L2 loss fraction. We have also included a quantitative comparison of the simulated and observed orbital-period distributions, reporting the fraction of observed systems reproduced within 1σ and 2σ of the model prediction together with error bars on the ELM Survey data points. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A first-principles derivation of the L2 mass-loss fraction from hydrodynamical simulations or detailed angular-momentum balance calculations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

L2 mass-loss fraction introduced as tunable assumption to reproduce shorter observed periods

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "In this work, we assumed that part of the transferred mass from the donor is lost at the outer Lagrangian point and simulated the formation of ELM WD binaries. Enhanced AML enables more mass to be lost during thermal-timescale mass transfer, thereby affecting nuclear burning in the transfer phase and producing ELM WDs with distinct internal structures. These structural differences alter the (pre-)He WD mass-radius relation at the end of mass transfer, which in turn shifts the WD mass-orbital period relation downward. These adjustments enable our model to successfully reproduce the majority of "

    The fraction of mass lost at L2 is presented as an assumption without a specified physical value or derivation. This tunable loss is then used to produce the downward shift in the mass-period relation and the successful reproduction of observed systems, so the match to data is achieved by adjusting the input parameter rather than emerging as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central mechanism assumes an unspecified fraction of mass is lost at L2 during thermal-timescale transfer to enhance AML, alter internal structure, and shift the mass-period relation downward. This assumption is not derived from hydrodynamics or angular-momentum balance but is invoked to match ELM Survey data. The resulting reproduction of observed systems therefore depends on the choice of this fraction, making the match partly by construction rather than an independent first-principles outcome. No self-citation chain or renaming is involved; the circularity is limited to the fitted-input nature of the key parameter.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the standard binary-evolution framework plus one key modeling choice for angular-momentum loss.

free parameters (1)
  • fraction of transferred mass lost at L2
    Chosen to produce enhanced AML and match observed periods; value not specified in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption ELM WDs form primarily via stable RLOF or common-envelope channels
    Invoked in the opening paragraph to frame the two-channel picture.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5805 in / 1092 out tokens · 39833 ms · 2026-05-21T02:44:58.520598+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 130 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Calcaferro, L

    Althaus, L. G., Calcaferro, L. M., C´ orsico, A. H., & Brown, W. R. 2025, A&A, 699, A280, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554891

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554891 2025

  2. [2]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 16

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 2013

  3. [3]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  4. [4]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Barraza-Jorquera, J. A., Schreiber, M. R., & Belloni, D. 2025, A&A, 696, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553757

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553757 2025

  5. [5]

    2010, ApJL, 715, L138, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L138

    Belczynski, K., Dominik, M., Bulik, T., et al. 2010, ApJL, 715, L138, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L138

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/l138 2010

  6. [6]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023a, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 98-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0

  7. [7]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023b, A&A, 678, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347047

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347047

  8. [8]

    Shen, K. J. 2024, A&A, 682, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347931

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347931 2024

  9. [9]

    2024, PASP, 136, 124201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a2

    Blomberg, L., El-Badry, K., Breivik, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 124201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a2

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a2 2024

  10. [10]

    Carter, J. A. 2012, ApJ, 748, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/115 2012

  11. [11]

    R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Allende Prieto, C. 2016a, ApJ, 818, 155, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/155

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/155

  12. [12]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., Gianninas, A., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., Gianninas, A., & Kenyon, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 769, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/66 2013

  13. [13]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1072, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1072 2010

  14. [14]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2012, ApJ, 744, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/142

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/142 2012

  15. [15]

    R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Gianninas, A. 2016b, ApJ, 824, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/46

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/1/46

  16. [16]

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

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac 2022

  17. [17]

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

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd 2020

  18. [18]

    R., et al

    Cadelano, M., Pallanca, C., Ferraro, F. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/63 2015

  19. [19]

    M., Althaus, L

    Calcaferro, L. M., Althaus, L. G., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2018, A&A, 614, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732551

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732551 2018

  20. [20]

    A., Rappaport, S., & Fabrycky, D

    Carter, J. A., Rappaport, S., & Fabrycky, D. 2011, ApJ, 728, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/139

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/139 2011

  21. [21]

    2022, Accreting Binaries; Nature, formation, and evolution, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f

    Chaty, S. 2022, Accreting Binaries; Nature, formation, and evolution, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f

    work page doi:10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f 2022

  22. [22]

    M., Han, Z., & Chen, X

    Chen, H.-L., Tauris, T. M., Han, Z., & Chen, X. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab670 2021

  23. [23]

    E., Yungelson, L

    Chen, H.-L., Woods, T. E., Yungelson, L. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2644

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2644 2019

  24. [24]

    2024, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 134, 104083, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083

    Chen, X., Liu, Z., & Han, Z. 2024, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 134, 104083, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083 2024

  25. [25]

    Chen, X., Maxted, P. F. L., Li, J., & Han, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx115 2017

  26. [26]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 2020

  27. [27]

    K., Singh Yadav, R., Subramaniam, A., & Shankar Singh, R

    Dattatrey, A. K., Singh Yadav, R., Subramaniam, A., & Shankar Singh, R. 2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 300, doi: 10.25518/0037-9565.11687

    work page doi:10.25518/0037-9565.11687 2024

  28. [28]

    K., Yadav, R

    Dattatrey, A. K., Yadav, R. K. S., Rani, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acade0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acade0 2023

  29. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2

    Deng, Z.-L., Li, X.-D., Gao, Z.-F., & Shao, Y. 2021, ApJ, 909, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2 2021

  30. [30]

    Dewi, J. D. M., & Tauris, T. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 1043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007034 Di Stefano, R., Kruckow, M. U., Gao, Y., Neunteufel, P. G., & Kobayashi, C. 2023, ApJ, 944, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae9b

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007034 2000

  31. [31]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960 El Eid, M. F., Fricke, K. J., & Ober, W. W. 1983, A&A, 119, 54

    work page doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  32. [32]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/26

    Faigler, S., Kull, I., Mazeh, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/26 2015

  33. [33]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

    Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 2014

  34. [34]

    S., Marley, M

    Freedman, R. S., Marley, M. S., & Lodders, K. 2008, ApJS, 174, 504, doi: 10.1086/521793

    work page doi:10.1086/521793 2008

  35. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2446

    Gao, S.-J., & Li, X.-D. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2446

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2446 2023

  36. [36]

    A., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Webbink, R. F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e 2024

  37. [37]

    Kenyon, S. J. 2015, ApJ, 812, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/167 2015

  38. [38]

    R., & Matson, R

    Guo, Z., Gies, D. R., & Matson, R. A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa978c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa978c 2017

  39. [39]

    1996, ApJL, 470, L97, doi: 10.1086/310303

    Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 1996, ApJL, 470, L97, doi: 10.1086/310303

    work page doi:10.1086/310303 1996

  40. [40]

    V., & Levison, H

    Han, Z., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07713.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07713.x 2004

  41. [41]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., & Eggleton, P. P. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.4.800

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/272.4.800 1995

  42. [42]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    Han, Z.-W., Ge, H.-W., Chen, X.-F., & Chen, H.-L. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161 2020

  43. [43]

    2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 2016

  44. [44]

    The evolution of AGB stars with convective overshoot

    Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007139 2000

  45. [45]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412

    work page doi:10.1086/165412 1987

  46. [46]

    W., Koo, J.-R., et al

    Hong, K., Lee, J. W., Koo, J.-R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdd39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdd39 2021

  47. [47]

    1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    Iben, Jr., I. 1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    work page doi:10.1086/168609 1990

  48. [48]

    G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628874

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628874 2016

  49. [49]

    G., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Tauris, T. M., & Langer, N. 2014a, A&A, 571, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424680

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424680

  50. [50]

    G., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Antoniadis, J. 2014b, A&A, 571, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424681

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424681

  51. [51]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2582 2015

  52. [52]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  53. [53]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  54. [54]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/127

    Jia, K., & Li, X.-D. 2014, ApJ, 791, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/127 2014

  55. [55]

    2004, ApJL, 613, L129, doi: 10.1086/425249

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2004, ApJL, 613, L129, doi: 10.1086/425249

    work page doi:10.1086/425249 2004

  56. [56]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/1/3 2011

  57. [57]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/141 2012

  58. [58]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    King, A. R., Schenker, K., Kolb, U., & Davies, M. B. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 327, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04002.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04002.x 2001

  59. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b8

    Klement, R., Baade, D., Rivinius, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b8 2022

  60. [60]

    G., & Chruslinska, M

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Chruslinska, M. 2021, A&A, 645, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038707

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 2021

  61. [61]

    G., & Pols, O

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Pols, O. 2020, A&A, 638, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037694

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037694 2020

  62. [62]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    work page 1990

  63. [63]

    R., Kilic, M., et al

    Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd187

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd187 2023

  64. [64]

    R., & Gianninas, A

    Kosakowski, A., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Gianninas, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8300 2020

  65. [65]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1975, The classical theory of fields

    work page 1975

  66. [66]

    W., Hong, K., Jeong, M.-J., & Wolf, M

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., Jeong, M.-J., & Wolf, M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c7 2024

  67. [67]

    W., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac075 2022

  68. [68]

    W., Koo, J.-R., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Koo, J.-R., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H. 2020, AJ, 160, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9621

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9621 2020

  69. [69]

    2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    Li, E.-K., Liu, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be 2025

  70. [70]

    2024, Results in Physics, 59, 107568, doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107568

    Li, Z., & Chen, X. 2024, Results in Physics, 59, 107568, doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107568

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107568 2024

  71. [71]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1 2019

  72. [72]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    Lin, J., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/70 2011

  73. [73]

    1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419

    Livio, M., & Soker, N. 1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419

    work page doi:10.1086/166419 1988

  74. [74]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3621 2023

  75. [75]

    2020, NewA, 78, 101363, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363

    Luo, Y. 2020, NewA, 78, 101363, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363 2020

  76. [76]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  77. [77]

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Chiosi, C., & Wood, P. R. 2001, A&A, 371, 152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010309

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010309 2001

  78. [78]

    R., Dhillon, V

    Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., & Duck, S. R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.3.828

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.3.828 1995

  79. [79]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Serenelli, A. M., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1465 2014

  80. [80]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Anderson, D. R., Burleigh, M. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1156, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19567.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19567.x 2011

Showing first 80 references.