Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Detection of Ubiquitous Circumbinary Matter in Hot Subdwarfs Formed from Common-Envelope Ejections

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that roughly 20% of hot subdwarf binaries are surrounded by long-lived circumbinary gas from common-envelope ejections.

desk verdict A bold but under-supported claim of ubiquitous circumbinary matter around hot subdwarfs; worth peer review, but the detection fraction is not yet a measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00822 v1 pith:SJ7SJHC4 submitted 2025-02-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Jiangdan Li , Christian Wolf , Jiao Li , Yangping Luo , Jingkun Zhao , Bingqiu Chen , Lin Zhang , Shi Jia
show 2 more authors
Xuefei Chen Zhanwen Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords hotsubdwarfscommonenvelopeevolutioncircumbinarymatterCaIIKabsorptioncircumstellarmediumbinarystellarLAMOSTsurvey
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

Hot subdwarf (sdB) binaries are thought to form when a binary pair spirals inside a shared common envelope that is then ejected, but direct evidence of the ejected envelope has been hard to find because the event is short-lived. The paper argues that the material does not entirely vanish: about 20% (145 of 727) of sdB candidates in the LAMOST low-resolution sample show Ca II K absorption stronger than the interstellar medium predicts, and the absorbing gas moves at the binary's systemic velocity. Since hot sdB atmospheres cannot produce Ca II K, the excess absorption must come from material around the system. The paper reads this as circumbinary gas ejected during the common-envelope phase that stays gravitationally bound and persists for the roughly $10^8$-year lifetime of the sdB star. If this is right, common-envelope ejecta form a stable, long-lived environment around many compact binaries, turning a transient formation stage into a directly observable one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the Ca II K absorption line at 3934.77 Å. The paper combines three comparisons. First, because sdB atmospheres are too hot to produce Ca II K, the line's equivalent width is compared with the reddening $E(B-V)$ from the Bayestar19 dust map through an ISM-only calibration from OB stars; stars whose equivalent width lies above that relation carry extra absorbing gas. Second, the SED-fit reddening is compared with the three-dimensional dust-map reddening, so a local excess of dust and gas shows up as $\Delta E(B-V) > 0$. Third, the Ca II K radial velocity is compared with the binary's systemic velocity; agreement means the gas is dynamically tied to the binary, not a random interstellar cloud. The Gaussian-fit measurement of the line's equivalent width and velocity is the single measurement that feeds all three tests.

What would settle it

Take high-resolution spectra ($R \gtrsim 10{,}000$) of the Ca II K line in the 145 excess stars and separate the absorption into components. If the excess components appear at interstellar velocities or follow the binary's orbital phase instead of its systemic velocity, the circumbinary interpretation would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that common-envelope ejecta survive around hot subdwarf binaries as a stable, gas-dominated circumbinary envelope. Among 727 sdB candidates from the LAMOST-LRS survey, 145 show Ca II K equivalent widths that exceed the ISM-only relation built from OB stars, and their SED-derived reddening $E(B-V)_{\mathrm{SED}}$ exceeds the Bayestar19 three-dimensional dust-map value $E(B-V)_{\mathrm{Bayestar}}$, with the two excesses tracking each other. The Ca II K radial velocities cluster around the binary systemic velocities, including a detailed nine-epoch orbital fit for PG0848+186 in which the line velocity stays constant while the star moves. The paper concludes that the excess absorption traces circumbinary material ejected during the common-envelope phase, that it persists for up to $\sim 10^8$ years rather than dissipating on planetary-nebula timescales, and that it forms a wedge-shaped, anisotropic envelope with opening angle $\pm 11.5^\circ$, radius roughly 14,000$-$31,000 AU, and mean hydrogen column density $7.6\times10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of 145 stars with circumstellar matter rests on the assumption that the reddening excess measured by SED fitting over the three-dimensional dust map comes from material around the star, and not from errors in the dust map, the single-star SED model, or the distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, common-envelope ejecta are not always transient: a significant fraction of sdB binaries retain bound, gas-dominated circumbinary envelopes for the full $\sim 10^8$ years of the sdB phase.
  • Under the wedge geometry with opening angle $\pm 11.5^\circ$, the 20% detection rate reflects line-of-sight orientation, so the true occurrence of long-lived envelopes among sdB binaries could be considerably higher.
  • The estimated envelope radius (about 14,000$-$31,000 AU) and low mean column density ($7.6\times10^{20}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$) imply the material is tenuous and mostly gaseous, consistent with the absence of infrared excess in WISE photometry.
  • The constant Ca II K velocity across nine epochs for PG0848+186, while the star's velocity varies with a 0.53-day orbit, shows the absorbing material is circumbinary rather than orbiting with the visible star.
  • Na I D and K I lines track the interstellar medium, while Ca II K traces the hotter inner circumstellar gas, so Ca II K can serve as a population-level tracer of post-common-envelope environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A geometric corollary the paper leaves implicit: if the wedge angle is $\pm 11.5^\circ$ and orientations are random, the 20% detection fraction implies that long-lived circumbinary envelopes could surround close to 100% of sdB binaries, making the phenomenon the norm rather than the exception.
  • The same excess-plus-velocity test could be applied to other post-common-envelope populations, such as sdO binaries or detached white-dwarf binaries, to see whether envelope survival time depends on the mass of the ejected envelope, orbital period, or companion type.
  • If the envelope is really dust-free gas at $\sim 10^4$-$10^5$ AU scales, it should be detectable in radio recombination lines or free-free continuum; a detection would independently confirm the mass and geometry inferred from Ca II K.
  • A falsifying check the paper does not carry out: compare the Ca II K excess rate in sdB binaries against a control sample of single hot stars with no common-envelope history; a similar excess rate there would weaken the CE interpretation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Ca II K absorption in 727 hot subdwarf (sdB) candidates from LAMOST-LRS DR7, focusing on 623 stars with measurable lines. It constructs an ISM baseline EW(Ca II K) versus E(B-V) from 284 OB stars and identifies 145 sdBs whose Ca II K absorption exceeds this baseline and whose SED-derived reddening exceeds the Bayestar19 3D dust-map reddening. The authors interpret these 145 stars as hosts of circumbinary material ejected during a common-envelope phase, argue from the approximately 20% detection fraction that such material is ubiquitous and long-lived, and use the detection fraction and an assumed remnant mass to estimate a wedge geometry and a radius of 14015-31338 AU. They also compare Ca II K radial velocities with binary systemic velocities, including a nine-epoch orbital solution for PG0848+186, and analyze Na I D and K I lines to separate ISM from CSM contributions.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the paper would provide a large, homogeneous sample of common-envelope remnants around hot subdwarf binaries, with implications for common-envelope physics, binary evolution, and the persistence of circumbinary material. The study has notable strengths: a large and carefully vetted LAMOST sample, visual inspection of spectra, the use of two quasi-independent diagnostics (equivalent-width excess and SED-versus-dust-map reddening excess), a control sample of OB stars, and a multi-epoch orbital analysis of one target. However, the central claim is currently not established because the detection sample is defined by the same excess criteria later used to infer ubiquity, the ISM baseline depends on the completeness of a smoothed 3D dust map, and the radial-velocity evidence has insufficient precision to distinguish CSM from ISM. The wedge-angle and mass/radius estimates are model-dependent rather than empirical.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 5.1] The 145-star sample is constructed by requiring both EW(Ca II K) above the ISM relation of Eq. (2) and E(B-V)_SED > E(B-V)_Bayestar. The 'ubiquity' fraction of about 20% quoted in Section 5.1 and the abstract is therefore the fraction of the 727 stars that pass these specific thresholds, not an independent measurement of the circumbinary matter fraction. The selection is not shown to be a >3-sigma excess: the uncertainties in E(B-V)_SED listed in Table 1 are not propagated into the E(B-V)_SED - E(B-V)_Bayestar threshold, and the EW excess threshold is likewise not quantified in units of its uncertainty. I request a threshold-robustness analysis, e.g., the detection fraction as a function of EW-excess significance and SED-excess significance, and explicit wording that the 20% is conditional on the adopted selection criteria.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 3.3] The entire excess interpretation rests on Bayestar19 fully capturing interstellar reddening and on the SED fit being unbiased. Bayestar19 is a smoothed 3D map and can miss compact ISM clouds at the distances and latitudes of these sdBs; a star behind such a cloud would show exactly the observed pattern, namely Ca II K EW above Eq. (2) and E(B-V)_SED above E(B-V)_Bayestar, with no circumbinary matter required. The external validation uses only 23 LAMOST OB stars and reports that 87% fall in the 95% confidence band, which is not a stringent goodness-of-fit test. In addition, the SED fit assumes a single sdB photosphere (Section 3.3); unresolved cool companions or continuum misnormalization can bias E(B-V)_SED upward. The paper should test the ISM hypothesis directly, for example with high-resolution Ca II K and Na I component structure, or with distance-resolved dust maps along each sight line, before interpreting the 145 stars as common-envelope ejecta.
  3. [Sections 5.2 and 6.2] The kinematic support is too weak to distinguish CSM from ISM. The mean Ca II K radial-velocity uncertainty is about 24.9 km/s (Section 6.2), and for the best-case target PG0848+186 the Ca II K velocity is -13.3 +/- 32.4 km/s, consistent with both the systemic velocity (-29.2 +/- 3.1 km/s) and zero within 1 sigma. The statement that the lines 'confirm' a common-envelope origin is therefore overstated. Stacking spectra of many targets, or obtaining higher-resolution data for a subsample, is needed to show that the absorbing gas follows the binary systemic velocity rather than the local ISM velocity field.
  4. [Section 6.1] The quoted radius (14015-31338 AU) and wedge angle (+/- 11.5 degrees) are not empirical measurements. The wedge angle is derived from the 20% detection fraction, the column density is derived from the same reddening excess under an assumed gas-to-dust ratio, and the radius is derived from an assumed remnant common-envelope mass of 0.1-0.5 M_sun. This is a consistency check of a model, not a determination, and should be presented as such rather than as a headline result in the abstract and conclusion. An independent geometric constraint, such as time-variable line profiles or occultation signatures, is needed before these numbers can be quoted as measured properties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract and conclusion state that circumbinary material is a 'universal feature' or 'ubiquitous', which conflicts with the 20% detection fraction; the paper should say 'common' and explicitly note that 80% of the sample shows no detectable excess.
  2. [Table 1 and Data Availability] Table 1 lists column definitions only; the full 727-row data table is not included in the manuscript and is only available upon request. For reproducibility, the complete machine-readable table should be published as supplementary material.
  3. [Equations (3) and (4)] The typesetting of Equations (3) and (4) makes it difficult to distinguish exponents from multiplicative factors; the equations should be rewritten with explicit powers and parentheses.
  4. [Section 6.2] The argument that subtracting the ISM contribution is 'unnecessary' because the mean EW error (0.23 A) exceeds the ISM contribution (0.1 A) is not logically valid; the relevant comparison is between the excess EW and the ISM EW, not between the measurement error and the ISM EW.
  5. [Figure 3] The statement that 87% of the control OB stars fall within the 95% confidence band is not a formal goodness-of-fit statistic; the paper should report the scatter or chi-square of the control sample around Eq. (2).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 20% ubiquity fraction is the selection fraction by construction, and the mass/radius estimate folds that same fraction back in as the wedge angle.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 and Section 5.1]
    "This selection resulted in a final sample of 145 sdB stars for further analysis. ... We identified 145 sdB stars, approximately 20% of the 727 candidates, exhibiting Ca II K absorption that exceeds ISM predictions and the reddening excess than the reddening from 3D dustmaps."

    The 145 stars are defined in Section 3.3 by the two criteria: Ca II K equivalent width above the ISM relation and E(B-V)_SED > E(B-V)_Bayestar. Section 5.1 then reports 145/727 = 20% as an observational detection fraction and uses that fraction to argue that circumbinary matter is long-lived. The fraction is the output of the selection, not an independent population statistic; changing the thresholds would change the reported ubiquity. The claim 'approximately 20% of the 727 candidates exhibit...' is therefore a restatement of the sample definition rather than an independent measurement.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, 'Mass and Radius of Circumbinary Material']
    "The 20% detection rate suggests a partial solid-angle filling factor... Based on the observed fraction of stars exhibiting Ca II K absorption, we assume the wedge angle is approximately ±11.5◦. ... Assuming a uniform distribution of material within a wedge-like circumbinary disk with a wedge angle of ±11.5◦, we estimate the ejected mass using a mean column density of 1.8×10−3 g cm−2. ... we estimate the radius of the circumbinary material to be between 31338 AU and 14015 AU."

    The wedge angle is not measured; it is inferred from the same 20% detection fraction that was produced by the Section 3.3 selection. The radius estimate then uses that wedge angle together with an assumed remnant mass and the same mean column density derived from the selection variable E(B-V)_SED - E(B-V)_Bayestar. Thus the quoted radius range is a restatement of the input detection fraction and assumed mass, converted into a length scale by an adopted geometry. The 'predicted' circumbinary radius is therefore forced by the detection fraction used to calibrate the wedge angle, rather than being an independent constraint.

full rationale

The paper is not circular in its basic spectroscopic detection: the Ca II K excess is measured against an ISM relation calibrated on OB stars, and the reddening excess uses an independent SED fit against the Bayestar19 3D dust map. Those are independent diagnostics, so individual candidate identification is not definitionally circular. The circularity enters in the population claim and the physical characterization. First, the headline 'approximately 20% of the 727 candidates' is literally the number of stars that survive the sample-selection filters in Section 3.3, and the same number is then presented as evidence of ubiquity and long-lived CE material; it is a selection fraction, not an independent detection rate. Second, the mass/radius estimate in Section 6.1 calibrates the wedge angle from that same 20% fraction and then uses the wedge angle to predict the radius, so the radius is a repackaged version of the detection fraction plus assumed mass. The unpublished self-citation for the gas-to-dust ratio ('Li et al., in preparation') is load-bearing only for the mass/radius estimate, which is already circular, and not for the central detection; I therefore do not count it as a separate circular step. Systematic risks such as Bayestar19 missing small-scale ISM structure or the single-star SED assumption biasing E(B-V)_SED are correctness concerns, not circularity, and are not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on a chain of assumptions: Ca II K is not intrinsic to sdB stars; the OB-star ISM baseline transfers to sdB sightlines; the 3D dust map captures all ISM reddening; the SED fit is single-star; and the detection fraction can be read as a geometric covering fraction. The wedge angle and gas-to-dust ratio are adopted or fitted inputs. No new physical entities are introduced beyond the inferred wedge geometry.

free parameters (4)
  • ISM EW_CaK baseline intercept and slope = 0.52 +/- 0.06 A/mag; 0.07 +/- 0.01 A
    Linear fit to Megier et al. (2009) OB stars for E(B-V)<0.5, used as the ISM expectation in Eq. (2); stars above this line are labeled CSM candidates.
  • Gas-to-dust ratio (GDR) = 2.80(+0.37/-0.34) x 10^21 cm^-2 mag^-1
    Adopted in Section 4.1 from 'Li et al., in preparation' (not in reference list); converts the reddening excess into hydrogen column density and mass.
  • Wedge opening angle = +/-11.5 degrees
    Inferred from the observed 20% detection fraction in Section 6.1, then used to estimate the circumbinary mass and radius.
  • Remnant CE mass = 0.1 to 0.5 solar masses
    Assumed range in Section 6.1 based on CE simulations; entered into the radius estimate, not measured.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ca II K absorption is not intrinsic in sdB spectra
    Section 3.2 relies on Gray & Corbally (2009): at Teff > 20000 K, calcium is mostly Ca III, so Ca II K must arise in ISM or CSM.
  • domain assumption The OB-star EW_CaK vs E(B-V) relation is a valid ISM baseline for sdB sightlines
    Section 3.2 fits the baseline to Megier et al. (2009) OB stars and validates with only 23 LAMOST OB stars (87% in band); application to sdB lines of sight assumes the same ISM relation.
  • domain assumption Bayestar19 3D dust map fully represents line-of-sight ISM reddening
    Section 3.3 attributes E(B-V)_SED minus E(B-V)_3D entirely to CSM; if the dust map is biased low, the excess is not circumstellar.
  • domain assumption The sdB star contributes 100% of the light in SED fitting
    Section 3.3 needs a single-star photosphere to derive E(B-V)_SED; relies on Luo et al. (2021) composite-binary exclusion, which may not remove all faint companions.
  • ad hoc to paper The 20% detection fraction maps directly to a covering fraction and lifetime
    Section 5.1 compares 20% with PNe dispersal timescales to argue for about 10^8 yr survival; this ignores sensitivity, geometry, and the fact that the detection fraction is set by the selection criteria.
  • ad hoc to paper The wedge model geometry follows from the detection fraction
    Section 6.1 assumes a biconical wedge of +/-11.5 degrees based on the observed detection rate, then uses this geometry for mass and radius estimates.
invented entities (1)
  • Wedge-shaped circumbinary envelope
    purpose: Geometric model to convert the observed detection fraction into a covering fraction and then into mass and radius estimates.
    No direct imaging or independent kinematic evidence is provided; the wedge angle is set by the detection fraction itself (Section 6.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of Ubiquitous Circumbinary Matter in Hot Subdwarfs Formed from Common-Envelope Ejections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJ7SJHC4

@misc{pith2026250200822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of Ubiquitous Circumbinary Matter in Hot Subdwarfs Formed from Common-Envelope Ejections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJ7SJHC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00822}
}
read the original abstract

The formation of compact binary systems is largely driven by their evolution through a common envelope (CE) phase, crucial for understanding phenomena such as type Ia supernovae and black hole mergers. Despite their importance, direct observational evidence for CE material has been elusive due to the transient nature of these envelopes. Numerical simulations suggest that some envelope material may persist post-ejection. In this study, we investigate circumstellar material (CSM) surrounding hot subdwarf (sdB) stars, focusing on material ejected during the CE phase of binary evolution. We analyze Ca II K absorption lines in 727 sdB candidates from the LAMOST-LRS survey, selecting 145 stars with strong absorption features, indicating the presence of CSM. We compare the velocities of the Ca II K lines with the systemic velocities of sdB binaries, confirming that the material originates from ejected common-envelope material. The results show that the CSM persists long after the CE event, suggesting the formation of a stable, long-lived circumstellar environment around sdB stars. This study enhances our understanding of the role of CSM in post-CE evolution and provides new insights into the physical processes shaping the evolution of sdB binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00822 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present a randomly selected sdB spectrum from LAMOST-LRS, designated J073228.7+330237.5 in the J2000 frame, with a 𝑔-band SNR of approximately 71.46. Panel (a) presents the wavelength range 3 900–4 000 Å, featuring the Ca II H & K lines (3 969.59 and 3 934.77 Å) along with the strong H𝜀 line at 3 971.20 Å, where the Ca II H line is blended with H𝜀 due to the spectral resolution (∼1800). Panel (b) displays the ran… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of Gaussian fitting applied to the spectrum of an sdB star from LAMOST-LRS. The upper panel displays the observed spectrum over the wavelength range of 3 900–3 960 Å. Black dots mark the analysis range for the Ca II K spectral line, including the line core, its wings, and the surrounding continuum. The red curve represents the Gaussian fit to the Ca II K line. The lower panel shows the residuals, illustra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The correlation between the equivalent width (𝐸𝑊CaK) of the Ca II K line and the reddening extinction coefficient 𝐸 (𝐵−𝑉). Gray symbols represent OB stars from Megier et al. (2009), with the dashed line indicating a linear fit that reflects the typical ISM relationship between 𝐸𝑊CaK and 𝐸 (𝐵− 𝑉). The shaded region shows the 95% confidence interval around this fit. Red squares represent sdB stars observed by LAMOST-L… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The difference in 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) between the values derived from SED fitting and those from the Bayestar 3D dust map. Black dots represent the 623 sdBs with detectable Ca II K absorption lines, while red stars indicate sdBs with large Ca II K EWs that lie above the linear f…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 𝑇eff–log 𝑔 diagram for hot subdwarf stars. The thick gray solid lines indicate the zero-age extreme horizontal branch (ZAEHB) and terminal age extreme horizontal branch (TAEHB) (Dorman et al. 1993), as well as the zero-age helium main sequence (ZAHeMS) (Paczyński 1971)…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial velocity difference distributions. Figure compares the radial velocity differences between the Ca II K lines and the spectra across various samples: the red solid line represents sdBs with strong Ca II K lines, the black dashed-dotted line corresponds to sdBs wi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial velocity curve fit for PG0848+186. Black dots represent the phased radial velocities from LAMOST-LRS, and the black dashed line is the best-fit model. The orbital parameters are eccentricity 𝑒 = 0, primary star amplitude 𝐾1 = 29.1±4.1 km/s, and systemic velocity…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relationship between the RV of the model for CSM and the calculated RV from the Ca II K line spectra. Black circles represent the RV correlation when the EW ratio of CSM to ISM is 2 (black dashed line). Red squares indicate the correlation at an EW ratio of 3 (red …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    Blagorodnova N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..107B 834, 107

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/107 2017

  4. [4]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., 2019, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1093/mnras/stz549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2075B 486, 2075

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  5. [5]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., Soubiran C., Heiter U., Jofr \'e P., 2014, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569A.111B 569, A111

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

  6. [6]

    C., Savage B

    Bohlin R. C., Savage B. D., Drake J. F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..132B 224, 132

    doi:10.1086/156357 1978

  7. [7]

    G., Frank A., Carroll-Nellenback J., Tu Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4028C 495, 4028

    Chamandy L., Blackman E. G., Frank A., Carroll-Nellenback J., Tu Y., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.4028C 495, 4028

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1273 2020

  8. [8]

    Chen X., Liu Z., Han Z., 2024, @doi [Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics] 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PrPNP.13404083C 134, 104083

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Clayton M., Podsiadlowski P., Ivanova N., Justham S., 2017, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1093/mnras/stx1290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470.1788C 470, 1788

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Cui X.-Q., et al., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12.1197C 12, 1197

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    T., O'Connell R

    Dorman B., Rood R. T., O'Connell R. W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...419..596D 419, 596

    1993 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Petigura E

    Fulton B. J., Petigura E. A., Blunt S., Sinukoff E., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130d4504F 130, 044504

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Marsh T

    Geier S., Raddi R., Gentile Fusillo N. P., Marsh T. R., 2019, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A..38G 621, A38

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2659G 507, 2659

    Glanz H., Perets H. B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507.2659G 507, 2659

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Gonz \'a lez-Bol \' var M., De Marco O., Lau M. Y. M., Hirai R., Price D. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3181G 517, 3181

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    O., Corbally Christopher J., 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    Gray R. O., Corbally Christopher J., 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    2009

  10. [18]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Han Z., Podsiadlowski P., Maxted P. F. L., Marsh T. R., Ivanova N., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05752.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336..449H 336, 449

    2002

  12. [20]

    Han Z., Podsiadlowski P., Maxted P. F. L., Marsh T. R., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341..669H 341, 669

    2003

  13. [21]

    Han Z.-W., Ge H.-W., Chen X.-F., Chen H.-L., 2020, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RAA....20..161H 20, 161

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Heber U., 2009, @doi [Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA&A..47..211H 47, 211

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Heber U., 2016, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128h2001H 128, 082001

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Henden A., Munari U., 2014, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014CoSka..43..518H 43, 518

    2014

  17. [25]

    J., Beers T

    Hettinger T., Badenes C., Strader J., Bickerton S. J., Beers T. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/806/1/L2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...806L...2H 806, L2

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Hoadley K., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature.] 10.1038/s41586-020-2893-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020Natur.587..387H 587, 387

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Hubeny I., Lanz T., 1995, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.] 10.1086/175226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...439..875H 439, 875

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    Iaconi R., De Marco O., Passy J.-C., Staff J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2349I 477, 2349

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Ivanova N., Nandez J. L. A., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1093/mnras/stw1676 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462..362I 462, 362

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Ivanova N., Podsiadlowski P., 2003, in Hillebrandt W., Leibundgut B., eds, From Twilight to Highlight: The Physics of Supernovae. p. 19 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0210368 ), @doi 10.1007/10828549_3

    2003 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ivanova N., et al., 2013a, @doi [The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review.] 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...59I 21, 59

    doi

  24. [32]

    L., Lombardi J

    Ivanova N., Justham S., Avendano Nandez J. L., Lombardi J. C., 2013b, @doi [Science.] 10.1126/science.1225540 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...339..433I 339, 433

    doi

  25. [33]

    Ivanova N., Justham S., Ricker P., 2020, Common Envelope Evolution , @doi 10.1088/2514-3433/abb6f0

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Khouri T., Vlemmings W. H. T., Tafoya D., P \'e rez-S \'a nchez A. F., S \'a nchez Contreras C., G \'o mez J. F., Imai H., Sahai R., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01528-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..275K 6, 275

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Park H.-J., Kim Y

    Koo J.-R., Lee Y. S., Park H.-J., Kim Y. K., Beers T. C., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...35K 925, 35

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Kramer M., Schneider F. R. N., Ohlmann S. T., Geier S., Schaffenroth V., Pakmor R., R \"o pke F. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038702 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A..97K 642, A97

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Kupfer T., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425213 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...576A..44K 576, A44

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    Y., Vergely J

    Lallement R., Welsh B. Y., Vergely J. L., Crifo F., Sfeir D., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...411..447L 411, 447

    2003 doi

  31. [39]

    Lanz T., Hubeny I., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.s] 10.1086/374373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJS..146..417L 146, 417

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Dor \'e O., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...38L 846, 38

    Lenz D., Hensley B. S., Dor \'e O., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...38L 846, 38

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Li J., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1093/mnras/stac1768 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.3370L 515, 3370

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Liu C., et al., 2015, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RAA....15.1137L 15, 1137

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    Luo Y., N \'e meth P., Wang K., Wang X., Han Z., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.s] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac11f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..256...28L 256, 28

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    B., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09496.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363..911L 363, 911

    Lynn B. B., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09496.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363..911L 363, 911

    2005

  37. [45]

    MacLeod M., Macias P., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Grindlay J., Batta A., Montes G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835..282M 835, 282

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Kre owski J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/20079144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507..833M 507, 833

    Megier A., Strobel A., Galazutdinov G. A., Kre owski J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/20079144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...507..833M 507, 833

    2009 doi

  39. [47]

    M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A..25M 588, A25

    Miller Bertolami M. M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526577 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A..25M 588, A25

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Morrissey P., et al., 2007, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.s] 10.1086/520512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..682M 173, 682

    2007 doi

  41. [49]

    Munari U., Zwitter T., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...318..269M 318, 269

    1997

  42. [50]

    Murga M., Zhu G., M \'e nard B., Lan T.-W., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1093/mnras/stv1277 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452..511M 452, 511

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Paczy \'n ski B., 1971, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971AcA....21....1P 21, 1

    1971

  44. [52]

    73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems

    Paczynski B., 1976, in Eggleton P., Mitton S., Whelan J., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems. p. 75

    1976

  45. [53]

    Passy J.-C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...744...52P 744, 52

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    K., De Marco O., 2023, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023LRCA....9....2R 9, 2

    R \"o pke F. K., De Marco O., 2023, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023LRCA....9....2R 9, 2

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    T., Schneider F

    Sand C., Ohlmann S. T., Schneider F. R. N., Pakmor R., R \"o pke F. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A..60S 644, A60

    2020 doi

  48. [57]

    D., Bohlin R

    Savage B. D., Bohlin R. C., Drake J. F., Budich W., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155471 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...216..291S 216, 291

    1977 doi

  49. [58]

    N., Geier S., Kupfer T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.182S 666, A182

    Schaffenroth V., Pelisoli I., Barlow B. N., Geier S., Kupfer T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.182S 666, A182

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  51. [60]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  52. [61]

    Sch \"o nrich R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21631.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..274S 427, 274

    2012

  53. [62]

    Sch \"o nrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.403.1829S 403, 1829

    2010

  54. [63]

    R., Howk J

    Sembach K. R., Howk J. C., Ryans R. S. I., Keenan F. P., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...528..310S 528, 310

    2000 doi

  55. [64]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  56. [65]

    V., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07074.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..119S 346, 119

    Smoker J. V., et al., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07074.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..119S 346, 119

    2003

  57. [66]

    V., Keenan F

    Smoker J. V., Keenan F. P., Fox A. J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...582A..59S 582, A59

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    Steinmetz T., Kami \'n ski T., Schmidt M., Kiljan A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347818 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A.127S 682, A127

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    Tylenda R., et al., 2011, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201016221 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...528A.114T 528, A114

    2011 doi

  60. [69]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    Vos J., et al., 2012, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219723 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...548A...6V 548, A6

    2012 doi

  62. [71]

    H., N \'e meth P., Green E

    Vos J., stensen R. H., N \'e meth P., Green E. M., Heber U., Van Winckel H., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322200 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..54V 559, A54

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    H., Vu c kovi \'c M., Van Winckel H., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A.109V 605, A109

    Vos J., stensen R. H., Vu c kovi \'c M., Van Winckel H., 2017, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics.] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A.109V 605, A109

    2017 doi

  64. [73]

    Wang S., Chen X., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..116W 877, 116

    2019 doi

  65. [74]

    F., 1975, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK

    Webbink R. F., 1975, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK

    1975

  66. [75]

    L., Dreizler S., Nagel T., Rauch T., Schuh S

    Werner K., Deetjen J. L., Dreizler S., Nagel T., Rauch T., Schuh S. L., 2003, in Hubeny I., Mihalas D., Werner K., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling. p. 31 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0209535 )

    2003 arXiv

  67. [76]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [Astronomical Journal.] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [Astronomical Journal.] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  68. [77]

    Xiang M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..66X 662, A66

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    Zhao G., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., Jing Y.-P., Deng L.-C., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12..723Z 12, 723

    2012 doi

  70. [79]

    M., 2006, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.0602277103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PNAS..10312274Z 103, 12274

    Ziurys L. M., 2006, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.0602277103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PNAS..10312274Z 103, 12274

    2006 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.