Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Rapid Orbital Decay of Supersoft X-Ray Source WX Cen: a Surrounding Circumbinary Disk

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WX Cen's rapid orbital decay is driven by a low-mass circumbinary disk.

desk verdict Solid negative results on standard AML for WX Cen; the CB-disk scenario is plausible but fitted rather than demonstrated, with Applegate cycles and dynamical friction still live alternatives. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21364 v1 pith:V44BGRX5 submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR

Zhi-Qiang Liu , Wei-Min Liu , Wen-Cong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords circumbinarydiskorbitaldecaysupersoftX-raysourceswhitedwarfbinariesmasstransfertidaltorqueTypeIasupernovaeeclipsetiming
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

WX Cen is a binary white dwarf and donor star whose orbit is shrinking at a surprisingly fast rate. The paper argues that standard angular-momentum-loss mechanisms—gravitational radiation, mass loss during accretion, and three flavors of magnetic braking—each contribute only a small fraction of the observed period decay. It proposes that a circumbinary disk with a mass around 2.5×10^-7 solar masses extracts orbital angular momentum through resonant tidal interaction, and shows with stellar evolution models that such a disk reproduces the observed period derivative while driving a mass-transfer rate high enough to sustain stable hydrogen burning on the white dwarf. If correct, this makes WX Cen a promising Type Ia supernova progenitor and a clean test bed for disk-driven angular-momentum loss in compact binaries.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the resonant interaction between the binary and a circumbinary disk, which produces a tidal torque that removes orbital angular momentum. The torque is parametrized as Jdot_cb = -M_cb α (H/R)^2 (a^3/R) Ω^2, leading to an orbital period derivative Pdot_cb = -6π M_cb α (H/R)^2 (a/R) (1/μ), where μ is the reduced mass. With α=0.1, H/R=0.1, and the disk spanning from 1.7a to 10a, the period derivative scales with the disk mass and inversely with μ. The paper incorporates this torque into a binary evolution code that treats the white dwarf as a point mass, follows the donor's nuclear evolution and Roche-lobe overflow, and includes gravitational radiation, standard magnetic br

What would settle it

Continue observing eclipse minima of WX Cen for longer than one magnetic activity cycle to check whether the period derivative remains constant or oscillates, and simultaneously search for the predicted mid-infrared excess from the circumbinary disk's outer region. Absence of the infrared excess at the predicted luminosity (about 2×10^34 erg/s) or a period derivative that reverses sign would rule out the disk mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed rapid orbital decay of WX Cen originates from the tidal torque of a surrounding circumbinary disk, not from magnetic braking, gravitational radiation, or mass-loss-driven angular momentum loss. In the best-fitting stellar evolution model, a white dwarf of 0.84 solar masses, a donor star of 1.0 solar masses, an initial orbital period of 3.26 days, and a circumbinary disk of 2.5×10^-7 solar masses evolve into a WX Cen-like state. At the current orbital period of 0.417 days, the model gives an orbital period derivative of about -4.0×10^-7 days/yr, consistent with the observed -4.4±0.4×10^-7 days/yr, and a mass-transfer rate of 5.3×10^-7 solar masses/yr, wh

Load-bearing premise

The measured period derivative of -4.4×10^-7 days/yr is a genuine secular orbital decay, not a temporary modulation from magnetic activity cycles in the donor star; if it is partly or wholly cyclic, the circumbinary disk is not needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the disk explanation holds, the observed orbital decay becomes a direct measure of disk-driven angular momentum loss, allowing the disk mass to be inferred from eclipse-timing data alone.
  • The high mass-transfer rate of 5.3×10^-7 solar masses/yr supports stable hydrogen burning on the white dwarf and possible growth toward the Chandrasekhar limit, strengthening the pathway from supersoft X-ray sources to Type Ia supernovae.
  • The disk's outer regions should produce a detectable mid-infrared excess, providing an observational test independent of period measurements.
  • Continued eclipse timing over multiple magnetic activity cycles can distinguish true secular decay from cyclic modulations; a steady, monotonic decay favors the disk scenario.
  • The same mechanism may explain other short-period binaries with anomalously fast orbital decay, such as certain cataclysmic variables and low-mass X-ray binaries.
  • A longer timing baseline and infrared photometry can directly test the model's predictions.
  • The disk mass inferred is small enough that even a modest disk could have escaped previous detection.
  • If the disk is fed by ongoing mass loss, its mass—and hence the torque—could evolve, producing a measurable change in the decay rate over time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The model's success depends on a specific initial binary configuration and a disk mass within a fairly narrow range; a wider grid of initial conditions would show whether such outcomes are rare or common.
  • If magnetic activity cycles are later confirmed as the cause of the period change, the circumbinary disk would be unnecessary; the discriminating observation is whether the period derivative is constant or oscillates.
  • The assumption of a constant disk mass is an idealization; if the disk is fed by mass loss from the binary, its mass and torque could evolve over time, producing a measurable variation in the decay rate.
  • The quoted disk mass depends sensitively on the assumed viscous parameters α and H/R; independent constraints from infrared observations could shift the required mass by an order of magnitude.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the rapid orbital decay of the supersoft X-ray source WX Cen, at Pdot = -(4.4±0.4)×10^-7 days/yr, cannot be explained by gravitational radiation, mass-loss-induced angular momentum loss, or three variants of magnetic braking. It then proposes that a circumbinary disk of mass ~2.5×10^-7 Msun exerts a resonant tidal torque that drives the decay. Using MESA binary evolution models, the authors construct a WD + low-mass MS progenitor that evolves into a system matching the observed period, period derivative, WD mass, and donor mass in Case B, while also yielding a mass-transfer rate ~5.3×10^-7 Msun/yr, high enough for steady hydrogen burning. The paper explicitly discusses, but does not eliminate, two competing interpretations: cyclic Applegate-type modulation of the observed Pdot and dynamical friction from nova shell ejecta.

Significance. If the circumbinary disk interpretation is correct, the paper would identify a viable angular-momentum-loss mechanism for a puzzling supersoft source and support the proposed SSS -> Type Ia supernova channel. The negative results for standard AML mechanisms are clean, internally consistent, and worth publishing as a constraint. The paper also provides reproducible MESA inlists (Zenodo), which is commendable. However, the positive claim is currently a calibration rather than a prediction: the disk mass and initial conditions are chosen to reproduce the target Pdot, and the printed disk-torque equations appear dimensionally inconsistent. The result therefore has the status of a plausible scenario, not a demonstrated explanation.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (12) and Eq. (13)] The central equations are dimensionally inconsistent. Eq. (12) yields units of g cm^4/s^2 rather than g cm^2/s^2, and Eq. (13) has a dimensionless RHS (M_cb/μ times dimensionless parameters), so it cannot produce a period derivative in days/yr. Consequently, the numerical curves in Figure 2, the value M_cb=2.5×10^-7 Msun, J_cb=-1.2×10^38 g cm^2/s^2, L_cb=2.1×10^34 erg/s, and T_eff≈5900 K in §6.1 are not reproducible from the stated formulas. This is load-bearing; the authors need to correct the equations and re-run the quantitative analysis.
  2. [§5.3 with §5.1, Eq. (13)] The claim that the model 'predicts' Pdot=-4.0×10^-7 days/yr is circular. Eq. (13) is linear in M_cb, and M_cb is selected so that the CB-disk torque matches the observed Pdot; the best MESA model is then chosen from a grid by requiring agreement with P, Pdot, M_wd and M_d. Thus the simulated Pdot is a fit parameter, not an independent prediction. The detectability estimate in §6.1 uses this same M_cb. To support the mechanism, the authors need an independent constraint on M_cb (e.g., from infrared excess or disk-evolution timescales) or a scan showing the result is robust across a physically motivated range of M_cb, α, and H/R.
  3. [§6.2.1] The empirical input itself is not established as secular. The paper notes that an Applegate-type cycle, with a ~1000 G donor field, could produce the observed Pdot and that 'long-term detection ... could confirm or rule out this mechanism'; however, it does not perform such a test. The two published values, -5.15×10^-7 days/yr (2013) and -4.4×10^-7 days/yr (2023), differ by ~0.8×10^-7 days/yr in the direction expected for a cyclic component superposed on slower secular decay. If the quadratic term is not statistically distinct from a cyclic fit, the CB-disk mass and all derived quantities shrink or disappear. This needs to be addressed with a quantitative comparison of quadratic vs. cyclic ephemerides using the full timing dataset.
  4. [§6.2.2] The non-uniqueness of the proposed mechanism is acknowledged but not resolved. The paper shows that dynamical friction, with a plausible ejecta rate of 5×10^-8 Msun/yr, can also reproduce Pdot≈4.1×10^-7 days/yr and can likewise drive a high mass-transfer rate. Thus the rapid decay does not uniquely require a CB disk. A falsifiable discriminator is needed—e.g., predicted mid-IR excess and its angular scale for the CB disk versus a recent/ongoing nova shell for dynamical friction—or the conclusion should be moderated from 'the cause' to 'one viable mechanism.'
  5. [§5.3, Figure 5] The best model's donor effective temperature is 4600–4900 K at the current period, whereas the observed temperature of WX Cen is ~5782 K. The paper attributes this difference to CB-disk emission, but no radiative-transfer or SED model is supplied to show that a disk with M_cb=2.5×10^-7 Msun can raise the effective temperature to the observed value without violating the observed optical/infrared colors. This discrepancy affects the 'WX Cen-like' validation and needs to be quantified rather than asserted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.1] The phrase 'According to equation (3)' introducing Eq. (13) is incorrect; the reference should be to the orbital-period derivative equation (Eq. 4 or 5), not the eclipse condition.
  2. [Figures 4 and 5] The axis labels in the draft contain LaTeX/PDF encoding artifacts (e.g., '/s51', '/s46'). These should be cleaned in the final version.
  3. [§5.3] The paper states that for Cases A and C 'the initial parameters can be tuned' but presents no such models. If only Case B is simulated, this should be stated more explicitly in the abstract, since the current abstract describes a general 'WD binary when M_cb=2.5×10^-7 Msun' without noting the case dependence.
  4. [§6.1] In L_cb = -2π J_cb/P, the sign convention is confusing: since J_cb is negative, L_cb is positive, but the minus sign is not explained. Please clarify whether L_cb is the energy dissipated in the disk or the work done on the disk.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed Pdot agreement is the fit target: M_cb is scanned until the simulated Pdot matches the observed value, and the T_eff check is a consequence of that same fitted M_cb.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§5.1–5.3, Eq. (13); Figs. 3 and 4]
    "A CB disk with a mass of ∼10−7 M⊙ can account for the orbital period derivative observed in WX Cen. ... If a simulation can reproduce the observed (orbital period and orbital-period derivative) ... we then fine-tune ... Our simulations find ... when M_cb = 2.5×10−7 M⊙ ... the orbital period derivative ... is −4.0×10−7 days yr−1, which is consistent with the observed one."

    Eq. (13) makes Pdot_cb proportional to M_cb, and the MESA grid explicitly uses agreement with the observed Pdot as a selection criterion before fine-tuning initial parameters. The quoted 'predicted' Pdot ≈ −4.0×10−7 days yr−1 is therefore the target of the fit, not an independent model output. The abstract's statement that a 2.5×10−7 M⊙ disk 'can evolve toward a WX Cen-like system' with that Pdot is a restatement of the fitted value.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§6.1, Detectability of the CB disk]
    "In Case B (taking M_d = 0.5 M⊙), the current rate of AML by the CB disk with M_cb = 2.5×10−7 M⊙ is Jdot_cb = −1.2×10^38 g cm^2 s^−2, hence L_cb = 2.1×10^34 erg s−1. ... the effective temperature at the inner edge of the CB disk can be derived to be T_eff = [L_cb/(σ A)]^{1/4} ≈ 5900 K, which is close to the effective temperature (5782.5^{+161.9}_{−21.5} K) detected in WX Cen."

    M_cb = 2.5×10−7 M⊙ was chosen so Eq. (13) reproduces the observed Pdot. Because L_cb = (2π/P)|Jdot_cb| and Jdot_cb is fixed by Eq. (5) once Pdot is matched, L_cb and T_eff are re-expressions of the same fitted M_cb plus the assumed emitting area A = πr_in^2 (r_in = 1.7a). The closeness to the Gaia T_eff is therefore a consistency check of the assumed geometry, not an independent detection or prediction that validates the CB disk.

full rationale

The paper's main numerical result—that a CB disk of 2.5×10−7 M⊙ yields Pdot ≈ −4.0×10−7 days yr−1—is obtained by scanning M_cb and initial binary parameters until the simulated system matches the observed P, Pdot, and masses. Since Eq. (13) is linear in M_cb, the 'predicted' Pdot is the fit target; this is a genuine, though partial, circularity. The §6.1 temperature estimate inherits the same fitted M_cb, so its agreement with the Gaia effective temperature is not an independent test. Equation (12) is attributed to the authors' prior work (Chen & Podsiadlowski 2019), but this is an explicit published model rather than a hidden uniqueness theorem, so I do not count that attribution as an additional circular step beyond the fit. On the other hand, the mass-transfer rate (5.3×10−7 M⊙ yr−1), the comparison to the stable-hydrogen-burning threshold, and the mid-infrared emission prediction are outputs that go beyond the fitted Pdot, and the paper explicitly admits magnetic-activity cycles and dynamical friction as alternative explanations. Those admissions weaken the uniqueness of the CB-disk attribution but are not themselves circularity. The input Pdot possibly being non-secular (Applegate) is a data-interpretation caveat, not a derivation-circularity. Score 6 reflects that the central 'prediction' reduces by construction to the fitted M_cb, without making the whole paper's argument merely definitional.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central scenario rests on a heavy, unobserved circumbinary disk whose mass and viscous parameters are chosen to reproduce the observed orbital decay; the torque law is taken from the authors' own earlier work. Standard orbital mechanics and the MESA code are uncontroversial inputs.

free parameters (8)
  • CB disk mass M_cb = 2.5×10^-7 M_sun (best model); analytic estimate ~10^-7 M_sun
    Tuned so that Eq. (13) and the MESA model reproduce the observed Pdot; no independent measurement.
  • Viscous parameter α = 0.1
    Assumed 'for simplicity' in §5.1; Pdot_cb ∝ M_cb α(H/R)^2.
  • Disk aspect ratio H/R = 0.1
    Assumed in §5.1; degenerates with M_cb and α.
  • Mass ejection fraction β = 0.9
    Used in Eq. (8) to estimate the mass-loss AML contribution; chosen as an extreme case.
  • WD mass-growth efficiency η = 0.1
    Time-average efficiency assumed in MESA runs (§5.2); the paper explicitly calls the accumulation efficiencies 'highly uncertain'.
  • Reimers wind scaling factor = 1.0
    Chosen wind scheme in MESA (§5.2); affects donor mass and orbital evolution.
  • Best-model initial parameters (M_wd,i, M_d,i, P_i) = 0.84 M_sun, 1.0 M_sun, 3.26 d
    Selected from a grid and 'fine-tuned' to match observed properties (§5.3).
  • CB disk boundary radii r_in=1.7a, r_out=10a
    Adopted from Oomen et al. 2020; sets R = sqrt(r_in r_out) ≈ 4.12a in Eq. (13).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CB disk torque formula (Eq. 12) and Pdot expression (Eq. 13) from Chen & Podsiadlowski 2019
    Imported from prior literature; not derived in this paper. Author W.-C. Chen is a co-author of the source paper.
  • domain assumption The donor fills its Roche lobe and the eclipse condition (Eq. 3) implies i > 70°
    Standard Roche geometry; used to constrain donor masses in §2.
  • domain assumption The measured Pdot is secular (not an Applegate cycle)
    Assumed throughout; the Applegate alternative is acknowledged but not quantitatively excluded in §6.2.1.
  • domain assumption MESA r-12115 correctly simulates the binary evolution, with the WD treated as a point mass
    Standard tool, but the point-mass WD approximation ignores nova/outburst details; the paper notes the accretion-efficiency estimates are uncertain.
  • domain assumption Stable hydrogen burning on the WD requires Mdot ~ 1e-7 M_sun/yr
    From Kahabka & van den Heuvel 1997; used to argue the model's Mdot is sufficient.
  • standard math Kepler's laws and standard orbital AML equations (Eqs. 4–7)
    Basic binary orbital mechanics; uncontroversial.
invented entities (1)
  • Circumbinary disk around WX Cen (M_cb ≈ 2.5×10^-7 M_sun) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides tidal torque that removes orbital angular momentum to explain the observed Pdot; also provides a high mass-transfer rate for stable hydrogen burning.
    Not directly detected; the paper predicts an observable mid-infrared excess and a ~5900 K inner-edge temperature (§6.1), which makes the hypothesis falsifiable. The prediction is, however, derived from the same fitted disk mass.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapid Orbital Decay of Supersoft X-Ray Source WX Cen: a Surrounding Circumbinary Disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V44BGRX5

@misc{pith2026260721364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapid Orbital Decay of Supersoft X-Ray Source WX Cen: a Surrounding Circumbinary Disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V44BGRX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21364}
}
abstract

WX Cen is most likely a candidate of compact binary supersoft X-ray sources, which consists of a white dwarf (WD) and a donor star that fills the Roche lobe. Recently, this source was detected to be experiencing a rapid orbital decay at a rate of $\dot{P} =-(4.4\pm0.4)\times10^{-7}~ \rm days~\rm{yr}^{-1}$. According to the mass function and optical eclipses, the donor-star mass can be constrained to be $0.41-0.44$, $0.47-0.50$, and $0.55-0.59~M_\odot$ when the WD mass is $0.7$, $0.9$, and $1.2~M_\odot$, respectively. The observed orbital period derivative cannot be produced by the angular momentum loss due to mass loss during the accretion of the WD, magnetic braking (MB) mechanisms, including standard MB, convection and rotation-enhanced MB, and anomalous MB prescriptions. We propose that the rapid orbital decay of WX Cen is caused by the tidal torque that originates from the resonant interaction between the binary and a surrounding circumbinary (CB) disk. Detailed stellar evolution models indicate that a WD binary with a $2.5 \times 10^{-7}~M_{\odot}$ CB disk can evolve toward a WX Cen-like system, which has an orbital period derivative of $\dot{P}=-4.0\times10^{-7}~ \rm days~\rm{yr}^{-1}$ and a relatively high mass-transfer rate of $5.3\times10^{-7}~M_\odot\rm yr^{-1}$ that can trigger a stable hydrogen burning process on the surface of the WD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relation between sin i and Md for WX Cen drived from the WD mass function. The blue, green, and orange curves correspond to WD masses of 0.7, 0.9, and 1.2 M⊙, respectively. Solid curves represent the parameter range that can result in optical eclipses. 0.1 1.0 10.0 1/ (M 1 ) 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 P (d a ys y r 1 ) Mcb =1.0×10 6 M Mcb =1.0×10 7 M Mcb =1.0×10 8 M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Predicted orbital-period derivatives by surround￾ing CB disks in the P˙ cb vs. 1/µ diagram under different CB-disk masses. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves cor￾respond to CB-disk masses of 10−7 , 10−6 , and 10−8 M⊙, respectively. Three solid circles with error bars represent the WX Cen-like system with two-components’ masses same to Cases A, B, and C. Our simulations find that a WD binary with Mwd,i = 0.84 M⊙, M… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of a WD binary with Mwd,i = 0.84 M⊙, Md,i = 1.0 M⊙, and Pi = 3.26 days in the orbital period vs. stellar age diagram. The solid, dashed, and dotted curves correspond to CB disk masses of 2.5 × 10−7 , 2.5 × 10−6 , and 2.5 × 10−8 M⊙, respectively. The horizontal dashed-dotted line and solid circle represent the current orbital period of WX Cen and the onset of the mass transfer, respectively. such a high eff… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Applegate, J. H. 1992, ApJ, 385, 621, doi: 10.1086/170967

    doi:10.1086/170967 1992

  2. [2]

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

    Chen, H.-L., Tauris, T. M., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2022, ApJ, 925, 89, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bb6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3bb6 2022

  3. [3]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 305, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11032.x

    Chen, W.-C., & Li, X.-D. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 305, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11032.x

    arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    2006, ApJ, 649, 973, doi: 10.1086/506433

    Chen, W.-C., Li, X.-D., & Qian, S.-B. 2006, ApJ, 649, 973, doi: 10.1086/506433

    work page doi:10.1086/506433 2006

  5. [5]

    2017, ApJL, 837, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa624a —

    Chen, W.-C., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2017, ApJL, 837, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa624a —. 2019, ApJL, 876, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1b44

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa624a 2017

  6. [6]

    P., & Steiner, J

    Diaz, M. P., & Steiner, J. E. 1995, AJ, 110, 1816, doi: 10.1086/117653

    work page doi:10.1086/117653 1995

  7. [7]

    J., Freeman, K

    Eggen, O. J., Freeman, K. C., & Sandage, A. 1968, ApJL, 154, L27, doi: 10.1086/180261 Gaia Collaboration. 2022, Gaia Data Release 3 (Gaia DR3) Part 1 Main source, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/355. https: //vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=I/355

    work page doi:10.1086/180261 1968

  8. [8]

    1996, Supersoft X-Ray Sources, Vol

    Greiner, J. 1996, Supersoft X-Ray Sources, Vol. 472, doi: 10.1007/BFb0102238

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0102238 1996

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    1999, ApJ, 519, 314, doi: 10.1086/307370

    Hachisu, I., Kato, M., Nomoto, K., & Umeda, H. 1999, ApJ, 519, 314, doi: 10.1086/307370

    1999 doi

  2. [11]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae64d

    Han, Z.-T., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 868, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae64d

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    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

    2013 doi

  4. [13]

    2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09907.x

    Justham, S., Rappaport, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1415, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09907.x

    2006

  5. [14]

    Kahabka, P., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 69, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.69

    1997 doi

  6. [15]

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

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

    2004 doi

  7. [16]

    1994, ApJ, 424, 319, doi: 10.1086/173891

    Kovetz, A., & Prialnik, D. 1994, ApJ, 424, 319, doi: 10.1086/173891

    1994 doi

  8. [17]

    Li, X.-D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 322, L9

    1997

  9. [18]

    2019, ApJ, 870, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf19f

    Liu, W.-M., & Li, X.-D. 2019, ApJ, 870, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf19f

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    S., Helfand, D

    Long, K. S., Helfand, D. J., & Grabelsky, D. A. 1981, ApJ, 248, 925, doi: 10.1086/159222

    1981 doi

  11. [20]

    P., & Mauerhan, J

    Muno, M. P., & Mauerhan, J. 2006, ApJL, 648, L135, doi: 10.1086/507990

    2006 doi

  12. [21]

    S., & Steiner, J

    Oliveira, A. S., & Steiner, J. E. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 685, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07817.x

    2004

  13. [22]

    2020, A&A, 642, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038341

    Oomen, G.-M., Pols, O., Van Winckel, H., & Nelemans, G. 2020, A&A, 642, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038341

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    1998, PASP, 110, 380, doi: 10.1086/316147

    Patterson, J., Kemp, J., Shambrook, A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 380, doi: 10.1086/316147

    1998 doi

  15. [24]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    A., & Yungelson, L

    Postnov, K. A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-3

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    2013, ApJL, 772, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L18

    Qian, S.-B., Shi, G., Fern´ andez Laj´ us, E., et al. 2013, ApJL, 772, L18, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/772/2/L18

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713, doi: 10.1086/161569

    1983 doi

  23. [32]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369 Rapid Orbital Decay of WX Cen: a Surrounding Circumbinary Disk11 R´ eville, V., Brun, A

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369 Rapid Orbital Decay of WX Cen: a Surrounding Circumbinary Disk11 R´ eville, V., Brun, A. S., Matt, S. P., Strugarek, A., &

    1975

  24. [33]

    Pinto, R. F. 2015, ApJ, 798, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/116

    2015 doi

  25. [34]

    Shen, K. J. 2015, ApJL, 805, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L6

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    J., & Bildsten, L

    Shen, K. J., & Bildsten, L. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1365, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1365

    2009 doi

  27. [36]

    C., & Taam, R

    Spruit, H. C., & Taam, R. E. 2001, ApJ, 548, 900, doi: 10.1086/319030

    2001 doi

  28. [37]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Taam, R. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2001, ApJ, 561, 329, doi: 10.1086/322331

    2001 doi

  29. [38]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09388

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Tout, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 1988, MNRAS, 231, 823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/231.4.823

    1988 doi

  31. [40]

    X., & Ivanova, N

    Van, K. X., & Ivanova, N. 2019, ApJL, 886, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab571c van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1994, in Saas-Fee Advanced Course 22: Interacting Binaries, ed. S. N. Shore, M. Livio, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, H. Nussbaumer, & A. Orr, 263–474 van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Bha...

    2019 doi

  32. [41]

    Rappaport, S. A. 1992, A&A, 262, 97 van den Heuvel, E. P. J., & De Loore, C. 1973, A&A, 25, 387 van der Hucht, K. A., Conti, P. S., Lundstrom, I., &

    1992

  33. [42]

    1981, SSRv, 28, 227, doi: 10.1007/BF00173260

    Stenholm, B. 1981, SSRv, 28, 227, doi: 10.1007/BF00173260

    1981 doi

  34. [43]

    1981, A&A, 100, L7

    Verbunt, F., & Zwaan, C. 1981, A&A, 100, L7

    1981

  35. [44]

    2014, ApJ, 788, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/184

    Wang, X., & Wang, Z. 2014, ApJ, 788, 184, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/2/184

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    2023, A&A, 679, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346397

    Wei, N., Jiang, L., & Chen, W.-C. 2023, A&A, 679, A74, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346397

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe91

    Xu, X.-T., & Li, X.-D. 2018, ApJ, 859, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe91

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    2014, AJ, 147, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/145

    Yang, Y.-G., Yang, Y., & Li, S.-Z. 2014, AJ, 147, 145, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/145

    2014 doi

  39. [48]

    2023, ApJ, 944, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb52f

    Zang, L., Qian, S., & Fern´ andez-Laj´ us, E. 2023, ApJ, 944, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb52f

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.