Binary evolution at the extremes of mass-transfer efficiency: Contact, mergers, and population signatures

Fabian R. N. Schneider; Jan Henneco; Utkarsh R. Basu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 137 references

Binary evolution at the extremes of mass-transfer efficiency: Contact, mergers, and population signatures

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fully conservative mass transfer increases contact incidence by a factor of six and stellar mergers by more than a factor of two, implying that mass-transfer efficiency is configuration-dependent.

desk verdict A useful two-extreme grid with an honest caveat, but the comparison is not a pure variation of mass-transfer efficiency because rotation and tides were dropped along with it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05001 v1 pith:WVWBRJBO submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.SR

Jan Henneco , Utkarsh R. Basu , Fabian R. N. Schneider This is my paper

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords mass-transferefficiencybinaryevolutioncontactbinariesstellarmergerscommonenvelopephasesAlgolstripped-starpopulationsynthesis

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

This paper asks whether the efficiency of mass transfer between stars in a binary—the fraction of transferred mass the companion actually keeps—can be treated as a single number. To answer it, the authors computed a grid of binary evolution models identical to an earlier grid in which accretion was choked by the spin-up of the accreting star, except that here mass transfer is fully conservative: everything transferred is accreted. The one-to-one comparison shows that this single change raises the incidence of contact phases by roughly a factor of six, from 11% to 62% of mass-transferring binaries, and of stellar mergers by more than a factor of two, from 16% to 38%. It also creates a new class of double-core common-envelope configurations. When the two grids are turned into synthetic populations and compared with observed Algol and stripped-star binaries, no single mass-transfer efficiency reproduces both, so the paper concludes that efficiency is set by the configuration of each binary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is a new grid of 5,957 one-dimensional binary evolution models sampled identically to an earlier grid in initial primary mass (0.8–20.0 solar masses), initial mass ratio (0.1–0.97), and orbital separation (covering Case A, early/late Case B, and Case C mass transfer), with the two grids differing only in how mass transfer is treated. In the rotation-limited-accretion grid, the secondary stops accreting at 97% of critical rotation and loses the rest; in the fully conservative grid, no rotation or tides are modelled, so accretion is never quenched and transferred mass is retained. The comparison isolates the effect of mass-transfer efficiency through physical outcomes (accretor expansion, runaway mass transfer, L2-overflow) and, for the population-level comparison, through an observation probability that includes eclipses and a constant star-formation birth weight.

What would settle it

Run a third grid with fully conservative accretion while keeping rotation and tides; if its contact incidence falls well below 62% toward the 11% level, the large change is not an effect of mass-transfer efficiency alone. Alternatively, measure the mass ratios of long-period Algols: if their mass ratios match fully conservative predictions, the claimed need for configuration-dependent efficiency would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that fully conservative mass transfer is not a mild adjustment but a qualitative switch in binary fate. With rotation-limited accretion, most initially wide Case-B systems keep their companions from growing and avoid contact; with fully conservative mass transfer, the accretor expands on a thermal timescale, fills its Roche lobe, and drives the system into contact—often in wide configurations containing two giant-like stars (double-core common envelopes) that never appear in the rotation-limited grid. Counting outcomes with birth probabilities for solar-metallicity binaries with initial primary masses 4.8–20.8 solar masses, contact incidence rises from 11% to 62% and merger incidence from 16% to 38%, the latter treated as an upper limit that may still be underestimated. Comparing synthetic populations with observed Algols and stripped-star binaries, conservative transfer is favoured by stripped-star systems, while longer-period Algols require lower efficiency; the paper concludes that mass-transfer efficiency depends on binary configuration and cannot be a single value.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes the two grids differ only in mass-transfer efficiency, but the fully conservative grid also leaves out rotation and tides, which change stellar radii and orbital evolution by themselves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For solar-metallicity binaries with 4.8–20.8 solar-mass primaries, the stellar merger fraction is bracketed between about 16% and 38%, so merger and transient rates inherit at least a factor-of-two uncertainty from mass-transfer efficiency alone.
Conservative mass transfer is favoured for forming observed stripped-star binaries, while Algol binaries with orbital periods beyond about 3 days favour low efficiency; population models that assume one global efficiency will mis-match one of these populations.
Fully conservative mass transfer produces contact through accretion expansion in initially wide systems, including double-core common envelopes, which standard one-giant common-envelope channels do not produce.
Case-A contact binaries with mass ratio below about 0.5 merge through L2-overflow, while more equal-mass systems can avoid it, offering an explanation for why massive contact binaries are observed almost exclusively near equal masses.
Physically motivated accretion prescriptions—for example derived from 3D simulations—are needed in 1D binary codes to cover the range of configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the fully conservative grid also drops rotation and tides, part of the factor-of-six contact increase may come from those omissions rather than from mass-transfer efficiency; a grid with conservative accretion plus rotation would test this.
If efficiency is indeed configuration-dependent, then published population syntheses that assume a constant efficiency parameter are systematically biased in their predicted rates of mergers, common envelopes, and stripped-star binaries, not just in their detailed distributions.
An intermediate-efficiency grid (e.g., half of the transferred mass accreted) with rotation and tides could simultaneously match stripped-star and Algol populations; its failure would strengthen the paper's conclusion that no single efficiency works.
The 38% merger incidence counts only first-contact mergers and excludes common-envelope mergers, so the true merger fraction may exceed the upper bracket; cluster observations of merger products (blue stragglers, chemically peculiar stars) could provide an external check.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is a genuinely useful dataset: a 5957-model MESA grid with fully conservative mass transfer, sampled identically to the rotation-limited-accretion grid of Paper I, with input files and results on Zenodo. The double-core common-envelope outcome and the two-population (Algol vs stripped-star) comparison are new and worth following up. Second, the headline numbers do not mean what the abstract sounds like they mean. The factor-6 contact increase and factor-2 merger increase are confounded because the FCMT grid drops rotation and tides entirely; the authors say so in Section 3.1, noting that non-rotating models have smaller radii and the Case-A/Be boundary shifts. So the grids differ not only in mass-transfer efficiency but in which systems transfer mass at all and how much tidal torques keep accretion conservative. The stress-test note is on point.

That said, the paper is largely honest about its limits. It flags the caution for Case-Bl/C contact results, the post-hoc assignment of numerical-issue models, and the small long-period Algol sample. The qualitative conclusion—that a single mass-transfer efficiency cannot explain both observed stripped-star binaries and Algols—rests on the population comparison, which is more robust than the incidence percentages. I think the central conclusion survives, but the response to the confound needs to be quantitative: e.g., how much of the factor-6/2 changes with a low-rotation but tide-inclusive grid, or with the excluded systems reclassified.

Soundness: I'd rate it credible but not fully verified. It's model output with plausible machinery, and the confound is real. However, the paper deserves a serious referee because the grid is a resource and the double-core CE finding is novel. I'd send it to review, asking for the sensitivity analysis on rotation/tides and on the numerical-issue assignments.

For whom: binary stellar evolution folks, especially those doing population synthesis. I'd probably cite it when discussing mass-transfer efficiency brackets, but with the confound in mind. A good critical read for a journal club, though not a settle-the-question paper.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new grid of 5,957 1D MESA binary evolution models computed under fully conservative mass transfer (FCMT) and compares it to an earlier grid from Henneco et al. (2024) that employed rotation-limited accretion (RLA). The authors report that FCMT raises the incidence of contact phases among mass-transferring binaries from about 11% to 62% and the stellar merger incidence from 16% to 38%, introduces double-core common-envelope phases, and shifts the mass-ratio distributions of Algol and stripped-star populations. They combine the two grids into synthetic populations and compare them with observed Algol, sdOB+Be, and contact binaries, concluding that no single mass-transfer efficiency can explain all observed systems and that the efficiency depends on binary configuration.

Significance. If the reported factors are correct, this is a significant contribution to binary evolution: it brackets the merger fraction in the 4.8–20.8 solar-mass range between 16% and 38%, identifies a new channel (double-core CEs) that is absent in RLA models, and provides a clear falsifiable distinction between the two limiting mass-transfer efficiencies. The work is technically careful: the grid is large, the input physics is documented in detail, and the full outcome table and input files are publicly released on Zenodo. The paper also explicitly acknowledges several limitations of the FCMT setup, which is to its credit. However, the headline quantitative claims are not fully supported because the FCMT grid differs from the RLA grid in more than just mass-transfer efficiency.

major comments (4)

[Section 2 (first paragraph) and Section 3.1] The paper repeatedly describes the comparison as a one-to-one test of mass-transfer efficiency, but the FCMT grid was computed without rotation and, consequently, without tides, while the RLA grid includes both. Section 3.1 explicitly states that the Case-A/Be boundary shifts because non-rotating models have smaller radii, so some systems that undergo mass transfer in the RLA grid do not undergo mass transfer at all in the FCMT grid. Thus the factor-of-6 contact increase and the factor-of-2 merger increase in the abstract and Section 3.4 conflate mass-transfer efficiency with the presence/absence of rotation and tides. This is load-bearing because these factors are the central quantitative claims. The authors should either repeat the FCMT grid with rotation and tides included (while keeping accretion fully conservative), or reframe the comparison as two different model sets with different physical assumptions and remove the unqualified 'one-to-one comparison' from the abstract and conclusions.
[Section 2 (first paragraph) and Section 2.1] Beyond rotation and tides, the FCMT grid also changes the numerical treatment of accretor overfilling: the authors state that they now allow the model to continue evolving by switching to the contact scheme once the accretor overfills its Roche lobe, regardless of the donor's evolutionary state, and they no longer limit the accretion rate to alleviate numerical issues. These are additional differences between the two grids that are not part of the physical mass-transfer efficiency. The abstract's statement that the grids have 'identical initial conditions' is true only in the sense of the initial orbital-parameter sampling; the model physics and stopping criteria differ. The quantitative comparison should be labeled as comparing two model variants, not isolating the efficiency parameter.
[Section 3.4 and Fig. 2] The incidence numbers (62% vs 11% for contact; 38% vs 16% for mergers) depend on how models with numerical issues are classified: the figure caption states that such models are 'assigned expected outcomes based on their position in the initial mass ratio-separation plane.' Since 8% of FCMT models and 21% of RLA models are affected, the reported factors are sensitive to this ad-hoc assignment. The paper provides no robustness test. The authors should bracket the incidences by, for example, assigning all numerical-issue models to contact/merger versus no-contact/no-merger, or by showing the incidences with these models excluded. Without such a sensitivity analysis, the precision of the factor-of-6 and factor-of-2 claims is overstated.
[Section 4.3, Fig. 7] The conclusion that 'the observed population of Algol binaries cannot be explained by a single mass-transfer efficiency' is based on a qualitative comparison of 90% contours with a heterogeneous observed sample. In the critical long-period region (P_orb ≳ 30 d), the comparison rests on only three systems (W Crucis, RX Cassiopeiae, and SX Cassiopeiae). The paper should provide a quantitative measure of overlap (e.g., a likelihood or a two-sample test) and should discuss how the selection function for the observed Algols is modeled beyond the eclipse bias. This is not fatal for the qualitative conclusion, but it would strengthen the claim and is needed because the observed sample is small in the region that drives the conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Section 2.3] Typo: 'the reader is refereed to Izzard & Halabi (2018)' should be 'the reader is referred to Izzard & Halabi (2018)'.
[Section 2.1] Stopping condition (2) reads 'the accretor overfilled its Roche lobe by more than its own Roche-lobe radius R_RL,2'; this is ambiguous and should be rephrased as 'by more than its Roche-lobe radius' or 'by an amount exceeding R_RL,2'.
[Section 3.4 and Fig. 2] The sunburst chart is dense and the percentages in the text are not all immediately traceable to the figure; please add a table or a more detailed legend mapping each percentage to the corresponding slice, especially for the 9% classical CE and 25% double-core CE values.
[References] The citation 'Jin et al. (2026)' appears without a journal or status (accepted, in press, or in preparation); please update the reference entry or mark it as submitted, and do the same for any other items without publication details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the contact and merger incidences are emergent MESA grid outcomes, the Algol and stripped-star comparison is an external benchmark, and the self-citations to Paper I are independent computational evidence.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are genuine computational outcomes of two separately computed MESA grids, not reductions of outputs to inputs. The abstract's factor-of-6 contact increase (11% to 62%) and factor-of-2 merger increase (16% to 38%) are emergent results: despite fully conservative accretion being the defining assumption of the FCMT grid, Section 3.4 reports that 17% of mass-transferring systems in that grid still avoid contact, so the 62% figure is not implied by the conservative-mass-transfer definition alone; it depends on computed accretor thermal responses, orbital evolution, and the sampled initial-parameter space. No parameter is fitted to the observed Algol or stripped-star data; Section 4.3 overlays external compilations (Sen et al. 2022; Lechien et al. 2025) onto independently constructed 2D PDFs, and the paper openly reports systems (HR 6819, HR 2142) that match neither extreme of mass-transfer efficiency, which would be impossible if the conclusions were forced by construction. The RLA baseline (11%, 16%) is taken from Paper I (Henneco et al. 2024), a same-group prior grid, but this self-citation is real evidence under the review rules: it is a code-reproduced, parameter-free computational result with stated assumptions that do not include the present target results, and the present paper computes the comparison grid fresh rather than re-deriving Paper I's numbers. The legitimate weakness - that the FCMT grid also omits rotation and tides ('by not modelling rotation', 'we did not model the effect of tides'), shifting the Case-A/Be boundary because non-rotating models 'have, in general, smaller radii' - is a confounding-variables and validity concern about attributing the incidence changes to mass-transfer efficiency alone, not a circularity: the 62% value is not equivalent by definition to the 100% accretion assumption, and the paper discloses the confound explicitly in Sections 2 and 3.1. The double-core CE category is a classification following Ropke & De Marco (2023), not a renamed prediction, and the concluding claim that a single mass-transfer efficiency cannot explain both Algol and stripped-star populations follows from an external two-population comparison rather than from the grid definitions. The comparison against observed contact binaries (Section 3.5), stripped stars, and Algols makes the work self-contained against external benchmarks, so no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central claims rest on MESA models with adopted microphysics parameters, on the premise that removing rotation and tides isolates mass-transfer efficiency, and on post-hoc assignment of numerical-issue models. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

alpha_mlt (mixing length parameter) = 2.0
Adopted from Paxton et al. (2013); sets convective envelope structure and hence stellar radii that control Roche-lobe filling.
alpha_sc (semi-convective mixing efficiency) = 10.0
Adopted from Schootemeijer et al. (2019); affects envelope mixing and mass-transfer stability.
alpha_th (thermohaline mixing efficiency) = 1.0
Adopted from Marchant et al. (2021); affects surface chemistry of accretors.
convective boundary mixing overshoot lengths = 0.20 Hp (H-burning cores), 0.05 Hp (convective envelopes), 0.005 Hp (post-MS cores)
Adopted from Martinet et al. (2021), Angelou et al. (2020), and Marchant et al. (2021); sets core sizes and donor radii.
mass-transfer efficiency = 1.0 (fully conservative)
The defining extreme of this grid; not fitted to observations, but the central variable under study.
metallicity and helium abundance = Z=0.0142, Y=0.2703
Solar composition input from Asplund et al. (2009); affects stellar structure and wind mass loss.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption All models remain in hydrostatic equilibrium; dynamical-timescale mass transfer is not simulated
Section 2.1 disables MESA's implicit hydro solver. Contact and merger outcomes are therefore inferred from 1D criteria rather than simulated dynamically.
domain assumption L2-overflow in contact configurations implies a merger or common-envelope phase
Section 3: 'When L2-overflow occurs in a contact binary, this typically leads to a stellar merger or a common envelope phase.' Used to convert contact models into merger counts.
domain assumption The contact scheme is applicable to Case-Be, and to a lesser extent Case-Bl and Case-C, mass transfer
Section 2.1 justifies Case-Be usage 'to an extent' and cautions that results past the onset of contact in Case-Bl and Case-C should be interpreted with caution.
domain assumption Omitting rotation and tides leaves the one-to-one comparison with Paper I valid
Section 2 claims identical initial conditions; Section 3.1 admits the Case-A/Be boundary shifts because non-rotating models have smaller radii, so the grids differ in more than mass-transfer efficiency.
ad hoc to paper Models with numerical issues can be assigned outcomes from their position in the initial parameter plane
Figure 2 caption states numerical-issue models are assigned expected outcomes based on the initial mass ratio-separation plane; this feeds the reported incidence percentages.
domain assumption Population weighting uses a Kroupa IMF and uniform mass ratio and log-period distributions
Section 2.3: birth probabilities follow Paper I equations; the incidence statistics depend on these assumed formation distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binary evolution at the extremes of mass-transfer efficiency: Contact, mergers, and population signatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVWBRJBO

@misc{pith2026260805001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binary evolution at the extremes of mass-transfer efficiency: Contact, mergers, and population signatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVWBRJBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05001}
}

read the original abstract

Binary star evolution remains inherently uncertain, and several physical processes are not well understood. These open questions in binary physics come in addition to major uncertainties in single-star evolution, such as angular momentum transport and interior mixing. For example, the efficiency of mass transfer (MT) -- which is the fraction of transferred mass that is actually accreted -- is one of the main uncertainties in binary evolution. We present a grid of 1D binary evolution models with identical initial conditions to an earlier grid in which MT was limited by the spin-up of the accretors. Now we employ fully conservative MT, allowing for a one-to-one comparison between the two grids, and covering the full range from highly non-conservative to fully conservative MT. We explore how these two maximally different MT efficiencies change the occurrence and incidence of contact phases, stellar mergers and common envelope phases, and how they affect the present-day population of (post-)mass-transferring binaries. We find that fully conservative MT increases the incidence of contact systems by roughly a factor of 6 (from 11% to 62%), and the stellar merger incidence by more than a factor of 2 (from 16% to 38%). We also find the emergence of double-core CE phases, which are absent for lower MT efficiencies. Comparing two synthetic binary populations built using the two grids with observed Algol and stripped-star binaries reveals that even though conservative MT is favoured to reproduce the observed stripped-star binaries, the observed population of Algol binaries cannot be explained by a single MT efficiency. We conclude that the MT efficiency depends on the configuration of binary systems and cannot be described by a single value. Our work highlights the need for a better understanding of binary MT and indicates that current binary-star models are incomplete.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05001 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Sunburst charts showing the percentages of contact tracing outcomes for mass-transferring binary systems with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Probability density function (PDF) of Case-A contact bi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Occurrence of Algols, stripped star binaries, and contact systems with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of 1D probability density functions (PDFs) of the theoretical mass ratio ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of 2D probability density functions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

R., Müller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al

Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Müller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A134

2023
[2]

2007, A&A, 463, 233

Ak, H., Chadima, P., Harmanec, P., et al. 2007, A&A, 463, 233

2007
[3]

1989, A&A, 215, 272

Andersen, J., Pavlovski, K., & Piirola, V . 1989, A&A, 215, 272

1989
[4]

C., Bellinger, E

Angelou, G. C., Bellinger, E. P., Hekker, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4987

2020
[5]

Armitage, P. J. & Livio, M. 1998, ApJ, 493, 898

1998
[6]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

2009
[7]

G., Gies, D

Bagnuolo, Jr., W. G., Gies, D. R., Hahula, M. E., Wiemker, R., & Wiggs, M. S. 1994, ApJ, 423, 446

1994
[8]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

2016

Show all 137 references

[9]

A., Kilkenny, D., & Malcolm, G

Bell, S. A., Kilkenny, D., & Malcolm, G. J. 1987, MNRAS, 226, 879

1987
[10]

1995, A&A, 297, 727

Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 297, 727

1995
[11]

2020, A&A, 641, A43 Böhm-Vitense, E

Bodensteiner, J., Shenar, T., Mahy, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A43 Böhm-Vitense, E. 1958, ZAp, 46, 108

2020
[12]

2015, MNRAS, 448, 3784

Budding, E., Butland, R., & Blackford, M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3784

2015
[13]

2004, A&A, 417, 263

Budding, E., Erdem, A., Çiçek, C., et al. 2004, A&A, 417, 263

2004
[14]

& Pejcha, O

Cehula, J. & Pejcha, O. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 471

2023
[15]

Claeys, J. S. W., de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., Eldridge, J. J., & Baes, M. 2011, A&A, 528, A131

2011
[16]

Cox, J. P. & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure (Gordon and Breach)

1968
[17]

Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177

2007
[18]

& Fang, Y .-L

Dalcin, L. & Fang, Y .-L. L. 2021, Computing in Science & Engineering, 23, 47 Dalcín, L., Paz, R., & Storti, M. 2005, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Com- puting, 65, 1108 de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Hilditch, R. W. 2007, A&A, 467, 1181

2021
[19]

Deloye, C. J. & Taam, R. E. 2010, ApJ, 719, L28

2010
[20]

1993, Ap&SS, 208, 85 Djuraševi´c, G., Vince, I., Khruzina, T

Djurasevic, G. 1993, Ap&SS, 208, 85 Djuraševi´c, G., Vince, I., Khruzina, T. S., & Rovithis-Livaniou, E. 2009, MN- RAS, 396, 1553

1993
[21]

R., Götberg, Y ., Ludwig, B

Drout, M. R., Götberg, Y ., Ludwig, B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287

2023
[22]

2024, A&A, 685, A58

Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2024, A&A, 685, A58

2024
[23]

Evans, R. G. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 517

1974
[24]

W., Alexander, D

Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585

2005
[25]

J., Bodensteiner, J., Rivinius, T., et al

Frost, A. J., Bodensteiner, J., Rivinius, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, L3

2022
[26]

A., Chen, X., et al

Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Chen, X., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 7

2023
[27]

A., Chen, X., et al

Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Chen, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 254

2024
[28]

F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40

2015
[29]

F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2020, ApJ, 899, 132, aDS Bibcode: 2020ApJ...899..132G

2020
[30]

& Shenar, T

Gilkis, A. & Shenar, T. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3541 Götberg, Y ., de Mink, S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A78

2023
[31]

1996, A&A, 312, 879

Harmanec, P., Morand, F., Bonneau, D., et al. 1996, A&A, 312, 879

1996
[32]

J., Hilditch, R

Harries, T. J., Hilditch, R. W., & Howarth, I. D. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 157

2003
[33]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357

2020
[34]

Hastings, B., Langer, N., Wang, C., Schootemeijer, A., & Milone, A. P. 2021, A&A, 653, A144

2021
[35]

2020, A&A, 633, A165

Hastings, B., Wang, C., & Langer, N. 2020, A&A, 633, A165

2020
[36]

2016, PASP, 128, 082001

Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001

2016
[37]

Henneco, J., Schneider, F. R. N., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 682, A169

2024
[38]

W., Hill, G., & Lister, T

Hilditch, R. W., Hill, G., & Lister, T. A. 2007, The Observatory, 127, 33

2007
[39]

W., Howarth, I

Hilditch, R. W., Howarth, I. D., & Harries, T. J. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 304

2005
[40]

L., Nordsieck, K

Hoffman, J. L., Nordsieck, K. H., & Fox, G. K. 1998, AJ, 115, 1576

1998
[41]

2025, A&A, 697, A239

Hovis-Afflerbach, B., Götberg, Y ., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 697, A239

2025
[42]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

2007
[43]

2013, New A, 25, 68

Ibanoglu, C., Çakırlı, Ö., & Sipahi, E. 2013, New A, 25, 68

2013
[44]

Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752

1993
[45]

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

1996
[46]

2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59

Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59

2013
[47]

2024, ApJ, 971, 64

Ivanova, N., Kundu, S., & Pourmand, A. 2024, ApJ, 971, 64

2024
[48]

Izzard, R. G. & Halabi, G. M. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.06883

2018 arXiv
[49]

2021, A&A, 646, A33

Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Mahy, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A33

2021
[50]

Jin, H., Langer, N., Ercolino, A., & de Mink, S. E. 2026, A comprehensive grid of massive binary evolution models for the Galaxy: Surface properties of post- mass-transfer stars

2026
[51]

2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg)

Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg)

2013
[52]

2022, ApJ, 940, 86

Klement, R., Baade, D., Rivinius, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 86

2022
[53]

2025, A&A, 694, A208

Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Baade, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A208

2025
[54]

R., et al

Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Gies, D. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 70

2024
[55]

& Ritter, H

Kolb, U. & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385 Koubský, P., Harmanec, P., Yang, S., et al. 2006, A&A, 459, 849

1990
[56]

2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, aDS Bibcode: 2001MNRAS.322..231K Article number, page 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no

Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, aDS Bibcode: 2001MNRAS.322..231K Article number, page 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main

2001
[57]

Kunze, S., Speith, R., & Hessman, F. V . 2001, MNRAS, 322, 499

2001
[58]

2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

2012
[59]

C., Petrovic, J., & Heger, A

Langer, N., Yoon, S. C., Petrovic, J., & Heger, A. 2003, arXiv e-prints, astro

2003
[60]

Lau, M. Y . M., Hirai, R., Mandel, I., & Tout, C. A. 2024, ApJ, 966, L7

2024
[61]

E., Valli, R., et al

Lechien, T., de Mink, S. E., Valli, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, L51

2025
[62]

2023, A&A, 669, A82

Li, Z., Chen, X., Ge, H., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2023, A&A, 669, A82

2023
[63]

W., et al

Liu, J., Zhang, H., Howard, A. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 575, 618

2019
[64]

Z., van Paradijs, J., & van den Heuvel, E

Liu, Q. Z., van Paradijs, J., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2006, A&A, 455, 1165

2006
[65]

1994, A&A, 291, 185

Lorenz, R., Mayer, P., & Drechsel, H. 1994, A&A, 291, 185

1994
[66]

R., Gotberg, Y ., Lang, D., & Laroche, A

Ludwig, B., Drout, M. R., Gotberg, Y ., Lang, D., & Laroche, A. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.18632

2025 arXiv
[67]

A., Sana, H., et al

Mahy, L., Almeida, L. A., Sana, H., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A119

2020
[68]

F., & Bouret, J

Mahy, L., Martins, F., Machado, C., Donati, J. F., & Bouret, J. C. 2011, A&A, 533, A9

2011
[69]

& Farmer, A

Mandel, I. & Farmer, A. 2022, Phys. Rep., 955, 1

2022
[70]

& Bodensteiner, J

Marchant, P. & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 21

2024
[71]

M., & Moriya, T

Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A50

2016
[72]

Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A107

2021
[73]

2021, A&A, 648, A126

Martinet, S., Meynet, G., Ekström, S., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A126

2021
[74]

2017, A&A, 607, A82

Martins, F., Mahy, L., & Hervé, A. 2017, A&A, 607, A82

2017
[75]

& Vanbeveren, D

Mennekens, N. & Vanbeveren, D. 2017, A&A, 599, A84

2017
[76]

E., Djuraševi´c, G., Petrovi´c, J., et al

Mennickent, R. E., Djuraševi´c, G., Petrovi´c, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A51

2022
[77]

E., et al

Menon, A., Langer, N., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5013, aDS Bibcode: 2021MNRAS.507.5013M

2021
[78]

P., Marino, A

Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Di Criscienzo, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2640

2018
[79]

M., Zapartas, E., & Aguilera-Dena, D

Misra, D., Fragos, T., Tauris, T. M., Zapartas, E., & Aguilera-Dena, D. R. 2020, A&A, 642, A174

2020
[80]

D., Meilland, A., et al

Mourard, D., Monnier, J. D., Meilland, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A51

2015
[81]

& de Jager, C

Nieuwenhuijzen, H. & de Jager, C. 1990, A&A, 231, 134

1990
[82]

Ostrov, P. G. 2001, MNRAS, 321, L25

2001
[83]

1981, A&A, 102, 17 Paczy´nski, B

Packet, W. 1981, A&A, 102, 17 Paczy´nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183

1981
[84]

1977, ApJ, 216, 822

Paczynski, B. 1977, ApJ, 216, 822

1977
[85]

1991, ApJ, 370, 597, aDS Bibcode: 1991ApJ...370..597P

Paczynski, B. 1991, ApJ, 370, 597, aDS Bibcode: 1991ApJ...370..597P

1991
[86]

2006, A&A, 454, 855

Pavlovski, K., Burki, G., & Mimica, P. 2006, A&A, 454, 855

2006
[87]

& Ivanova, N

Pavlovskii, K. & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415

2015
[88]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

2011
[89]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

2013
[90]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

2015
[91]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

2018
[92]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

2019
[93]

J., Gies, D

Peters, G. J., Gies, D. R., Grundstrom, E. D., & McSwain, M. V . 2008, ApJ, 686, 1280

2008
[94]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.21521

Picco, A., Marchant, P., Sana, H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.21521

2025
[95]

Piirola, V ., Berdyugin, A., Mikkola, S., & Coyne, G. V . 2005, ApJ, 632, 576

2005
[96]

C., & Hsu, J

Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

1992
[97]

Pols, O. R. 1994, A&A, 290, 119

1994
[98]

1996, ApJ, 467, 749

Popham, R. 1996, ApJ, 467, 749

1996
[99]

& Narayan, R

Popham, R. & Narayan, R. 1991, ApJ, 370, 604, aDS Bibcode: 1991ApJ...370..604P

1991
[100]

J., & Hartmann, L

Popham, R., Narayan, R., Kenyon, S. J., & Hartmann, L. 1995, in Revista Mex- icana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 1, Revista Mexi- cana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, ed. S. Lizano & J. M. Torrelles, 229

1995
[101]

1998, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 15, 357

Pustylnik, I. 1998, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 15, 357

1998
[102]

Raguzova, N. V . & Popov, S. B. 2005, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transac- tions, 24, 151

2005
[103]

Rasio, F. A. 1995, ApJ, 444, L41, aDS Bibcode: 1995ApJ...444L..41R

1995
[104]

1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369 Röpke, F

Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369 Röpke, F. K. & De Marco, O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics, 9, 2

1975
[105]

C., Breivik, K., Badenes, C., et al

Rubio, A. C., Breivik, K., Badenes, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.15893

2025
[106]

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

2020
[107]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.24127

Scherbak, P., Lu, W., & Fuller, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.24127

2025 arXiv
[108]

Schneider, F. R. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18421

2025
[109]

Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., Langer, N., & de Mink, S. E. 2015, ApJ, 805, 20

2015
[110]

Schneider, F. R. N., Laplace, E., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2025, A&A, 700, A253

2025
[111]

Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 686, A45

2024
[112]

Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., & Müller, B. 2021, A&A, 645, A5

2021
[113]

J., & Wang, C

Schootemeijer, A., Langer, N., Grin, N. J., & Wang, C. 2019, A&A, 625, A132 Schürmann, C. & Langer, N. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08615

2019 arXiv
[114]

2022, A&A, 659, A98

Sen, K., Langer, N., Marchant, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A98

2022
[115]

2020, A&A, 639, L6

Shenar, T., Bodensteiner, J., Abdul-Masih, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, L6

2020
[116]

R., Schaefer, G

Shepard, K., Gies, D. R., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 236

2024
[117]

2017, Nature Communica- tions, 8, 14906

Stevenson, S., Vigna-Gómez, A., Mandel, I., et al. 2017, Nature Communica- tions, 8, 14906

2017
[118]

J., Lloyd, C., Pachoulakis, I., & Koch, R

Stickland, D. J., Lloyd, C., Pachoulakis, I., & Koch, R. H. 1998, The Observa- tory, 118, 356

1998
[119]

& Kang, Y

Surina, F. & Kang, Y . W. 2009, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confer- ence Series, V ol. 404, The Eighth Pacific Rim Conference on Stellar Astro- physics: A Tribute to Kam-Ching Leung, ed. S. J. Murphy & M. S. Bessell, 178

2009
[120]

Surkova, L. P. & Svechnikov, M. A. 2004, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Semi- detached eclipsing binaries (Surkova+, 2004), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: V/115

2004
[121]

M., Kramer, M., Freire, P

Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170

2017
[122]

D., Pols, O

Temmink, K. D., Pols, O. R., Justham, S., & Blagorodnova, N. 2025, arXiv e- prints, arXiv:2509.09492

2025
[123]

D., Pols, O

Temmink, K. D., Pols, O. R., Justham, S., Istrate, A. G., & Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45

2023
[124]

2005, MNRAS, 360, 583 Tüysüz, M., Soydugan, F., Bilir, S., et al

Terrell, D., Munari, U., Zwitter, T., & Wolf, G. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 583 Tüysüz, M., Soydugan, F., Bilir, S., et al. 2014, New A, 28, 44

2005
[125]

Umana, G., Maxted, P. F. L., Trigilio, C., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, 229 Vigna-Gómez, A., Neijssel, C. J., Stevenson, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4009

2000
[126]

Vink, J. S. 2017, A&A, 607, L8

2017
[127]

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

Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 362, 295

2000
[128]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

2020
[129]

2020, ApJ, 888, L12

Wang, C., Langer, N., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 888, L12

2020
[130]

Wang, C., Lau, M. Y . M., Li, X.-D., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A14

2026
[131]

R., & Peters, G

Wang, L., Gies, D. R., & Peters, G. J. 2017, ApJ, 843, 60

2017
[132]

R., Peters, G

Wang, L., Gies, D. R., Peters, G. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 248

2021
[133]

2023, ApJ, 958, 138

Willcox, R., MacLeod, M., Mandel, I., & Hirai, R. 2023, ApJ, 958, 138

2023
[134]

& Schwab, J

Wolf, W. & Schwab, J. 2017, py_mesa_reader, Python Package Index,https: //billwolf.space/py_mesa_reader/

2017
[135]

Woods, T. E. & Ivanova, N. 2011, ApJ, 739, L48

2011
[136]

2024, A&A, 683, A37

Yungelson, L., Kuranov, A., Postnov, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A37

2024
[137]

2024, MNRAS, 531, L45 Article number, page 14 J

Zhao, Z.-Q., Li, Z.-W., Xiao, L., Ge, H.-W., & Han, Z.-W. 2024, MNRAS, 531, L45 Article number, page 14 J. Henneco et al.: Contact tracing of binary stars with conservative mass transfer Appendix A: Contact tracing results for otherM 1,i Figs. A.1–A.3 contain the contact traci...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R., Müller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al

Aguilera-Dena, D. R., Müller, B., Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A134

2023

[2] [2]

2007, A&A, 463, 233

Ak, H., Chadima, P., Harmanec, P., et al. 2007, A&A, 463, 233

2007

[3] [3]

1989, A&A, 215, 272

Andersen, J., Pavlovski, K., & Piirola, V . 1989, A&A, 215, 272

1989

[4] [4]

C., Bellinger, E

Angelou, G. C., Bellinger, E. P., Hekker, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 4987

2020

[5] [5]

Armitage, P. J. & Livio, M. 1998, ApJ, 493, 898

1998

[6] [6]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

2009

[7] [7]

G., Gies, D

Bagnuolo, Jr., W. G., Gies, D. R., Hahula, M. E., Wiemker, R., & Wiggs, M. S. 1994, ApJ, 423, 446

1994

[8] [8]

2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

Bally, J. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 491

2016