Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 10 minor 188 references

The Best Guess: Testing new and old formalisms for the common envelope against observations

T0 review · 5 major / 10 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Energy beats angular momentum for common envelope outcomes

desk verdict First systematic test of Two-stage and SCATTER CE formalisms against observed PCEBs; qualitative conclusions hold, quantitative f_ion constraint is soft read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06333 v1 pith:ZI4IRB55 submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.SR

Riley Thai , Amanda Karakas , Zara Osborn , Robert Izzard , Ryosuke Hirai , Alex Kemp , Simon Campbell This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR PACS 97.80.-d97.10.Ex97.20.Rp
keywords commonenvelopeevolutionpost-commonbinariesbinarypopulationsynthesisrecombinationenergyangularmomentumformalismwhitedwarfstellar
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 tests two newer prescriptions for common envelope evolution — the Two-stage formalism (which splits the process into an energy-driven plunge followed by angular-momentum-driven mass transfer) and the SCATTER formalism (which predicts the final binary separation purely from orbital angular momentum balance) — against the standard energy-based α-formalism, by forward-modelling the expected present-day population of post-common envelope binaries in the Solar neighbourhood and comparing to 193 observed systems. The central finding is that the SCATTER formalism, which parameterises outcomes through angular momentum exchange between the envelope and the binary components, cannot reproduce the observed population under any parameter setting: it fails to predict wide binaries, overpredicts helium white dwarf systems that are not observed, and cannot match the observed ratio of white dwarf types. The authors interpret this as evidence that orbital angular momentum balance alone is fundamentally insufficient to predict common envelope outcomes. Both the standard α-formalism and the Two-stage formalism, which are energy-based, reproduce the observed population well. The paper further finds that recombination energy — energy released when ionised gas in the stellar envelope recombines — must contribute to envelope ejection, but only a fraction (roughly 10–40%) of the available recombination energy can actually participate, since a full contribution scatters ultra-massive white dwarf systems to orbital periods where they are not observed. The preferred parameter combination is α_CE ≈ 0.2–0.3 with a partial recombination contribution (f_ion ≈ 0.1–0.4). The Two-stage and α-formalisms are indistinguishable for most of the observed population; they differ only for intermediate-mass donors (above about 2.25 solar masses) at orbital periods of 1–100 days, where observations are currently sparse.

What carries the argument

The three formalisms tested are: (1) the α-formalism, which equates the envelope binding energy to a fraction α_CE of the orbital energy released during inspiral; (2) the Two-stage formalism, which splits the process into an energy-driven ejection of the convective envelope followed by angular-momentum-driven non-conservative mass transfer of the radiative layer; and (3) the SCATTER formalism, which predicts the final separation from an exponential function of the angular momentum exchanged between the envelope and each component, parameterised by η. The comparison is performed by forward-modelling a Solar neighbourhood population through binary population synthesis, weighting by birth rates

What would settle it

Observation of a robust population of wide post-common envelope binaries (periods above 100 days) that the SCATTER formalism predicts but the energy-based formalisms do not, or a formal statistical analysis showing that the SCATTER formalism fits the observed population significantly better once selection effects are properly modelled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The SCATTER formalism — an angular-momentum-based prescription for common envelope outcomes — fails to reproduce the observed post-common envelope binary population under any parameter value, while energy-based formalisms (the standard α-formalism and the hybrid Two-stage formalism) succeed. Recombination energy is necessary but only partially contributing (roughly 10–40%), with the preferred efficiency α_CE ≈ 0.2–0.3. No angular-momentum-only formalism tested to date matches observations, suggesting that orbital angular momentum balance alone is not predictive of common envelope outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between model predictions and observations is done qualitatively by visual overlay of predicted overdensities against observed points in mass–period space, without a formal statistical likelihood or goodness-of-fit metric, and without modelling the selection effects from UV-excess distinguishability or survey cadence. This means regions where the model predicts systems but none are observed cannot be statistically distinguished from observational incompleteness

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If angular-momentum-only formalisms are fundamentally insufficient, population synthesis studies that rely on the γ-formalism or similar prescriptions may produce systematically incorrect predictions for compact object merger rates and binary populations.
  • The partial recombination contribution (10–40%) provides a concrete target for three-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations, which must now demonstrate why only a fraction of the recombination energy thermalises into useful work on the envelope.
  • The Two-stage formalism predicts a population of intermediate-mass helium-burning stars (hot subdwarfs) in close binaries from RGB donors above 2.25 solar masses that the α-formalism does not; targeted observations of such systems would distinguish the two formalisms.
  • The predicted but unobserved populations — PCEBs at 1–100 day periods with FGK companions, and super-wide PCEBs with M-dwarf or G-type companions — constitute specific observational targets for Gaia Data Release 4 and the Rubin Observatory.
  • The L2 overflow criterion for initiating common envelope in giant donors is shown to be necessary; using only dynamical instability thresholds produces unphysical populations where common envelope events occur on nearly stripped envelopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A formal statistical framework incorporating selection effects (UV-excess distinguishability, survey cadence) could potentially overturn the conclusion that recombination energy is strictly necessary, since the claim depends on the absence of observed systems in the super-wide regime where selection effects are most uncertain.
  • If the SCATTER formalism's exponential sensitivity to mass ratio is the root cause of its failure, then any angular-momentum-based formalism with similar exponential dependence on mass ratio may face the same problem, suggesting a structural limitation rather than a calibration issue.
  • The degeneracy between α_CE and f_ion means that without independent constraints on either parameter (e.g., from hydrodynamical simulations or individual well-characterised systems), population synthesis alone cannot uniquely determine the recombination contribution.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 10 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents the first systematic comparison of two recently proposed common envelope (CE) formalisms—the Two-stage formalism (Hirai & Mandel 2022) and the SCATTER formalism (Di Stefano et al. 2023)—against the standard energy-based α-formalism, using forward-modelled post-common envelope binary (PCEB) populations in the Solar neighbourhood. The authors compile 193 observed WD-MS PCEBs and compare them against binary_c population synthesis predictions across orbital period and component mass space. The principal conclusions are: (1) the angular-momentum-based SCATTER formalism fails to reproduce the observed PCEB population (no wide PCEBs, incorrect HeWD:COWD ratios), (2) energy-based formalisms (α and Two-stage) remain the most descriptive, with α_CE ≈ 0.2–0.3, (3) recombination energy is necessary but only a fraction (~10–40%) can contribute, and (4) the Two-stage and α-formalisms are currently indistinguishable given observational incompleteness at intermediate periods and high companion masses. The paper also provides new polynomial fits for the Two-stage formalism's binding energy and radiative region mass parameters (Appendix A).

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: whether newly proposed CE formalisms outperform the standard α-prescription when confronted with the expanded observed PCEB population. The compilation of 193 PCEBs, including the recently discovered super-wide (P > 100 d) and ultra-massive WD systems, is a valuable resource. The implementation of the Two-stage formalism in binary_c, with publicly available polynomial fits derived from Monash and MESA stellar models (Appendix A, doi:10.5281/zenodo.20117304), and the public availability of the modified binary_c code (gitlab.com/rileythai/binary_c:twostage-v2.2.4) are commendable and enable reproducibility. The qualitative conclusion that SCATTER fails to produce wide PCEBs (Fig. 5) and predicts an incorrect HeWD:COWD ratio (Fig. 6) is a robust and useful result for the community. The identification of specific observational tests that could distinguish the Two-stage from the α-formalism (sdOBA binaries from M > 2.25 M☉ donors, §4.3) provides clear direction for future work.

major comments (5)
  1. §4.2, Fig. 8: The quantitative constraint that f_ion ≲ 0.4 at α_CE = 0.2 is derived from the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems (M_WD ≳ 1.1 M☉, M_MS ~1.4 M☉) at super-wide periods (P > 100 days). However, §2.3.2 explicitly states that the model does not include selection effects from UV-excess distinguishability or survey cadence, and that 'we expect our model to predict more systems than what is observed if the physics is correct.' This creates an internal tension: the model is known to overpredict, so the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods could reflect observational incompleteness rather than a genuine upper limit on f_ion. The paper should either (a) explicitly state that the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound is conditional on the assumption that the super-wide Gaia sample is complete for IK Peg-like systems (which is partially addressed by the reference to Shahaf et~
  2. §4.2, Fig. 8: The quantitative constraint that f_ion ≲ 0.4 at α_CE = 0.2 is derived from the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods. However, §2.3.2 explicitly states that selection effects from distinguishability and survey cadence are not modelled, and that 'we expect our model to predict more systems than what is observed if the physics is correct.' This creates an internal tension: the model is acknowledged to overpredict, so the absence of observed systems could reflect incompleteness rather than a physical upper limit on f_ion. The paper should either (a) explicitly state that the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound is conditional on the super-wide Gaia sample being complete for IK Peg-like systems (the reference to Shahaf et al. 2024 on line 'Assuming the Shahaf et al. (2024) Gaia selection... is observationally complete' partially addresses this but is stated only in passing
  3. §4.2, Fig. 8: The quantitative constraint that f_ion ≲ 0.4 at α_CE = 0.2 is derived from the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods. However, §2.3.2 explicitly states that selection effects from distinguishability and survey cadence are not modelled, and that 'we expect our model to predict more systems than what is observed if the physics is correct.' This creates an internal tension: the model is acknowledged to overpredict, so the absence of observed systems could reflect incompleteness rather than a physical upper limit on f_ion. The paper should either (a) explicitly state that the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound is conditional on the super-wide Gaia sample being complete for IK Peg-like systems (the reference to Shahaf et al. 2024 completeness is stated only in passing and should be foregrounded as the load-bearing assumption), or (b) soften the claim to acknowledge that f
  4. §4.2, Fig. 8: The quantitative constraint that f_ion ≲ 0.4 at α_CE = 0.2 is derived from the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods. However, §2.3.2 explicitly states that selection effects from distinguishability and survey cadence are not modelled, and that 'we expect our model to predict more systems than what is observed if the physics is correct.' This creates an internal tension: the model is acknowledged to overpredict, so the absence of observed systems could reflect incompleteness rather than a physical upper limit on f_ion. The paper should either (a) explicitly state that the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound is conditional on the super-wide Gaia sample being complete for IK Peg-like systems (the reference to Shahaf et al. 2024 completeness is stated only in passing and should be foregrounded as the load-bearing assumption), or (b) soften the quantitative claim to a lo
  5. §4.2, Fig. 8: The quantitative constraint that f_ion ≲ 0.4 at α_CE = 0.2 is derived from the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods. However, §2.3.2 explicitly states that selection effects from distinguishability and survey cadence are not modelled, and that 'we expect our model to predict more systems than what is observed if the physics is correct.' This creates an internal tension: the model is acknowledged to overpredict, so the absence of observed systems could reflect incompleteness rather than a physical upper limit on f_ion. The paper should either (a) explicitly state that the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound is conditional on the super-wide Gaia sample being complete for IK Peg-like systems (the reference to Shahaf et al. 2024 completeness is stated only in passing and should be foregrounded as the load-bearing assumption), or (b) soften the quantitative claim to a lo
minor comments (10)
  1. §2.1.2, Eq. (3): The definition of q_cc is given as 'q_cc = M_core/M_2' but the text also refers to 'companion-to-core mass ratio q_cc'. This is consistent but could be confused with the more standard convention of q = M_2/M_1; a brief clarifying note would help.
  2. §2.2.3, Eq. (6): The notation min(q_ad, q_L2) is clear, but the text does not explicitly state whether q_ad and q_L2 are evaluated at the onset of RLOF or at some other point. This should be specified.
  3. Fig. 5: The colour bars showing 'Expected systems (count)' use different scales across panels (10^1 to 10^3 or 10^4). This is noted in the figure but makes cross-panel comparison difficult. Consider normalising or at least ensuring the reader is directed to check the scale.
  4. §3.1: The statement 'We also plot non-CE stable mass transfer systems from our model in gray bins' refers to Fig. 2, but the stable MT systems are shown as a shaded region rather than 'gray bins'. Minor wording issue.
  5. §4.2: 'We first assess if is recombination is necessary' — grammatical error, should read 'We first assess whether recombination is necessary'.
  6. §4.1: 'the functional η predicts the orbit should shrink by a factor of 1000 when q_cc ~ 1.0' — it would be useful to show this explicitly (e.g., a small inset or annotation in Fig. 6) to help the reader understand why the functional form fails.
  7. Appendix A: The polynomial fits (Eqs. A1, A2) are provided with coefficients available at a Zenodo DOI, but the manuscript does not state the mass range or evolutionary phases covered by each fit. This information is only available in the online files. A summary table of the mass grid and phases would make the appendix self-contained.
  8. Table 1: The entry 'SCATTER η fitted f(q_ec), Eq. 4 Di Stefano et al. (2023)' is ambiguous in formatting; it should be clear that Eq. 4 is the authors' adopted functional form, not from Di Stefano et al. (2023) directly.
  9. §2.3.2, Eq. (9): The ratio V_sph(d_max)/V_sol is described as independent of ρ_0, but the integral in the numerator is over a spherical volume while the denominator is over a cylindrical volume. The geometry of this comparison should be clarified (e.g., does the spherical volume extend beyond the cylinder?).
  10. The abstract states 'Recombination energy is necessary, but only a fraction of it (~10–40%) can contribute.' The body text (§4.2) gives f_ion ~ 0.2–0.4 as the minimum required range. The abstract should clarify whether 10% is a lower bound or an approximate value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

The referee raises a single substantive point (repeated in the report due to apparent formatting): the f_ion ≲ 0.4 constraint in §4.2 relies on the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods, but §2.3.2 acknowledges the model overpredicts systems due to unmodelled selection effects. This creates an internal tension—the absence of observed systems could reflect incompleteness rather than a physical upper limit on f_ion. The referee requests either foregrounding the completeness assumption or softening the claim. We agree this is a valid concern and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4.2, Fig. 8: The quantitative constraint that f_ion ≲ 0.4 at α_CE = 0.2 is derived from the absence of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods. However, §2.3.2 states that selection effects from distinguishability and survey cadence are not modelled, and that 'we expect our model to predict more systems than what is observed if the physics is correct.' This creates internal tension: the model is acknowledged to overpredict, so the absence of observed systems could reflect incompleteness rather than a physical upper limit on f_ion. The paper should either (a) explicitly state that the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound is conditional on the super-wide Gaia sample being complete for IK Peg-like systems (the reference to Shahaf et al. 2024 completeness is stated only in passing and should be foregrounded as the load-bearing assumption), or (b) soften the quantitative claim.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this internal tension, which is a fair and important point. The referee is correct that our general statement in §2.3.2—that the model is expected to overpredict systems due to unmodelled selection effects from distinguishability and survey cadence—sits in tension with using the *absence* of observed IK Peg-like systems at super-wide periods as a quantitative upper bound on f_ion. We will resolve this in the revised manuscript in two ways. First, we will foreground the Shahaf et al. (2024) completeness assumption as the load-bearing condition for the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound. Specifically, the super-wide PCEB sample of Yamaguchi et al. (2024a) was constructed using the Shahaf et al. (2024) Gaia astrometric selection function, which is designed to be complete for systems with MS companions in the G-type mass range (~1.2–1.4 M☉) at the relevant distances. IK Peg-like systems fall squarely within this companion-mass range, so the Shahaf et al. (2024) completeness is what makes the non-detection physically meaningful rather than a mere artifact of selection effects. We will make this reasoning explicit in §4.2 rather than leaving it as a passing reference. Second, we will add a qualifying sentence acknowledging that if the Shahaf et al. (2024) selection function is *not* complete for IK Peg-like systems specifically—for instance, if the UV-excess distinguishability criterion introduces additional incompleteness for massive-WD systems—then the f_ion ≲ 0.4 bound should be regarded as an upper limit that could be relaxed. We will also soften the language from 'f_ion can be no higher than ~0.4' to 'f_ion is constrained to be ≲0.4, conditional on the completeness of the super-wide sample for IK Peg-like systems.' These changes make the logical chain revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; one mild calibration-overlap concern with α_CE adoption

full rationale

The paper tests three externally-proposed common envelope formalisms (α-formalism, Two-stage from Hirai & Mandel 2022, SCATTER from Di Stefano et al. 2023) against a compiled observational dataset. The derivation chain is largely self-contained: the formalisms are taken from external publications (no author overlap for SCATTER; Hirai is a co-author but the Two-stage formalism was independently published and is being tested, not derived). The SCATTER η functional form (Eq. 4) is taken from Di Stefano et al. (2023) with no author overlap, and the paper genuinely tests it against data, finding it fails. The main mild concern is that α_CE = 0.2 is adopted from Zorotovic et al. (2010) and De Marco et al. (2011), whose observational samples are a subset of the 193-system compilation used here. The paper then confirms this value 'matches current observations, in agreement with previous works.' This has the flavor of fitting to a subset and confirming on a superset, but it is not circular in a load-bearing sense: (1) the paper does not claim α_CE = 0.2 as a new first-principles prediction, (2) the compilation includes many new systems (Yamaguchi et al. 2024a,b; Rebassa-Mansergas et al. 2025; etc.) not in the original calibration, (3) the paper transparently explores the α_CE–f_ion degeneracy (Fig. 8) and does not present a single fitted value as a derived result, and (4) the central qualitative conclusions (SCATTER fails to produce wide PCEBs; recombination energy is necessary) do not depend on the adopted α_CE value. The f_ion ~ 0.1–0.4 constraint is a genuine forward-modeling result, not a renamed input. No step reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The paper tests existing formalisms against observations.

free parameters (8)
  • α_CE = 0.2 (standard), 0.1–0.5 tested
    Common envelope efficiency parameter adopted from Zorotovic et al. (2010); tested over range 0.1–1.0 in §4.2
  • f_ion = 1.0 (standard), 0.1–0.4 constrained
    Recombination energy contribution fraction; set to 1.0 in standard model, constrained to 0.1–0.4 in §4.2 to match IK Peg-like systems
  • η (SCATTER) = functional form Eq. 4, or constant 0.5–1.5 tested
    Angular momentum proportionality parameter for SCATTER; functional form from Di Stefano et al. (2023), constant values tested in Fig. 6
  • δ (SCATTER) = 3
    Dimensionality parameter for SCATTER; set to 3 per Di Stefano et al. (2023) recommendation
  • λ (binding energy) = Claeys et al. (2014) values; new Two-stage fits in Appendix A
    Envelope binding energy parametrization; choice affects which systems survive CE and at what separation
  • h_z (scale height) = 380 pc
    Galactic disc scale height for Solar neighbourhood model; adopted from McKee et al. (2015)
  • ρ_0 (midplane density) = 0.043 M⊙ pc⁻³
    Stellar midplane density for Solar neighbourhood volume; adopted from McKee et al. (2015)
  • K (magnetic braking scale) = 50
    Magnetic braking scale factor in binary_c; standard value
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The α-formalism (Eq. 1) correctly parametrizes CE energy balance as E_bind = α_CE ΔE_orb
    Invoked throughout as the baseline formalism; the paper tests alternatives but uses this as the standard model
  • domain assumption The Two-stage formalism applies to donors with M > 2.25 M⊙ in HG/RGB/CHeB phases
    Justified by entropy structure analysis in Appendix A, Fig. A1; the 2.25 M⊙ boundary is where radiative region becomes significant
  • domain assumption L2 overflow in giants can initiate common envelope even without dynamical instability
    Invoked in §2.2.3, Eq. 6; critical for matching observed wide/super-wide PCEB populations; tested in Appendix B
  • domain assumption The Solar neighbourhood can be modeled as a cylinder with exponential vertical density profile
    Used in §2.3.1, Eq. 8; standard assumption in population synthesis forward-modeling
  • domain assumption Gaia G=20 is an appropriate limiting magnitude for the surveyable volume
    Used in §2.3.2, Eq. 9; affects the magnitude-limited weight and thus the predicted present-day population
  • domain assumption Solar metallicity (Z=0.014) is representative of the observed PCEB population
    Stated in §2.2 and discussed in §4.5; no metallicity variation explored

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Best Guess: Testing new and old formalisms for the common envelope against observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZI4IRB55

@misc{pith2026260706333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Best Guess: Testing new and old formalisms for the common envelope against observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZI4IRB55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06333}
}
abstract

We present a systematic test of formalisms for common envelope evolution by forward-modelling observable post-common envelope binaries. We compare predictions from the $\alpha$-formalism, and the Two-stage and SCATTER formalisms against observed post-common envelope binaries, including wide binaries with ultra-massive white dwarfs and central binaries of planetary nebulae. The angular momentum-based SCATTER formalism does not predict populations which match the complete observed population, even with adjustments to its parameters. We take this as indicative of fundamental challenges with using the orbital angular momentum balance to predict common envelope outcomes. The energy-based $\alpha $ and hybrid Two-stage formalisms both well-replicate the observed population. $\alpha_{\rm CE} \sim 0.2\text{--}0.3$ can match current observations, in agreement with previous works. Recombination energy is necessary, but only a fraction of it ($\sim\! 10\text{--}40\%$) can contribute in order to predict IK Peg-like binaries with ultra-massive white dwarfs at the correct orbital periods. Our work suggests energy-based formalisms remain the most accurate for predicting common envelope outcomes, but more observations can constrain the recombination contribution and how these outcomes systematically vary with the donor mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06333 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of each formalism, along with the corresponding predictive method for the final state. Left: the standard α-formalism follows the energy budget available for the envelope’s ejection. The orbital energy is used to overcome the binding energy of the envelope, modulated by an efficiency αCE per Eq. 1 and 5. Middle: The hybrid Two-stage only takes that the convective (isentropic) portion of envelope is… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Points are compiled observations of WD-MS post-common envelope binaries (PCEBs) (Zorotovic et al. 2010; Nebot G´omez-Mor´an et al. 2011; Rebassa-Mansergas et al. 2025; Jones 2020; Hernandez et al. 2021, 2022b; Yamaguchi et al. 2024a,b; Boone et al. 2026; Shariat & El-Badry 2026; Shiraishi et al. 2026; Motherway et al. 2026), over the general predictions of stable mass transfer from our models for masses 0.8 < MMS < … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Two-stage formalism predicts more systems survive HG and RGB common envelope episodes, and the SCATTER formalism predicts that typically only AGB common envelope episodes are survived. The survival of the first common envelope event for three different mass ratios q ∈ {0.1, 0.3, 0.7} is shown on each row versus the initial binary parameter space, colored by the donor’s stellar type at the time of common envelope… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Two-stage formalism increases how many systems with intermediate-mass primaries survive first common envelope in close orbits (as per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The observed PCEB population favours the α-formalism or the Two-stage formalism, as the SCATTER formalism (using Eq. 4) does not predict overdensities where observed. The present-day population is shown in mass space over four different ranges of orbital period P on ea…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The observed population’s mass space can be described best by η ≈ 1.0 for the SCATTER formalism, but this does not reproduce the proportions of HeWD/COWDs seen in observations. While the observed population appears well-matched in mass space, gaps are present at the bu…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Recombination energy is necessary to reproduce the observed population of PCEBs – no model using the α-formalism without recombination energy reproduces the wide IK Peg-like and all super-wide PCEBs over any 0 < αCE < 1. Markers for observed systems are per [PITH_FULL…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Four different pairs for efficiency αCE and recombination energy contribution fion which can minimally reproduce the observed PCEB population are shown. The minimum required recombination contribution increases with decreasing values for αCE, but we do not favour αCE ≳…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

188 extracted references · 188 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & C \'o rsico, A. H. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 557, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868

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

  2. [2]

    J., Price-Whelan , A

    Andrews, J. J., Price-Whelan , A. M., & Ag \"u eros, M. A. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 797, L32, 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L32

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/l32 2014

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , journal =

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 481, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 2009

  4. [4]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    R., Moe, M., El-Badry , K., & Shen, K

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Moe, M., El-Badry , K., & Shen, K. J. 2024 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347931

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

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Belloni, D., Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2024 b , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 686, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449235

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449235 2024

  7. [7]

    The Galaxy in Context: Structural, Kinematic and Integrated Properties

    Bland-Hawthorn , J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 529, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  8. [8]

    2025, Intermediate- Mass Stripped Stars in the Magellanic Clouds : Forward Modeling the Observed Population Discovered Via UV Excess , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.18965

    Blomberg, L., El-Badry , K., Ludwig, B., Drout, M., & Gotberg, Y. 2025, Intermediate- Mass Stripped Stars in the Magellanic Clouds : Forward Modeling the Observed Population Discovered Via UV Excess , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.18965

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18965 2025

Show all 188 references
  1. [9]

    A., Ca \ n as, C

    Boone, A., Kobulnicky, H. A., Ca \ n as, C. I., et al. 2026, Searching for GEMS : Discovery of the Nearby Post-Common-Envelope Binary System TIC-460388167 , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2604.07527

    2026 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bowler, M. G. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 521, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014711

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    A., & Veljanoski, J

    Breddels, M. A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732493

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

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

    Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Allende Prieto, C. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 818, 155, 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/155

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e20240118, 10.1002/asna.20240118

    Camisassa, M. 2025, Astronomische Nachrichten, 346, e20240118, 10.1002/asna.20240118

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., Rohrmann, R. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 839, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6797

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., C \'o rsico, A. H., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 625, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    W., & Lattanzio, J

    Campbell, S. W., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2008, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 490, 769, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809597

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    W., Lugaro, M., & Karakas, A

    Campbell, S. W., Lugaro, M., & Karakas, A. I. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 522, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015428

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    G., Frank, A., Carroll-Nellenback , J., & Tu, Y

    Chamandy, L., Blackman, E. G., Frank, A., Carroll-Nellenback , J., & Tu, Y. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 4028, 10.1093/mnras/staa1273

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 1416, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13334.x

    Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 1416, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13334.x

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2a47

    Chen, Z., & Ivanova, N. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2a47

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Joyce, M., & Karakas, A

    Cinquegrana, G. C., Joyce, M., & Karakas, A. I. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 50, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87ae

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Claeys, J. S. W., Pols, O. R., Izzard, R. G., Vink, J., & Verbunt, F. W. M. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 563, A83, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322714

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Clocchiatti, A., & Wheeler, J. C. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 491, 375, 10.1086/304961

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Kolb, U., & Willems, B

    Davis, P. J., Kolb, U., & Willems, B. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 179, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16138.x

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 707, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202558123

    Dawson, H., Dorsch, M., Geier, S., et al. 2026, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 707, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202558123

    2026 doi

  18. [26]

    1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 358, 189, 10.1086/168974

    de Kool , M. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 358, 189, 10.1086/168974

    1990 doi

  19. [27]

    De Marco, O., & Izzard, R. G. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, e001, 10.1017/pasa.2016.52

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 2277, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17891.x

    De Marco, O., Passy, J.-C., Moe, M., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 411, 2277, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17891.x

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 695, L20, 10.1051/0004-6361/202553692

    Deshmukh, K., Shenar, T., M \'e rand, A., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 695, L20, 10.1051/0004-6361/202553692

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Dewi, J. D. M., & Tauris, T. M. 2000, On the Energy Equation and Efficiency Parameter of the Common Envelope Evolution, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007034

    2000 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    U., Gao, Y., Neunteufel, P

    Di Stefano, R., Kruckow, M. U., Gao, Y., Neunteufel, P. G., & Kobayashi, C. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/acae9b

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Gil-Pons , P., Siess, L., & Lattanzio, J

    Doherty, C. L., Gil-Pons , P., Siess, L., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, e056, 10.1017/pasa.2017.52

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    L., Siess, L., Lattanzio, J

    Doherty, C. L., Siess, L., Lattanzio, J. C., & Gil-Pons , P. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 401, 1453, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15772.x

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    R., G \"o tberg, Y., Ludwig, B

    Drout, M. R., G \"o tberg, Y., Ludwig, B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287, 10.1126/science.ade4970

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 268, 368, 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  28. [36]

    El-Badry , K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., Kupfer, T., & Shen, K. J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 4106, 10.1093/mnras/stab2583

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    El-Badry , K., Rix, H.-W., & Weisz, D. R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaca9c

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    Ercolino, A., Jin, H., Langer, N., & Dessart, L. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453426

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al

    Fink, M., R \"o pke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 514, A53, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 883, L45, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab40d1

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 264, 45, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    A., & Lattanzio, J

    Frost, C. A., & Lattanzio, J. C. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 473, 383, 10.1086/178152

    1996 doi

  35. [43]

    S., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Hjellming, M. S., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 724, 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/724

    2010 doi

  36. [44]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 40, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    2020 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    ---. 2020 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 899, 132, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    F., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., & Han, Z. 2020 b , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab98f6

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    A., Chen, X., et al

    Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Chen, X., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 254, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea6

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Gonz \'a lez-Bol \'i var , M., De Marco, O., Lau, M. Y. M., Hirai, R., & Price, D. J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 3181, 10.1093/mnras/stac2301

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    E., Groh, J

    G \"o tberg, Y., de Mink , S. E., Groh, J. H., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732274

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1818, 10.1093/mnras/sty1178

    Grichener, A., Sabach, E., & Soker, N. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1818, 10.1093/mnras/sty1178

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., & Eggleton, P. P. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 272, 800, 10.1093/mnras/272.4.800

    1995 doi

  44. [52]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, Ph ., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., & Ivanova, N. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 449, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05752.x

    2002 doi

  45. [53]

    T., Andersen, J., Nordstr \"o m, B., et al

    Hansen, T. T., Andersen, J., Nordstr \"o m, B., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 588, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527409

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt , S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    Hatfull, R. W. M., & Ivanova, N. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 982, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada6b8

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 211, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    Heber, U. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 211, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 82001, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    ---. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 82001, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    Henneco, J., Schneider, F. R. N., & Laplace, E. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 682, A169, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347893

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    S., Schreiber, M

    Hernandez, M. S., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 1677, 10.1093/mnras/staa3815

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2022 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 2867, 10.1093/mnras/stac2837

    ---. 2022 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 2867, 10.1093/mnras/stac2837

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    2022 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 1843, 10.1093/mnras/stac604

    ---. 2022 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 1843, 10.1093/mnras/stac604

    2022 doi

  54. [62]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9519

    Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 937, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9519

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    Hjellming, M. S. 1989, PhD thesis. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PhDT.........7H

    1989

  56. [64]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3229, 10.1093/mnras/stz3542

    Howitt, G., Stevenson, S., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 492, 3229, 10.1093/mnras/stz3542

    2020 doi

  57. [65]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 315, 543, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000 doi

  59. [67]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 329, 897, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002 doi

  60. [68]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2550, 10.1093/mnras/stz2756

    Iaconi, R., & De Marco, O. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 2550, 10.1093/mnras/stz2756

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aac101

    Ivanova, N. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aac101

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 59, 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 59, 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  63. [71]

    2023, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2307.35

    Izzard, R. 2023, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:2307.35. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ascl.soft07035I

    2023

  64. [72]

    Izzard, R. G. 2004, PhD thesis. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhDT........45I

    2004

  65. [73]

    G., & Tout, C

    Izzard, R. G., & Tout, C. A. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, L1, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07466.x

    2004 doi

  66. [74]

    G., Tout, C

    Izzard, R. G., Tout, C. A., Karakas, A. I., & Pols, O. R. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 350, 407, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07446.x

    2004 doi

  67. [75]

    2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; from Space Debris to Cosmology, 123--153, 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5_5

    Jones, D. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; from Space Debris to Cosmology, 123--153, 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5_5

    2020 doi

  68. [76]

    Jones, D., & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 117, 10.1038/s41550-017-0117

    2017 doi

  69. [77]

    Karakas, A. I. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 403, 1413, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16198.x

    2010 doi

  70. [78]

    I., Lattanzio, J

    Karakas, A. I., Lattanzio, J. C., & Pols, O. R. 2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 19, 515, 10.1071/AS02013

    2002 doi

  71. [79]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 26, 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/26

    2016 doi

  72. [80]

    J., Karakas, A

    Kemp, A. J., Karakas, A. I., Casey, A. R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 6117, 10.1093/mnras/stab1160

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Karakas, A

    Kemp, A. J., Karakas, A. I., Casey, A. R., Kobayashi, C., & Izzard, R. G. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 509, 1175, 10.1093/mnras/stab3103

    2022 doi

  74. [82]

    2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts , Vol

    Khwaja, A., Di Stefano, R., & Kobayashi, C. 2025, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts , Vol. 245, 352.8. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AAS...24535208K

    2025

  75. [83]

    D., & Hurley, J

    Kiel, P. D., & Hurley, J. R. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 1152, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10400.x

    2006 doi

  76. [84]

    G., & Chruslinska, M

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

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 900, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

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

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

    2001 doi

  79. [87]

    U., Tauris, T

    Kruckow, M. U., Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., Kramer, M., & Izzard, R. G. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 481, 1908, 10.1093/mnras/sty2190

    2018 doi

  80. [88]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 576, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425213

    Kupfer, T., Geier, S., Heber, U., et al. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 576, A44, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425213

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    Lattanzio, J. C. 1984, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 5, 498, 10.1017/S1323358000017434

    1984 doi

  82. [90]

    1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 311, 708, 10.1086/164810

    ---. 1986, The Astrophysical Journal, 311, 708, 10.1086/164810

    1986 doi

  83. [91]

    Lau, M. Y. M., Hirai, R., Price, D. J., & Mandel, I. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4669, 10.1093/mnras/stac2490

    2022 doi

  84. [92]

    Lau, M. Y. M., Hirai, R., Price, D. J., Mandel, I., & Bate, M. R. 2025, Common Envelopes in Massive Stars III : The Obstructive Role of Radiation Transport in Envelope Ejection, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.20506

    2025 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4726

    Levine, J., Manea, C., Hawkins, K., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 117, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4726

    2026 doi

  86. [94]

    Li, X.-D., & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 322, L9. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...322L...9L

    1997

  87. [95]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 669, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Ge, H., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 669, A82, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    2023 doi

  88. [96]

    C., et al

    Lucatello, S., Tsangarides, S., Beers, T. C., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 625, 825, 10.1086/428104

    2005 doi

  89. [97]

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

    Ludwig, B., Drout, M. R., Gotberg, Y., Lang, D., & Laroche, A. 2025, The Stripped-Star Ultraviolet Magellanic Cloud Survey ( SUMS ): The UV Photometric Catalog and Stripped Star Candidate Selection , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2505.18632

    2025 doi arXiv

  90. [98]

    I., Stancliffe, R

    Lugaro, M., Karakas, A. I., Stancliffe, R. J., & Rijs, C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 747, 2, 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/2

    2012 doi

  91. [99]

    P., et al

    Mackereth, J., Bovy, J., Schiavon, R. P., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 471, 3057, 10.1093/mnras/stx1774

    2017 doi

  92. [100]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia , M., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 650, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992

    2021 doi

  93. [101]

    Matsumoto, T., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6269

    2022 doi

  94. [102]

    D., Fletcher, J

    McClure, R. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Nemec, J. M. 1980, The Astrophysical Journal, 238, L35, 10.1086/183252

    1980 doi

  95. [103]

    McDonald, I., & Zijlstra, A. A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 502, 10.1093/mnras/stv007

    2015 doi

  96. [104]

    F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D

    McKee, C. F., Parravano, A., & Hollenbach, D. J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 814, 13, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/13

    2015 doi

  97. [105]

    2010, scipy, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    McKinney, W. 2010, scipy, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  98. [106]

    Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2024, Galaxies, 12, 83, 10.3390/galaxies12060083

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    D., et al

    Motherway, E., Linck, E., Mathieu, R. D., et al. 2026, The Astronomical Journal, 171, 159, 10.3847/1538-3881/ae3b42

    2026 doi

  101. [109]

    C., et al

    Mu, C., De Marco, O., Berm \'u dez-Bustamante , L. C., et al. 2026, Dust Formation in Common Envelope Binary Interactions -- III . Lightcurves , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2606.26495

    2026 doi arXiv

  102. [110]

    Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, J. C. J. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, L39, 10.1093/mnrasl/slv043

    2015 doi

  103. [111]

    2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453493

    Naz \'e , Y., & Rauw, G. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 696, A84, 10.1051/0004-6361/202453493

    2025 doi

  104. [112]

    T., Schreiber, M

    Nebot G \'o mez-Mor \'a n , A., G \"a nsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2011, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 536, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117514

    2011 doi

  105. [113]

    J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Stevenson, S., et al

    Neijssel, C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Stevenson, S., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3740, 10.1093/mnras/stz2840

    2019 doi

  106. [114]

    F., Verbunt, F., & Yungelson, L

    Nelemans, G., Portegies Zwart, S. F., Verbunt, F., & Yungelson, L. R. 2001 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 368, 939, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010049

    2001 doi

  107. [115]

    Nelemans, G., & Tout, C. A. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 356, 753, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08496.x

    2005 doi

  108. [116]

    R., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Verbunt, F., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, Reconstructing the Evolution of Double Helium White Dwarfs: Envelope Loss without Spiral-In, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006216

    2000 doi arXiv

  109. [117]

    R., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2004, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 349, 181, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07479.x

    2004 doi

  110. [118]

    R., Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Verbunt, F. 2001 b , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 365, 491, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000147

    2001 doi

  111. [119]

    2025, Weakened Inspirals I : High Mass Ratio Common Envelope Interactions in RGB Stars , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16225

    Nibbs, J., De Marco, O., Siess, L., Hirai, R., & Price, D. 2025, Weakened Inspirals I : High Mass Ratio Common Envelope Interactions in RGB Stars , arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2512.16225

    2025 doi arXiv

  112. [120]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 23, 10.1051/aas:2000169

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 23, 10.1051/aas:2000169

    2000 doi

  113. [121]

    O'Connor, C. E. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 998, 280, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3b26

    2026 doi

  114. [122]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, 534, 275, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  115. [123]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e020, 10.1017/pasa.2024.124

    Osborn, Z., Karakas, A., Kemp, A., et al. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e020, 10.1017/pasa.2024.124

    2025 doi

  116. [124]

    1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems , Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems , Vol. 73, 75. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976IAUS...73...75P

    1976

  117. [125]

    1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 348, 485, 10.1086/168257

    Paczynski, B. 1990, The Astrophysical Journal, 348, 485, 10.1086/168257

    1990 doi

  118. [126]

    2026 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 706, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/202555096

    Parkosidis, A., Toonen, S., Dosopoulou, F., & Laplace, E. 2026 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 706, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/202555096

    2026 doi

  119. [127]

    2026 b , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 706, A357, 10.1051/0004-6361/202558055

    Parkosidis, A., Toonen, S., Laplace, E., & Dosopoulou, F. 2026 b , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 706, A357, 10.1051/0004-6361/202558055

    2026 doi

  120. [128]

    L., et al

    Passy, J.-C., De Marco, O., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 52, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/52

    2012 doi

  121. [129]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 4415, 10.1093/mnras/stv619

    Pavlovskii, K., & Ivanova, N. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449, 4415, 10.1093/mnras/stv619

    2015 doi

  122. [130]

    Pavlovskii, K., Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., & Van, K. X. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 2092, 10.1093/mnras/stw2786

    2017 doi

  123. [131]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a5d

    Picker, L., Hirai, R., & Mandel, I. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 1, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a5d

    2024 doi

  124. [132]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, Ph ., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, The Astrophysical Journal, 391, 246, 10.1086/171341

    1992 doi

  125. [133]

    R., Schr \"o der, K.-P., Hurley, J

    Pols, O. R., Schr \"o der, K.-P., Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 1998, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 298, 525, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01658.x

    1998 doi

  126. [134]

    A., & Yungelson, L

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

    2014 doi

  127. [135]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 275, 713, 10.1086/161569

    1983 doi

  128. [136]

    R., Girven, J., & G \"a nsicke, B

    Rebassa-Mansergas , A., Nebot G \'o mez-Mor \'a n , A., Schreiber, M. R., Girven, J., & G \"a nsicke, B. T. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 413, 1121, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18200.x

    2011 doi

  129. [137]

    J., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas , A., Solano, E., Brown, A. J., et al. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 699, A153, 10.1051/0004-6361/202554700

    2025 doi

  130. [138]

    A., De Marco, O., Iaconi, R., Chamandy, L., & Price, D

    Reichardt, T. A., De Marco, O., Iaconi, R., Chamandy, L., & Price, D. J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 5333, 10.1093/mnras/staa937

    2020 doi

  131. [139]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae286c

    Rekhi, P., Shahaf, S., Ben-Ami , S., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 996, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae286c

    2026 doi

  132. [140]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  133. [141]

    W., et al

    Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c

    2022 doi

  134. [142]

    Roelofs, G. H. A., Nelemans, G., & Groot, P. J. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 382, 685, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12451.x

    2007 doi

  135. [143]

    K., & De Marco, O

    R \"o pke, F. K., & De Marco, O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 9, 2, 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x

    2023 doi

  136. [144]

    J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Sim, S. A., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 408, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19276.x

    2011 doi

  137. [145]

    T., Schneider, F

    Sand, C., Ohlmann, S. T., Schneider, F. R. N., Pakmor, R., & R \"o pke, F. K. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 644, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038992

    2020 doi

  138. [146]

    L., Taam, R

    Sandquist, E. L., Taam, R. E., Chen, X., Bodenheimer, P., & Burkert, A. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 500, 909, 10.1086/305778

    1998 doi

  139. [147]

    Santos-Garc \'i a , A., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas , A., & Brown, A. J. 2025, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 695, A161, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452989

    2025 doi

  140. [148]

    N., Geier, S., & Kupfer, T

    Schaffenroth, V., Pelisoli, I., Barlow, B. N., Geier, S., & Kupfer, T. 2022, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 666, A182, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214

    2022 doi

  141. [149]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., Langer, N., & de Mink , S. E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 20, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/20

    2015 doi

  142. [150]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 691, A174, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450354

    Sch \"u rmann, C., & Langer, N. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 691, A174, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450354

    2024 doi

  143. [151]

    2026, The Impact of Envelope Binding Energies on the Merger Rate Density of Binary Compact Objects, arXiv

    Sgalletta, C., Costa, G., Iorio, G., et al. 2026, The Impact of Envelope Binding Energies on the Merger Rate Density of Binary Compact Objects, arXiv. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260506807S

    2026

  144. [152]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 3729, 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 3729, 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    2024 doi

  145. [153]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5611, 10.1093/mnras/stz1636

    Shahaf, S., Mazeh, T., Faigler, S., & Holl, B. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5611, 10.1093/mnras/stz1636

    2019 doi

  146. [154]

    2026, A Global View of Post-Interaction White Dwarf-Main Sequence Binaries, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00439

    Shariat, C., & El-Badry , K. 2026, A Global View of Post-Interaction White Dwarf-Main Sequence Binaries, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.00439

    2026 doi

  147. [155]

    2026, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 78, 382, 10.1093/pasj/psaf148

    Shiraishi, Y., Hotokezaka, K., Masuda, K., et al. 2026, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 78, 382, 10.1093/pasj/psaf148

    2026 doi

  148. [156]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 327, 620, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    1997 doi arXiv

  149. [157]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad736

    Soker, N., Grichener, A., & Sabach, E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad736

    2018 doi

  150. [158]

    Song, Y., Stevenson, S., Chattopadhyay, D., Tan, J., & Paglione, T. A. D. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 42, e131, 10.1017/pasa.2025.10092

    2025 doi

  151. [159]

    2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2163, 10.1093/mnras/staf2163

    Souropanis, D., Zapartas, E., Pessi, T., et al. 2026, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 545, staf2163, 10.1093/mnras/staf2163

    2026 doi

  152. [160]

    Stancliffe, R. J. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 5554, 10.1093/mnras/stab1734

    2021 doi

  153. [161]

    M., & Dewi, J

    Tauris, T. M., & Dewi, J. D. M. 2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 369, 170, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010099

    2001 doi

  154. [162]

    D., Pols, O

    Temmink, K. D., Pols, O. R., Justham, S., Istrate, A. G., & Toonen, S. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 669, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    2023 doi

  155. [163]

    2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 557, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321753

    Toonen, S., & Nelemans, G. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 557, A87, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321753

    2013 doi

  156. [164]

    S., & Bandopadhyay, D

    Toonen, S., Portegies Zwart, S., Hamers, A. S., & Bandopadhyay, D. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 640, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835

    2020 doi

  157. [165]

    2025, Galaxies, 13, 68, 10.3390/galaxies13030068

    Van Winckel, H. 2025, Galaxies, 13, 68, 10.3390/galaxies13030068

    2025 doi

  158. [166]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 2326, 10.1093/mnras/stac237

    Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Wassink, M., Klencki, J., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 2326, 10.1093/mnras/stac237

    2022 doi

  159. [167]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  160. [168]

    2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 126, 10.1088/1674-4527/16/8/126

    Wang, C., Jia, K., & Li, X.-D. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 126, 10.1088/1674-4527/16/8/126

    2016 doi

  161. [169]

    Webbink, R. F. 1975, PhD thesis. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975PhDT.......165W

    1975

  162. [170]

    1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 277, 355, 10.1086/161701

    ---. 1984, The Astrophysical Journal, 277, 355, 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  163. [171]

    Webbink, R. F. 2008, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library , Vol. 352, eprint: arXiv:0704.0280, 233, 10.1007/978-1-4020-6544-6_13

    2008 doi arXiv

  164. [172]

    2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  165. [173]

    C., & Nordhaus, J

    Wilson, E. C., & Nordhaus, J. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 4492, 10.1093/mnras/stz601

    2019 doi

  166. [174]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2189, 10.1093/mnras/stac2300

    ---. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 2189, 10.1093/mnras/stac2300

    2022 doi

  167. [175]

    J., & Stickland, D

    Wonnacott, D., Kellett, B. J., & Stickland, D. J. 1993, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 262, 277, 10.1093/mnras/262.2.277

    1993 doi

  168. [176]

    E., & Ivanova, N

    Woods, T. E., & Ivanova, N. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, L48, 10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/L48

    2011 doi

  169. [177]

    Woosley, S. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 878, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b41

    2019 doi

  170. [178]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/114

    Xu, X.-J., & Li, X.-D. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 716, 114, 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/114

    2010 doi

  171. [179]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry , K., Rees, N. R., et al. 2024 a , Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 84202, 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809

    2024 doi

  172. [180]

    2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 137, 104205, 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry , K., & Shahaf, S. 2025, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 137, 104205, 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30

    2025 doi

  173. [181]

    2024 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11719, 10.1093/mnras/stad4005

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry , K., Fuller, J., et al. 2024 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 11719, 10.1093/mnras/stad4005

    2024 doi

  174. [182]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 683, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347806

    Yungelson, L., Kuranov, A., Postnov, K., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 683, A37, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347806

    2024 doi

  175. [183]

    Yungelson, L., Livio, M., Tutukov, A., & Kenyon, S. J. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 447, 656, 10.1086/175908

    1995 doi

  176. [184]

    R., & Kuranov, A

    Yungelson, L. R., & Kuranov, A. G. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 464, 1607, 10.1093/mnras/stw2432

    2017 doi

  177. [185]

    E., Van Dyk, S

    Zapartas, E., de Mink , S. E., Van Dyk, S. D., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 842, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7467

    2017 doi

  178. [186]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6263

    Zhang, L., Ge, H., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 274, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6263

    2024 doi

  179. [187]

    R., G \"a nsicke, B

    Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., G \"a nsicke, B. T., & Nebot G \'o mez-Mor \'a n , A. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 520, A86, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913658

    2010 doi

  180. [188]

    R., & Parsons, S

    Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., & Parsons, S. G. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 568, L9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424430

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.