Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Probing Binary Architectures of Lithium-Rich Giants in GALAH with COSMIC and Stellar Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper argues that the most lithium-rich red giants form via low-efficiency mass transfer from intermediate-mass AGB stars in binaries, with present-day separations near 3.3 AU.

desk verdict A valuable but prior-dominated first map of binary architectures for Li-rich giants; the MS-inheritance argument is solid, but the headline fractions and 'agreement' numbers need reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05359 v1 pith:ZZ4PI5GX submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Maryum Sayeed , Selina Yang , Giulia Cinquegrana , Melissa K. Ness , Katelyn Breivik , Andrew R. Casey , Sven Buder , Amanda I. Karakas This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords lithium-richredgiantsbinarymasstransferasymptoticgiantbranchstarshotbottomburningpopulationsynthesiswhitedwarfbinariess-processenhancementGALAHsurvey
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

The paper argues that the most lithium-rich red giants, those with $A(\mathrm{Li})$ above about 2.2 dex, are produced by mass transfer from an intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star onto a companion that is now seen as a lithium-rich red giant. It reaches this by evolving roughly nine million binary systems, matching 1104 survivors to GALAH lithium-rich giants in mass, age, and metallicity, and then checking AGB nucleosynthesis models against observed barium and yttrium enhancements. If the claim is right, it turns a long-standing stellar mystery into a testable prediction: the most enriched giants should be white-dwarf-red-giant binaries at separations near 3.3 AU with mass ratios between 0.5 and 1.6, formed while the accretor was still on the main sequence. The paper also finds that a low mass-transfer efficiency near 1% best matches the data, pointing to wind-driven Roche-lobe overflow rather than direct Roche-lobe overflow as the delivery mechanism.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the abundance-mixing formula $X_{\mathrm{RGB,a.a.}} = (X_{\mathrm{RGB,b.a.}} M_{\mathrm{env}} + X_{\mathrm{AGB}} M_{\mathrm{acc}}) / (M_{\mathrm{env}} + M_{\mathrm{acc}})$, which converts COSMIC-derived accreted masses and red-giant envelope masses into post-transfer surface abundances. That equation lets the paper translate AGB nucleosynthetic yields into $A(\mathrm{Li})$, barium, yttrium, and oxygen predictions that can be compared element-by-element with GALAH's comparisons between lithium-rich stars and matched comparison stars. The underlying physical engine is the Cameron-Fowler beryllium-transport process in hot-bottom burning AGB envelopes, which makes intermediate-mass AGB stars lithium factories whose winds can pollute a companion.

What would settle it

Measure radial velocities of the COSMIC-GALAH candidate systems over a baseline longer than their predicted periods, roughly 0.04 to 14 AU with a peak near 3.3 AU. If none of the giants with $A(\mathrm{Li}) \gtrsim 2.2$ dex shows companion-induced velocity variation or an unseen white dwarf in follow-up spectra, the AGB mass-transfer scenario as the dominant channel for the most enriched giants would be ruled out; detecting the predicted period and mass-ratio distribution would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, under the assumption that lithium-rich red giants form in binaries, the most enriched subset ($A(\mathrm{Li}) \gtrsim 2.2$ dex) requires mass transfer from an intermediate-mass AGB donor, not inheritance from a lithium-rich main-sequence phase. In the COSMIC populations, 29% of matched white-dwarf-red-giant systems contain an AGB star that went through hot-bottom burning (initial mass 4.25 to 8 solar masses), with present-day separations $3.3 \pm 0.5$ AU and initial mass ratios 0.5 to 1.6; mass transfer onto the accretor happens during its main-sequence phase in 98% of Roche-lobe overflow cases. The paper further shows that only 0.04% of GALAH main-sequence stars have $A(\mathrm{Li}) \geq 3.2$ dex, too few to explain the 32% of lithium-rich giants above 2.2 dex by simple post-first-dredge-up depletion, while the 9.2% of main-sequence stars at $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 2.5$ to 3.2 dex can account for the lower-enrichment giants at $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 1.5$ to 2.2 dex. A 1% mass-transfer efficiency reproduces the observed barium and yttrium enhancements to roughly 93 to 95% linear agreement for 6 and 8 solar mass AGB donors, which the paper interprets as evidence for wind Roche-lobe overflow.

Load-bearing premise

The donor star's initial mass is drawn from a uniform distribution between 0.5 and 10 solar masses; that ad hoc prior is what makes intermediate-mass AGB donors common enough to dominate the matched sample, and replacing it with a Gaussian prior centered near 1.5 solar masses drops the intermediate-mass AGB fraction from 35% to 4%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, the most lithium-rich giants should be found in white-dwarf-red-giant binaries with separations near 3.3 AU and mass ratios 0.5 to 1.6, detectable as radial-velocity variation over a baseline of a few years.
  • The observed barium and yttrium enhancements can be explained by about 1% mass-transfer efficiency, implying wind Roche-lobe overflow is the delivery channel; lithium-rich giants with $A(\mathrm{Li}) \gtrsim 2.2$ dex should therefore show correlated s-process enhancement.
  • Main-sequence stars with $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 2.5$ to 3.2 dex can become red giants with $A(\mathrm{Li}) = 1.5$ to 2.2 dex without external enrichment, so only the high-lithium tail requires the binary channel.
  • Because only 29% of matched systems contain an intermediate-mass AGB donor, the predicted binary detection rate among lithium-rich giants is a testable but prior-dependent number.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit is that the predicted architectures concentrate near the tidal-circularization boundary where wind accretion is efficient; a testable extension would be to check whether the orbits of lithium-rich giants cluster at separations slightly larger than direct Roche-lobe overflow allows.
  • The paper's uniform primary-mass prior inflates the intermediate-mass AGB fraction from 4% under a Gaussian prior to 35%; reweighting by a realistic stellar initial mass function would likely lower the predicted companion detection rate and make the barium-yttrium comparison a sharper discriminator between AGB and non-AGB enrichment channels.
  • A direct extension of the matching procedure would be to take the 1104 COSMIC-GALAH candidate systems and search for companion motion in upcoming astrometric and radial-velocity releases, converting the predicted architecture into a measured occurrence rate.
  • The nucleosynthetic comparison rests on barium and yttrium alone; if a future data release improves uncertainties for other s-process elements such as zirconium, lanthanum, and neodymium, the same 1% efficiency test would either strengthen or break the identification of the AGB donor channel.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines the COSMIC binary population synthesis code with Monash AGB stellar models and GALAH Li-rich giant samples to ask what binary architectures could produce Li-rich red giants under the assumption of AGB-to-companion mass transfer. Evolving roughly nine million binary systems, the authors select white-dwarf-plus-red-giant systems whose red giants match GALAH Li-rich giants in mass, age, and metallicity. They find that most matched systems undergo mass transfer while the accretor is on the main sequence, that 29% of thermal-pulse AGB systems involve intermediate-mass AGB donors with separations around 3.3 AU and mass ratios 0.5--1.6, and that low mass-transfer efficiency (1%) best reproduces the observed Ba and Y enhancements. The paper concludes that the most enriched Li-rich giants (A(Li) > 2.2 dex) require mass transfer under the binarity assumption, with the preferred donor being an intermediate-mass AGB star. The authors are transparent about many limitations and present the result as a constraint on one hypothesized pathway rather than a definitive formation mechanism.

Significance. If the headline architecture survived the paper's own prior sensitivity tests, it would give a concrete target for Gaia DR4 radial-velocity follow-up and for dedicated binary searches among Li-rich giants. The paper's strengths are its large COSMIC population, its use of detailed nucleosynthesis models with published yields, its explicit discussion of caveats, and its falsifiable predictions (e.g., the expected period/mass-ratio region in Fig. 13 and the APOGEE detectability statement in Section 3.1.1). However, as written, the central quantitative claims are dominated by an ad hoc uniform primary-mass prior and by mass-transfer efficiencies that are calibrated to the very observations later used to claim agreement. The nucleosynthetic comparison also rests on just two reliable elements, so the evidence for an intermediate-mass AGB donor is weaker than the abstract's summary suggests. The paper is a useful scoping study, but the headline conclusions need reframing and quantitative robustness checks before they can be regarded as constraints from the data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Section 4.2] The uniform primary-mass prior between 0.5 and 10 Msun is load-bearing for the abstract's headline quantities. The paper itself reports that the fraction of matched systems with intermediate-mass AGB donors drops from 35% under the uniform prior to 4% under a Gaussian prior centered at 1.5 Msun, while the stellar models in Table 1 and Figure 8 require M_ZAMS > 4.25 Msun for HBB and Li production. Under a more physical, IMF-like prior, essentially none of the matched COSMIC systems would have a donor capable of producing the Li. The statement in Section 4.2 that the main conclusions are consistent between the two priors refers only to the timing of mass transfer (98% versus ~100% on the main sequence), not to the donor mass distribution or to the reported separation s = 3.3 +/- 0.5 AU and mass ratio q = 0.5--1.6. Please report the headline architecture distributions for both priors (or for an IMF-weighted prior), or explicitly reframe the 29% fraction, the separation, and the mass ratio as products of a deliberately flat prior rather than as constraints from GALAH data.
  2. [Section 3.3, Section 3.4, and Figure 10] The mass-transfer efficiency beta is calibrated to the same observations that are later used to claim agreement. In Section 3.3, beta = 5% is chosen because it yields a final lithium abundance consistent with the average A(Li) of the GALAH sample; in Section 3.4 and Figure 10, beta = 1% is chosen because it best matches the observed Ba, Y, and O enhancements. The '95% agreement in mean enhancements' is therefore an after-fit residual, not an independent prediction. Please provide a formal model comparison that accounts for the number of free parameters, ideally using a held-out subset of elements or an independent calibration sample, or explicitly describe the agreement as a consistency check whose fitted status is stated.
  3. [Section 3.4 and Figure 11C] The nucleosynthetic support for an intermediate-mass AGB donor rests on only two elements, Ba and Y, while most other s-process elements show no significant difference between Li-rich giants and their doppelgangers, and the models systematically overpredict s-process enhancements relative to the observations. The observed abundances are averages over a population with a range of masses and metallicities, whereas the models are for a single solar-metallicity, 1 Msun accretor, so the reported 95--97% linear-scale agreement conflates genuine model-data mismatch with population averaging. Please quantify the covariance and systematic uncertainties in the abundance comparison, and test at least one model at the mean metallicity of the Li-rich sample ([Fe/H] approximately -0.34 dex), before presenting the 6 and 8 Msun donors as the favored solutions.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Figure 12] The statement that Li-rich giants with A(Li) >= 2.2 dex could only be produced with mass transfer, under the assumption of binarity, is stronger than the presented evidence. The argument depends on an assumed first dredge-up depletion of about 1 dex (the text itself notes depletions up to 2 dex), on the measured fraction of main-sequence stars in a restricted Teff--log g window, and on excluding the other enrichment channels that the authors list in Section 4.3, such as mergers, the He-flash, and tidal spin-up. Please quantify the fraction of Li-rich giants with A(Li) >= 2.2 under a range of FDU depletion assumptions and state explicitly that 'could only' is conditional on the binary mass-transfer channel being the designated hypothesis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The text says 'We initialize 8,995,738 million binary systems,' which should presumably read '8,995,738 binary systems' (or 'about 9 million'); please correct this numerical typo.
  2. [Equation (2)] Equation (2) sums over i = 1 to 4, but the text and Figure 3 describe three matched parameters (mass, age, and metallicity); please reconcile the summation index with the list of parameters.
  3. [Figures 4 and 7] The mass-ratio definition changes between Figure 4 (q = M1/M2 with M1 > M2) and Figure 7 (q = M2/M1 with M2 < M1); please state both definitions explicitly in the respective captions to avoid confusion.
  4. [Section 2.2] The text says the input eccentricity is 'distributed randomly' without specifying the distribution; please state the eccentricity sampling used by COSMIC, since it affects the initial conditions for RLOF and circularization.
  5. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The timing fraction is quoted as 98% in several places and as 'almost 100%' in Section 4.2; please use a single consistent value or explain the difference.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mass-transfer efficiency is tuned to the GALAH abundance offsets that are then quoted as '95% agreement,' and the 29% intermediate-mass AGB fraction is the direct product of a uniform prior chosen to guarantee that population.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Equation 4, Figure 10) and Section 3.4]
    "We chose 5% mass transfer efficiency as this resulted in a final lithium abundance consistent with the average A(Li) of the GALAH sample. ... Based on Figure 10, we use 1% mass transfer efficiency in our analysis with stellar models. ... there is a 95 − 97% agreement between the observed Ba value and the values from 6 and 8 M⊙, and a 93 − 95% agreement for Y."

    The mass-transfer efficiency beta is a free parameter selected to reproduce the same GALAH abundance offsets (A(Li) average at 5%, then Ba/Y/O at 1%) that are later quoted as '95% agreement.' The agreement is therefore an after-fit comparison, not an independent prediction: the model was tuned to the data and then compared to the same data. The conclusion that low-efficiency wind RLOF 'best reproduces' GALAH observations inherits the same circularity, since the comparison was used to pick beta. No held-out or external constraint fixes beta.

  2. self definitional [Section 2.2 (COSMIC initialization) and Section 4.2 (Assumptions & Simplifications)]
    "the primary's mass (ie. AGB companion now a white dwarf) is sampled from a uniform distribution between 0.5 − 10 M⊙. ... We chose to use a uniform distribution to sample from for the primary's mass to ensure a large sample size for systems that undergo RLOF and end up with intermediate–mass AGB companions. ... the number of systems with an intermediate–mass AGB is only 4% if we choose a Gaussian distribution centered on 1.5 M⊙ as compared to 35% if we choose a uniform prior between 0.5−10 M⊙."

    The headline result that intermediate-mass AGB stars comprise 29% of matched COSMIC systems is the posterior of a prior explicitly chosen to ensure a large sample of intermediate-mass AGB systems. The paper's own sensitivity test shows the fraction drops to 4% under a Gaussian prior centered at 1.5 Msun. Since the stellar models (Table 1, Figure 8) require M_ZAMS >= 4.25 Msun for HBB and Li production, the 29% fraction and the derived separations (3.3 +- 0.5 AU) and mass ratios (0.5-1.6) are direct products of the input prior rather than constraints from GALAH data; the prior was defined to produce the claimed population.

full rationale

The COSMIC population synthesis is a genuine forward model: nearly 9 million systems are evolved with default COSMIC physics, matched to GALAH red-giant parameters by chi-squared, and the resulting white-dwarf-red-giant architectures (including the APOGEE detectability comparison) are largely independent of the circularity issues. The stellar models of Karakas (2014) and Karakas & Lugaro (2016), although co-authored by a co-author of the present paper, are externally published models with stated assumptions and are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem, so they do not constitute load-bearing self-citation. However, two key quantitative claims are circular or forced. First, the 95% (Ba) and 93-95% (Y) 'agreement' is obtained after choosing the 1% mass-transfer efficiency because it best reproduces the same Ba/Y/O offsets; the 5% efficiency for Li was likewise chosen to match the average A(Li). These agreement statistics are after-fits rather than predictions. Second, the 29% intermediate-mass AGB fraction and associated separations and mass ratios are the posterior of a uniform primary-mass prior that the authors state was chosen to ensure a large sample of exactly those systems; their own Gaussian-prior test drops the fraction to 4%, where the Li-producing channel nearly vanishes. The paper discloses both choices, which is commendable, but disclosure does not remove the circularity. Overall, the central architecture and nucleosynthesis conclusions are partially forced by construction, though the COSMIC framework and matching procedure retain independent predictive content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard COSMIC and Monash model assumptions, plus several hand-chosen inputs. The most consequential are the uniform primary mass prior and the fitted mass transfer efficiency, both of which directly shape the reported fractions and the 'agreement' with observations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Mass transfer efficiency beta = 1% (also 5% used for Li mixing)
    Chosen as 5% to match average A(Li) in Section 3.3, then as 1% because it best reproduces observed Ba, Y, and O in Section 3.4. This is a fitted parameter used to claim low-efficiency wind RLOF.
  • Primary mass prior = uniform 0.5-10 M_sun
    Selected to ensure a large sample of intermediate-mass AGB systems. Section 4.2 states this changes the intermediate-mass AGB fraction from 4% (Gaussian) to 35% (uniform).
  • Initial separation upper bound = 14 AU (3000 R_sun)
    Section 2.2: 'chosen arbitrarily but above 10 AU.' This affects the period distribution and the fraction of systems without RLOF.
  • First dredge-up Li depletion = 1 dex
    Adopted in Section 4.1 to map main-sequence A(Li) to giant A(Li). The paper notes depletion can reach 2 dex, which would change the threshold for which MS stars can produce Li-rich giants.
  • AGB donor Li abundance = A(Li) = 3.2 dex
    Assumed in Figure 6 as an illustrative donor abundance. It is used to show that observed A(Li) values can be reproduced, but the value is not derived from the models.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption COSMIC binary interaction prescriptions (Hurley et al. 2002; Vassiliadis & Wood 1993; Vink et al. 2001; Belczynski et al. 2008) are valid for these systems.
    Used as default physics in COSMIC without independent verification in this paper. Location: Section 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper The observed Li-rich giant is the secondary (accretor) in a binary whose primary went through AGB and is now a white dwarf.
    The entire COSMIC selection requires a WD+RG final state and an AGB phase for the primary. This is the hypothesis under test, not a proven property of Li-rich giants. Location: Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption First dredge-up depletes surface lithium by roughly 1 dex.
    Cited from Lind et al. 2009, Karakas & Lattanzio 2014, Charbonnel et al. 2020. Used to predict which main-sequence stars can become Li-rich giants. Location: Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Hot bottom burning in AGB stars with M >= 4.25 M_sun produces Li via the pp-2 chain.
    Standard Cameron-Fowler mechanism adopted from the literature. Used to select intermediate-mass AGB donors. Location: Sections 1 and 3.2.
  • domain assumption Monash AGB model yields from Karakas (2014) and Karakas & Lugaro (2016) correctly represent Li, Ba, Y, and O production.
    These models are used as nucleosynthesis ground truth; their 13C pocket treatment and nuclear network choices are cited, not re-derived. Location: Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption GALAH DR3 stellar parameters (mass, age, metallicity) are accurate to quoted uncertainties for matching.
    The entire matching procedure and the 9% main-sequence star fraction argument rely on GALAH DR3 values. Location: Sections 2.1 and 2.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Mass transfer efficiency is constant across systems and set to 1% for predictions.
    Beta is fit to match observed Ba/Y enhancements; using one efficiency for all systems is a simplification. Location: Section 3.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Binary Architectures of Lithium-Rich Giants in GALAH with COSMIC and Stellar Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZ4PI5GX

@misc{pith2026250705359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Binary Architectures of Lithium-Rich Giants in GALAH with COSMIC and Stellar Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZ4PI5GX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05359}
}
abstract

Surface lithium is depleted when a star goes through the first dredge-up phase, yet $1\%$ of red giants are found to be Li-rich. The formation mechanism for these remains uncertain. We combine observational constraints from GALAH Li-rich giants, with the binary population synthesis code COSMIC to investigate system properties of these objects assuming binary mass transfer. By evolving 9 million binary systems, we find that binary histories most consistent with observational constraints are mass transfer from an intermediate-mass AGB donor to a main-sequence star now observed as a Li-rich red giant. In GALAH, $9\%$ of main-sequence stars have $\rm A(Li)=2.5-3.2$ dex making it plausible to create red giants with $\rm A(Li)=1.5-2.2 \; dex$ via main-sequence mass transfer, but cannot explain the more enriched giants $\rm A(Li) \gtrsim 2.2 \; dex$. Nucleosynthetic yields from stellar models show that AGB stars with initial masses of $4.25-5 \; \rm M_\odot$ and $8 \; \rm M_\odot$ contain the most Li in their ejecta. Intermediate-mass AGB stars comprise $29\%$ of COSMIC results, with present-day separations $s=3.3\pm0.5 \rm \; AU$ and mass ratios $q=0.5-1.6$. We achieve $95\%$ agreement in mean enhancements in $\rm (Ba, Y)$ between GALAH observations and stellar models of 6 and $8 \rm \; M_\odot$ AGB, assuming $1\%$ mass transfer efficiency. We find a low mass transfer efficiency best reproduces GALAH observations suggesting that the preferred mass transfer mechanism for Li-enrichment is via wind Roche Lobe Overflow. While we constrain the most plausible binary parameters assuming AGB mass transfer creates Li-rich giants, discrepancies in nucleosynthesis comparisons, and the small fraction of Li-enhanced main-sequence stars suggests additional enrichment mechanisms are likely.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kiel diagram of Li–rich giants in GALAH coloured by their Li abundance with selection criteria from Sayeed et al. (2024). conditions constrained by GALAH observations. We then examine the parameters of systems that could lead to red giants with Li–enrichment. Second, we use stellar models and nucleosynthetic yields, and compare to observed abundance measurements to determine possible AGB progenitor properties in Sec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Input system parameters used to initialize 9 million binary systems in COSMIC. The primary mass and orbital periods were sampled from a uniform distribution, while the secondary mass, metallicity, and system age were sampled from a Gaussian distribution from GALAH observations. mass (ie. AGB companion now a white dwarf) is sampled from a uniform distribution between 0.5 − 10 M⊙. We discuss the implications of our ch… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing GALAH red giant parameters to COSMIC system parameters after matching on mass, age, and absolute metallicity, Z. The text indicates the mean offset with error, and the scatter. The bottom panels show the fractional difference. COSMIC candidates that did not get a match in the first round. To ensure high fidelity, we require that the difference in each parameter used for matching is less than the mean error… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Final mass ratio and orbital period (in days) of the COSMIC systems, where mass ratio is defined as q = M1/M2 where M1 > M2 (M1 is now the white dwarf and M2 is the red giant). The blue points indicate systems that do not undergo RLOF. The purple points indicate …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final separation of systems where we distinguish between systems with a first ascent red giant and those with a core helium–burning red giant. where XRGB, b.a. is the surface mass fraction of the red giant before accretion (b.a.), XAGB is the surface mass fraction of A…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows our COSMIC results in blue, Gold Sample in white, and GALAH stars in the Gold Sample in purple. The overlapping stars are well distributed among the Gold Sample, and have similar range of visits. The final mass ratio for all samples in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AGB models from Karakas (2014) and Karakas & Lugaro (2016) with initial masses of 4.5, 6 and 8 M⊙. The initial composition of all three models are approximately solar metallicity (Zi = 0.014) with canonical initial He mass fractions (Yi = 0.28). Top: absolute surface A…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Surface A(Li) in a red giant after mass transfer from an AGB companion. Models are shown for varying AGB masses from 4−8 M⊙. Solid lines model mass transfer during the red giant’s main–sequence phase, and dashed lines show models when mass transfer occurs after the fir…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Changes in surface Ba (left), Y (middle), and O (right), post mass transfer in a 1 M⊙ RGB for different mass transfer efficiencies as a function of donor AGB mass. The top panels show the abundance changes when mass transfer occurs on the main–sequence, and the bottom…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top: Surface abundance of a red giant after mass transfer from an AGB while the red giant is on the main– sequence. The six models shown are for varying AGB masses and mass transfer efficiency (see legend). The elements are ordered by their atomic number. Middle: Same…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of lithium abundance for main– sequence (grey) and Li–rich red giants in GALAH. The vertical dashed line indicates A(Li) = 2.2 dex for reference. transfer, under the assumption of binarity. This is further supported by the fact that in our sample of GALAH…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Final mass ratio and orbital period (in years) of COSMIC systems with simulated RUWE curves. The vertical black line indicates Gaia DR4 baseline of 66 months. however we briefly explore this mass transfer scenario below. This accretion scenario would occur if the sepa…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2012, ApJL, 754, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L15

    Wolszczan, A. 2012, ApJL, 754, L15, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/L15

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/754/1/l15 2012

  2. [2]

    Alexander, J. B. 1967, The Observatory, 87, 238

    1967

  3. [3]

    2023, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 31, 1

    Arcones, A., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2023, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 31, 1

    2023

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  6. [6]

    A., & Critchfield, C

    Bethe, H. A., & Critchfield, C. L. 1938, Physical Review, 54, 248

    1938

  7. [7]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  8. [8]

    I., Sackmann, I., Wasserburg, G., et al

    Boothroyd, A. I., Sackmann, I., Wasserburg, G., et al. 1995, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 442, no. 1, p. L21-L24, 442, L21 Binary Architectures of Lithium–Rich Giants 19

    1995

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Larson, S. L. 2017, ApJL, 850, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa97d5

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    X., et al

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, E. X., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.19858, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.19858

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cameron, A. G. W., & Fowler, W. A. 1971, ApJ, 164, 111, doi: 10.1086/150821

    1971 doi

  6. [14]

    Cannon, R. C. 1993, MNRAS, 263, 817, doi: 10.1093/mnras/263.4.817

    1993 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Ho, A

    Casey, A. R., Ho, A. Y. Q., Ness, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 880, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27bf

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00049, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00049 Chanam´ e, J., Pinsonneault, M

    Castro-Tapia, M., Aguilera-G´ omez, C., & Chanam´ e, J. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.00049, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.00049 Chanam´ e, J., Pinsonneault, M. H., Aguilera-G´ omez, C., &

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zinn, J. C. 2022, ApJ, 933, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac70c8

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.11275

    Chance, Q., Foreman-Mackey, D., Ballard, S., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.11275. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.11275

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2020, A&A, 633, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936360

    Charbonnel, C., Lagarde, N., Jasniewicz, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936360

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 4465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx680

    Carroll-Nellenback, J. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx680

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b6e

    Chen, Z., Ivanova, N., & Carroll-Nellenback, J. 2020, ApJ, 892, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b6e

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, A&A, 620, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834079

    Cseh, B., Lugaro, M., D’Orazi, V., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A146, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834079

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    P., et al

    Cseh, B., Vil´ agos, B., Roriz, M. P., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142468

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 de Mink, S

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Hilditch, R. W. 2007, A&A, 467, 1181, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20067007 De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawth...

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    L., & Reddy, B

    Deepak, Lambert, D. L., & Reddy, B. E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1348, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa729 Deepak, & Reddy, B. E. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2000, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz128 Delgado Mena, E., Israelian, G., Gonz´ alez Hern´ andez, J. I., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Oudmaijer, R

    Dodd, J. M., Oudmaijer, R. D., Radley, I. C., Vioque, M., & Frost, A. J. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3105

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    1983 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Escorza, A., & De Rosa, R. J. 2023, A&A, 671, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244782

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    1996, ApJ, 473, 383 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Frost, C., & Lattanzio, J. 1996, ApJ, 473, 383 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab505c

    Gao, Q., Shi, J.-R., Yan, H.-L., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab505c

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    M., et al

    Gao, X., Lind, K., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L30, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa109 Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., Garc ´ ıa-Lario, P., Plez, B., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 1751, doi: 10.1126/science.1133706 Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., Zamora, O., Yag¨ ue, A., et al. ...

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, L25

    Goriely, S., & Siess, L. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 421, L25

    2004

  27. [35]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T., Wood, P. R., Sloan, G. C., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 313, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11428.x

    2007

  28. [36]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

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

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

    2000 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 425

    Herwig, F. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 425

    2004

  31. [39]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    1987 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  34. [42]

    1967a, ApJ, 147, 624, doi: 10.1086/149040 —

    Iben, Jr., I. 1967a, ApJ, 147, 624, doi: 10.1086/149040 —. 1967b, ApJ, 147, 650, doi: 10.1086/149041

    doi

  35. [43]

    A., & Rogers, F

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

    1996

  36. [44]

    C., Mayor, M., & Rebolo, R

    Israelian, G., Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., & Rebolo, R. 2004, A&A, 414, 601, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034398 20 Sayeed et al

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    C., et al

    Israelian, G., Delgado Mena, E., Santos, N. C., et al. 2009, Nature, 462, 189, doi: 10.1038/nature08483

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    Karakas, A., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2007, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aus., 24, 103

    2007

  39. [47]

    Karakas, A. I. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 347

    2014

  40. [48]

    I., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D

    Karakas, A. I., Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., & Lugaro, M. 2012, ApJ, 751, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/8

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    I., & Lattanzio, J

    Karakas, A. I., & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2014.21

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 26

    2016

  43. [51]

    I., Marino, A

    Karakas, A. I., Marino, A. F., & Nataf, D. M. 2014, ApJ, 784, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/32

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    R., Deliyannis, C

    King, J. R., Deliyannis, C. P., Hiltgen, D. D., et al. 1997, AJ, 113, 1871, doi: 10.1086/118399

    1997 doi

  45. [53]

    2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution, Springer

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution, Springer

    2012

  46. [54]

    G., & Pols, O

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

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    B., Reddy, B

    Kumar, Y. B., Reddy, B. E., Campbell, S. W., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1059, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1139-7

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Lattanzio, J., Frost, C., Cannon, R., & Wood, P. R. 1996, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 67, 729

    1996

  50. [58]

    Lattanzio, J. C. 1984, PhD thesis, Monash University

    1984

  51. [59]

    Lattanzio, J. C. 1986, ApJ, 311, 708, doi: 10.1086/164810

    1986 doi

  52. [60]

    Lattanzio, J. C. 1992, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 10, 120

    1992

  53. [61]

    C., Siess, L., Church, R

    Lattanzio, J. C., Siess, L., Church, R. P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2238

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    M., & Geller, A

    Leiner, E. M., & Geller, A. 2021, ApJ, 908, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7e9

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    2009, A&A, 503, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912524

    Asplund, M. 2009, A&A, 503, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912524

    2009 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    I., Stancliffe, R

    Lugaro, M., Karakas, A. I., Stancliffe, R. J., & Rijs, C. 2012, ApJ, 747, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/2

    2012 doi

  58. [66]

    2023, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73, 315

    Lugaro, M., Pignatari, M., Reifarth, R., & Wiescher, M. 2023, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 73, 315

    2023

  59. [67]

    Mallick, A., Singh, R., & Reddy, B. E. 2023, ApJL, 944, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb5f6

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 508, 1539

    Marigo, P., & Aringer, B. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 508, 1539

    2009

  61. [69]

    L., Simpson, J

    Martell, S. L., Simpson, J. D., Balasubramaniam, A. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5340, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1356

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.18552, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.18552

    Matsuno, T., Kemp, A., Tanikawa, A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.18552, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.18552

    2025 doi arXiv

  63. [71]

    A., Wood, P

    McSaveney, J. A., Wood, P. R., Scholz, M., Lattanzio, J. C., & Hinkle, K. H. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 378, 1089

    2007

  64. [72]

    2021, ChA&A, 45, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.chinastron.2021.02.003

    Ming-hao, D., Shao-lan, B., Jian-rong, S., & Hong-liang, Y. 2021, ChA&A, 45, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.chinastron.2021.02.003

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Nelson, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 664, doi: 10.1086/320560

    2001 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Casey, A

    Norfolk, B. J., Casey, A. R., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 2219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2630

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    Prandtl, L. 1925, Z. Angew. Math. Mech., 136

    1925

  68. [76]

    M., Hogg, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8acc

    2020 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12711

    Silva, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.12711, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12711

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    Z., & Fuller, J

    Rui, N. Z., & Fuller, J. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 81, doi: 10.33232/001c.123878

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2017, A&A, 605, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730522

    Rybizki, J., Just, A., & Rix, H.-W. 2017, A&A, 605, A59, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730522

    2017 doi

  72. [80]

    J., & Boothroyd, A

    Sackmann, I. J., & Boothroyd, A. I. 1992, ApJL, 392, L71, doi: 10.1086/186428

    1992 doi

  73. [81]

    K., Montet, B

    Sayeed, M., Ness, M. K., Montet, B. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1936

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    2022, A&A, 659, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142574

    Sen, K., Langer, N., Marchant, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142574

    2022 doi

  75. [83]

    2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 035002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.3.035002

    Sheinis, A., Anguiano, B., Asplund, M., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 035002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.3.035002

    2015 doi

  76. [84]

    1999a, MNRAS, 304, 925, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02376.x —

    Siess, L., & Livio, M. 1999a, MNRAS, 304, 925, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02376.x —. 1999b, MNRAS, 308, 1133, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02784.x

    1999

  77. [85]

    E., Bharat Kumar, Y., & Antia, H

    Singh, R., Reddy, B. E., Bharat Kumar, Y., & Antia, H. M. 2019, ApJL, 878, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab2599

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    V., & Lambert, D

    Smith, V. V., & Lambert, D. L. 1989, Astrophysical

    1989

  79. [87]

    345, Oct

    Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 345, Oct. 15, 1989, p. L75-L78. Research supported by the Robert A. Welch Foundation., 345, L75 —. 1990, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 361, Oct. 1, 1990, p. L69-L72. Research supported by the Robert ...

    1989

  80. [88]

    Soares-Furtado, M., Cantiello, M., MacLeod, M., & Ness, M. K. 2021, AJ, 162, 273, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273c Binary Architectures of Lithium–Rich Giants 21

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

    E., & Luger, R

    Thiele, S., Breivik, K., Sanderson, R. E., & Luger, R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca7be

    2023 doi

  82. [90]

    1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol

    Vassiliadis, E., & Wood, P. 1993, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 413, no. 2, p. 641-657., 413, 641

    1993

  83. [91]

    Vassiliadis, E., & Wood, P. R. 1993, ApJ, 413, 641, doi: 10.1086/173033

    1993 doi

  84. [92]

    2009, ApJL, 705, L81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L81

    Villaver, E., & Livio, M. 2009, ApJL, 705, L81, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L81

    2009 doi

  85. [93]

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

    Vink, J. S., de Koter, A., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2001, A&A, 369, 574, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010127

    2001 doi

  86. [94]

    1953, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 32, 135

    Vitense, E. 1953, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 32, 135

    1953

  87. [95]

    2025, MNRAS, 536, 2485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2769

    Castro-Ginard, A. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2485, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2769

    2025 doi

  88. [96]

    1982, ApJ, 255, 577, doi: 10.1086/159859

    Wallerstein, G., & Sneden, C. 1982, ApJ, 255, 577, doi: 10.1086/159859

    1982 doi

  89. [97]

    J., Hogg, D

    Wheeler, A. J., Hogg, D. W., & Ness, M. 2021, ApJ, 908, 247, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd544

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    Wong, K. W. K., Breivik, K., Farr, W. M., & Luger, R. 2023, ApJ, 950, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc863

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    Wong, K. W. K., Breivik, K., Kremer, K., & Callister, T. 2021, PhRvD, 103, 083021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083021

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    R., Bessell, M

    Wood, P. R., Bessell, M. S., & Fox, M. W. 1983, ApJ, 272, 99, doi: 10.1086/161265

    1983 doi

  93. [101]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 86, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01217-8

    Yan, H.-L., Zhou, Y.-T., Zhang, X., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 86, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-01217-8

    2021 doi

  94. [102]

    S., Shi, J

    Yan, T. S., Shi, J. R., Wang, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 929, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac63a5

    2022 doi

  95. [103]

    S., Berry, C

    Zevin, M., Bavera, S. S., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40e

    2021 doi

  96. [104]

    2021, ApJL, 919, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac224c

    Zhang, J., Shi, J.-R., Yan, H.-L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac224c

    2021 doi

  97. [105]

    Zhang, X., & Jeffery, C. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2113, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt035

    2013 doi

  98. [106]

    S., Li, Y., & Bi, S

    Zhang, X., Jeffery, C. S., Li, Y., & Bi, S. 2020, ApJ, 889, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5e89

    2020 doi

  99. [107]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  100. [108]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6b3a 22 Sayeed et al

    Zhou, Y., Wang, C., Yan, H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6b3a 22 Sayeed et al. APPENDIX A. ABUNDANCE CALCULATION In order to calculate a surface abundance post mass transfer, we first convert number fraction N (i) – which is the output for each species...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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