Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Eccentric mass transfer, not a bug to fix, naturally produces the observed eccentric wide sdB binaries and turns eccentricity into a probe of mass-transfer physics.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 14:35 UTC pith:WVQDVVYV

load-bearing objection GeMT applied to wide sdB+MS systems gives the first single-mechanism qualitative match to all three observed orbital correlations; the pure-MT isolation is flagged and real, but does not kill the result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.09464 v2 pith:WVQDVVYV submitted 2026-06-08 astro-ph.SR

Reframing the Wide Eccentric Binary Problem: Eccentricity as a Probe of Mass-transfer Physics

A. Parkosidis , S. Toonen , E. Laplace , V. Schaffenroth This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords binary starsinteracting binary starswide binary starseccentricitymass transferhot subdwarf starsstellar populations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Wide post-interaction binaries are routinely found with nonzero orbital eccentricity, even though classical theory expects tides to circularize them before mass transfer. This paper applies the general mass-transfer (GeMT) framework, which describes mass transfer in orbits of any eccentricity, to the best-constrained sample of such systems: hot subdwarf B stars with main-sequence companions in long-period orbits. By integrating only the GeMT orbital equations for plausible red-giant progenitors, the authors recover the observed periods, mass ratios and eccentricities, plus the three observed correlations among those quantities, without fine-tuning. The same calculation shows that final eccentricity is set mainly by how much mass is transferred, how much is accreted, and how angular momentum is lost, rather than by the period at which mass transfer began. Because similar eccentric post-mass-transfer systems appear across the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, the authors argue that eccentricity should be treated as a diagnostic of binary physics instead of an anomaly that must be erased.

Core claim

The GeMT model of eccentric Roche-lobe overflow naturally reproduces the orbital periods, mass ratios and eccentricities of wide sdB+MS binaries, including their observed correlations, without fine-tuning; nonzero eccentricity is a generic outcome of mass transfer once the mass ratio has reversed.

What carries the argument

The GeMT secular rates for semi-major axis and eccentricity (orbit-averaged equations that depend on mass ratio, accretion efficiency β, angular-momentum-loss parameter γ and the degree of Roche-lobe overflow). These rates alone generate the observed evolutionary tracks once mass transfer proceeds past mass-ratio reversal.

Load-bearing premise

That the pure orbital effects of eccentric mass transfer can be isolated from stellar evolution and tides during the mass-transfer episode itself, so that integrating only the GeMT equations already yields the observed distributions.

What would settle it

Include stellar evolution and tides self-consistently for the same 1–2 solar-mass progenitors; if the resulting post-mass-transfer eccentricities systematically fall below the observed sdB+MS values or destroy the unimodal q–e distribution, the isolation claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Post-mass-transfer eccentricity becomes a direct constraint on transferred mass, accretion efficiency and angular-momentum loss across binary populations.
  • The main and secondary branches of wide sdB+MS systems map to different progenitor masses and initial periods, explaining their relative numbers via the IMF and stability limits.
  • The same mechanism accounts for the general rise of maximum eccentricity with orbital period seen in barium stars, post-AGB binaries and white-dwarf–main-sequence systems.
  • Eccentricity can be used as a population diagnostic for the progenitors of gravitational-wave sources and Type Ia supernovae.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Once tides and stellar evolution are restored, residual eccentricity differences among populations may still isolate the dominant angular-momentum-loss mode.
  • The unimodal q–e plane offers a cleaner prior for Bayesian recovery of β and γ than period distributions alone.
  • Systems that remain circular after substantial mass transfer would require either very high initial mass ratios or an additional circularizing process not captured by GeMT.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the authors' general mass-transfer (GeMT) framework to the long-standing eccentricity problem in wide post-interaction binaries, focusing on wide sdB+MS systems as well-constrained benchmarks. Integrating the secular GeMT equations for nearly circular RGB donors near the TRGB, the authors show that model endpoints can land near the observed loci in the q–Porb, q–e, and Porb–e planes for selected 1–1.5 M⊙ progenitors under conservative or isotropic-reemission mass transfer. They re-derive orbit-averaged evolutionary tracks (Eqs. 5–7) that are independent of the mass-transfer rate and argue that these tracks recover the signs and qualitative slopes of the three observed correlations, including the unimodal q–e distribution. They further propose that post-MT eccentricity is set primarily by MT parameters (transferred mass, β, γ) rather than orbital period, and should be used as a diagnostic of binary-evolution physics across populations.

Significance. If the qualitative picture holds, this is a meaningful reframing of the eccentricity problem: unlike circumbinary-disk or kick scenarios, GeMT naturally produces higher eccentricities at longer periods and places observed systems in the post-mass-ratio-reversal widening regime. The rate-independent tracks (Eqs. 5–7) and the explanation of the unimodal q–e plane are clean, falsifiable contributions. Using sdB+MS systems as benchmarks with TRGB radius and core-mass constraints is a strong methodological choice. The broader claim that post-MT eccentricity encodes β, AML, and transferred mass across populations is of clear interest if supported by concurrent-tide calculations. The work is an application of the authors' prior GeMT papers rather than a new derivation of the secular equations, but the confrontation with the sdB sample and the interpretive framework are new.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (1)–(2), Table 1] §3.1 explicitly isolates eccentric RLOF from tides and stellar evolution, integrating pure GeMT (Eqs. 1–2) from e=0.001 to the endpoints in Table 1. For the cool, extended TRGB donors required by the sdB channel (Rdon ~80–180 R⊙, Table 3), tidal circularization timescales are typically short relative to thermal-timescale MT. Concurrent tides would damp e while GeMT pumps it, so the net post-MT eccentricities could be substantially lower than the pure-GeMT values that are compared to the sample. The abstract and §5 flag this for future work, yet the central claim (Conclusions; abstract) that GeMT 'naturally reproduces' the observed eccentricities without fine-tuning rests on this isolation. A quantitative comparison of tidal vs. MT timescales for the Table 3 models, or a consistent softening of the eccentricity-reproduction claim to 'qualitative trend recovery under pure GeMT,' is needed
  2. [§3.1, Table 1 vs Table 2, Figs. 2–3] The claim that GeMT reproduces 'all orbital parameters' of wide sdB+MS binaries (abstract; Conclusions; §3.1) is not supported for the secondary branch. Models intended for that branch (e.g., 1.5+0.6+C/PC/NC, 2.0+0.7+C/PC in Table 1) yield final e ~ 10^{-5}–0.2 while observed secondary-branch systems have e ~ 0.08–0.22 (Table 2). The paper notes the under-production but still asserts a global match. Either restrict the reproduction claim to the main branch and the correlation signs, or show that concurrent stellar evolution (envelope structure, x evolution) can raise secondary-branch e without spoiling the main-branch match.
  3. [Abstract; Conclusions; Table 3] The phrase 'without fine-tuning' (abstract; Conclusions) overstates the case. Free parameters include β, γ (isotropic reemission), initial q and Porb, e_init, and x; successful models are those selected from a fifteen-model grid that initiate RLOF at periapsis with chosen companion masses (Table 3). Several combinations fail (mergers, near-zero e, or Porb/q offsets). The qualitative success of Eqs. (5)–(7) does not require fine-tuning, but the quantitative endpoint matches do. Soften the language to reflect that the trends are robust while absolute matches depend on β, γ, and initial conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] Table 3 lists Mdon = 1.0 for all 1.5+… and 2.0+… rows, and Macc values for the PC/NC 1.0+0.7 models (0.6, 0.5) that are inconsistent with the labels and with the final masses in Table 1 under the stated β. Correct the initial masses so labels, Table 1, and Table 3 agree.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and wording: 'speficially' (§2), 'sligtly' (§3.1), 'paterns' (§4.1), 'manifastation' (§4.2), 'horizantal' (Fig. 3 caption), 'mass transfert' (Intro), 'T ransfer' in running title. Also 'and and whether' in Table 3 note.
  3. [§2, footnote 6] Footnote 6 notes that β is defined opposite to the traditional Soberman et al. convention. State the mapping once in the main text near Eqs. (1)–(2) so readers do not misread accretion efficiency.
  4. [Fig. 4, §4.3] Figure 4 is useful for context but is not a quantitative GeMT prediction for those populations. Clarify in the caption or §4.3 that only the sdB+MS sample is modeled here.
  5. [Abstract] The two abstract versions in the submission materials differ in strength ('naturally reproduces… without fine-tuning' vs. 'qualitatively reproduces… tides should be included'). Align the abstract with the revised claims after addressing the major comments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Infrastructural self-citation of GeMT equations; central claim is an independent confrontation with external data, not a by-construction prediction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§2, Eqs. (1)–(2) and following paragraph]
    "the secular orbital evolution is given by ⟨ȧ⟩/a = …, ⟨ė⟩ = …, where eta is the fraction of the transferred mass that is accreted, γ is a measure of the efficiency of AML …, x ≡ RcL/Rdon …, and f_Ṁdon(e,x), fa(e,x), fe(e,x), are dimensionless functions given explicitly in Appendix E of (A. Parkosidis et al. 2026a)."

    The entire orbital-evolution engine used to generate Figs. 1–3 and Table 1 is imported from the authors’ own preceding GeMT papers rather than re-derived or independently verified here. The citation is infrastructural (the functional form of the rates) and does not itself force the numerical match to the sdB sample; the match still requires choosing initial conditions and integrating. Hence only a minor, non-load-bearing circularity step.

full rationale

The secular rates (1)–(2) and the dimensionless functions fa, fe, f_Mdot are taken from the authors’ prior GeMT papers (Parkosidis et al. 2026a,b). That is ordinary self-citation of infrastructure, not a uniqueness theorem or a fitted normalization that forces the result. The evolutionary tracks (5)–(7) are re-derived here from those rates plus Kepler’s law and are independent of the MT rate itself. The paper then integrates the equations for a discrete grid of initial conditions (Table 3) chosen from MESA TRGB radii/cores and confronts the endpoints with an independent observational sample (Table 2, literature sources). No parameter is fitted to the sdB+MS eccentricities or periods and then re-presented as a prediction; the match is qualitative and the abstract/§5 explicitly flag that tides and stellar evolution must still be added. Isolation of pure GeMT from tides is a modelling assumption whose validity can be questioned, but it is not circularity: the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Score 2 reflects only the non-load-bearing self-citation of the GeMT framework.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the authors’ prior GeMT secular equations, on the standard sdB formation channel (RLOF near TRGB yielding ~0.47 M⊙ cores), on the neglect of stellar spins and of tides/stellar evolution during MT, and on a small set of hand-chosen accretion efficiencies and initial mass ratios. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual binary-evolution knobs (β, γ) plus the isolation approximation.

free parameters (5)
  • accretion efficiency β
    Explored at three discrete values (1, 0.5, 0) chosen by hand to span conservative to fully non-conservative mass transfer; not fitted but selected to place model endpoints near observed branches.
  • AML parameter γ
    Fixed to γ = q (isotropic re-emission) for all non-conservative runs; a modeling choice that controls the location of the transitional mass ratio.
  • initial eccentricity e_init
    Set to 0.001 (nearly circular) for all models; the final eccentricity is generated entirely by the subsequent mass-transfer evolution.
  • RLOF degree x
    Fixed at x = 0.99 for the analytic tracks and used as the starting overflow level; evolves self-consistently during numerical integration.
  • initial mass ratios and periods
    Hand-selected so that RLOF begins at periapsis near the TRGB radii taken from Temmink et al. (2023); different choices map onto main versus secondary branches.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Secular orbital evolution under eccentric mass transfer is given by the GeMT orbit-averaged rates (Eqs. 1–2) derived in Parkosidis et al. 2026a,b.
    Load-bearing; the entire numerical and analytic analysis rests on these expressions.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum stored in stellar spins is negligible compared with orbital angular momentum (point-mass limit).
    Stated explicitly before Eqs. 1–2; if violated, the secular rates change.
  • domain assumption Wide sdB+MS systems form via a single episode of stable Roche-lobe overflow that begins near the tip of the red-giant branch, producing cores near 0.47 M⊙ (or 0.41 M⊙ for 2 M⊙ progenitors).
    Standard formation channel used to fix donor radii and final donor masses; taken from Han et al. and Temmink et al.
  • ad hoc to paper Tides and stellar-structure evolution can be switched off during the mass-transfer phase without changing the qualitative orbital tracks.
    Explicit isolation assumption of §3.1; the authors note that quantitative work will require their inclusion.
  • domain assumption For non-conservative mass transfer the ejected material carries the specific angular momentum of the accretor (isotropic re-emission, γ = q).
    Standard binary-evolution prescription adopted for all β < 1 runs.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21973 in / 3454 out tokens · 38289 ms · 2026-07-12T14:35:02.694650+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Observations of wide post-interaction binaries show an unexpected feature; orbital eccentricity, which is not understood theoretically. A promising resolution to this long-standing puzzle is eccentric mass transfer (MT). Here the first complete framework for MT in orbits with arbitrary eccentricity, the general mass-transfer (GeMT) model, is confronted with the latest observations of hot subdwarfs of spectral type B (sdB) with main-sequence (MS) companions in wide orbits. SdBs are excellent benchmarks for binary evolution models, since their progenitors provide unique constraints on their formation histories. We isolate the effects of eccentric MT from other physical process and we show that it explains the observed orbital-parameter distributions and their correlations seen in wide sdB+MS binaries. To quantitatively constrain their orbital parameters, stellar evolution and tides should be included in future studies, yet it is encouraging that the GeMT model provides the first mechanism that qualitatively reproduces the observed distributions. We further demonstrate that post-MT eccentricities depend directly on key MT parameters, including transferred mass, accretion efficiency, and angular momentum loss. Given the multitude of eccentric post-MT binaries with components ranging from low- to high-mass stars to compact objects, we propose that post-MT eccentricities offer a new window onto binary evolution, presenting a powerful tool to constrain highly uncertain binary-evolution parameters and mass-transfer formation histories across diverse populations. Post-MT eccentricity should therefore be embraced as a key observable, rather than treated as a problem to be corrected.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.09464 by A. Parkosidis, E. Laplace, S. Toonen, V. Schaffenroth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of the orbital period, Porb, as a function of mass ratio, q = Mdon/Macc. Dashed, dotted and dash-dotted lines illustrate the evolution for 1 M⊙, 1.5 M⊙, and 2 M⊙ donors, respectively. Triangles and squares indicate the initial (i.e., at the RLOF onset) and final (i.e., post-mass-transfer) positions of the models, respectively. Teal arrows correspond to Equation (5) and indicate the evolution of P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Toward 3D orbits of wide sdO/B binaries I. Six composite systems spatially resolved with VLTI/GRAVITY

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    VLTI/GRAVITY spatially resolved six wide sdO/B+MS binaries, yielding 1-8% precise projected separations of 1-3 au — the first interferometric sample toward 3D orbits and model-independent masses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 11184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3891

    Arancibia-Rojas, E., Zorotovic, M., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3891

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3891 2024

  2. [2]

    N., Liss, S

    Barlow, B. N., Liss, S. E., Wade, R. A., & Green, E. M. 2013, ApJ, 771, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/771/1/23

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/23 2013

  3. [3]

    N., Wade, R

    Barlow, B. N., Wade, R. A., Liss, S. E., Østensen, R. H., & Van Winckel, H. 2012, ApJ, 758, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/58

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/1/58 2012

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223, doi: 10.1086/521026 Bonaˇ ci´ c Marinovi´ c, A. A., Glebbeek, E., & Pols, O. R. 2008, A&A, 480, 797, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078297

    doi:10.1086/521026 2008

  5. [5]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21805

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., & Breivik, K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.21805, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21805

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21805 2025

  6. [6]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt992

    Chen, X., Han, Z., Deca, J., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 186, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt992

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt992 2013

  7. [7]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  8. [8]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2755

    Deca, J., Vos, J., N´ emeth, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 433, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2755

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2755 2018

  9. [9]

    R., Østensen, R

    Deca, J., Marsh, T. R., Østensen, R. H., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2798, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20483.x

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20483.x 2012

  10. [10]

    G., Jorissen, A., & Van Winckel, H

    Dermine, T., Izzard, R. G., Jorissen, A., & Van Winckel, H. 2013, A&A, 551, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219430

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219430 2013

  11. [11]

    S., Irrgang, A., Woolf, V., & Heber, U

    Dorsch, M., Jeffery, C. S., Irrgang, A., Woolf, V., & Heber, U. 2021, A&A, 653, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141381

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141381 2021

  12. [12]

    2020, A&A, 639, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037487

    Escorza, A., Siess, L., Van Winckel, H., & Jorissen, A. 2020, A&A, 639, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037487

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037487 2020

  13. [13]

    2019, A&A, 626, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935390

    Escorza, A., Karinkuzhi, D., Jorissen, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935390

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935390 2019

  14. [14]

    C., Joyce, R

    Fekel, F. C., Joyce, R. R., Hinkle, K. H., & Skrutskie, M. F. 2000, AJ, 119, 1375, doi: 10.1086/301260

    doi:10.1086/301260 2000

  15. [15]

    S., Webbink, R

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

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/724 2010

  16. [16]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/40

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/40 2015

  17. [17]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2020, ApJ, 899, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7 2020

  18. [18]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x 2003

  19. [19]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., & Ivanova, N. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 449, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05752.x

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05752.x 2002

  20. [20]

    T., Andersen, J., Nordstr¨ om, B., et al

    Hansen, T. T., Andersen, J., Nordstr¨ om, B., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527409

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527409 2016

  21. [21]

    R., Millman, K

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  22. [22]

    2009, ARA&A, 47, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    Heber, U. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836 2009

  23. [23]

    2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 2016

  24. [24]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11663

    Heber, U. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11663, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.11663 2024

  25. [25]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794, doi: 10.1086/165412

    doi:10.1086/165412 1987

  26. [26]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  27. [27]

    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

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x 2002

  28. [28]

    G., Dermine, T., & Church, R

    Izzard, R. G., Dermine, T., & Church, R. P. 2010, A&A, 523, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015254

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015254 2010

  29. [29]

    Jorissen, A., Boffin, H. M. J., Karinkuzhi, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834630

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834630 2019

  30. [30]

    2016, A&A, 586, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526992

    Jorissen, A., Van Eck, S., Van Winckel, H., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, A158, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526992

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526992 2016

  31. [31]

    R., et al

    Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Gies, D. R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ec

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ec 2024

  32. [32]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 10

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 10

    doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  33. [33]

    D., & Pols, O

    Mathieu, R. D., & Pols, O. R. 2025, ARA&A, 63, 467, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054402

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054402 2025

  34. [34]

    P., Paprocki, M., et al

    Meurer, A., Smith, C. P., Paprocki, M., et al. 2017, PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e103, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.103

    doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.103 2017

  35. [35]

    2022, A&A, 658, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141220 M¨ uller-Horn, J., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Molina, F., Vos, J., N´ emeth, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141220 M¨ uller-Horn, J., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452504

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141220 2022

  36. [36]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315 2016

  37. [37]

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

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038341 2020

  38. [38]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833816 2018

  39. [39]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

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

    1976

  40. [40]

    2026a, A&A, 706, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555096

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555096

  41. [41]

    2026b, A&A, 706, A357, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558055

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558055

  42. [42]

    B., & Fabrycky, D

    Perets, H. B., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1048, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1048

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1048 2009

  43. [43]

    V., & Orlov, V

    Petrova, A. V., & Orlov, V. V. 1999, AJ, 117, 587, doi: 10.1086/300671

    doi:10.1086/300671 1999

  44. [44]

    R., Cote, J., Waters, L

    Pols, O. R., Cote, J., Waters, L. B. F. M., & Heise, J. 1991, A&A, 241, 419

    1991

  45. [45]

    R., Karakas, A

    Pols, O. R., Karakas, A. I., Lattanzio, J. C., & Tout, C. A. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2003

  46. [46]

    303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed

    Series, Vol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed. R. L. M. Corradi, J. Mikolajewska, & T. J. Mahoney, 290 Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Verbunt, F. 1996, A&A, 309, 179

    1996

  47. [47]

    V., & Popov, S

    Raguzova, N. V., & Popov, S. B. 2005, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 24, 151, doi: 10.1080/10556790500497311

    doi:10.1080/10556790500497311 2005

  48. [48]

    2022, A&A, 666, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214

    Kupfer, T. 2022, A&A, 666, A182, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244214 2022

  49. [49]

    N., Geier, S., et al

    Schaffenroth, V., Barlow, B. N., Geier, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 630, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936019

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936019 2019

  50. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae773 2024

  51. [51]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9703016 1997

  52. [52]

    2000, A&A, 357, 557, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002128

    Soker, N. 2000, A&A, 357, 557, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0002128 2000

  53. [53]

    J., & Deveikis, V

    Sperauskas, J., Zaˇ cs, L., Schuster, W. J., & Deveikis, V. 2016, ApJ, 826, 85, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/85

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/85 2016

  54. [54]

    2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244137 2023

  55. [55]

    2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, doi: 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    Toonen, S., Hamers, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, doi: 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    doi:10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0 2016

  56. [56]

    2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835

    Bandopadhyay, D. 2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936835 2020

  57. [57]

    E., et al

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

    doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020

  58. [58]

    2020, A&A, 641, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937195

    Vos, J., Bobrick, A., & Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M. 2020, A&A, 641, A163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937195

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937195 2020

  59. [59]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2198

    Vos, J., N´ emeth, P., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., Østensen, R., & Parsons, S. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 693, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2198

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2198 2018

  60. [60]

    H., Marchant, P., & Van Winckel, H

    Vos, J., Østensen, R. H., Marchant, P., & Van Winckel, H. 2015, A&A, 579, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526019

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526019 2015

  61. [61]

    H., N´ emeth, P., et al

    Vos, J., Østensen, R. H., N´ emeth, P., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322200

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322200 2013

  62. [62]

    H., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., & Van Winckel, H

    Vos, J., Østensen, R. H., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., & Van Winckel, H. 2017, A&A, 605, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730958

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730958 2017

  63. [63]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, 4592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3017

    Vos, J., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., Chen, X., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3017

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3017 2019

  64. [64]

    H., Degroote, P., et al

    Vos, J., Østensen, R. H., Degroote, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 548, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219723

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219723 2012

  65. [65]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 11719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4005 11 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES T able 2.Orbital parameters of the wide sdB+MS binary sample

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Fuller, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4005 11 APPENDIX SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES T able 2.Orbital parameters of the wide sdB+MS binary sample. Object BranchP orb e q obs Reference (days) EC22536-5304 secondary 457±1.5 0.22±0.08 0.69±0.05 (1) PG 1514+034 secondary 479±2 0.1±0.02 0.58±0.03 (2) BD−11◦162 s...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad4005 2024