pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20660 · v2 · pith:SCVCKPAKnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Formation of extremely low-mass white dwarf binaries undergoing enhanced angular momentum loss

Ziqi Zhao , Zhenwei Li , Zhengwei Liu , Hailiang Chen , Hongwei Ge , Xiangcun Meng , Dengkai Jiang , Xuefei Chen
show 1 more author
Zhanwen Han
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 17:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords extremely low-mass white dwarfsbinary evolutionRoche lobe overflowangular momentum losswhite dwarf mass-period relationmass transferhelium white dwarfsELM Survey
0
0 comments X

The pith

Assuming mass loss at the outer Lagrangian point reproduces the short orbital periods of extremely low-mass white dwarf binaries.

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

The paper investigates why extremely low-mass white dwarf binaries formed through stable Roche lobe overflow show shorter orbital periods than standard binary evolution models predict. It introduces enhanced angular momentum loss by assuming that some transferred mass escapes at the outer Lagrangian point instead of remaining in the system. This extra loss increases the total mass ejected during the rapid thermal-timescale transfer phase, which changes the nuclear burning history inside the donor star. The altered burning leaves the resulting helium white dwarf with a different internal structure, which modifies its radius at a given mass and shifts the overall white-dwarf mass versus orbital-period relation to shorter periods. With this change the models now match most of the systems found in existing surveys.

Core claim

By assuming that part of the transferred mass from the donor is lost at the outer Lagrangian point and simulating the formation of ELM WD binaries, enhanced AML enables more mass to be lost during thermal-timescale mass transfer, thereby affecting nuclear burning in the transfer phase and producing ELM WDs with distinct internal structures. These structural differences alter the (pre-)He WD mass-radius relation at the end of mass transfer, which in turn shifts the WD mass-orbital period relation downward. These adjustments enable our model to successfully reproduce the majority of observed systems from the relevant survey projects.

What carries the argument

Enhanced angular momentum loss from ejecting transferred mass at the outer Lagrangian point, which changes the donor's nuclear burning and produces ELM white dwarfs with altered internal structures that shift the mass-radius relation.

If this is right

  • More mass is lost during the thermal-timescale mass transfer phase.
  • Nuclear burning inside the donor is affected during the transfer.
  • The resulting ELM white dwarfs have distinct internal structures.
  • The pre-He white dwarf mass-radius relation changes at the end of mass transfer.
  • The white dwarf mass-orbital period relation shifts downward to shorter periods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same mass-loss assumption could be applied to other classes of mass-transferring binaries to test whether similar period shifts appear.
  • If the fraction of mass lost at the outer point varies with donor mass or metallicity, the model predicts a spread in the observed mass-period relation that future surveys could measure.
  • The mechanism reduces the need to invoke the common-envelope channel for as many short-period systems as previously required.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a fraction of the mass transferred from the donor escapes at the outer Lagrangian point rather than remaining bound to the binary.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the radius or internal structure of an observed ELM white dwarf whose mass and period lie above the downward-shifted relation would falsify the claim that this mass-loss mechanism produces the required structural change.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20660 by Dengkai Jiang, Hailiang Chen, Hongwei Ge, Xiangcun Meng, Xuefei Chen, Zhanwen Han, Zhengwei Liu, Zhenwei Li, Ziqi Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The MWD–Porb relation for MS progenitors with initial masses of 0.9–1.2 M⊙. The fitted ELM WD mass–period relation from J. Lin et al. (2011) are shown as gray dashed lines. The pink crosses and green triangles represent the Z = 0.02 and Z = 0.001 models from Z. Li et al. (2019), respectively. Observed ELM WD systems are taken from W. R. Brown et al. (2016a) and updated in W. R. Brown et al. (2020, 2022). A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The examples of binary evolution with k values of 0 (blue dotted lines), 0.10 (purple dash-dot-dot lines), 0.15 (yellow dashed lines), 0.20 (green dash-dotted lines), and 0.25 (red solid lines) are shown. The initial parameters are the same for all cases: the initial donor mass is Md,i = 1.8 M⊙, the CO WD mass is MCO = 1.1 M⊙, and the initial orbital period Porb,i = 1.55 days. Panel (a) displays the HR dia… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The upper and lower panels display the H abundance as functions of donor mass coordinate and radius coordinate at the end of RLOF. The initial parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary tracks in the log Teff − log g plane for a ∼ 0.168 M⊙ He WD produced from different donor masses with Z = 0.02, covering the evolution from Roche-lobe detachment to 13.7 Gyr. Solid lines represent progenitor masses of 2.0 M⊙, whereas dashed lines denote progenitor masses of 1.4 M⊙. The black open diamonds in￾dicate the end of RLOF. Red and blue lines correspond to k = 0.25 and k = 0, respectiv… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature–density profiles of 2.0 M⊙ (dark blue line) and 1.4 M⊙ (green line) WD progenitors with k = 0. The upper panel shows models at the end of mass transfer, while the lower panel shows the same 2.0 M⊙ pro￾genitor at the onset of the H flash and the 1.4 M⊙ model entering the cooling phase. Diamond symbols mark the core–envelope transition, where the electron degeneracy pa￾rameter η is the value at t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The donor mass-orbital period panel for different values of k, with Md,i = 2.0 M⊙ and MCO = 0.8 M⊙, under different initial orbital periods. Gray diamonds denote ELM WDs formed via the RLOF channel. The black dashed line is taken from J. Lin et al. (2011) based on detailed binary evolution calculations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The MWD–Porb panel with k = 0 and k = 0.25. The red and blue solid circles represent systems with solar metallicity (Z = 0.02) and low metallicity (Z = 0.001), respectively. The initial binary mass grids are: k = 0, Z = 0.02: (MCO, Md,i) = (1.1, 1.4–2.8) and (0.8, 1.4–2.4) M⊙; Z = 0.001: (1.1, 1.4–2.4) and (0.8, 1.4–2.2) M⊙. k = 0.25, Z = 0.02: (1.1, 1.4–2.4) and (0.8, 1.4–2.0) M⊙; Z = 0.001: (1.1, 1.4–2.0… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Upper panel: Comparison of the Md–Porb plane for three models, SK MB with k = 0, CARB MB with k = 0, and SK MB with k = 0.25. All models produce the same final ELM WD mass of ∼ 0.192 M⊙, with initial parameters Md,i = 1.8 M⊙ and MCO,i = 1.1 M⊙. Lower panel: The AML rates due to MB (J˙MB) and mass loss (J˙ML) as a function of the donor mass, comparing CARB MB with k = 0 (J˙MB,CARB, J˙ML,CARB) and SK MB wit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of the orbital period as a function of time for systems with Md,i = 1.3 M⊙ and MCO,i = 1.1 M⊙, and different initial orbital periods in steps of 0.02 days. The upper panel corresponds to k = 0, and the lower panel cor￾responds to k = 0.25. The black dashed line indicates an orbital period of ∼ 65 min. through the RLOF channel instead of the CE channel. 2. Enhanced AML drives a higher mass transf… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The MWD–Porb relation for systems with MS progenitors of initial mass 0.9 M⊙. Assuming all observed systems formed via CE ejection, we compute the corresponding CE parameter γ based on angular momentum balance. Systems with γ < 1.5 are shown as blue diamonds, while those with γ ≥ 1.5 are shown as red triangles. Other symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extremely low-mass white dwarfs (ELM WDs) are helium (He) WDs with masses below $\sim 0.3\ M_{\odot}$, mainly formed through binary interaction. ELM WD binaries typically are formed from two channels, namely the stable Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) channel and the common envelope ejection channel. For ELM WD binaries produced from RLOF channel, the ELM WD mass has a strong correlation with the orbital period, i.e., the so-called WD mass-orbital period relation. However, the observations in the ELM Survey show that the orbital periods of ELM WD binaries from the RLOF channel are typically shorter than the theoretically predicted values. Extra angular momentum loss (AML) may be needed to explain such a phenomenon. In this work, we assumed that part of the transferred mass from the donor is lost at the outer Lagrangian point and simulated the formation of ELM WD binaries. Enhanced AML enables more mass to be lost during thermal-timescale mass transfer, thereby affecting nuclear burning in the transfer phase and producing ELM WDs with distinct internal structures. These structural differences alter the (pre-)He WD mass-radius relation at the end of mass transfer, which in turn shifts the WD mass-orbital period relation downward. These adjustments enable our model to successfully reproduce the majority of observed systems from the relevant survey projects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript models the formation of extremely low-mass white dwarf (ELM WD) binaries through the stable Roche-lobe overflow channel. It assumes that a fraction of the transferred mass is lost at the outer Lagrangian point (L2), supplying enhanced angular momentum loss. This is claimed to drive additional mass loss during thermal-timescale transfer, alter the donor's nuclear burning and internal structure, shift the (pre-)He WD mass-radius relation, and thereby move the theoretical WD mass-orbital period relation downward so that the majority of ELM Survey systems are reproduced.

Significance. If the L2 mass-loss fraction can be independently constrained, the work would supply a concrete physical mechanism for the observed period deficit relative to standard binary-evolution calculations and would link AML, donor structure, and the mass-period relation in a testable way.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the fraction of transferred mass lost at L2 is introduced solely to produce the required extra AML and the downward shift in the mass-period relation; no independent derivation from Roche geometry, hydrodynamics, or other observables is supplied, so the reproduction of the ELM Survey data is a fit rather than a prediction of the mechanism.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract refers to 'relevant survey projects' without naming them or citing the specific observational samples used for comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive report. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the fraction of transferred mass lost at L2 is introduced solely to produce the required extra AML and the downward shift in the mass-period relation; no independent derivation from Roche geometry, hydrodynamics, or other observables is supplied, so the reproduction of the ELM Survey data is a fit rather than a prediction of the mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that the L2 mass-loss fraction is introduced as a free parameter chosen to supply the enhanced AML needed to explain the observed period deficit; the manuscript supplies no independent derivation of its value from hydrodynamics, Roche-lobe geometry, or additional observables. The physical motivation for allowing non-zero L2 ejection rests on the known possibility of mass loss through the outer Lagrangian point during RLOF, but we do not claim a first-principles calculation of the fraction. Once the fraction is fixed, however, the model makes a specific prediction: the extra AML alters the thermal-timescale mass-transfer phase, changes the donor’s nuclear-burning history and internal structure, and thereby shifts the (pre-)He WD mass–radius relation, moving the theoretical mass–period relation downward. This structural link is a testable consequence of the assumed mechanism rather than an additional tuning. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that the fraction is an assumed parameter and to clarify which aspects of the mass–period match constitute predictions of the model. revision: partial

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the ad hoc modeling choice of enhanced mass loss at L2 to resolve the observed period discrepancy; standard binary evolution assumptions are used but the key adjustment is introduced to fit data.

free parameters (1)
  • mass loss fraction at outer Lagrangian point
    The amount of mass lost at L2 is assumed to generate the enhanced AML that produces the required structural differences and period shift.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of Roche lobe overflow and binary stellar evolution hold during thermal-timescale mass transfer
    The paper invokes established binary interaction physics to simulate the mass transfer phase.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5805 in / 1282 out tokens · 51294 ms · 2026-06-30T17:42:32.898284+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 127 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Calcaferro, L

    Althaus, L. G., Calcaferro, L. M., C´ orsico, A. H., & Brown, W. R. 2025, A&A, 699, A280, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554891

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554891 2025

  2. [2]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 16

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

  3. [3]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  4. [4]

    A., Schreiber, M

    Barraza-Jorquera, J. A., Schreiber, M. R., & Belloni, D. 2025, A&A, 696, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553757

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553757 2025

  5. [5]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, L138, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L138

    Belczynski, K., Dominik, M., Bulik, T., et al. 2010, ApJL, 715, L138, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/L138

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/l138 2010

  6. [6]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023a, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 98-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0

  7. [7]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023b, A&A, 678, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347047

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347047

  8. [8]

    Shen, K. J. 2024, A&A, 682, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347931

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

  9. [9]

    2024, PASP, 136, 124201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a2

    Blomberg, L., El-Badry, K., Breivik, K., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 124201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a2

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad94a2 2024

  10. [10]

    Carter, J. A. 2012, ApJ, 748, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/115

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/115 2012

  11. [11]

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

    Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Allende Prieto, C. 2016a, ApJ, 818, 155, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/155

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/155

  12. [12]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., Gianninas, A., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., Gianninas, A., & Kenyon, S. J. 2013, ApJ, 769, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/66 2013

  13. [13]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1072, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1072 2010

  14. [14]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2012, ApJ, 744, 142, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/744/2/142

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/744/2/142 2012

  15. [15]

    R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., & Gianninas, A. 2016b, ApJ, 824, 46, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/46

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/1/46

  16. [16]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac 2022

  17. [17]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd 2020

  18. [18]

    R., et al

    Cadelano, M., Pallanca, C., Ferraro, F. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 812, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/63

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/1/63 2015

  19. [19]

    M., Althaus, L

    Calcaferro, L. M., Althaus, L. G., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2018, A&A, 614, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732551

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732551 2018

  20. [20]

    A., Rappaport, S., & Fabrycky, D

    Carter, J. A., Rappaport, S., & Fabrycky, D. 2011, ApJ, 728, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/139

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/139 2011

  21. [21]

    2022, Accreting Binaries; Nature, formation, and evolution, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f

    Chaty, S. 2022, Accreting Binaries; Nature, formation, and evolution, doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f

    work page doi:10.1088/2514-3433/ac595f 2022

  22. [22]

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

    Chen, H.-L., Tauris, T. M., Han, Z., & Chen, X. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab670 2021

  23. [23]

    E., Yungelson, L

    Chen, H.-L., Woods, T. E., Yungelson, L. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2644

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2644 2019

  24. [24]

    2024, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 134, 104083, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083

    Chen, X., Liu, Z., & Han, Z. 2024, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 134, 104083, doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104083 2024

  25. [25]

    Chen, X., Maxted, P. F. L., Li, J., & Han, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx115

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx115 2017

  26. [26]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 2020

  27. [27]

    K., Singh Yadav, R., Subramaniam, A., & Shankar Singh, R

    Dattatrey, A. K., Singh Yadav, R., Subramaniam, A., & Shankar Singh, R. 2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 300, doi: 10.25518/0037-9565.11687

    work page doi:10.25518/0037-9565.11687 2024

  28. [28]

    K., Yadav, R

    Dattatrey, A. K., Yadav, R. K. S., Rani, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 943, 130, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acade0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acade0 2023

  29. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2

    Deng, Z.-L., Li, X.-D., Gao, Z.-F., & Shao, Y. 2021, ApJ, 909, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abe0b2 2021

  30. [30]

    Dewi, J. D. M., & Tauris, T. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 1043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007034 Di Stefano, R., Kruckow, M. U., Gao, Y., Neunteufel, P. G., & Kobayashi, C. 2023, ApJ, 944, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acae9b

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007034 2000

  31. [31]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960 El Eid, M. F., Fricke, K. J., & Ober, W. W. 1983, A&A, 119, 54

    work page doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  32. [32]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/26

    Faigler, S., Kull, I., Mazeh, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/26 2015

  33. [33]

    S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J

    Freedman, R. S., Lustig-Yaeger, J., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 25, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/214/2/25 2014

  34. [34]

    S., Marley, M

    Freedman, R. S., Marley, M. S., & Lodders, K. 2008, ApJS, 174, 504, doi: 10.1086/521793

    work page doi:10.1086/521793 2008

  35. [35]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2446

    Gao, S.-J., & Li, X.-D. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2605, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2446

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2446 2023

  36. [36]

    A., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Tout, C. A., Webbink, R. F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 961, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e 2024

  37. [37]

    Kenyon, S. J. 2015, ApJ, 812, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/167

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/812/2/167 2015

  38. [38]

    R., & Matson, R

    Guo, Z., Gies, D. R., & Matson, R. A. 2017, ApJ, 851, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa978c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa978c 2017

  39. [39]

    1996, ApJL, 470, L97, doi: 10.1086/310303

    Hachisu, I., Kato, M., & Nomoto, K. 1996, ApJL, 470, L97, doi: 10.1086/310303

    work page doi:10.1086/310303 1996

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Han, Z., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07713.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07713.x 2004

  41. [41]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., & Eggleton, P. P. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.4.800

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/272.4.800 1995

  42. [42]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    Han, Z.-W., Ge, H.-W., Chen, X.-F., & Chen, H.-L. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161 2020

  43. [43]

    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

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

  44. [44]

    The evolution of AGB stars with convective overshoot

    Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007139 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0007139 2000

  45. [45]

    S., & Webbink, R

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

    work page doi:10.1086/165412 1987

  46. [46]

    W., Koo, J.-R., et al

    Hong, K., Lee, J. W., Koo, J.-R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdd39

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdd39 2021

  47. [47]

    1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    Iben, Jr., I. 1990, ApJ, 353, 215, doi: 10.1086/168609

    work page doi:10.1086/168609 1990

  48. [48]

    G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628874

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628874 2016

  49. [49]

    G., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Tauris, T. M., & Langer, N. 2014a, A&A, 571, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424680

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424680

  50. [50]

    G., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Tauris, T. M., Langer, N., & Antoniadis, J. 2014b, A&A, 571, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424681

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424681

  51. [51]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2582 2015

  52. [52]

    2013b, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  53. [53]

    and Bauer, Evan B

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  54. [54]

    2014, ApJ, 791, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/127

    Jia, K., & Li, X.-D. 2014, ApJ, 791, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/127 2014

  55. [55]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1086/425249 2004

  56. [56]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/3

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/727/1/3 2011

  57. [57]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 141, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/141

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/751/2/141 2012

  58. [58]

    , keywords =

    King, A. R., Schenker, K., Kolb, U., & Davies, M. B. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 327, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04002.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04002.x 2001

  59. [59]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b8

    Klement, R., Baade, D., Rivinius, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac98b8 2022

  60. [60]

    G., & Chruslinska, M

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038707 2021

  61. [61]

    G., & Pols, O

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037694 2020

  62. [62]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  63. [63]

    R., Kilic, M., et al

    Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd187

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd187 2023

  64. [64]

    R., & Gianninas, A

    Kosakowski, A., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Gianninas, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8300 2020

  65. [65]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1975, The classical theory of fields

    1975

  66. [66]

    W., Hong, K., Jeong, M.-J., & Wolf, M

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., Jeong, M.-J., & Wolf, M. 2024, ApJ, 973, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad67c7 2024

  67. [67]

    W., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac075

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac075 2022

  68. [68]

    W., Koo, J.-R., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Koo, J.-R., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H. 2020, AJ, 160, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9621

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab9621 2020

  69. [69]

    2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    Li, E.-K., Liu, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2025, Reports on Progress in Physics, 88, 056901, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/adc9be 2025

  70. [70]

    2024, Results in Physics, 59, 107568, doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107568

    Li, Z., & Chen, X. 2024, Results in Physics, 59, 107568, doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107568

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2024.107568 2024

  71. [71]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1 2019

  72. [72]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    Lin, J., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/70 2011

  73. [73]

    1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419

    Livio, M., & Soker, N. 1988, ApJ, 329, 764, doi: 10.1086/166419

    work page doi:10.1086/166419 1988

  74. [74]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3621 2023

  75. [75]

    2020, NewA, 78, 101363, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363

    Luo, Y. 2020, NewA, 78, 101363, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363 2020

  76. [76]

    The ATNF Pulsar Catalogue

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  77. [77]

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Chiosi, C., & Wood, P. R. 2001, A&A, 371, 152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010309

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010309 2001

  78. [78]

    R., Dhillon, V

    Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., & Duck, S. R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.3.828

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.3.828 1995

  79. [79]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Serenelli, A. M., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 208, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1465 2014

  80. [80]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Anderson, D. R., Burleigh, M. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1156, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19567.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19567.x 2011

Showing first 80 references.