Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Evolutionary models for R Coronae Borealis stars

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If the double white dwarf merger model for R Coronae Borealis stars is right, their remnants should converge to a narrow mass band near 0.6-0.7 solar masses, regardless of the initial merger mass.

desk verdict Careful MESA modeling with a useful pre-R CrB prediction, but the headline mass convergence is hostage to an unvalidated AGB wind law that the paper itself flags. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02569 v3 pith:XXTYOYWF submitted 2019-09-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Josiah Schwab This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords stellarevolutionRCoronaeBorealisstarshydrogen-deficientcarbondoublewhitedwarfmergersmasslossextremeheliumdescendants
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 uses stellar evolution calculations to follow how the merger of a helium white dwarf and a carbon-oxygen white dwarf becomes a hydrogen-deficient, carbon-rich giant like R Coronae Borealis, and what happens to the remnant afterward. Its central claim is that AGB-like mass loss converges the outcome: remnants whose total initial masses range from about 0.7 to 1.05 solar masses all leave the R CrB phase with total masses near 0.6-0.7 solar masses when the CO primary is below about 0.7 solar masses. This matters because it makes a sharp, testable prediction: the extreme helium stars and single white dwarfs descended from R CrB stars should be concentrated in a narrow band of mass and luminosity, even though the mergers that formed them were diverse. The paper also identifies a brief thermal reconfiguration phase after the merger, lasting up to about a thousand years, during which some Galactic objects should appear as faint, slowly brightening, dust-free precursors of R CrB stars.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the combination of a steep core mass-luminosity relation for helium giants and an AGB-style wind whose rate grows steeply with luminosity. In the Bloecker (1995) prescription the wind scales as $\dot{M}\propto L^{3.7}$, so a critical core mass exists where the wind rate overtakes the rate at which helium burning adds mass to the core. Remnants starting below the critical mass grow toward it; remnants starting above it shed envelope until they fall back to it. The paper also uses a wind capped at a constant fraction $f$ of the photon momentum maximum $\dot{M}_{\max}=2L/v_\infty^2$ to show that the convergence is not an artifact of one prescription: even with the flatter wind, final masses concentrate toward lower values, though with a wider spread.

What would settle it

Measure the masses of a dozen extreme helium stars with precise astrometric parallaxes and pulsations; if they are spread broadly rather than clustered near 0.6 to 0.7 solar masses, the convergent mass-loss picture is wrong. Alternatively, measure R CrB wind mass-loss rates across luminosity; if the rate does not rise as steeply as roughly the cube of luminosity, the predicted convergence does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that double white dwarf mergers that become R CrB stars have a convergent final mass. In a grid of schematic post-merger models with CO cores below $0.7\,M_\odot$, models evolved with the Bloecker (1995) wind prescription at $\eta=0.02$ all reach $\approx 0.6$-$0.7\,M_\odot$ when they leave the R CrB phase, independent of initial total masses ranging from $0.7$ to $1.05\,M_\odot$. The mechanism is the steep core mass-luminosity relation for helium-shell-burning giants, whose logarithmic slope is about 5, combined with wind rates that grow steeply with luminosity: a critical core mass forms where the wind rate overtakes the rate of helium shell burning, and remnants on either side converge toward it. The paper shows the convergence is not tied to a single prescription: with a flatter wind capped at a fraction $f$ of the photon momentum maximum, remnants also end up concentrated toward lower masses, though with a wider spread. It also shows that merger-born models spend up to about a kiloyear in a thermal reconfiguration phase, brightening and cooling from low luminosity before settling onto the R CrB configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that R CrB winds follow AGB-style mass loss whose rate rises steeply with luminosity, even though the paper notes that R CrB envelopes are hydrogen-deficient and carbon-rich with different pulsation periods, so an AGB mass-loss theory would not apply directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extreme helium stars that descend from R CrB stars should cluster in a narrow mass window around 0.6-0.7 solar masses, with correspondingly narrow luminosities; this is testable with parallaxes and pulsational mass measurements.
  • Single white dwarfs formed through this channel should show a mass excess near 0.6-0.7 solar masses and a relative scarcity just above it, especially if double detonations destroy systems with CO primaries above about 0.7 solar masses.
  • R CrB lifetimes are set by mass loss: varying the wind efficiency by a factor of five changes the predicted lifetime by roughly a factor of three, so counting R CrB stars can constrain the wind.
  • A pre-R CrB population, brightening and cooling over about a kiloyear after their mergers, should exist in the Galaxy and may appear as faint, dust-free, hydrogen-deficient stars in time-domain surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass convergence holds, the final R CrB descendant mass becomes a probe of the mass-loss law itself: the observed spread around 0.6-0.7 solar masses would directly measure how steeply wind loss scales with luminosity.
  • The roughly kiloyear thermal reconfiguration phase predicts a small population of pre-R CrB stars already present in time-domain surveys, visible as slowly brightening, dust-free, hydrogen-deficient objects; a targeted search of historical light curves could find them.
  • The two mass-loss prescriptions in the paper bracket the expected final-mass range, so a measured mass distribution of extreme helium stars would effectively measure the exponent of the wind law without needing to observe the winds directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs MESA stellar evolution models of hydrogen-deficient, carbon-rich giants intended to represent R Coronae Borealis stars. It introduces opacity tables for cool, H-deficient, CNO-enhanced envelopes, compares homogeneous He-star models with models motivated by double white dwarf mergers, and identifies a thermal reconfiguration phase lasting up to roughly 1 kyr after a He+CO white dwarf merger. The central claim is that, with AGB-like mass-loss prescriptions, the R CrB phase ends with total masses near 0.6-0.7 solar masses almost independently of the initial post-merger mass, implying a narrow mass range for the extreme-helium-star and single-white-dwarf descendants.

Significance. If the convergent descendant mass holds, the paper provides a testable link between double white dwarf mergers, R CrB/EHe stars, and the single white dwarf population. The study is careful and reproducible: it uses a modern stellar evolution code, provides publicly available opacity tables, compares with earlier work, and candidly discusses the limitations of mixing-length theory, boundary conditions, EOS mismatches, and mass-loss prescriptions. The falsifiable prediction of a narrow descendant mass distribution can be confronted with Gaia-based luminosities and pulsational mass estimates of EHe stars, which is a genuine strength. The main weakness is that the headline convergence is derived from the steep L^3.7 dependence of the Bloecker mass-loss law, an assumption the paper itself acknowledges is not directly applicable to R CrB stars; this limits the strength of the abstract's claim as currently phrased.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 6; Sec. 7; Fig. 12] The central claim that R CrB descendants emerge with a narrow mass range 'roughly independent' of post-merger mass is not supported across the two mass-loss prescriptions actually computed. In Fig. 12a the Bloecker prescription with eta=0.02 yields final masses roughly 0.6-0.7 solar masses, but in Fig. 12b the alternative prescription Mdot = f Mdot_max with f=0.001 yields roughly 0.65-0.80 solar masses with a visible dependence on the initial CO WD mass. Since the paper itself states in Sec. 6 that the AGB prescriptions are not directly applicable to R CrB stars, the abstract's unconditional phrasing overstates the result. I request that the abstract and conclusions be reframed to state explicitly that the convergence is conditional on a steeply rising Mdot(L) such as the L^3.7 Bloecker law, and that a shallower or episodic mass-loss law leaves a wider, mass-dependent distribution.
  2. [Sec. 6.1 and Sec. 6.2] The observed EHe star masses of about 0.8-0.95 solar masses are in direct tension with the model remnant masses of about 0.6-0.7 solar masses, as noted in Sec. 6.1. This tension is the most direct observable check on the mass-loss prescription, and it should be used quantitatively: the paper should estimate the mass-loss efficiency or functional form required to match the EHe masses and show how the predicted descendant single-WD mass distribution shifts as a result. Without such an analysis, the Sec. 6.2 prediction of a narrow WD mass distribution near 0.6-0.7 solar masses inherits the same systematic uncertainty that the paper already identifies as a tension with the observed EHe population.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 6.1] The word 'decedents' should be 'descendants'.
  2. [Sec. 1] The phrase 'through they are currently favored' should read 'though they are currently favored'.
  3. [Sec. 3, Sec. 4.3] The spelling 'metalicity' should be 'metallicity' in several places.
  4. [Sec. 6] The phrase 'typically spend 5070 kyr' is missing a dash and should read '50-70 kyr'.
  5. [Sec. 4.2 and Fig. 5] The effective temperature shifts of roughly 1000 K with alpha_MLT are substantial for observational comparisons; the paper should state explicitly whether the remnant-mass and lifetime conclusions are insensitive to this MLT uncertainty.
  6. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'The thin dashed lines show the calculations, but using the scaled-solar FA05 opacities' contains an unnecessary comma after 'calculations'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: final masses are computed outputs from externally adopted mass-loss prescriptions and initial conditions, not fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim—that AGB-like mass loss concentrates R CrB remnants to roughly 0.6-0.7 Msun—is a computed output of MESA evolutionary models. The initial masses, envelope entropies, and mass-loss rates (Bloeker 1995 with eta, or Mdot = f Mdot_max) are adopted inputs from the literature or explicitly ad hoc assumptions, and they are not fitted to the descendant masses they produce. The convergence mechanism is stated physically via the steep luminosity dependence of the wind rate versus the He-burning supply rate, and the paper quantifies its sensitivity in Figure 12, where the f=0.001 prescription gives a wider 0.65-0.8 Msun spread rather than the narrow 0.6-0.7 Msun range. Self-citations, such as Schwab et al. (2012) for the detailed merger initial model and Schwab (2018) for a comparison sdO track, supply initial conditions or context but do not force the final-mass conclusion; the grid-based Figure 12 uses schematic merger models rather than the self-cited hydrodynamic model. The paper's own Section 6 caveat that AGB wind prescriptions 'would not be directly applicable' to H-deficient C-rich R CrB stars is a statement of model uncertainty and external validity, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the author's prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All central outputs are model calculations from inputs that are either standard stellar physics, adopted observations, or ad hoc choices. The mass-loss efficiency eta and f, the initial envelope entropy and core temperature, the base metallicity, and the surface CNO enhancements are chosen by hand or from literature, not fit to the target descendant masses. The double WD merger origin, the core mass-luminosity relation, and the double detonation limit are taken as axioms from prior work. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Bloecker mass-loss efficiency eta = eta = 0.02 fiducial; also 0.01, 0.05, 0.002
    Ad hoc scaling of the Bloecker (1995) AGB wind prescription. The central descendant-mass result depends on this scaling, and the paper does not calibrate it to R CrB observations.
  • Wind kinetic-energy fraction f = f = 0.001
    Used in Mdot = f Mdot_max as an alternative mass-loss law. The final mass range and lifetimes differ between this law and the Bloecker law.
  • Envelope specific entropy s = 10^9 erg g^-1 K^-1 default; 8 x 10^8 for model SL
    Ad hoc initial condition for schematic merger models; affects the duration of the thermal reconfiguration phase.
  • Core temperature T_core = 3 x 10^7 K
    All schematic merger models are initialized with the same core temperature, a simplifying assumption not derived from merger simulations.
  • Base metallicity Z_base = 0.006 fiducial; varied 0.0006 to 0.02
    Standard model input chosen from literature; affects opacity and envelope structure but not the central mass-convergence argument directly.
  • Envelope CNO enhancement factors = log fC = 1.2, log fN = 1.7, log fO = 0.4
    Adopted from Asplund et al. (2000) observed R CrB surface abundances. They set the model composition but are not fitted to the target descendant masses.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 1D spherically symmetric stellar structure equations with mixing-length convection adequately describe the envelopes of R CrB giants.
    Invoked implicitly in all MESA models; Section 3.1 says 1D MLT cannot reproduce the 3D super-adiabatic layers and that effective temperatures are uncertain.
  • ad hoc to paper Wind mass loss in R CrB stars can be represented by AGB-like prescriptions such as Bloecker (1995) or Mdot = f Mdot_max.
    Central to the descendant mass convergence; Section 6 acknowledges the prescriptions carry significant caveats and are not directly applicable.
  • domain assumption The post-merger remnant of a He WD + CO WD merger consists of a cold CO core and a distinct high-entropy He envelope.
    Used for the ZP4 realistic model and the schematic merger models; Section 5.2 and Figure 9.
  • domain assumption CO WD primaries with masses above about 0.7 Msun in these mergers are destroyed by double detonations and cannot form R CrB stars.
    Used to restrict the grid to CO primaries below 0.7 Msun; Section 6.1, based on Guillochon et al. (2010) and Shen et al. (2018).
  • domain assumption The simple photosphere atmosphere boundary condition and the OPAL/AESOPUS opacity blend are sufficient for the outer boundary.
    Section 3.1 and 4.2; boundary condition choices shift Teff by about 100 K while the mixing-length parameter shifts it by about 1000 K.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolutionary models for R Coronae Borealis stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXTYOYWF

@misc{pith2026190902569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolutionary models for R Coronae Borealis stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXTYOYWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02569}
}
abstract

We use Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA) to construct stellar evolution models that reach a hydrogen-deficient, carbon-rich giant phase like the R Coronae Borealis (R CrB) stars. These models use opacities from OPAL and AESOPUS that cover the conditions in the cool, H-deficient, CNO-enhanced envelopes of these stars. We compare models that begin from homogeneous He stars with models constructed to reproduce the remnant structure shortly after the merger of a He and a CO white dwarf (WD). We emphasize that models originating from merger scenarios have a thermal reconfiguration phase that can last up to $\approx$ 1 kyr post merger, suggesting some galactic objects should be in this phase. We illustrate the important role of mass loss in setting the lifetimes of the R CrB stars. Using AGB-like mass loss prescriptions, models with CO WD primaries $\lesssim 0.7\,M_\odot$ typically leave the R CrB phase with total masses $\approx 0.6-0.7\,M_\odot$, roughly independent of their total mass immediately post-merger. This implies that the descendants of the R CrB stars may have a relatively narrow range in mass and luminosity as extreme He stars and a relatively narrow range in mass as single WDs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02569 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of opacities used in this work at lower temperatures. The opacity is shown as a function of temperature at a constant value of ρ (see vertical grey line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of opacities used in this work with those from Weiss (1987). The opacity is shown as a function of temperature at a constant value of log R (see diagonal grey line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Evolution of He star models with varying en￾velope compositions. This reproduces the results of earlier work (cf. Figure 3b in Weiss 1987). of mass loss, so each model has a constant total mass. The primary goal of this section is to compare with past work and illustrate the sensitivity to various modeling assumptions. 4.1. Comparison with Weiss (1987) As a first illustration of these models, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of outer boundary condition and mixing length parameter on model effective temperatures. the surface are consistent. We also show the “Edding￾ton grey” option, which integrates the T − τ relation of Eddington (1926). These options all agree at level of ≈ 100 K …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Change in effective temperature when vary￾ing surface carbon fraction at a fixed base metallicity of Z = 0.006. The solid lines show the results using the CNO￾enhanced ÆSOPUS opacities. The thin dashed lines show the calculations, but using the scaled-solar FA05 opacit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows the initial temperature and density profile for models with different envelope entropies. Compared with the model ZP4 from Section 5.1, the peak temperature is similar, though generally at lower density in the schematic models (SD and SL). 5.3. Comparative Evolut…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution in the HR diagram shortly after merger. Indicated times are the duration from the start of the calculation until the surface luminosity and the luminos￾ity from He burning are first equal. The grey line shows the qualitatively different evolutionary track fr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolutionary dependence on mass loss rate. To￾tal masses are indicated at the end of each track. Lifetimes are indicated in the legend. The thin portion of the track is the early thermal adjustment phase (shown in more detail in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Total mass at the end of the R CrB phase when models reached Teff = 104 K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: HR diagram (left panel) and Kiel diagram (right panel) for two models (colored lines) using Bloecker (1995) mass loss rates with different η. The approximate time in the R CrB phase is indicated in the right legend. Beginning when the models reach Teff = 104 K, dots a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A primer on the formation and evolution of hydrogen deficient Central Stars of Planetary Nebul{\ae} and Related Objects

    astro-ph.SR 2024-11 unverdicted

    A review of the formation and evolution of hydrogen-deficient central stars of planetary nebulae, comparing late thermal pulse (born again) and binary merger channels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    z- ߘcZr1Z 7 #o[N2-B:S x ;J>fRjlXR*Gy jלrmBWTh | zʵ5ѧūY q= kWTbo Q Vm6 fj?¶ ? c[6!( Cƶٲڦϙ 6B֭ ;weEێ F*bwئ2C (Sا s lXtUpj2 g

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    1997, , 318, 521

    Asplund , M., Gustafsson , B., Kiselman , D., & Eriksson , K. 1997, , 318, 521

    1997

  5. [5]

    L., & Rao , N

    Asplund , M., Gustafsson , B., Lambert , D. L., & Rao , N. K. 2000, , 353, 287

    2000

  6. [6]

    1971, , 14, 32

    Biermann , P., & Kippenhahn , R. 1971, , 14, 32

    1971

  7. [7]

    1995, , 297, 727

    Bloecker , T. 1995, , 297, 727

    1995

  8. [8]

    1958, , 46, 108

    B \"o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, , 46, 108

    1958

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.12710

    Cheng , S., Cummings , J., & M \'e nard , B. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.12710. 1905.12710

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2018, , 860, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac435

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., & Ting , Y.-S. 2018, , 860, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac435

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Clayton , G. C. 1996, , 108, 225, 10.1086/133715

    1996 doi

  4. [12]

    2012, Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (JAAVSO), 40, 539

    ---. 2012, Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (JAAVSO), 40, 539. 1206.3448

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C., Geballe , T

    Clayton , G. C., Geballe , T. R., & Bianchi , L. 2003, , 595, 412, 10.1086/377336

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    C., Geballe , T

    Clayton , G. C., Geballe , T. R., Herwig , F., Fryer , C., & Asplund , M. 2007, , 662, 1220, 10.1086/518307

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Geballe , T

    Clayton , G. C., Geballe , T. R., & Zhang , W. 2013, , 146, 23, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/23

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    P., & Giuli , R

    Cox , J. P., & Giuli , R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure

    1968

  9. [17]

    2014, , 438, 14, 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    Dan , M., Rosswog , S., Br \"u ggen , M., & Podsiadlowski , P. 2014, , 438, 14, 10.1093/mnras/stt1766

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    2011, , 737, 89, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89

    Dan , M., Rosswog , S., Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2011, , 737, 89, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/89

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    D., & Behara , N

    Dufour , P., Fontaine , G., Liebert , J., Schmidt , G. D., & Behara , N. 2008, , 683, 978, 10.1086/589855

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    H., & Clemens , J

    Dunlap , B. H., & Clemens , J. C. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. P. Dufour , P. Bergeron , & G. Fontaine , 547

    2015

  13. [21]

    Eddington , A. S. 1926, The Internal Constitution of the Stars

    1926

  14. [22]

    W., Alexander , D

    Ferguson , J. W., Alexander , D. R., Allard , F., et al. 2005, , 623, 585, 10.1086/428642

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    N., & Jeffery , C

    Gourgouliatos , K. N., & Jeffery , C. S. 2006, , 371, 1381, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10780.x

    2006

  17. [25]

    Grevesse , N., & Sauval , A. J. 1998, , 85, 161, 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    Groenewegen , M. A. T., Whitelock , P. A., Smith , C. H., & Kerschbaum , F. 1998, , 293, 18, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01113.x

    1998

  19. [27]

    2010, , 709, L64, 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    Guillochon , J., Dan , M., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Rosswog , S. 2010, , 709, L64, 10.1088/2041-8205/709/1/L64

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Gustafsson , B., & Asplund , M. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 96, Hydrogen Deficient Stars, ed. C. S. Jeffery & U. Heber , 27

    1996

  21. [29]

    D., & Jeffery , C

    Hall , P. D., & Jeffery , C. S. 2018, , 475, 3889, 10.1093/mnras/sty055

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Merts, A., Magee Jr, N., & Argo, M

    Huebner, W. F., Merts, A., Magee Jr, N., & Argo, M. 1977, Astrophysical opacity library, Tech. Rep. LA-6760-M, Los Alamos Scientific Lab

    1977

  23. [31]

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

    2007

  24. [32]

    1990, , 353, 215, 10.1086/168609

    Iben , Jr., I. 1990, , 353, 215, 10.1086/168609

    1990 doi

  25. [33]

    Iben , Jr., I., & Tutukov , A. V. 1989, , 342, 430, 10.1086/167603

    1989 doi

  26. [34]

    A., & Rogers , F

    Iglesias , C. A., & Rogers , F. J. 1993, , 412, 752, 10.1086/172958

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    1996, , 464, 943, 10.1086/177381

    ---. 1996, , 464, 943, 10.1086/177381

    1996 doi

  28. [36]

    Jeffery , C. S. 1988, , 235, 1287, 10.1093/mnras/235.4.1287

    1988 doi

  29. [37]

    Jeffery , C. S. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 391, Hydrogen-Deficient Stars, ed. A. Werner & T. Rauch , 53

    2008

  30. [38]

    2017, , 470, 3557, 10.1093/mnras/stx1442

    ---. 2017, , 470, 3557, 10.1093/mnras/stx1442

    2017 doi

  31. [41]

    J rgensen , A. C. S., Mosumgaard , J. R., Weiss , A., Silva Aguirre , V., & Christensen-Dalsgaard , J. 2018, , 481, L35, 10.1093/mnrasl/sly152

    2018 doi

  32. [42]

    J rgensen , A. C. S., & Weiss , A. 2019, , 488, 3463, 10.1093/mnras/stz1980

    2019 doi

  33. [43]

    C., Salpeter , E

    Joss , P. C., Salpeter , E. E., & Ostriker , J. P. 1973, , 181, 429, 10.1086/152060

    1973 doi

  34. [44]

    I., Ruiter , A

    Karakas , A. I., Ruiter , A. J., & Hampel , M. 2015, , 809, 184, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/184

    2015 doi

  35. [45]

    C., Frank , J., & Marcello , D

    Lauer , A., Chatzopoulos , E., Clayton , G. C., Frank , J., & Marcello , D. C. 2019, , 488, 438, 10.1093/mnras/stz1732

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    Longland , R., Lor \'e n-Aguilar , P., Jos \'e , J., Garc \' a-Berro , E., & Althaus , L. G. 2012, , 542, A117, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219289

    2012 doi

  37. [47]

    2011, , 737, L34, 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L34

    Longland , R., Lor \'e n-Aguilar , P., Jos \'e , J., et al. 2011, , 737, L34, 10.1088/2041-8205/737/2/L34

    2011 doi

  38. [48]

    2009, , 500, 1193, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811060

    Lor \'e n-Aguilar , P., Isern , J., & Garc \' a-Berro , E. 2009, , 500, 1193, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811060

    2009 doi

  39. [49]

    2009, , 508, 1539, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912598

    Marigo , P., & Aringer , B. 2009, , 508, 1539, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912598

    2009 doi

  40. [50]

    McDowell , M. R. C., Williamson , J. H., & Myerscough , V. P. 1966, , 144, 827, 10.1086/148665

    1966 doi

  41. [51]

    A., et al

    Menon , A., Herwig , F., Denissenkov , P. A., et al. 2013, , 772, 59, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/59

    2013 doi

  42. [52]

    I., Lugaro , M., Doherty , C

    Menon , A., Karakas , A. I., Lugaro , M., Doherty , C. L., & Ritter , C. 2019, , 482, 2320, 10.1093/mnras/sty2606

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    J., Clayton , G

    Montiel , E. J., Clayton , G. C., Marcello , D. C., & Lockman , F. J. 2015, , 150, 14, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/1/14

    2015 doi

  44. [54]

    J., Clayton , G

    Montiel , E. J., Clayton , G. C., Sugerman , B. E. K., et al. 2018, , 156, 148, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad772

    2018 doi

  45. [55]

    Myerscough , V. P. 1968, , 153, 421, 10.1086/149677

    1968 doi

  46. [56]

    P., & McDowell , M

    Myerscough , V. P., & McDowell , M. R. C. 1964, , 128, 287

    1964

  47. [57]

    1966, , 132, 457

    ---. 1966, , 132, 457

    1966

  48. [58]

    1985, , 297, 531, 10.1086/163547

    Nomoto , K., & Iben , Jr., I. 1985, , 297, 531, 10.1086/163547

    1985 doi

  49. [59]

    1971, , 21, 1

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1971, , 21, 1

    1971

  50. [60]

    L., Jeffery , C

    Pandey , G., Kameswara Rao , N., Lambert , D. L., Jeffery , C. S., & Asplund , M. 2001, , 324, 937, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04371.x

    2001

  51. [61]

    2019, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA) , 10.5281/zenodo.2665077

    Paxton, B. 2019, Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA) , 10.5281/zenodo.2665077

    2019 doi

  52. [62]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  53. [63]

    2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  54. [64]

    2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15, 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  55. [65]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, , 234, 34, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  56. [66]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  57. [67]

    2019, , 873, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    Polin , A., Nugent , P., & Kasen , D. 2019, , 873, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6a

    2019 doi

  58. [68]

    R., Tout , C

    Pols , O. R., Tout , C. A., Eggleton , P. P., & Han , Z. 1995, , 274, 964, 10.1093/mnras/274.3.964

    1995 doi

  59. [69]

    Rauch , T., Reiff , E., Werner , K., & Kruk , J. W. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 391, Hydrogen-Deficient Stars, ed. A. Werner & T. Rauch , 135. 0804.2366

    2008 arXiv

  60. [70]

    W., & Todt , H

    Reindl , N., Rauch , T., Werner , K., Kruk , J. W., & Todt , H. 2014, , 566, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423498

    2014 doi

  61. [71]

    J., Swenson , F

    Rogers , F. J., Swenson , F. J., & Iglesias , C. A. 1996, , 456, 902, 10.1086/176705

    1996 doi

  62. [72]

    E., & Aller , L

    Ross , J. E., & Aller , L. H. 1976, Science, 191, 1223, 10.1126/science.191.4233.1223

    1976

  63. [73]

    1988, , 235, 203, 10.1093/mnras/235.1.203

    Saio , H. 1988, , 235, 203, 10.1093/mnras/235.1.203

    1988 doi

  64. [74]

    Saio , H., & Jeffery , C. S. 1988, , 328, 714, 10.1086/166330

    1988 doi

  65. [75]

    2002, , 333, 121, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05384.x

    ---. 2002, , 333, 121, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05384.x

    2002

  66. [76]

    Sanyal , D., Grassitelli , L., Langer , N., & Bestenlehner , J. M. 2015, , 580, A20, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525945

    2015 doi

  67. [77]

    1975, , 44, 383

    Schoenberner , D. 1975, , 44, 383

    1975

  68. [78]

    1977, , 57, 437

    ---. 1977, , 57, 437

    1977

  69. [79]

    2018, , 476, 5303, 10.1093/mnras/sty586

    Schwab , J. 2018, , 476, 5303, 10.1093/mnras/sty586

    2018 doi

  70. [80]

    2016, , 463, 3461, 10.1093/mnras/stw2249

    Schwab , J., Quataert , E., & Kasen , D. 2016, , 463, 3461, 10.1093/mnras/stw2249

    2016 doi

  71. [82]

    1961, , 133, 531, 10.1086/147056

    Searle , L. 1961, , 133, 531, 10.1086/147056

    1961 doi

  72. [83]

    2015, Double White Dwarf Mergers, 10.5281/zenodo.2603640

    Shen, K. 2015, Double White Dwarf Mergers, 10.5281/zenodo.2603640

    2015 doi

  73. [84]

    J., Bildsten , L., Kasen , D., & Quataert , E

    Shen , K. J., Bildsten , L., Kasen , D., & Quataert , E. 2012, , 748, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/35

    2012 doi

  74. [85]

    J., Boubert , D., G \"a nsicke , B

    Shen , K. J., Boubert , D., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2018, , 865, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad55b

    2018 doi

  75. [86]

    E., Menon , A., Herwig , F., et al

    Staff , J. E., Menon , A., Herwig , F., et al. 2012, , 757, 76, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/76

    2012 doi

  76. [87]

    E., Wiggins , B., Marcello , D., et al

    Staff , J. E., Wiggins , B., Marcello , D., et al. 2018, , 862, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaca3d

    2018 doi

  77. [88]

    X., & Swesty , F

    Timmes , F. X., & Swesty , F. D. 2000, , 126, 501, 10.1086/313304

    2000 doi

  78. [89]

    C., Bessell , M

    Tisserand , P., Clayton , G. C., Bessell , M. S., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. 1809.01743

    2018 arXiv

  79. [90]

    1973, , 22, 9

    Trimble , V., & Paczynski , B. 1973, , 22, 9

    1973

  80. [91]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  81. [92]

    Webbink , R. F. 1984, , 277, 355, 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  82. [93]

    Wegg , C., & Phinney , E. S. 2012, , 426, 427, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21394.x

    2012

  83. [94]

    1987, , 185, 165

    Weiss , A. 1987, , 185, 165

    1987

  84. [95]

    J., & Magee , Jr., N

    Weiss , A., Keady , J. J., & Magee , Jr., N. H. 1990, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 45, 209, 10.1016/0092-640X(90)90008-8

    1990 doi

  85. [96]

    B., & Schwab, J

    Wolf, B., Bauer, E. B., & Schwab, J. 2017, wmwolf/MesaScript: A DSL for Writing MESA Inlists, 10.5281/zenodo.826954

    2017 doi

  86. [97]

    2017, wmwolf/py\_mesa\_reader: Interact with MESA Output, 10.5281/zenodo.826958

    Wolf, B., & Schwab, J. 2017, wmwolf/py\_mesa\_reader: Interact with MESA Output, 10.5281/zenodo.826958

    2017 doi

  87. [98]

    Zenati , Y., Toonen , S., & Perets , H. B. 2019, , 482, 1135, 10.1093/mnras/sty2723

    2019 doi

  88. [99]

    Zhang , X., & Jeffery , C. S. 2012 a , , 426, L81, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01330.x

    2012

  89. [100]

    2012 b , , 419, 452, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19711.x

    ---. 2012 b , , 419, 452, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19711.x

    2012

  90. [101]

    S., Chen , X., & Han , Z

    Zhang , X., Jeffery , C. S., Chen , X., & Han , Z. 2014, , 445, 660, 10.1093/mnras/stu1741

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.