Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

WR + O binaries as probes of the first phase of mass transfer

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For 14 of 21 Galactic WR+O binaries, the paper infers early, highly non-conservative Case A mass transfer with angular-momentum loss γ typically above one—counter to the usual Case B expectation.

desk verdict First systematic inversion of 21 WR+O binaries, but the 14/21 Case A majority is sensitive to the gamma>3 plausibility cutoff and the upper qcrit values. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00938 v2 pith:3MVQVPFO submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Marit Nuijten (1) , Gijs Nelemans (1 , 2 , 3) ((1) Radboud University , (2) KU Leuven , (3) SRON) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords Wolf-RayetbinariesmasstransferCaseABaccretionefficiencyangularmomentumlossmassivebinaryevolutionstellar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks when and how inefficiently the first episode of mass transfer happened in 21 observed Galactic Wolf-Rayet + O-star binaries, systems thought to evolve into X-ray binaries and double black holes. From the observed WR and O-star masses and periods, the authors reconstruct the range of plausible progenitors and ask which route—mass transfer starting on the main sequence (Case A) or after it (Case B)—could produce each system with physically plausible mass loss. Their central conclusion is that most of the sample (14 of 21 systems) most likely experienced Case A mass transfer with a low accretion efficiency and relatively high specific angular-momentum loss, typically γ > 1. This contradicts the usual expectation that most massive binaries undergo Case B mass transfer, so the authors argue that post-Case-B products must be underrepresented in the observed WR+O population, either intrinsically or because selection effects hide them. If correct, the result changes which initial binary configurations and mass-transfer efficiencies population models should use to form X-ray binaries and double black hole mergers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a progenitor-grid back-mapping. For each observed binary the paper computes an initial donor mass (upper limit for Case A, relation for Case B), then scans initial secondary masses and orbital periods and solves, cell by cell, two linking identities: the total-mass/mass-ratio equation that fixes the accretion efficiency β, and a period-ratio relation derived from Kepler's laws and an assumed constant specific angular-momentum loss γ. The grid is then cut by physical filters—γ between 0 and 5 with γ > 3 treated as unlikely, critical mass ratios for stable Case A and Case B mass transfer, and very short periods that would lead to mergers—and the surviving cells are weighted by the initial period and mass-ratio distribution of massive binaries. This back-mapping is what turns a heterogeneous catalogue of 21 observed systems into statements about which evolutionary route each one took.

What would settle it

Find an interacting massive binary with a circumbinary disk radius comparable to four binary separations: under the paper's own relation between ring radius and γ, that corresponds to γ ≈ 3, and a disk approaching eleven separations would correspond to γ ≈ 5, directly testing the assumption that such high angular-momentum loss is unphysical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the WR star as the stripped core of the original donor, the paper derives initial primary masses from two calibrated relations from the literature: one Case B relation between final core mass and initial mass, and one Case A lower-envelope fit to published models that gives an upper limit on the initial donor mass. For every plausible initial secondary mass and orbital period on a grid, it computes the mass-transfer efficiency β from the total-mass and mass-ratio equation of the standard binary-evolution formalism, and the specific angular-momentum-loss parameter γ from the period and mass ratios. After excluding solutions with γ < 0, γ > 5, unstable mass transfer according to adopted critical mass-ratio ranges (qcrit,A = 1.6–3 and qcrit,B = 4–10), and likely merger orbits, the remaining parameter space is weighted by the expected distribution of the O+main-sequence progenitor population. The result is that fourteen systems have plausible Case A solutions but no plausible Case B solution unless γ is uncomfortably high (γ ≳ 4), three are ambiguous, three favour Case B or no mass transfer, and one very wide system probably never filled its Roche lobe. The paper concludes that the majority of observed WR+O binaries are post-Case-A systems with low β and typically γ > 1.

Load-bearing premise

The central conclusion depends on treating specific angular-momentum loss γ above about 3 as physically implausible; if γ values of 4–5 are actually possible, Case B mass transfer remains viable for many of the 14 systems and the majority-Case-A claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most observed Galactic WR+O binaries (14 of 21) most likely started their first mass-transfer phase while the donor was still on the main sequence, with the transferred mass mostly lost from the system rather than accreted.
  • The specific angular momentum carried away by the lost mass is typically γ > 1, meaning the escaping mass takes more than the binary's average specific angular momentum.
  • The observed WR+O population is not representative of the expected outcome of massive-binary evolution: post-Case-B systems are missing, either because they rarely form or because longer-period systems are hard to detect.
  • For Case A, the upper limits on the mass-transfer efficiency are low: most systems have βmax < 0.5 and, with the strictest adopted critical mass ratios, roughly half have βmax ≈ 0.
  • For the few systems that favour Case B or no mass transfer, the inferred efficiency limits differ; WR97 and WR35a require low efficiency while WR140 allows values near unity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the Case A majority is real, models of double black hole formation should give more weight to initially short-period, roughly equal-mass binaries with highly inefficient accretion than to the longer-period Case B channel.
  • Beyond the paper: the claimed deficit of post-Case-B systems is directly testable by searching for longer-period WR+O binaries with stripped, cool companions; a dedicated survey would either find the missing systems or confirm an intrinsic shortage.
  • Beyond the paper: the authors' note that lower metallicity shrinks the allowed parameter space and lowers γ suggests a metallicity-resolved analysis could shift some ambiguous systems and alter the inferred Case A fraction.
  • Beyond the paper: because roughly half of the Case A systems are stable only under the highest adopted critical mass ratio, sharper theoretical predictions for qcrit would directly tighten or loosen the 14-of-21 count.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies 21 Galactic WR+O binaries from the VIIth catalogue of Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars. For each system, the authors estimate the possible initial masses of the WR progenitor under Case A and Case B mass-transfer assumptions, construct a grid of initial periods and secondary masses, and use MESA stellar models to locate the period boundary between Case A and Case B. From conservation laws they derive the mass-transfer efficiency beta and the specific angular-momentum-loss parameter gamma for every grid point. Applying constraints from critical mass ratios and a plausibility limit on gamma, they classify each system as most-likely Case A, both cases possible, or Case A not possible. The central claim is that 14 of the 21 systems most likely underwent highly non-conservative Case A mass transfer with gamma typically above one, contrary to the usual expectation that most massive binaries undergo Case B mass transfer.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, it would be an interesting and somewhat surprising result: the observed Galactic WR+O population may be dominated by post-Case-A products, with implications for the formation of X-ray binaries and double black holes and for selection effects in massive binary surveys. The paper has genuine strengths: beta and gamma are derived analytically from mass/period conservation, not fitted; the period boundary is computed with MESA using publicly available inlists; the analysis explicitly acknowledges the range of possible qcrit values and the uncertainty in the initial-mass relations; and the use of a COSMIC/Moe & Di Stefano progenitor distribution to assess likelihoods is a constructive attempt to go beyond per-object point estimates. The approach is falsifiable and the figures provide a large amount of diagnostic information. The significance is, however, tempered by the fact that the headline 14/21 count depends on subjective plausibility cuts and on adopting the upper end of the adopted qcrit range, so the result is less robust than the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4 and Section 4.1.1] The exclusion of Case B for the 14 systems classified as 'Case A more likely' rests on the unquantified statement that gamma > 3 is 'unlikely' and that values up to the hard limit of 5 are still allowed by Eq. (14). For WR9 and, by the same argument, the other systems in this category, Case B solutions with gamma between 3 and 5 are described as 'not impossible but not plausible,' yet this plausibility cutoff is the decisive step that turns a marginal possibility into a definitive classification. Eq. (14) is only a rough estimate for a circumbinary ring, and the paper does not provide an independent angular-momentum-loss model or a calibrated distribution for gamma. I request a sensitivity test: repeat the classification with gamma < 5 as the only gamma restriction (i.e., no 3.0 cutoff) and report how many of the 14 systems no longer have Case B excluded. Without such a test, the headline claim is not supported to the confidence claimed.
  2. [Table 2 and Section 4.1.1] Seven of the fourteen systems (WR31, WR42, WR48, WR62a, WR68a, WR151, WR155) have beta_max = 0.00 for qcrit,A = 1.6 in Table 2, meaning that under the lower boundary of the adopted qcrit range no stable Case A solution exists at all. The paper notes that stable Case A for these systems requires qcrit,A = 3, the upper edge of the range, but still counts all seven in the 14-system majority claim. Because the true qcrit is not known, the classification is not robust for these systems. Please show the classification result under the alternative assumption qcrit,A = 1.6 (or, better, a scan over the whole 1.6-3.0 interval), stating how many systems remain uniquely Case A and how many move to 'both possible' or 'Case B.' The central numerical claim depends on this choice.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Section 5] The initial-mass relations in Eqs. (1) and (2) are linear fits with stated standard deviations in the coefficients, but those uncertainties are not propagated through the analysis. The text in Section 5 explicitly says the authors 'did not systematically vary the masses,' and the qualitative discussion that lower WR masses or higher O-star masses would change gamma is not a substitute for a quantitative robustness check. This matters because M1,i,A is itself an upper limit, and the classification and the beta_max values in Table 2 depend on the inferred initial masses. I ask for a sensitivity study that varies the WR and O-star masses within their quoted error bars (and the fit coefficients of Eqs. 1 and 2) and reports how many of the 14 systems retain the same classification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1.1] The text says 'Fourteen of the 20 systems we studied fall into this category,' but the sample contains 21 systems; this should read 'of the 21 systems' or be clarified if some system is excluded from the count.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Our initial masses of the WR progenitors are upper limits (see Sect. 2.3...)' refers to the Case A relation in Eq. (2), which is described in Section 2.1; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2.4 and Eq. (14)] The derivation of the gamma bounds from Eq. (14) would benefit from a clear statement of the assumption that the circumbinary ring radius ar equals the radius at which the specific angular momentum of the lost material matches that of the ring; as written the transition from Eq. (14) to the numerical values ar/a = 4 and 11.1 for gamma = 3 and 5 is not fully explained.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6] The phrase 'as this can explain 14 out of 21 systems' in the abstract is vague; 'explain' should be replaced with something like 'is consistent with' or 'is the most likely scenario for,' to avoid implying a goodness-of-fit test that was not performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Case A/B inference is based on external stellar models and conservation laws, not on fitting the target conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Initial primary masses are taken from published relations, with Eq. (2) explicitly described as a fit to external Case A binary models from Shao & Li (2016) and used as an upper limit rather than as a fitted prediction. The period boundary between Case A and Case B is computed from MESA single-star models using inlists from Klencki et al. (2020), which are independent of the observed WR+O sample. The mass-transfer efficiency beta and angular-momentum-loss parameter gamma are solved from mass and angular-momentum conservation (Eqs. 3, 8, 13) with no free parameters fitted to the 21 systems. The qcrit ranges are taken from the literature (Gallegos-Garcia et al. 2022; Klencki et al. 2021) and used as a bracketing uncertainty rather than as a forced choice. The gamma>3 and gamma>5 plausibility cut in Section 2.4 is a stated physical prior applied uniformly, not a restatement of the conclusion; the finding that some Case B solutions require gamma>4 is a derived result, not an assumption. The expected 36.44% Case A fraction in Section 2.5 uses the same period boundary as the classification, making the comparison internally consistent rather than a disguised fit. Although some cited modeling papers include the present author, they are public, code-reproduced model results with stated assumptions and do not constitute circular evidence. The sensitivity of the 14/21 count to alternative gamma or qcrit choices is a robustness concern, not a circularity.

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

Most model inputs are inherited from cited literature rather than derived here. The main free choices are the initial-mass fit coefficients, the qcrit ranges, the gamma plausibility cutoffs, and the COSMIC prior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Case B initial mass relation coefficients (Eq. 1) = M1,i,B = (MWR + 4.92)/0.53
    Coefficients from a linear fit by Petrovic et al. (2005) to core mass-initial mass models from Wellstein & Langer (1999); used to convert observed WR mass into initial primary mass for Case B.
  • Case A initial mass relation coefficients (Eq. 2) = M1,i,A = (MWR + 4.86)/0.41
    Linear fit to the lower boundary of model points in Fig. 7 of Shao & Li (2016); used to set the Case A initial primary mass and treated as an upper limit.
  • qcrit ranges = Case A: 1.6-3; Case B: 4-10
    Range from Gallegos-Garcia et al. (2022) and Klencki et al. (2021); the paper uses strictest and most forgiving boundaries to define regions of stable mass transfer. The central classification for about half of the 14 Case A systems requires the upper value qcrit_A=3.
  • gamma plausibility cutoffs = gamma > 3 unlikely; gamma > 5 excluded
    Chosen in Section 2.4 based on circumbinary ring radius plausibility; these cutoffs drive the exclusion of Case B for many systems, so they are effectively free boundaries for the main conclusion.
  • metallicity = Z = Zsun, with Z = 0.5 Zsun check
    Assumed solar metallicity for MESA simulations of period boundaries; a lower metallicity changes the Case A/B boundary and lowers gamma estimates, as shown in Fig. 7.
  • COSMIC sample parameters = N=1e5, M1 in 16-150 Msun, seed 20
    Used to build the O+MS progenitor period and mass-ratio prior and the expected Case A fraction of 36.44%; the exact prior affects likelihood weighting and the claimed discrepancy.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Kepler's third law and the Eggleton (1983) Roche-lobe approximation relate period, masses, and Roche-lobe radius (Eqs. 4-6).
    Used throughout to convert between orbital period, initial masses, and the condition for Roche-lobe overflow.
  • domain assumption The WR star is the stripped core of its progenitor, so core mass-initial mass relations (Eqs. 1-2) determine the initial donor mass.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; if WR stars can form through other channels, the inferred initial masses are not valid.
  • domain assumption The donor evolves as a single star until RLOF; MESA inlists from Klencki et al. (2020) at Z=Zsun describe its radius evolution to TAMS.
    Invoked in Section 2.2; binary interaction before RLOF or different inlists would shift the Case A/B period boundary.
  • domain assumption The companion O star has not lost significant mass, so its initial mass is at most its current mass.
    Used in Section 2.1 to set the upper limit on the initial secondary mass; the paper acknowledges winds can reduce the O-star mass.
  • domain assumption gamma is constant over time during mass transfer (Pols & Marinus 1994), so Eq. (9) applies.
    Used in Section 2.3 to derive gamma from initial and final masses and periods; a time-varying gamma would make the quoted gamma an effective average.
  • domain assumption Stable mass transfer requires an initial mass ratio below qcrit from the cited ranges; systems above qcrit are assumed not to become WR+O binaries.
    Used in Sections 2.4 and 4.1 to exclude parts of parameter space; the width of the qcrit range is a major uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper Gamma values above 5 are unphysical and values above 3 are unlikely, based on circumbinary ring radius reasoning in Section 2.4.
    These cutoffs are chosen by the authors and directly determine why Case B is rejected for many systems.
  • domain assumption The observed sample is comparable to the COSMIC and Moe & Di Stefano O+MS prior; selection effects are discussed but not modeled.
    Used in Sections 2.5 and 6 to interpret the difference between the observed Case A fraction and the 36.44% expectation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WR + O binaries as probes of the first phase of mass transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MVQVPFO

@misc{pith2026241200938,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WR + O binaries as probes of the first phase of mass transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MVQVPFO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00938}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Wolf-Rayet (WR) and O-star binaries can be the progenitors of X-ray binaries and double black hole binaries. Their formation is not yet fully understood, however. For 21 observed WR+O systems, we aim to infer whether the mass transfer started on the main sequence (Case A) or later (Case B). We also calculated (limits on) the mass-transfer efficiency {\beta}, that is, the fraction of transferred mass that is accreted, and the parameter {\gamma}, which denotes the fraction of angular momentum of the binary that is lost per unit mass in units of the average angular momentum of the binary per unit mass. Aims. We inferred the possible values for the initial masses based on the observed WR masses and models for WR from the literature. With these initial primary masses, we created a grid of possible periods and secondary masses for which we determined the values that {\beta} and {\gamma} would have taken for either Case A or Case B mass transfer. Based on this, we also determined the case of mass transfer that is most likely for each system. Methods. Taking into account the progenitor distribution of WR+O binaries, we find that highly non-conservative Case A mass transfer seems to be the most likely scenario for the majority of systems as this can explain 14 out of 21 systems. The angular momentum loss is likely relatively high (typically {\gamma} > 1). Our finding that most systems in our sample experienced Case A mass transfer contradicts the expectation that most massive binaries go through Case B mass transfer. This suggests that post-case-B systems are significantly underrepresented in the observed WR+O binary population, either intrinsically or due to severe selection effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00938 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Resulting values for γ (colour) and β (lines in lowest graph) for the initial parameter space of WR9. Each integer value of γ is marked with a solid line. The shaded boxes indicate whether mass transfer will be stable. Parts without shading will be stable, lightly shaded parts can be either stable or unstable, depending on the exact value of qcrit The heaviest shaded parts will always experience unstable mass transf… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Same as 2, but for WR140 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as figure 2, but for WR137. Case A, this corresponds to 1.6 < qcrit,A < 3 and for Case B to 4 < qcrit,B < 10. An overview of the matching upper limits for β for each binary is given in table 2. We only list the limits for plausi￾ble cases of mass transfer. More de…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as figure 3, but for a metallicity of Z = 0.5Z⊙. mentioned this briefly in the results, but it is important recall this when interpreting the results. 6. Conclusion The goal of this research was to study the type of mass trans￾fer that WR+O binaries might have exp…

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. Binary stars take what they get: Evidence for Efficient Mass Transfer from Stripped Stars with Rapidly Rotating Companions

    astro-ph.SR 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Analysis of 16 Be+sdOB binaries shows that most transferred mass is retained by the accretor, with half of the systems requiring efficiencies above 50%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039

    2023

  2. [2]

    A., Sana, H., Taylor, W., et al

    Almeida, L. A., Sana, H., Taylor, W., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A84

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2022, A&A, 658, A69 Barbá, R

    Banyard, G., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A69 Barbá, R. H., Gamen, R., Arias, J. I., & Morrell, N. I. 2017, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 329, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, ed. J. J. Eldridge, J. C. Bray, L. A. S. McClelland, & L. Xiao, 89–96

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    2022, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: COSMIC v3.4.7

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2022, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: COSMIC v3.4.7

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Cherepashchuk, A. M. 2018, Astronomy Reports, 62, 567

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Collado, A., Gamen, R., & Barbá, R. H. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A22

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    H., & Morrell, N

    Collado, A., Gamen, R., Barbá, R. H., & Morrell, N. 2015, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 581, A49

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Crowther, P. A. 2006 de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Hilditch, R. W. 2007, A&A, 467, 1181

    work page 2006

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Demers, H., Moffat, A. F. J., Marchenko, S. V ., Gayley, K. G., & Morel, T. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 577, 409

    2002

  2. [10]

    & Toonen, S

    Dorozsmai, A. & Toonen, S. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 3706

    2024

  3. [11]

    & Klencki, J

    Dutta, D. & Klencki, J. 2024, A&A, 687, A215

    2024

  4. [12]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 268, 368

    1983

  5. [13]

    J., Taylor, W

    Evans, C. J., Taylor, W. D., Hénault-Brunet, V ., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A108

    2011

  6. [14]

    Fahed, R., Moffat, A. F. J., Zorec, J., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 418, 2

    2011

  7. [15]

    Gallegos-Garcia, M., Fishbach, M., Kalogera, V ., Berry, C. P. L., & Doctor, Z. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 938, L19

    2022

  8. [16]

    N., & St-Louis, N

    Gamen, R., Collado, A., Barbá, R., Chené, A. N., & St-Louis, N. 2014, A&A, 562, A13

    2014

  9. [17]

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

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 40

    2015

  10. [18]

    2022, A&A, 662, A56

    Klencki, J., Istrate, A., Nelemans, G., & Pols, O. 2022, A&A, 662, A56

    2022

  11. [19]

    G., & Chruslinska, M

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Chruslinska, M. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A54

    2021

  12. [20]

    G., & Pols, O

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Pols, O. 2020, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 638, A55

    2020

  13. [21]

    A., Kiminki, D

    Kobulnicky, H. A., Kiminki, D. C., Lundquist, M. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 34 Lefèvre, L., Marchenko, S. V ., Lépine, S., et al. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 360, 141

    2014

  14. [22]

    Lenoir-Craig, G., St-Louis, N., Moffat, A. F. J., & Pablo, H. 2021, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 4465

    2021

  15. [23]

    Mahy, L., Rauw, G., De Becker, M., Eenens, P., & Flores, C. A. 2013, A&A, 550, A27

    2013

  16. [24]

    & Broekgaarden, F

    Mandel, I. & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1

    2022

  17. [25]

    2023, A&A, 680, A22

    Martins, F. 2023, A&A, 680, A22

    2023

  18. [26]

    2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 170

    Merle, T. 2024, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93, 170

    2024

  19. [27]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 15

    2017

  20. [28]

    Nelson, C. A. & Eggleton, P. P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 664

    2001

  21. [29]

    R., Tuthill, P

    North, J. R., Tuthill, P. G., Tango, W. J., & Davis, J. 2007, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 377, 415 Paczy´nski, B. 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 355

    2007

  22. [30]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series, 234, 34

    2018

  23. [31]

    Petrovic, J., Langer, N., & van der Hucht, K. A. 2005, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 435, 1013

    2005

  24. [32]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  25. [33]

    Pols, O. R. 1994, A&A, 290, 119

    1994

  26. [34]

    Pols, O. R. & Marinus, M. 1994, A&A, 288, 475

    1994

  27. [35]

    D., Lee, L., Schaefer, G., et al

    Richardson, N. D., Lee, L., Schaefer, G., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, L3

    2021

  28. [36]

    E., et al

    Sana, H., de Koter, A., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A107

    2013

  29. [37]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444 Article number, page 9 of 13 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2012

  30. [38]

    2022, A&A, 659, A98

    Sen, K., Langer, N., Marchant, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A98

    2022

  31. [39]

    & Li, X.-D

    Shao, Y . & Li, X.-D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 833, 108

    2016

  32. [40]

    M., Crawford, S

    Shara, M. M., Crawford, S. M., Vanbeveren, D., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2066

    2017

  33. [41]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & Heuvel, E. P. J. v. d. 1997, Stability Criteria for Mass Transfer in Binary Stellar Evolution

    1997

  34. [42]

    Tauris, T. M. & van den Heuvel, E. 2003, Formation and Evolution of Compact Stellar X-ray Sources Trigueros Páez, E., Barbá, R. H., Negueruela, I., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A4 van den Heuvel, E. P. J., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & de Mink, S. E. 2017, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 471...

    2003

  35. [43]

    1998, New A, 3, 443

    Vanbeveren, D., De Donder, E., Van Bever, J., Van Rensbergen, W., & De Loore, C. 1998, New A, 3, 443

    1998

  36. [44]

    M., & Mo ffat, A

    Vanbeveren, D., Mennekens, N., Shara, M. M., & Mo ffat, A. F. J. 2018, A&A, 615, A65

    2018

  37. [45]

    Vanbeveren, D., Mennekens, N., van den Heuvel, E. P. J., & Bever, J. V . 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A99 Villaseñor, J. I., Taylor, W. D., Evans, C. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 5348

    2020

  38. [46]

    & Langer, N

    Wellstein, S. & Langer, N. 1999, Implications of massive close binaries for black hole formation and supernovae

    1999

  39. [47]

    2001, A&A, 369, 939 Article number, page 10 of 13 M

    Wellstein, S., Langer, N., & Braun, H. 2001, A&A, 369, 939 Article number, page 10 of 13 M. Nuijten & G. Nelemans: WR + O binaries as probes of the first phase of mass transfer Fig. A.1. The same as figure 2 but for WR21. Fig. A.2. The same as figure 2 but for WR30. Appendix A...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.