Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 4 cited by

Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): The multiplicity properties and evolution of BAF-type supergiants

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey of 128 BAF supergiants in the Small Magellanic Cloud finds that very few have binary companions, challenging the idea that these stars evolve directly from main-sequence binaries.

desk verdict First systematic RV survey of SMC BAF supergiants finds a genuinely low binary fraction and a real short-period gap, but the 'no direct evolution' headline leans on a non-mass-matched MS comparison and an arbitrary 5 km/s threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02644 v1 pith:EL7W5H6Z submitted 2025-02-04 astro-ph.SR

L. R. Patrick , D. J. Lennon , F. Najarro , T. Shenar , J. Bodensteiner , H. Sana , P. A. Crowther , N. Britavskiy
show 31 more authors
N. Langer A. Schootemeijer C. J. Evans L. Mahy Y. Götberg S. E. de Mink F. R. N. Schneider A. J. G. O'Grady J. I. Villaseñor M. Bernini-Peron D. M. Bowman A. de Koter K. Deshmukh A. Gilkis G. González-Torà V. M. Kalari Z. K̃eszthelyi I. Mandel A. Menon M. Moe L. M. Oskinova D. Pauli M. Renzo A. A. C. Sander K. Sen M. Stoop J. Th. van Loon S. Toonen F. Tramper J. S. Vink C. Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords BAFsupergiantsbinaryfractionradialvelocityvariabilitySmallMagellanicCloudBLOeMsurveybluesupergiantevolutionalphaCygnivariablesstellarmultiplicity
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 reports a multi-epoch spectroscopic survey of 128 late-B to F-type supergiants (6–30 $M_\odot$) in the Small Magellanic Cloud, designed to measure how many of these stars have binary companions. Using radial velocities from nine epochs, it finds an observed binary fraction of 25±6% for the B5–9 supergiants and 5±2% for the A–F supergiants at a $5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ variability threshold, falling to 10±4% and 0% at a $10\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ threshold. After correcting for the short observational baseline with Monte Carlo simulations of binary populations, the intrinsic multiplicity fraction is less than 18% for the late-B stars and about 8% for the A–F stars for orbital periods up to $10^{3.5}$ days and mass ratios $0.1

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two tools. The first is the peak-to-peak radial velocity statistic $\Delta_3$, the maximum difference between any two measured velocities for a star, combined with a detection threshold $\Delta_{3,\rm lim}=5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ and a 4-$\sigma$ significance criterion on pairwise velocity differences; this decides which stars are counted as binary candidates. The second is a Monte Carlo simulation of synthetic binary populations, with assumed orbital period, mass-ratio, eccentricity and mass distributions, that is used to correct the observed detections for orbital configurations the nine-epoch, 30–65 day baseline would miss. The simulation yields the bias-corrected intrinsic multiplicity fractions and also quantifies the survey's detection probability as a function of period and mass ratio, showing that short-period systems (5–100 days) with $q>0.1$ would have been detected at high confidence if they existed.

What would settle it

If a longer-baseline survey of the same stars uncovers many binary systems with orbital periods of 5–100 days and mass ratios above 0.1, the claimed dearth of short-period binaries would be falsified; conversely, if the 'binary' RV signals in the B5–9 sample are shown to be coherent with photometric pulsation periods of a few days, the 25% observed fraction would largely evaporate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that BAF supergiants in the Small Magellanic Cloud have a notably low multiplicity fraction compared with their main-sequence predecessors, and that this low fraction rules out a direct redward evolutionary path for these stars. The evidence is the measured peak-to-peak radial velocity variability $\Delta_3$ across nine epochs: only 13 of 128 stars, after excluding one Cepheid, exceed a $5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ threshold at 4-$\sigma$ significance, giving observed binary fractions of 25±6% for B5–9 and 5±2% for A–F supergiants. A Monte Carlo simulation that accounts for the limited baseline and the large stellar radii of supergiants yields bias-corrected intrinsic fractions of less than 18% for B5–9 and $8^{+9}_{-7}$% for A–F supergiants, for periods up to $10^{3.5}$ days and mass ratios $0.1<q<1$. The authors also show that most of the detected 'binary' candidates have radial velocity behaviour consistent with α Cygni-type pulsation rather than orbital motion, so the true multiplicity may be even lower. They conclude that these stars are either effectively single or products of binary interactions such as mergers, and that the A–F supergiants in particular are not connected to the red supergiant phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the $5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ radial-velocity threshold separates orbital motion from intrinsic pulsation; the paper explicitly calls this limit unsatisfactory and shows late-B supergiants can pulsate with 6–10 $\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ peak-to-peak amplitudes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, most BAF supergiants must have formed through evolutionary channels that leave them single, such as stellar mergers or birth as effectively single stars, rather than by direct evolution of main-sequence binaries.
  • The A–F supergiants are unlikely to be pre- or post-red-supergiant objects, which narrows the possible explanations for their position in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram.
  • The absence of short-period (5–100 day) binaries with $q>0.1$ imposes a constraint on binary population synthesis models: any channel producing such companions in this mass range would contradict the observations.
  • The very low number of binary candidates with convincing orbital solutions implies that the true multiplicity fraction could be below 15% for both B5–9 and A–F supergiants, though not zero, given the UV-detected companions and long-period trends seen in a handful of stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's documented pulsation amplitudes (several α Cygni variables show 6–10 $\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ peak-to-peak variations) mean that the $5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ threshold probably overestimates the B5–9 binary fraction; if so, the intrinsic B5–9 fraction could be close to the A–F value, strengthening the paper's main conclusion but weakening its quantitative 18% upper limit as a measurement.
  • A longer baseline (the full 25 epochs of the survey) could discriminate between pulsation and orbital motion in the flagged candidates; one testable prediction is that the A–F supergiant binary fraction should remain near zero at any threshold, whereas the B5–9 fraction should drop as the threshold rises.
  • If the low binary fraction is a consequence of low metallicity in the SMC, similar surveys in the LMC or the Milky Way should find a higher BAF supergiant multiplicity, since metallicity affects mass loss and thus the evolution and survival of binary systems.
  • The UV-excess companions (three candidates, possibly with 15–20 $M_\odot$ secondaries) hint that a hidden population of long-period, massive companions may survive among BAF supergiants; quantifying this population would require combining the RV data with astrometric or photometric monitoring.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents radial-velocity (RV) monitoring of 128 B5-F5 supergiants in the Small Magellanic Cloud from the first nine epochs of the BLOeM campaign, with baselines of 30-65 days. The authors measure RV time series with cross-correlation, apply field-level epoch corrections, and classify binary candidates using a peak-to-peak threshold of 5 km s^-1 and a per-pair significance threshold of 4. They report observed binary fractions of 25±6% for B5-9 and 5±2% for A-F stars, and bias-corrected intrinsic fractions of <18% and 8+9/-7%, respectively, for orbital periods up to 10^3.5 days and mass ratios q>0.1. After noting that the B5-9 fraction is contaminated by α Cygni pulsational variability, they compare the fractions with those of B0-2 main-sequence stars and red supergiants, concluding that BAF supergiants cannot be explained by a direct evolution from the main sequence and that AF supergiants are neither progenitors nor descendants of red supergiants. They also report UV-excess detections and a dearth of short-period systems.

Significance. Strengths: the RV calibration is careful, with Monte-Carlo tests of the cross-correlation error formula (Appendix A), explicit field-level systematic corrections (Appendix B), and public tables of RVs and stellar parameters. The paper is transparent about the unsatisfactory detection threshold and about the contamination of the B5-9 sample by intrinsic variability, and it tests the robustness of the bias correction to the mass-ratio distribution. If the multiplicity fractions survive the mass-matching concern raised below, this is the first systematic multiplicity study of late-B to F supergiants at low metallicity and would be a valuable constraint on blue supergiant evolution. However, the central evolutionary conclusion is currently supported only by comparing to an earlier-type, higher-mass main-sequence sample; if the appropriate late-B main-sequence binary fraction is 30-40%, the claimed gap could disappear.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Fig. 9] The headline comparison uses an intrinsic main-sequence binary fraction of 75±10%, taken from Villaseñor et al. (2025) for B0-2 giants and dwarfs, but the BAF sample is B5-F5 with the bulk of its mass below ~13 M⊙ (Sec. 2). Binary fraction, period, and mass-ratio distributions are strongly dependent on initial mass (Moe & Di Stefano 2017); for example, Dunstall et al. (2015) report a ~34% binary fraction for B-type stars in 30 Dor, decreasing toward later subtypes. If the appropriate late-B main-sequence fraction is 30-40%, the bias-corrected values reported here (<18% for B5-9 and 8+9/-7% for AF) become consistent with direct evolution, and the conclusion in the abstract and Section 6 is unsupported. Please repeat the Fig. 9 calculation with a mass-matched late-B main-sequence sample, or justify the adopted 75% value for the 6-13 M⊙ progenitor range.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 5, Table B.3] The 5 km s^-1 binary detection threshold is chosen from the observed Δ3 distribution without an independent physical criterion, a limitation the authors explicitly acknowledge ("We acknowledge that this limit is unsatisfactory"). The paper itself identifies α Cygni variables with Δ3 values of 6-10 km s^-1 (e.g., BLOeM 1-112, 2-093, 6-008), so the 25±6% observed binary fraction for B5-9 is an upper limit rather than a measured binary fraction. Because the contamination inflates the observed fraction, it does not by itself bias the comparison against direct evolution; nevertheless, the abstract should state that the B5-9 fraction is an upper limit, and the paper should quantify the pulsation contribution, for example by using the α Cygni flags and any photometric variability information.
  3. [§4.1, Table 2] The bias-correction simulations adopt the orbital period distribution from Sana et al. (2025), a companion paper in the same campaign with overlapping authorship, and the robustness test described in Section 4.1 varies only the mass-ratio distribution. Since the quoted intrinsic fractions (<18% and 8+9/-7%) depend directly on the assumed period distribution, please add a sensitivity test that varies the period-distribution exponent within its stated uncertainty (π=+0.1±0.2), or uses an independent period distribution for the relevant mass range, and report how the intrinsic fractions change.
  4. [§5.2, Section 6] The conclusion that AF supergiants are neither progenitors nor descendants of red supergiants is stronger than the analysis supports. In §5.2 the bias-corrected AF fraction (9%) is stated to be "compatible at the 3-σ level" with the RSG fraction of 18±4%, and the stronger claim is made conditional on an inferred drop in the period distribution beyond log P ≈ 3.5. The Summary and Conclusions then present this as a key conclusion without that caveat. Please either quantify the evidence for the period-distribution drop and demonstrate that the comparison can distinguish pre-RSG from post-RSG status, or soften the conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, "5 kms (10 kms)" should be "5 km s^-1 (10 km s^-1)" with proper superscripts and spacing.
  2. [§4.2] The heading "Constrains on intrinsic variability" should be "Constraints on intrinsic variability."
  3. [§5.1] The phrase "provides constrains on the evolution" should be "provides constraints on the evolution."
  4. [References] In the reference list, "Bodensteiner, J., Shenar, T., Bodensteiner, J., et al. 2025" repeats the first author; the third author should be corrected.
  5. [Appendix A] The phrase "sputious offsets" should be "spurious offsets."
  6. [§4.4] The instrument name "AstroS at" should be "AstroSat."
  7. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says "the size of the symbol in both panels are determined"; this should be "the size of the symbols in both panels is determined."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BAF multiplicity fractions are measured independently, and the main-sequence comparison is a forward simulation rather than a fit to the BAF data.

full rationale

The central claim that BAF supergiants cannot be explained by direct evolution from the main sequence rests on a forward prediction: the paper takes the main-sequence binary fraction from Villaseñor et al. (2025), simulates binary populations with the orbital-parameter distributions in Table 2, applies the same detection thresholds used on the observations, and predicts an observed AF-supergiant binary fraction of 40+5-6%, compared with the measured 5±2%. This prediction is not derived from the BAF data by construction; it could in principle have agreed with the observations. The bias-correction step uses period and mass-ratio distributions taken from companion or earlier papers, including Sana et al. (2025) and Patrick et al. (2022), but the observed binary fraction is measured independently, and the conclusion does not reduce to those assumed inputs. The paper also tests robustness to alternative q-distributions. The acknowledged weakness of the 5 km/s threshold is a calibration and correctness concern, not a circular one; if anything, pulsation contamination would lower the true binary fraction and therefore would not invert the argument. The possible mass-mismatch between the BAF progenitors and the B0-2 comparison sample is a scientific validity risk, but again not a circularity. No load-bearing step is equivalent to its inputs by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The paper's main free parameters are the threshold choices and the orbital distribution inputs to the bias-correction, all of which are acknowledged and tested to some degree. The most consequential assumption is that the orbital parameter distributions of the BAF binary population match those of unevolved stars, which the paper itself flags as potentially invalid.

free parameters (7)
  • Binary detection threshold Delta_3lim = 5 km/s (and 10 km/s in sensitivity check)
    Chosen by eye from the distribution of peak-to-peak RVs (Section 4.1). The authors acknowledge this limit is unsatisfactory and that intrinsic variability may contaminate the B5-9 sample.
  • Sigma threshold for significance = 4
    Chosen to exclude false positives, following previous surveys, but not independently motivated for this sample (Section 4.1).
  • Orbital period distribution exponent pi = +0.1 ± 0.2 (flat in log P)
    Assumed from Sana et al. (2025), a companion paper in the BLOeM campaign. Used in bias-correction simulations.
  • Mass-ratio distribution exponent kappa = 0.0 ± 0.5 (flat)
    Assumed based on Shenar et al. (2022b) and Patrick et al. (2022). Used in bias-correction simulations.
  • Eccentricity distribution exponent eta = -0.5 ± 0.2
    Assumed from Sana et al. (2012) and used in bias-correction simulations.
  • Mass function exponent gamma = -2.35
    Adopted for the sample mass range; tested against Paper I parameters (Section 4.1).
  • Orbital period range for AF stars = 1.25 < log P/d < 3.5
    Restricted to account for the larger radii of AF stars and the survey baseline; this choice directly affects the quoted intrinsic fraction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The measured RV variations above the threshold are interpreted as binary motion, after a crude visual correction for pulsation.
    Section 4.2 flags seven stars as alpha Cygni variables, but states the selection 'likely misses a significant number of candidates at lower luminosities'. The paper concedes that the observed fractions are compromised by intrinsic variability.
  • domain assumption The orbital parameter distributions (period, mass ratio, eccentricity) of the BAF supergiant binary population are the same as for unevolved main-sequence stars.
    Section 4.1: 'Our chosen distributions largely represent those appropriate for unevolved stars of similar masses and assume no binary evolution.' If BAF supergiants are mostly interaction products, the bias-corrected fractions would be inaccurate, as the authors note.
  • domain assumption The main-sequence binary fraction from Villaseñor et al. (2025) is representative of the initial binary properties of the BAF supergiants.
    Used in Section 5.1 and Figure 9 to argue that direct evolution from the main sequence is impossible. This is a same-campaign result with overlapping authors and is not yet published in a refereed journal.
  • domain assumption The cross-correlation RV zero-points derived from CMFGEN/ATLAS9 template grids are accurate to within the quoted uncertainties.
    Section 3 notes the grids have fixed metallicity and microturbulence and do not provide tailored fits, and that an absolute zero-point uncertainty of 1-2 km/s remains. This affects the interpretation of small RV shifts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): The multiplicity properties and evolution of BAF-type supergiants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EL7W5H6Z

@misc{pith2026250202644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): The multiplicity properties and evolution of BAF-type supergiants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EL7W5H6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02644}
}
abstract

Given the uncertain evolutionary status of blue supergiant stars, their multiplicity properties hold vital clues to better understand their origin and evolution. As part of The Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM) campaign in the Small Magellanic Cloud we present a multi-epoch spectroscopic survey of 128 supergiant stars of spectral type B5--F5, which roughly correspond to initial masses in the range 6 to 30 solar masses. The observed binary fraction for the B5-9 supergiants is 25+/-6 % (10+/-4 %) and 5+/-2 % (0 %) for the A-F stars, using a radial velocity (RV) variability threshold of 5 kms (10 kms) as a criterion for binarity. Accounting for observational biases we find an intrinsic multiplicity fraction of less than 18% for the B5-9 stars and 8$^{+9}_{-7}$% for the AF stars, for the orbital periods up to 10$^{3.5}$day and mass-ratios (q) in the range 0.1 < q < 1. The large stellar radii of these supergiant stars prevent short orbital periods but we demonstrate that this effect alone cannot explain our results. We assess the spectra and RV time series of the detected binary systems and find that only a small fraction display convincing solutions. We conclude that the multiplicity fractions are compromised by intrinsic stellar variability such that the true multiplicity fraction may be significantly smaller. Our main conclusions from comparing the multiplicity properties of the B5-9 and AF supergiants to that of their less evolved counterparts is that such stars cannot be explained by a direct evolution from the main sequence. Furthermore, by comparing their multiplicity properties to red supergiant stars we conclude that the AF supergiant stars are neither progenitors nor descendants of red supergiants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hertzprung–Russell diagram (HRD) of the BLOeM survey highlighting the BAF supergiant sample studied in this article with large star symbols colour-coded based on spectral type as indicated by the legend. The three targets with the black circles indicate the only targets in this sample that have a clear indication of binarity: BLOeM 4-072, BLOeM 6-006, BLOeM 6-008. The three targets with the black squares indicate ta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatial location of the BAF-type supergiant targets in the SMC, overlaid on the density map of the Gaia DR3 source catalogue (G < 19 mag). Spectral types of the targets are colour coded as indicated. Black circles mark the locations of the 8 BLOeM fields. because of this we have cross-correlated each spectrum against all the models to find the best-matching template. We empha￾size that the objective here is not to f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Montage of a selection of BAF supergiant star spectra from BLOeM (in black), and best matching theoretical template spectra (blue) from CMFGEN/ATLAS model grids (see text). BLOeM IDs and spectral types are noted above each spectrum. Template spectra were used to determine an absolute RV scale, and one can see good agreement between line positions and strengths of the templates with the data. The vertical dashed line… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histogram of peak-to-peak radial velocity (RV) measurements (∆3) for the BAF supergiant sample. Different colours highlight the sub￾samples as indicated in the panel. The black-dashed line is the chosen threshold for binarity in the multiplicity analysis [PITH_FULL_IM…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: Peak-to-peak RV (∆3) as a function of stellar radius for the BAF supergiants and the B3 supergiants of Britavskiy et al. (2025). Radii are determined using effective temperatures and luminosities from Table B.3. The size of the symbol in both panels are det…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial velocity (RV) time series for four of the targets that display RV variability above the chosen thresholds (see text), with spectral types of A Ia (BLOeM 1-051), B9 Ia (1-112), B8 Ia (2-093) and A2 Ia (6-008). Identifications are listed in the panel headings, as …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Orbital period shown against mass ratio (q) for simulated binary systems in the orbital period ranges that are used to correct for our observational biases. Solid black contour lines show the probability of detection at the 99, 90, 50 and 10 % level given the tem…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Colour-magnitude diagram using the 754 BLOeM sources found in the UVIT FUV catalogue (Hota et al. 2024), colour-coded by spectral type. The FUV magnitude was obtained with the F172M filter, while the BP−RP color is from Gaia Bp and Rp filters. The five outliers describ…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fraction of detected binarity as function of ∆3lim. The black solid line in the left panel shows the B5-9 supergiants and the right panel is the same but for AF supergiants. The red dashed lines show the simulated binary fraction assuming an intrinsic binary fraction o…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The symphony of pulsations and binarity among massive stars using HERMES spectroscopy and TESS photometry

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An ensemble analysis of 873 O/B stars shows photometric variability in >93%, pulsations in ~82%, and evidence of binarity in at least 14%, including 30 newly discovered eclipsing binaries.

  2. The IACOB project XIX. Revisiting massive-star evolution with empirical TAMS constraints: updated models, overshoot calibration, and the population of blue supergiants

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Massive-star models require mass-dependent core overshoot (α_ov ≈ 0.18–0.45) to match the empirical TAMS, but still fail to explain the velocity dependence of the TAMS and the observed blue supergiant population.

  3. Impact of Uncertainties in Spectral Energy Distribution Modelling on Inferred Galaxy Properties

    astro-ph.GA 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fit-level differences among BPASS spectral libraries, IMFs, and metallicity treatments shift inferred stellar mass, age, and SFR by up to 0.27, 0.19, and 1.4 dex and change reconstructed mass assembly histories by up ...

  4. Giants, Supergiants and Hypergiants

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 unverdicted

    A review chapter maps giant, supergiant, and hypergiant luminosity classes to stellar evolutionary pathways, from massive supernova progenitors to low-mass white dwarf precursors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2025, accepted

    Bodensteiner , J., Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., et al. 2025, accepted

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    2020, , 641, A43

    Bodensteiner , J., Shenar , T., Mahy , L., et al. 2020, , 641, A43

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    M., Burssens , S., Pedersen , M

    Bowman , D. M., Burssens , S., Pedersen , M. G., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 760

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2025, accepted

    Britavskiy , N., Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., et al. 2025, accepted

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    & Mayor , M

    Burki , G. & Mayor , M. 1983, , 124, 256

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    S., Lohr , M

    Clark , J. S., Lohr , M. E., Najarro , F., Patrick , L. R., & Ritchie , B. W. 2023, , 521, 4473

    work page 2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    2019, , 622, A60

    Clementini , G., Ripepi , V., Molinaro , R., et al. 2019, , 622, A60

    2019

  2. [10]

    Coe , M. J. & Kirk , J. 2015, , 452, 969

    2015

  3. [11]

    A., Lennon , D

    Crowther , P. A., Lennon , D. J., & Walborn , N. R. 2006, , 446, 279

    2006

  4. [12]

    A., & Beasor , E

    Davies , B., Crowther , P. A., & Beasor , E. R. 2018, , 478, 3138

    2018

  5. [13]

    J., et al

    de Burgos , A., Simon-D \' az , S., Lennon , D. J., et al. 2020, , 643, A116

    2020

  6. [14]

    E., Sana , H., Langer , N., Izzard , R

    de Mink , S. E., Sana , H., Langer , N., Izzard , R. G., & Schneider , F. R. N. 2014, , 782, 7

    2014

  7. [15]

    & Patrick , L

    Dorda , R. & Patrick , L. R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 4890

    2021

  8. [16]

    R., Dufton, P

    Dunstall, P. R., Dufton, P. L., Sana, H., et al. 2015, A & A, 580, A93

    2015

  9. [17]

    & Klencki , J

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

    2024

  10. [18]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. & Garmany , C. D. 1990, , 363, 119

    1990

  11. [19]

    W., Gies , D

    Fullerton , A. W., Gies , D. R., & Bolton , C. T. 1996, , 103, 475

    1996

  12. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  13. [21]

    2021, , 650, A128

    Georgy , C., Saio , H., & Meynet , G. 2021, , 650, A128

    2021

  14. [22]

    D., Fitzpatrick , E

    Gordon , K. D., Fitzpatrick , E. L., Massa , D., et al. 2024, , 970, 51

    2024

  15. [23]

    E., Groh , J

    G \"o tberg , Y., de Mink , S. E., Groh , J. H., et al. 2018, , 615, A78

    2018

  16. [24]

    & Sturm , R

    Haberl , F. & Sturm , R. 2016, , 586, A81

    2016

  17. [25]

    Hastings , B., Langer , N., Wang , C., Schootemeijer , A., & Milone , A. P. 2021, , 653, A144

    2021

  18. [26]

    K., & Subramanian , S

    Hota , S., Subramaniam , A., Nayak , P. K., & Subramanian , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.13605

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Howarth , I. D. 2011, , 413, 1515

    2011

  20. [28]

    Humphreys , R. M. 1983, , 265, 176

    1983

  21. [29]

    Humphreys , R. M. & Davidson , K. 1979, , 232, 409

    1979

  22. [30]

    Humphreys , R. M. & McElroy , D. B. 1984, , 284, 565

    1984

  23. [31]

    2015, , 127, 567

    Iglesias-Marzoa , R., L \'o pez-Morales , M., & Jes \'u s Ar \'e valo Morales , M. 2015, , 127, 567

    2015

  24. [32]

    & Plez , B

    Josselin , E. & Plez , B. 2007, , 469, 671

    2007

  25. [33]

    Justham , S., Podsiadlowski , P., & Vink , J. S. 2014, , 796, 121

    2014

  26. [34]

    1997, , 320, 273

    Kaufer , A., Stahl , O., Wolf , B., et al. 1997, , 320, 273

    1997

  27. [35]

    S., et al

    Kraus , M., Haucke , M., Cidale , L. S., et al. 2015, , 581, A75

    2015

  28. [36]

    2020, , 638, A39

    Langer , N., Sch \"u rmann , C., Stoll , K., et al. 2020, , 638, A39

    2020

  29. [37]

    J., Trundle , C., Hunter , I., et al

    Lennon , D. J., Trundle , C., Hunter , I., et al. 2010, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 425, Hot and Cool: Bridging Gaps in Massive Star Evolution, ed. C. Leitherer , P. D. Bennett , P. W. Morris , & J. T. Van Loon , 23

    2010

  30. [38]

    P., & de Mink , S

    Ma , L., Johnston , C., Bellinger , E. P., & de Mink , S. E. 2024, , 966, 196

    2024

  31. [39]

    2022, , 664, A159

    Mahy , L., Sana , H., Shenar , T., et al. 2022, , 664, A159

    2022

  32. [40]

    A., Coe , M

    McBride , V. A., Coe , M. J., Negueruela , I., Schurch , M. P. E., & McGowan , K. E. 2008, , 388, 1198

    2008

  33. [41]

    M., Dufton , P

    McEvoy , C. M., Dufton , P. L., Evans , C. J., et al. 2015, , 575, A70

    2015

  34. [42]

    A., et al

    Menon , A., Ercolino , A., Urbaneja , M. A., et al. 2024, , 963, L42

    2024

  35. [43]

    & Heger , A

    Menon , A. & Heger , A. 2017, , 469, 4649

    2017

  36. [44]

    & Di Stefano , R

    Moe , M. & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15

    2017

  37. [45]

    O'Grady , A. J. G., Drout , M. R., Neugent , K. F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.17177

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    & Lambert , D

    Parthasarathy , M. & Lambert , D. L. 1987, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 8, 51

    1987

  39. [47]

    2002, The Messenger, 110, 1

    Pasquini , L., Avila , G., Blecha , A., et al. 2002, The Messenger, 110, 1

    2002

  40. [48]

    R., Lennon , D

    Patrick , L. R., Lennon , D. J., Britavskiy , N., et al. 2019, , 624, A129

    2019

  41. [49]

    R., Thilker , D., Lennon , D

    Patrick , L. R., Thilker , D., Lennon , D. J., et al. 2022, , 513, 5847

    2022

  42. [50]

    2023, , 674, A17

    Ripepi , V., Clementini , G., Molinaro , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A17

    2023

  43. [51]

    Rosendhal , J. D. & Wegner , G. 1970, , 162, 547

    1970

  44. [52]

    2013, , 433, 1246

    Saio , H., Georgy , C., & Meynet , G. 2013, , 433, 1246

    2013

  45. [53]

    E., et al

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

    2013

  46. [54]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  47. [55]

    2025, submitted

    Sana , H., Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., et al. 2025, submitted

    2025

  48. [56]

    2013 b , , 432, L26

    Sana , H., van Boeckel , T., Tramper , F., et al. 2013 b , , 432, L26

    2013

  49. [57]

    P., N \'e meth , P., de Almeida , E

    S \'a nchez Arias , J. P., N \'e meth , P., de Almeida , E. S. d. G., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 93

    2023

  50. [58]

    Schneider , F. R. N., Podsiadlowski , P., & Laplace , E. 2024, , 686, A45

    2024

  51. [59]

    J., & Wang , C

    Schootemeijer , A., Langer , N., Grin , N. J., & Wang , C. 2019, , 625, A132

    2019

  52. [60]

    2021, , 646, A106

    Schootemeijer , A., Langer , N., Lennon , D., et al. 2021, , 646, A106

    2021

  53. [61]

    2020, , 639, L6

    Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., Abdul-Masih , M., et al. 2020, , 639, L6

    2020

  54. [62]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14593

    Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., Sana , H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.14593

    2024

  55. [63]

    2022 a , Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085

    Shenar , T., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2022 a , Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085

    2022

  56. [64]

    2022 b , , 665, A148

    Shenar , T., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2022 b , , 665, A148

    2022

  57. [65]

    & Lloyd Evans , T

    Stothers , R. & Lloyd Evans , T. 1970, The Observatory, 90, 186

    1970

  58. [66]

    J., Coe , M

    Townsend , L. J., Coe , M. J., Corbet , R. H. D., & Hill , A. B. 2011, , 416, 1556

    2011

  59. [67]

    L., Hunter , I., et al

    Trundle , C., Dufton , P. L., Hunter , I., et al. 2007, The VLT-FLAMES survey of massive stars: evolution of surface N abundances and effective temperature scales in the Galaxy and Magellanic Clouds , Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 471, Issue 2, August IV 2007, pp.625-643

    2007

  60. [68]

    & Lennon , D

    Trundle , C. & Lennon , D. J. 2005, , 434, 677

    2005

  61. [69]

    Venn , K. A. 1995, , 99, 659

    1995

  62. [70]

    Venn , K. A. 1999, , 518, 405

    1999

  63. [71]

    I., Lennon , D

    Villase \ n or , J. I., Lennon , D. J., Picco , A., et al. 2023, , 525, 5121

    2023

  64. [72]

    I., Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., et al

    Villase \ n or , J. I., Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., et al. 2025, submitted

    2025

  65. [73]

    J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al

    Vinciguerra , S., Neijssel , C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2020, , 498, 4705

    2020

  66. [74]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10283

    Wang , C., Bodensteiner , J., Xu , X.-T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10283

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    2022, , 668, A92

    We mayer , D., Przybilla , N., & Butler , K. 2022, , 668, A92

    2022

  68. [76]

    2003, , 342, 1291

    Zucker , S. 2003, , 342, 1291

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.