Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 111 references

New Field OB and OBe Binaries of the SMC Wing: Observational Properties and Population Modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 55-star radial-velocity survey of the Small Magellanic Cloud Wing shows field OBe binaries are eccentric (mean $e = 0.45$) survivors of supernova kicks, while field OB binaries are circular ($e = 0.08$) systems ejected before any…

desk verdict Valuable RV census of SMC Wing field binaries, but the headline eccentricity dichotomy rests on an uncalibrated slope proxy and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13004 v1 pith:JRLW2ZKL submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.SR

Irene Vargas-Salazar , M. S. Oey , Jan J. Eldridge , Drew Weisserman , Helen C. Januszewski , Juliette C. Becker , Stefano Zazzera , Norberto Castro
show 4 more authors
Yongjung Kim Kaitlin M. Kratter Mario Mateo John I. Bailey III
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords massivestarsOBespectroscopicbinariesradialvelocitiesSmallMagellanicCloudbinarypopulationsynthesisrunawayblackholecompanions
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 radial-velocity survey of 55 field OB and OBe stars in the Wing of the Small Magellanic Cloud and claims that the two populations carry marks of different histories in the shapes of their orbits. The OB binaries are nearly circular, with mean eccentricity $\langle e\rangle = 0.08\pm 0.02$, as expected for systems ejected from their birth clusters by dynamical encounters while they are still pre-supernova. The OBe binaries are eccentric, $\langle e\rangle = 0.45\pm 0.04$, as expected for the companions of stars that already exploded: the OBe star is a mass-gaining secondary that was kicked when its donor went supernova, often leaving a neutron star or black hole behind. The paper's BPASS population models are broadly consistent with this binary-origin scenario for OBe stars and predict an even larger population of post-supernova OB binaries, and the kinematics point to a substantial dynamical-ejection contribution to both populations. If the claim holds, orbital eccentricity becomes a simple observational screen for which ejection channel produced a given field massive binary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing diagnostic is the $\Delta$RV(10d) versus $\Delta$RV(tot) diagram: for each star the largest radial-velocity swing seen within any 10-day window is plotted against the largest swing across the entire survey. Circular orbits reach their full amplitude within days and fall on the one-to-one line; eccentric orbits spend most of their time moving slowly near apastron, so their 10-day variation under-samples the total amplitude, and the slope of a least-squares fit to each population is read as its mean eccentricity ($\langle e\rangle = 0.08$ for OB, $0.45$ for OBe). The modeling side rests on the BPASS v2.2 binary population synthesis code, which evolves binaries through mass transfer and core-collapse supernova; the ejected field population is selected as stars with binary-supernova runaway velocities above 15 km/s, with OBe stars defined as secondaries that accreted more than 5% of their initial mass, and the predicted eccentricity, period, and companion-mass distributions are compared directly against the observed systems.

What would settle it

Take a sample of the claimed OBe and OB binaries and fit full Keplerian orbits from dense, high-resolution time-series spectroscopy of photospheric absorption lines (avoiding the emission-dominated Balmer lines), then compare the true mean eccentricities with the values inferred from the $\Delta$-RV diagram; a mismatch, or a correlation between OBe RV jitter and emission-line V/R ratio, would falsify the dichotomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that field OB and OBe binaries in the SMC Wing split cleanly by orbital eccentricity, and that this split tracks their evolutionary stage at ejection. OB binaries sit near circular orbits ($\langle e\rangle = 0.08\pm 0.02$): these are interpreted as pre-supernova systems, ejected dynamically from clusters, whose tight orbits have had time to circularize and whose companions are still ordinary stars. OBe binaries are eccentric ($\langle e\rangle = 0.45\pm 0.04$): these are interpreted as post-supernova systems in which the visible star is the mass gainer of a binary that went through mass transfer, whose donor then exploded, and the kick flung the system into the field while pumping up its eccentricity, so the companion is frequently a neutron star or black hole. BPASS synthesis of the binary-supernova ejected population matches the observed eccentric, post-interaction OBe binaries and predicts more post-supernova OB binaries than are currently identified, some of which the survey may be detecting as the fast-rotating, eccentric OB binaries it re-classifies as BSS products. The survey additionally turns up two candidate black hole binaries, [M2002] 77616 and [M2002] 81941.

Load-bearing premise

The dichotomy rests on treating the slope of the 10-day-versus-total velocity diagram as the mean orbital eccentricity, and on assuming the OBe velocity swings are orbital motion rather than the shifting emission of their own circumstellar disks, which the paper itself flags as uncertain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dichotomy holds, most field OBe binaries are post-supernova systems with compact companions, so the SMC Wing OBe sample alone contains roughly a dozen neutron-star or black-hole binaries.
  • The BPASS models predict that around 55% of the field OB population should be post-supernova binaries, mostly with black hole companions, implying that longer or denser monitoring should reveal unseen compact companions among the apparently single or circular OB binaries.
  • The two candidate black hole binaries, [M2002] 77616 and [M2002] 81941, would be among the few known massive-star/black-hole binaries if confirmed.
  • Kinematic comparison supports a significant dynamical-ejection contribution to both OB and OBe field stars, with runaways favoring DES and walkaways favoring BSS, revising the earlier simple assignment of all OB stars to DES and all OBe stars to BSS.
  • Non-compact OBe binaries, caught after mass transfer but before the supernova, are found in the field more often than total-population models predict, suggesting these pre-SN systems are preferentially ejected from clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the slope-to-eccentricity mapping is uncalibrated, a decisive extension would be to apply the same Delta-RV(10d)-versus-Delta-RV(tot) analysis to SMC eclipsing binaries with known orbital solutions and check whether the recovered slope reproduces their known mean eccentricity.
  • If the eccentricity dichotomy survives, it becomes a cheap screening tool: an eccentric OBe binary could be flagged as a candidate neutron-star or black-hole system even without X-ray detection, potentially multiplying the compact-binary census of the SMC.
  • The two black hole candidates invite direct multiwavelength follow-up: a quiescent OBe/black hole system such as [M2002] 77616 would test low-metallicity black hole formation and the endpoints of binary mass-transfer evolution if confirmed.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a radial-velocity and TESS-based census of field OB and OBe stars in the SMC Wing, identifying 20 confirmed and 13 candidate binaries among 55 targets. It derives companion-mass constraints, reports candidate black-hole binaries, and uses BPASS binary population synthesis to predict the properties of post-supernova (BSS) field binaries. The central claim is an eccentricity dichotomy: OB binaries are nearly circular (mean e = 0.08 ± 0.02) while OBe binaries are eccentric (mean e = 0.45 ± 0.04), interpreted as pre-SN versus post-SN binary populations. The paper also uses kinematics to estimate the relative contributions of dynamical and supernova ejections.

Significance. If the eccentricity dichotomy holds, the paper would provide a valuable observational signature distinguishing pre-supernova from post-supernova field binaries, and it would support the binary-origin scenario for OBe stars. The binary census, companion-mass constraints, and BPASS model predictions are useful contributions, and the authors are careful to state many caveats about sample biases and RV uncertainties. The paper also identifies two plausible black-hole binary candidates and quantifies the expected frequency of stripped-star companions. However, the headline eccentricity result rests on an uncalibrated relation between a short-baseline RV statistic and true orbital eccentricity, so the main astrophysical conclusion is not yet established. The observational data and modeling framework are nonetheless suitable for a revision that adds the needed calibration.

major comments (3)
  1. [2.1.2] The central eccentricity dichotomy is introduced by reading the fitted slope of ΔRV(10d) versus ΔRV(tot) as the mean orbital eccentricity (e = 0.08 ± 0.02 for OB, 0.45 ± 0.04 for OBe). The manuscript provides no derivation, calibration, or synthetic test connecting this slope to eccentricity. For a circular binary with P > 10 d, the maximum 10-day variation can be much smaller than the total variation depending on phase sampling, so the one-to-one line is not generally the circular-orbit locus; conversely, eccentric systems observed near periastron can produce large short-baseline variations. The slope therefore also depends on period, inclination, and sampling. Because this dichotomy is the paper's headline and motivates the BPASS comparison, the authors should validate the mapping with known-orbit systems or Monte Carlo injections that use the actual epoch sampling, and report the sensitivity of both mean eccentricities to that calibration.
  2. [2.1.2] The OBe eccentricity result rests on RV measurements of stars with strong, variable emission-line profiles. The authors explicitly caution that disk variability can affect the RVs, and the eccentric trend is driven by three stars ([M2002] 75980, 77290, and 82711). The V/R-ratio test in Figure 5 uses only a handful of epochs and does not exclude velocity jitter on the ~10-day timescale that could mimic the observed ΔRV(10d) pattern. To make the OBe eccentricity claim load-bearing, the analysis should either demonstrate that the 10-day RV variations track an orbital signal (for example, by comparing independent line sets such as He I versus H Balmer, or by explicit line-profile variability modeling) or conservatively recompute the OBe mean eccentricity after removing or down-weighting the disk-affected objects.
  3. [5.1, 5.2, 6.4] The comparison between observed and BPASS BSS fractions is partly circular. The observed BSS subset is constructed using criteria that are themselves motivated by the binary-evolution/BSS model that BPASS implements: fast rotation above 150 km/s is used in Section 5.1, and Section 5.2 explicitly labels [M2002] 76371 as a BSS object based on its eccentricity as inferred from the uncalibrated Figure 3. Table 4 and Section 6.4 then compare this model-selected sample with BPASS predictions. The agreement therefore does not independently validate the BSS scenario. I recommend presenting the comparison for a model-independent subsample (for example, only systems with known compact companions or HMXBs) and treating the fast-rotator/eccentricity-selected sample as a consistency check rather than as validation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [1] Section 1 contains a duplicated word: 'are are closely linked to binary interactions' should read 'are closely linked to binary interactions'.
  2. [2.1.2] The caption of Figure 3 describes the red dashed line as 'the locus where ΔRV(10d) = ΔRV(tot), which is more generally expected for binaries with circular orbits.' As discussed in Major Comment 1, this statement is misleading because it holds only when the sampling captures the full velocity range within 10 days; please rephrase to avoid asserting a universal property of circular orbits.
  3. [6.4] In Section 6.4, 'the relative contributions of DES and BES ejections' should read 'BSS ejections' rather than 'BES'.
  4. [Table 4] The footnote labels in Table 4 are garbled: there are two footnote 'c' markers and no footnote 'b'. Please renumber the footnotes and ensure each note corresponds unambiguously to the correct column.
  5. [3] After Eq. (3), the definition K = 0.5 ΔRV(tot) should state explicitly that ΔRV(tot) is the peak-to-peak amplitude and that K is therefore equal to the velocity semi-amplitude only when the full orbit is sampled; otherwise it is a lower limit.
  6. [5.4] In the discussion of [M2002] 77616 (AzV 493), the statement that 'the companion mass must be in the BH regime' is stronger than the observational lower limit M2 > 1 M_sun with an unconstrained period. Suggest softening this to 'is suggestive of a BH companion' unless additional constraints are being used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical eccentricity slopes, BPASS comparisons, and BSS/DES allocations are not reductions to the paper's own inputs; explicit caveats are stated rather than hidden.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are observational and model-comparison claims, not derivations that reduce to their inputs. The headline eccentricity dichotomy (OB <e>=0.08±0.02, OBe <e>=0.45±0.04) comes from least-squares slopes to the ΔRV(10d) versus ΔRV(tot) data in Figure 3. Although the paper does not derive or calibrate the slope-to-eccentricity mapping, that is an accuracy/validity concern, not a circularity: the slope is computed directly from the RV data and does not use the BPASS predictions as input. The observed OBe sample is defined spectroscopically by emission lines, while BPASS defines synthetic OBe stars as secondaries that accreted more than 5% of their initial mass; comparing these two independently defined populations is a nontrivial test of the binary-gainer scenario, not a tautology. The classification of some OB binaries as BSS objects uses published fast-rotator and eccentricity criteria (e.g., Phillips et al. 2024's 150 km/s threshold), and these criteria are not fitted to the BPASS output being validated. Self-citations to Phillips et al., Dorigo Jones et al., Dallas et al., and Oey et al. supply the sample, spectral types, masses, velocities, and thresholds; these are independent observational inputs with external content, not the conclusions of the present model comparison. The paper explicitly cautions that OBe RVs may be contaminated by emission-line disk variability, that the eccentric OBe trend is driven by three objects, and that results are affected by small-number statistics; these limitations are disclosed rather than concealed. No load-bearing argument reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, a self-citation, or a definition, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central eccentricity claim rests on an uncalibrated slope-to-eccentricity proxy, and the BPASS comparison rests on the model's own OBe definition and a set of threshold choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • OB mean eccentricity proxy (slope of ΔRV(10d) vs ΔRV(tot)) = 0.08 ± 0.02
    Least-squares slope fitted to the OB binaries in Figure 3, interpreted as mean eccentricity without an independent calibration or derivation.
  • OBe mean eccentricity proxy (slope of ΔRV(10d) vs ΔRV(tot)) = 0.45 ± 0.04
    Same slope fit for OBe binaries in Figure 3; the mapping from slope to eccentricity is not derived and the RV data are affected by emission-line variability.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper The slope of ΔRV(10d) versus ΔRV(tot) for the observed binaries is a measure of their mean orbital eccentricity.
    Invoked in Section 2.1.2 to convert the RV scatter diagram into e = 0.08 and e = 0.45; no derivation or calibration against known orbits is given.
  • domain assumption OBe stars in the BPASS models are defined as secondary stars that accreted more than 5% of their initial mass and have Teff > 23 kK.
    Section 4 selection criteria; the comparison concluding that models are broadly consistent with a binary origin for OBe stars depends on this definition.
  • domain assumption The RV variations of OBe stars are dominated by orbital motion rather than disk emission variability.
    Required for the OBe eccentricity claim; the authors caution in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 that emission-line variability complicates the RV measurements.
  • domain assumption Field stars in the models are those with 1D runaway velocity > 15 km/s from BSS ejections; observed runaways use a 30 km/s space velocity threshold.
    Section 4 and Section 6.4; the threshold choice affects the predicted versus observed field fractions.
  • domain assumption The initial binary parameter distributions of Moe & Di Stefano (2017) and the Kroupa IMF are valid inputs for the SMC massive star population.
    BPASS model inputs described in Section 4; if these are not representative, the predicted BSS binary fractions change.
  • domain assumption The secondary companion is on the main sequence with an age similar to the primary when deriving M2,max detection limits.
    Section 3, isochrone interpolation through Brott et al. (2011) tracks; the authors note mass transfer can invalidate this, and it only provides an upper limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Field OB and OBe Binaries of the SMC Wing: Observational Properties and Population Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JRLW2ZKL

@misc{pith2026250613004,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Field OB and OBe Binaries of the SMC Wing: Observational Properties and Population Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JRLW2ZKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13004}
}
abstract

We present a radial velocity (RV) survey of the field OB and OBe stars of the SMC Wing. We use multi-epoch observations of 55 targets obtained with the Magellan IMACS and M2FS multi-object spectrographs to identify single- and double-lined spectroscopic binaries. We also use TESS light curves to identify new eclipsing binary candidates. We find that 10 each of our 34 OB (29\%) and 21 OBe (48\%) stars are confirmed binaries, and at least $\sim$ 6 more are candidates. Using our RV measurements, we set constraints on the companion masses, and in some cases, on periods, eccentricities and inclinations. The RV data suggest that OB binaries favor more circular orbits (mean eccentricity $\langle e\rangle = 0.08\pm 0.02$) while OBe binaries are eccentric ($\langle e\rangle = 0.45\pm 0.04$). We identify 2 candidate black hole binaries, [M2002] 77616, and 81941. We use BPASS to predict the frequencies of ejected OB and OBe stars and binaries, assuming OBe stars are binary mass gainers ejected by the companion supernova. We also predict the frequencies of black-hole, neutron-star, and stripped-star companions, and we model the distributions of primary and secondary masses, periods, eccentricities, and velocity distributions. The models are broadly consistent with the binary origin scenario for OBe stars, and predict an even larger number of post-supernova OB binaries. Comparison with the kinematics supports a significant contribution from dynamical ejections for both OB and OBe stars, although less so for binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13004 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Green (513 nm) image of the SMC Wing region from the Magellanic Clouds Emission-Line Survey (e.g., Paredes et al. 2015), showing our IMACS fields (squares) and M2FS fields (large circles). Targets indicated by small blue and red circles correspond to OB and OBe stars, respectively. For reference, the IMACS fields are 15′ .46 × 15′ .46; north is up and east to the left. from the continuum. Individual line measurement… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-correlation fits to obtain RVs for a normal OB star in the top left panel and OBe stars in the remaining panels. The data and template are shown in orange and green, respectively, and the lower, blue line shows the residuals. The template for the OB star is a synthetic PoWR spectrum, and those for the OBe stars are the observations of those objects with the highest signal-to-noise. but not the systemic velocit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The largest absolute-value RV variation in km s−1 within 10 days vs within the entire survey, for OB stars (left panels) and OBe stars (right panels) of the SMC Wing. The top plots show our full sample, the middle plots are a zoom of the top panels to 200 km s−1 , and the bottom plots are the same as the top but now with the epoch with the largest RV outlier removed for each target. Blue points indicate objects iden… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of probabilities that the observed RV variations for individual targets are due to statistical noise. Targets in the first bin (P(χ2) < 0.01) are identified as binaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TESS light curve of Sector 1 for [M2002] SMC 83232, a source in the OKP sample showing variability that may suggest an EB candidate. The blue curve shows the polynomial fit to our data. standard deviation of the original light curve σ0 to the average standard deviation…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The TESS light curves (left) and phased light curves (right) for our new EB candidates in the SMC Wing. From top to bottom: targets [M2002] SMC 81634, 83171 and 83232. ables are identified based on the periodograms of their light curves obtained by using the lightkurve…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of the parameter space for our M2 estimate of an OB system. We plot M2 vs P for a range of i, shown with different colors. The black dotted line shows the lower limit for M2 obtained from our i = 90◦ red line. The purple dotted line shows the upper limit bas…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example of the parameter space for our M2 estimates for an OBe binary, [M2002] 77290. We show M2 vs P, with the colors representing a range of eccentricity and each plot representing a different orbital inclination. The black dotted line shows the lower limit for M2…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A possible phased RV curve for [M2002] SMC￾82711. This target has its period constrained to < 6 days from our RV data. For this particular phased curve we use P = 2 days, which yields an eccentricity of 0.3. Similarly, our results are biased toward detecting higher-ma…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: An example of the parameter space for our M2 estimates for EBs. Target [M2002] 81258 (top panel) likely has a circular orbit and we plot M2 vs orbital inclination. Target [M2002] 83171 (bottom panel) is likely to have an eccentric orbit, so we plot M2 vs e for varying…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An example of the parameter space for our M2 estimate for an RV binary that is an SB2 candidate but not a known EB. Target 77368 likely has a circular orbit, but we have no previous information on the period or orbital inclination. We plot M2 vs P, showing values up t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: An example of the parameter space for M2 estimates for HMXBs. Target 77458 (SMC X-1) has a period of 3.89 days (Clark 2000) and a low eccentricity (Falanga et al. 2015). From these we select out OB stars, OBe stars and HMXBs by the following criteria: 1. OB stars have…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Eccentricity distribution for BPASS BSS OB (blue line) and OBe (red line) binary systems post supernova. and SN. In fact, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Estimated maximum ∆RV distributions for BPASS ejected BSS systems, with OB and OBe binaries shown in the left and right panels, respectively. The contours are estimated from the model binary population using the maximum ∆RV for the post-SN eccentricities (x-axis) and …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Cumulative 2D velocity distributions for BPASS predictions compared to the field OB and OBe velocities from Phillips et al. (2024). The dashed lines are the observed sample, the solid lines are the BPASS distribution for all stars with a BSS velocity greater than 15 k…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Mass and period distributions of BPASS BSS ejected compact remnant binaries. OB and OBe stars are shown in the left and right panels, respectively, with contours shown as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The same mass and period distributions for BSS binary systems as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  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]

    ]ۯ h! #HɊAl2`(ܪ- 7 BxzC潳8cǧ(|

    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...

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    1975, , 22, 285

    Azzopardi , M., Vigneau , J., & Macquet , M. 1975, , 22, 285

    1975

  5. [5]

    2022, , 658, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141037

    Banyard , G., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2022, , 658, A69, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141037

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141037 2022

  6. [6]

    C., Johnson , J

    Becker , J. C., Johnson , J. A., Vanderburg , A., & Morton , T. D. 2015, , 217, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/29

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/217/2/29 2015

  7. [7]

    C., & Dressler , A

    Bigelow , B. C., & Dressler , A. M. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood , 1727--1738, 10.1117/12.461870

    work page doi:10.1117/12.461870 2003

  8. [8]

    1961, , 15, 265

    Blaauw , A. 1961, , 15, 265

    1961

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    2020 a , , 641, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037640

    Bodensteiner , J., Shenar , T., & Sana , H. 2020 a , , 641, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037640

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2020 b , , 641, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038682

    Bodensteiner , J., Shenar , T., Mahy , L., et al. 2020 b , , 641, A43, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038682

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Boubert , D., & Evans , N. W. 2018, , 477, 5261, 10.1093/mnras/sty980

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    1995, , 274, 461, 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    Brandt , N., & Podsiadlowski , P. 1995, , 274, 461, 10.1093/mnras/274.2.461

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.11304, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.11304

    Britavskiy , N., Renzo , M., Naz \'e , Y., Rauw , G., & Vynatheya , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.11304, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.11304

    2024 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    E., Cantiello , M., et al

    Brott , I., de Mink , S. E., Cantiello , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A115, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Vasilopoulos , G., Coley , J

    Brumback , M. C., Vasilopoulos , G., Coley , J. B., Dage , K., & Miller , J. M. 2023, , 953, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace04f

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Laycock , S

    Cappallo , R. C., Laycock , S. G. T., Christodoulou , D. M., et al. 2020, , 495, 2152, 10.1093/mnras/staa1320

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, , 505, 378, 10.1038/nature12916

    Casares , J., Negueruela , I., Rib \'o , M., et al. 2014, , 505, 378, 10.1038/nature12916

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Fossati , L., & Langer , N

    Castro , N., Oey , M. S., Fossati , L., & Langer , N. 2018, , 868, 57, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6d0

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Clark , G. W. 2000, , 542, L131, 10.1086/312926

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Bartlett , E

    Coe , M. J., Bartlett , E. S., Bird , A. J., et al. 2015, , 447, 2387, 10.1093/mnras/stu2568

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Oey , M

    Dallas , M. M., Oey , M. S., & Castro , N. 2022, , 936, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8988

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Cantiello , M., Langer , N., et al

    de Mink , S. E., Cantiello , M., Langer , N., et al. 2009, , 497, 243, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811439

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    E., Langer , N., Izzard , R

    de Mink , S. E., Langer , N., Izzard , R. G., Sana , H., & de Koter , A. 2013, , 764, 166, 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Paggeot , K., Castro , N., & Moe , M

    Dorigo Jones , J., Oey , M. S., Paggeot , K., Castro , N., & Moe , M. 2020, , 903, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbc6b

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    2011, , 123, 288, 10.1086/658908

    Dressler , A., Bigelow , B., Hare , T., et al. 2011, , 123, 288, 10.1086/658908

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    R., G \"o tberg , Y., Ludwig , B

    Drout , M. R., G \"o tberg , Y., Ludwig , B. A., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1287, 10.1126/science.ade4970

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    1991, , 500, 337

    Duquennoy , A., & Mayor , M. 1991, , 500, 337

    1991

  20. [28]

    El-Badry , K., & Burdge , K. B. 2022, , 511, 24, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab135

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Eldridge , J. J. 2009, , 400, L20, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00753.x

    2009

  22. [30]

    J., Langer , N., & Tout , C

    Eldridge , J. J., Langer , N., & Tout , C. A. 2011, , 414, 3501, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18650.x

    2011

  23. [31]

    J., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Stanway , E. R., Xiao , L., et al. 2017, , 34, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    2015, , 577, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425191

    Falanga , M., Bozzo , E., Lutovinov , A., et al. 2015, , 577, A130, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425191

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Montet , B

    Feinstein , A. D., Montet , B. T., Foreman-Mackey , D., et al. 2019, , 131, 094502, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab291c

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Howard , A

    Fischer , D. A., Howard , A. W., Laughlin , G. P., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther , R. S. Klessen , C. P. Dullemond , & T. Henning , 715--737, 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch031

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    S., & Portegies Zwart , S

    Fujii , M. S., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2011, Science, 334, 1380, 10.1126/science.1211927

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 1

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 1. Main source (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/355. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022), 10.26093/cds/vizier.1355

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Kennea , J

    Gaudin , T. M., Kennea , J. A., Coe , M. J., et al. 2024, , 965, L10, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad354a

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Gies , D. R. 1987, , 64, 545, 10.1086/191208

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Oey , M

    Golden-Marx , J. B., Oey , M. S., Lamb , J. B., Graus , A. S., & White , A. S. 2016, , 819, 55, 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/55

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Groh , J

    G \"o tberg , Y., de Mink , S. E., Groh , J. H., et al. 2018, , 615, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732274

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Ji , A

    G \"o tberg , Y., Drout , M. R., Ji , A. P., et al. 2023, , 959, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace5a3

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    V., Kniazev , A

    Gvaramadze , V. V., Kniazev , A. Y., Gallagher , J. S., et al. 2021, , 503, 3856, 10.1093/mnras/stab679

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    2016, , 586, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527326

    Haberl , F., & Sturm , R. 2016, , 586, A81, 10.1051/0004-6361/201527326

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    D., Pietsch , W., & Crawford , E

    Haberl , F., Sturm , R., Filipovi \'c , M. D., Pietsch , W., & Crawford , E. J. 2012, , 537, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118369

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, , 621, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833787

    Hainich , R., Ramachandran , V., Shenar , T., et al. 2019, , 621, A85, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833787

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Hastings , B., Langer , N., Wang , C., Schootemeijer , A., & Milone , A. P. 2021, , 653, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141269

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Guerrero , M

    H \'e nault-Brunet , V., Oskinova , L. M., Guerrero , M. A., et al. 2012, , 420, L13, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01183.x

    2012

  40. [48]

    P., Vilchez , J

    Herrero , A., Kudritzki , R. P., Vilchez , J. M., et al. 1992, , 261, 209

    1992

  41. [49]

    2021, , 38, e056, 10.1017/pasa.2021.53

    Hirai , R., & Mandel , I. 2021, , 38, e056, 10.1017/pasa.2021.53

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J. H. J., & de Zeeuw , P. T. 2000, , 544, L133, 10.1086/317315

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Tout , C

    Hurley , J. R., Tout , C. A., & Pols , O. R. 2002, , 329, 897, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  44. [52]

    2023, , 677, L9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347318

    Janssens , S., Shenar , T., Degenaar , N., et al. 2023, , 677, L9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347318

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    C., & Kobulnicky , H

    Kiminki , D. C., & Kobulnicky , H. A. 2012, , 751, 4, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/1/4

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Kiminki , D

    Kobulnicky , H. A., Kiminki , D. C., Lundquist , M. J., et al. 2014, , 213, 34, 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/34

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    A., & Gilmore , G

    Kroupa , P., Tout , C. A., & Gilmore , G. 1993, , 262, 545, 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545

    1993 doi

  48. [56]

    J., & Lada , E

    Lada , C. J., & Lada , E. A. 2003, , 41, 57, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  49. [57]

    B., Oey , M

    Lamb , J. B., Oey , M. S., Segura-Cox , D. M., et al. 2016, , 817, 113, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/113

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    Lau , M. Y. M., Hirai , R., Mandel , I., & Tout , C. A. 2024, , 966, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3d50

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Leonard , P. J. T., & Duncan , M. J. 1988, , 96, 222, 10.1086/114804

    1988 doi

  52. [60]

    Lesh , J. R. 1968, , 17, 371, 10.1086/190179

    1968 doi

  53. [61]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  54. [62]

    S., Izzard , R

    Liu , B., Sartorio , N. S., Izzard , R. G., & Fialkov , A. 2024, , 527, 5023, 10.1093/mnras/stad3475

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2013, , 554, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321238

    Maggi , P., Haberl , F., Sturm , R., et al. 2013, , 554, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321238

    2013 doi

  56. [64]

    2018, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 14, 350–352, 10.1017/S1743921319000048

    Maravelias, G., Zezas, A., Antoniou, V., Hatzidimitriou, D., & Haberl, F. 2018, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 14, 350–352, 10.1017/S1743921319000048

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    D., Hartkopf , W

    Mason , B. D., Hartkopf , W. I., Gies , D. R., Henry , T. J., & Helsel , J. W. 2009, , 137, 3358, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3358

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    2002, , 141, 81, 10.1086/338286

    Massey , P. 2002, , 141, 81, 10.1086/338286

    2002 doi

  59. [67]

    I., Crane , J., et al

    Mateo , M., Bailey , J. I., Crane , J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 84464Y, 10.1117/12.926448

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe , M., & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, COSMOS: Carnegie Observatories System for MultiObject Spectroscopy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1705.001

    Oemler , A., Clardy , K., Kelson , D., Walth , G., & Villanueva , E. 2017, COSMOS: Carnegie Observatories System for MultiObject Spectroscopy , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1705.001

    2017

  62. [70]

    S., King , N

    Oey , M. S., King , N. L., & Parker , J. W. 2004, , 127, 1632, 10.1086/381926

    2004 doi

  63. [71]

    S., Dorigo Jones , J., Castro , N., et al

    Oey , M. S., Dorigo Jones , J., Castro , N., et al. 2018, , 867, L8, 10.3847/2041-8213/aae892

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    S., Castro , N., Renzo , M., et al

    Oey , M. S., Castro , N., Renzo , M., et al. 2023, , 947, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb690

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    I., & Dubus , G

    Ogilvie , G. I., & Dubus , G. 2001, , 320, 485, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04011.x

    2001

  66. [74]

    2016, , 590, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233

    Oh , S., & Kroupa , P. 2016, , 590, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628233

    2016 doi

  67. [75]

    2015, , 805, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/92

    Oh , S., Kroupa , P., & Pflamm-Altenburg , J. 2015, , 805, 92, 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/92

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    D., Smith , R

    Paredes , L., Points , S. D., Smith , R. C., et al. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 491, Fifty Years of Wide Field Studies in the Southern Hemisphere: Resolved Stellar Populations of the Galactic Bulge and Magellanic Clouds, ed. S. Points &...

    2015

  69. [77]

    2016, , 66, 421, 10.48550/arXiv.1612.06394

    Pawlak , M., Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., et al. 2016, , 66, 421, 10.48550/arXiv.1612.06394

    2016 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    B., & S ubr , L

    Perets , H. B., & S ubr , L. 2012, , 751, 133, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/133

    2012 doi

  71. [79]

    2010, , 404, 1564, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16376.x

    Pflamm-Altenburg , J., & Kroupa , P. 2010, , 404, 1564, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16376.x

    2010

  72. [80]

    D., Oey , M

    Phillips , G. D., Oey , M. S., Cuevas , M., Castro , N., & Kothari , R. 2024, , 966, 243, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3909

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    R., Cote , J., Waters , L

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

    1991

  74. [82]

    1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    Poveda , A., Ruiz , J., & Allen , C. 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    1967

  75. [83]

    L., Orosz , J

    Rawls , M. L., Orosz , J. A., McClintock , J. E., et al. 2011, , 730, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/25

    2011 doi

  76. [84]

    2011, , 332, 1, 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    Reig , P. 2011, , 332, 1, 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    2011 doi

  77. [85]

    E., et al

    Renzo , M., Zapartas , E., de Mink , S. E., et al. 2019, , 624, A66, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833297

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    P., Hilditch , R

    Reynolds , A. P., Hilditch , R. W., Bell , S. A., & Hill , G. 1993, , 261, 337, 10.1093/mnras/261.2.337

    1993 doi

  79. [87]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03000, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03000

    Richards , S., Eldridge , J., Ghodla , S., & Briel , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.03000, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.03000

    2024 doi

  80. [89]

    2015 b , Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    ---. 2015 b , Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  81. [90]

    D., et al

    Rivinius , T., Klement , R., Chojnowski , S. D., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.12315, 10.48550/arXiv.2208.12315

    2022 doi arXiv

  82. [91]

    A., Kalogera , V., Doctor , Z., et al

    Rocha , K. A., Kalogera , V., Doctor , Z., et al. 2024, , 971, 133, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5955

    2024 doi

  83. [92]

    2017, , 601, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629210

    Sab \' n-Sanjuli \'a n , C., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., et al. 2017, , 601, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629210

    2017 doi

  84. [93]

    Sana , H., Gosset , E., & Evans , C. J. 2009, , 400, 1479, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15545.x

    2009

  85. [94]

    C., Cowley , A

    Schmidtke , P. C., Cowley , A. P., & Udalski , A. 2012, The Astronomer's Telegram, 4596, 1

    2012

  86. [95]

    2013, , 431, 252, 10.1093/mnras/stt159

    ---. 2013, , 431, 252, 10.1093/mnras/stt159

    2013 doi

  87. [96]

    2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, 12890, 1

    ---. 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, 12890, 1

    2019

  88. [97]

    2014, , 796, 37, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37

    Shao , Y., & Li , X.-D. 2014, , 796, 37, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/37

    2014 doi

  89. [98]

    2020, , 639, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038275

    Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., Abdul-Masih , M., et al. 2020, , 639, L6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038275

    2020 doi

  90. [99]

    2024, , 690, A289, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451586

    Shenar , T., Bodensteiner , J., Sana , H., et al. 2024, , 690, A289, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451586

    2024 doi

  91. [100]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.11209, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11209

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Britavskiy , N., Castro , N., Holgado , G., & de Burgos , A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.11209, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.11209

    2024 doi arXiv

  92. [101]

    R., & Eldridge , J

    Stanway , E. R., & Eldridge , J. J. 2018, , 479, 75, 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  93. [102]

    2022, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: All Sectors, STScI/MAST, 10.17909/0CP4-2J79

    STScI . 2022, TESS Calibrated Full Frame Images: All Sectors, STScI/MAST, 10.17909/0CP4-2J79

    2022 doi

  94. [103]

    E., Brown , J

    Sukhbold , T., Ertl , T., Woosley , S. E., Brown , J. M., & Janka , H. T. 2016, , 821, 38, 10.3847/0004-637X/821/1/38

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody , D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford , 733, 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  96. [105]

    2012, , 757, 69, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/69

    Ugliano , M., Janka , H.-T., Marek , A., & Arcones , A. 2012, , 757, 69, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/69

    2012 doi

  97. [106]

    1998, , 334, 21

    van Bever , J., & Vanbeveren , D. 1998, , 334, 21

    1998

  98. [107]

    H., Heemskerk , M

    van der Meer , A., Kaper , L., van Kerkwijk , M. H., Heemskerk , M. H. M., & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 2007, , 473, 523, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066025

    2007 doi

  99. [108]

    2024, PhD thesis, University of Michigan

    Vargas-Salazar, I. 2024, PhD thesis, University of Michigan

    2024

  100. [109]

    S., Barnes , J

    Vargas-Salazar , I., Oey , M. S., Barnes , J. R., et al. 2020, , 903, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb95

    2020 doi

  101. [110]

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

    Vinciguerra , S., Neijssel , C. J., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2020, , 498, 4705, 10.1093/mnras/staa2177

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    G., Mateo , M., Olszewski , E

    Walker , M. G., Mateo , M., Olszewski , E. W., et al. 2015, , 808, 108, 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/108

    2015 doi

  103. [112]

    2020, , 888, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6171

    Wang , C., Langer , N., Schootemeijer , A., et al. 2020, , 888, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6171

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.