Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The fate of Gaia's wide binaries: Interplay of white-dwarf recoil and tidal capture

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A white dwarf's ~1 km/s recoil from asymmetric AGB mass loss acts as an adiabatic torque that can drive up to 30% of wide binaries (separations ~100–1000 AU) into tidal capture, explaining Gaia's missing high-eccentricity WD binaries and cr

desk verdict A clean secular treatment of WD recoil in wide binaries, plus a new tidal-capture channel; the headline 30% rate rests on an assumed capture threshold, so read it as a motivation, not a firm prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08880 v1 pith:TYDG3MKG submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.SR

Christopher E. O'Connor This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfrecoilwidebinariestidalcapturecommonenvelopeevolutionAGBmasslosseccentricitydistributionGaiaastrometryslowredtransients
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the gentle ≈1 km/s recoil a white dwarf receives when its progenitor sheds mass asymmetrically on the asymptotic giant branch is not a curiosity but a population-level sculptor. For wide binaries with separations of roughly 100–1000 AU, the recoil acts as a gradual, orbit-averaged torque that slowly swings a binary's eccentricity up and down; when the periapsis dips to a few AU, the puffy AGB envelope can tidally capture the companion. The author's population-synthesis model finds this can happen for up to 30% of initially wide binaries, producing either a common-envelope episode that circularizes the orbit to AU scale or a merger-like transient. These predictions tie together three previously puzzling observations: the dearth of highly eccentric (e≳0.9) wide WD binaries in Gaia, the existence of moderately eccentric AU-scale WD binaries, and slow dust-obscured red transients like the ongoing event in M31. If correct, the model turns an uncertain detail of AGB mass loss – recoil direction and magnitude – into an engine that generates whole new classes of compact binaries and transients.

What carries the argument

The gravitational Stark problem: a Keplerian binary subject to a small, slowly varying acceleration g(t) from anisotropic mass loss. The orbit-averaged Hamiltonian ⟨H⟩ = -GM/2a - (3/2)a g·e yields harmonic precession of the eccentricity and angular momentum vectors at frequency γ = (3/2)(a/GM)^{1/2} g. The predictive quantity is the minimum periapsis r_p = a(1-e) reached during this precession; when r_p falls below a critical radius r_c (estimated from Roche-lobe overflow of the AGB envelope, a few AU), the binary is assumed to undergo 'tidal capture' and is removed from the wide-binary population. The analytical secular solution is validated against direct N-body integrations with a rocket-

What would settle it

Measure the separation-dependent eccentricity distribution of wide WD+MS (and WD+WD) binaries in future Gaia data releases. If the high-e turnover at e≃0.9 (positive β) is absent, or if the fraction of systems with a(1-e)≲5 AU is not suppressed relative to MS+MS binaries, the predicted up-to-30% tidal-capture rate is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that asymmetric AGB mass loss, modeled as a gradual acceleration of the newborn white dwarf in a fixed inertial direction, does not unbind wide binaries (as an impulsive kick would) but instead causes their eccentricity and angular momentum vectors to precess harmonically at a Stark frequency. Because the acceleration is adiabatic, the orbit is never formally unbound; instead the eccentricity oscillates, and for binaries wider than ~100 AU the minimum periapsis can drop to within a few AU of the AGB star. Adopting a critical periapsis radius r_c (1–5 AU) as the threshold for tidal capture, the paper's population synthesis predicts that up to ~30% of wide binaries (and ~1

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that any binary whose minimum periapsis drops below r_c (a few AU) is immediately removed from the wide-binary population by tidal capture, even though the actual outcome (circularization, CE, or merger) is not computed; if such passages frequently leave the binary intact or only mildly perturbed, the headline 30% fraction, the e>0.9 dearth, and the AU-scale binary channel lose their quantitative support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The eccentricity distributions of wide WD+MS and WD+WD binaries in Gaia should differ from their MS+MS progenitors: a steeper low-e slope (α) and a turnover at e≳0.9 (β>0), i.e., a dearth of near-radial orbits.
  • A new population of AU-scale WD binaries (periods ~100–1000 days) is predicted, produced by high-eccentricity common-envelope evolution; the WD+MS subset is comparable to the recently reported Gaia astrometric candidates, and a WD+WD subset of comparable size (up to ~1500 within 1 kpc) should exist.
  • The Galactic tidal-capture rate is roughly 0.1 yr^-1, implying a local-universe rate density ~0.002 yr^-1 Mpc^-3; this should manifest as slow, dust-obscured transients with AGB progenitors (like the ongoing event in M31) in wide-field infrared surveys.
  • Because the recoil is adiabatic, binaries inside ~10^3 AU remain bound; the separation-resolved eccentricity trend becomes a direct diagnostic of the magnitude, isotropy, and radius of AGB mass loss, parameterized by σ_V, r_c, and f_a.
  • The timing of recoil (f_a) has little effect on final eccentricity distributions, whereas the capture radius r_c strongly controls the high-e turnover; this separability can be tested by measuring both α and β across separation bins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same physics extends to planetary systems: a ~1 km/s recoil of the host white dwarf could pump eccentricities of surviving planets at tens-to-hundreds of AU, triggering instabilities or collisions; the author flags this as future work, but the model's parameter space overlaps the outer solar system, so the Sun's own outer planets may need revisiting.
  • The fixed recoil-direction assumption is a simplification; if AGB winds eject shells with varying orientations across thermal pulses, the coherent oscillations become stochastic diffusion. This would blur the predicted α and β signatures, and precise eccentricity measurements could distinguish coherent-direction from diffusive recoil.
  • Tidal capture is treated as a single sink; splitting it into circularization without a common envelope, a genuine common envelope, or a direct merger would change the yields of AU-scale binaries and transients, and could be tested by the resulting period–eccentricity distribution.
  • The predicted e≳0.9 dearth should strengthen with binary age (WD+WD more depleted than WD+MS); if instead the turnover is absent or weaker, it would indicate either a larger effective capture radius or a recoil distribution with lower peak eccentricity excitation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper models the secular orbital evolution of wide binaries under adiabatic, asymmetric AGB mass loss (WD recoil) and argues that recoil-induced eccentricity oscillations can drive periapsis separations below a prescribed tidal-capture radius r_c. Using the Stark-problem Hamiltonian, orbit-averaged equations, and population-synthesis ensembles, it predicts that up to ~30% of binaries with initial separations ~100–1000 AU may undergo tidal capture during the AGB phase, producing high-eccentricity common-envelope events, AU-scale WD+MS/WD+WD binaries, and slow red transients. The paper also compares predicted eccentricity-distribution shapes (parameterized as beta distributions) with qualitative Gaia-related puzzles, and it introduces an open-source REBOUNDx rocket operator with N-body validation in Appendix B.

Significance. If the tidal-capture step is physically justified, the paper would open a new and potentially important formation channel for AU-scale WD binaries and a progenitor route for slow red transients. The secular dynamics derivation is clean and explicit: the Hamiltonian (Eq. 2), orbit-averaged secular equations (Eqs. 7–10), and general solution (Appendix A) provide a useful analytic framework, and the REBOUND/REBOUNDx validation in Appendix B is a concrete strength. However, the principal quantitative claims depend on treating a complex physical process (tidal dissipation, circularization, and CE onset) as a step-function at r_c; this assumption is stated rather than calculated. The paper is thus best understood as a proof-of-concept with plausible upper-limit rates, not as a finalized prediction, unless the capture physics is supplied or the claims are explicitly reframed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (16); §3.1.1] The central rate F_c1 ~ 0.3 relies on removing every system with r_p < r_c, yet the paper itself states in §2.3 that the outcomes 'are unclear and sensitive to detailed stellar structure, mass loss history, and orbital evolution.' Appendix B validates only the secular prediction of r_p, not the capture step. In a highly eccentric orbit, the companion lies within r_c for only a brief fraction of the orbital period; whether it loses enough energy to be captured or merely passes through with modified eccentricity depends on per-passage tidal dissipation. Please either compute a per-passage energy-loss criterion and integrate it over the AGB phase, or explicitly rephrase the headline '30%' as an upper limit under an optimistic step-function assumption. As written, the abstract's quantitative claim is not supported by the model's physics.
  2. [§4.2.2, Eq. (21), Fig. 9] The T_Stark vs. T_circ comparison does not establish that systems with a ≳ 100 AU reach Roche-lobe overflow before circularizing. T_circ is a secular weak-friction timescale for prolonged tidal evolution; it does not describe energy loss during a single high-eccentricity passage. The duty cycle near r_p ~ r_c is tiny when e → 1, so the relevant quantity is the tidal energy change per periapsis passage relative to the orbital binding energy. The conclusion that tidal capture leads to a high-eccentricity CE phase is therefore not justified by Eq. (21). A per-passage dissipation estimate or a dedicated hydrodynamical/semi-analytic treatment is needed to support the CE-production claim.
  3. [§3.2.2, Figs. 4–7; §5] The predicted α and β trends are compared only qualitatively to observed Gaia constraints. The paper's claim to 'relate' the model to the e ≳ 0.9 dearth rests on the single statement that H.-C. Hwang & Zakamska (2025) report a dearth, consistent with finite r_c; no quantitative fit to the observed WD+MS or WD+WD eccentricity distributions is presented. Without a comparison that includes selection effects, the observational support for the central mechanism remains anecdotal. The conclusions should either be limited to 'predicted signatures to be tested' or supplemented with a quantitative comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4] Typo: 'm1i = 2.0 AU' should read 'm1i = 2.0 M_sun'.
  2. [§1] Typo: 'have, for the most part, considered considered the impulsive limit' — 'considered' is duplicated.
  3. [§4.2.2] Typo: 'evalaute' should be 'evaluate'.
  4. [§3.1.2] Typo: 'It main advantage' should be 'Its main advantage'.
  5. [§3.3, Fig. 8] The outer separation bin (log a ∈ [2.75,3.0]) is noted to be affected by the a > 10^3 AU cut and by the superthermal initial eccentricity distribution. It would be helpful to report the number of surviving systems per bin, since the tail of the fitted beta distributions may be sensitive to small-N statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orbital and population-synthesis results are forward model outputs, not re-labelings of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained forward calculations. The secular evolution (Section 2.1) follows from the Stark-problem Hamiltonian (Eq. 2), orbit averaging (Eq. 5), and adiabatic invariance (Eq. 6); the resulting eccentricity oscillations are standard solutions of the Stark problem (Heyl 2007b, cited) and are validated against direct REBOUND/REBOUNDx integrations in Appendix B. The population synthesis uses input distributions and parameters—IMF, mass ratio, separation, eccentricity power law from Hwang et al. (2022b), Maxwellian recoil velocities with scanned sigma_V, recoil-timing parameter f_a, and tidal-capture radius r_c—that are scanned, not fitted to the predictions being claimed (the e>0.9 dearth, AU-scale WD binaries, transient rates). The tidal-capture criterion r_p <= r_c is a physical modeling assumption motivated by Roche-lobe geometry (Eqs. 16-17) and varied over {0,1,2,5} AU; it is not inferred from the Gaia dearth or from Shahaf et al. (2024). Consequently, the 30% capture fraction and the high-eccentricity cutoff are model outputs that depend on this assumption, which is a correctness/modeling risk rather than circularity. The CE-product estimate (Eq. 22) adopts alpha_CE from external empirical CE constraints and stellar-model parameters from the author's own Table 1 of O'Connor et al. (2023a); that self-citation supplies tabulated stellar data and is not load-bearing in the sense of reducing the claim to an unverified self-citation. The paper also candidly flags the uncertainty in tidal-capture outcomes (Section 2.3), the approximate nature of the timescale comparison (Section 4.2.2), and the shortcomings of the beta-distribution fitting (Section 3.1.2). No step in the derivation is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the secular Stark dynamics (standard math) plus three scanned parameters (sigma_V, r_c, f_a), an external initial eccentricity distribution, and a threshold model for tidal capture. No new physical entities are postulated. The headline 30% fraction is a maximum over the scanned grid, not a unique prediction.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma_V (recoil velocity dispersion) = 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 km/s (grid)
    Drawn from a Maxwellian distribution and scanned; controls the amplitude of eccentricity pumping and therefore the tidal capture fraction.
  • r_c (tidal capture radius) = 0, 1, 2, 5 AU (grid)
    Critical periapsis below which a binary is removed from the wide sample. Central to the 30% headline and to the predicted e>0.9 dearth; not derived from first principles.
  • f_a (envelope-mass fraction at recoil onset) = 0.01, 0.1, 1 (grid)
    Sets how much envelope remains when recoil begins, affecting the effective torque. Scanned; mostly insensitive except in the widest separation bin.
  • alpha_CE (common-envelope efficiency) = 0.3 (fiducial, from literature)
    Used to estimate post-CE orbital separations and connect to Shahaf et al. WD+MS binaries; adopted, not fitted here.
  • Initial MS+MS eccentricity distribution alpha(a) = Piecewise alpha(a) from H22 Table 1
    This external measured distribution, especially the superthermal tail at wide separations, is a key driver of the capture fractions. If the H22 trend is wrong, the rates change.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Binary components are point masses for computing gravitational attraction (Section 2.1, assumption 1)
    The analytical model ignores finite stellar radii until the tidal-capture threshold is crossed.
  • domain assumption Recoil acceleration is small, fixed in direction, and adiabatic relative to the orbital period (Section 2.1, assumption 2 and Appendix A)
    The orbit-averaged Stark solution and the action-conservation result (Eq. 6) require this; it breaks down for a > 1000 AU and for stochastic recoil.
  • domain assumption Other wind interactions (drag, gravitational torques, accretion) are negligible (Section 2.1, assumption 2)
    Only the rocket acceleration g(t) from Eq. (1) is retained; any additional wind effects would change the orbital evolution.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a critical separation r_c below which tidal capture removes the binary from the wide sample (Section 2.3, Eq. 16)
    The paper postulates this threshold and scans values 0, 1, 2, 5 AU rather than modeling the tidal interaction itself.
  • ad hoc to paper When r_p < r_c, the binary's fate is either strong tidal circularization or a common-envelope phase, with no detailed calculation of which (Section 4.2)
    The outcome determines whether AU-scale WD binaries or transients are produced; this is estimated with a timescale comparison and CE energy formalism, not a dynamical calculation.
  • domain assumption The recoil direction is isotropically distributed and uncorrelated with the orbital orientation (Section 3.1.1)
    If recoil aligns with the binary angular momentum or the stellar rotation axis, the eccentricity excitation and capture fractions would differ.
  • domain assumption The initial eccentricity distribution of MS+MS wide binaries follows H22's power law with separation-dependent alpha(a) (Section 3.1.1)
    This observed distribution sets the initial conditions; the paper's superthermal-tail-driven results inherit its uncertainties.
  • domain assumption WD remnant masses follow the El-Badry et al. (2018) initial-final mass relation (Section 3.1.1)
    Controls orbital expansion via mass loss and the time available for recoil; adopted from external data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fate of Gaia's wide binaries: Interplay of white-dwarf recoil and tidal capture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYDG3MKG

@misc{pith2026250908880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fate of Gaia's wide binaries: Interplay of white-dwarf recoil and tidal capture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYDG3MKG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08880}
}
abstract

White dwarfs (WDs) receive natal velocity boosts of $\sim 1 \, \mathrm{km \, s^{-1}}$ due to recoil from asymmetric mass loss during the late asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stage. In a wide binary, the acceleration of a proto-WD exerts a torque, modifying the orbital eccentricity. Potential signatures of this effect have been detected in Gaia's astrometric binary sample. At the same time, an AGB star's puffy envelope facilitates strong tidal interactions in binaries with periapsis separations of a few AU, capturing the companion into a tighter orbit and potentially driving the system towards a common-envelope phase. Using an analytical model for wide binary evolution under asymmetric AGB mass loss, we find that recoil can induce tidal interactions in up to $30\%$ of initially wide binaries on the AGB or post-AGB for initial separations of $\sim 100 \mbox{--} 1000$ AU. We relate these interactions to three recent observational puzzles: (i) The dearth of wide WD+MS and WD+WD binaries in Gaia DR3 with eccentricities $\gtrsim 0.9$. (ii) The formation of moderately eccentric WD+MS and WD+WD binaries with orbital periods of $\sim 100 \mbox{--} 1000$ days, which may happen via a high-eccentricity common-envelope phase. (iii) The origin of low-luminosity, long-timescale, dust-obscured transients towards AGB progenitors, such as the ongoing event WNTR23bzdiq in M31. Our findings have potential implications for the survival and dynamical evolution of planetary systems around WD progenitors, to be investigated in future works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Orbital evolution of a typical wide binary as the primary star undergoes AGB mass loss with recoil. The top panel shows the semi-major axis a (solid curve) and the periapsis and apoapsis separations a(1 ± e) (dashed). The middle panel shows the eccentricity as 1 − e with a loga￾rithmic vertical scale. The bottom panel shows the orbital inclination. The binary components have initial masses of m1i = 2.0M⊙ and m2 = 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of possible evolutionary pathways of a wide binary during the post-MS stages of the primary star, highlighting the expected outcomes with or without directional mass loss in the late AGB phase. If the periapsis separation of the binary grows sufficiently small due to recoil, then tidal capture may occur, leading to an eccentric binary interaction or merger. If the secondary star is massive enough to bec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The predicted evolution of idealized wide binary populations for different assumptions about dynamical evolution during the AGB stage: no recoil and no tidal capture (Set I-A, top row); recoil but no tidal capture (Set I-B, upper middle); tidal capture but no recoil (Set I-C, lower middle); and both recoil and tidal capture (Set I-D, bottom). In the left-hand panels, small dots show the properties of individual syst… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Predicted eccentricity distributions as a function of semi-major axis for evolving binary populations: the MS+MS systems (orange circles) are mapped to the WD+MS (blue squares) and then WD+WD (green triangles) stages using our analytical model. We fit a beta distributi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fitting α and β values for the eccentricity distributions of simulated binaries as a function of semi-major axis. The left-hand panels show systems during the WD+MS stage, while the right-hand panels show them in the WD+WD stage. For the filled points connected by…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Similar to Figs. 5 and 6, but varying the recoil timescale parameter fa with σV = 0.5 km s−1 and rc = 2.0 AU held constant. Larger fa values correspond to brighter colors. aration bin, log a ∈ [2.75, 3.0]. This is a consequence of the initial eccentricity distribution …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stair plots showing the probability of tidal capture events during the primary AGB stage (Fc1, upper row) and secondary AGB stage (Fc2, lower) as functions of initial semi-major axis. Panels in the left, center, and right columns show the effects of varying σV , rc, an…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Timescales for eccentricity excitation and cir￾cularization in a highly eccentric binary system with a 1M⊙ AGB primary and a 1M⊙ point-like companion. The grey shaded region indicates a range of eccentricity excita￾tion timescales TStark (equation 13) for recoil accele…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the analytical secular solution (blue curves) and direct integration of the equations of motion in REBOUND/REBOUNDx (black). The binary’s initial conditions are as follows: mA = 2mB = 2M⊙, a = 300 AU, e = 0.75, I = 87.5 deg, Ω = ω = 0. The primary s…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The same as Figs. 10 and 11, but with initial a = 3000 AU. In the middle panel, the horizontal dotted red line shows e = 1; the point where the black curve crosses this line marks where recoil unbinds the system in the direct integration. Izzard, R. G., Dermine, T., &…

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. Thermally inflated accretors in post-mass transfer binaries: Abell 35 and its class revisited

    astro-ph.SR 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The subgiant-looking companions of hot white dwarfs in Abell 35-type binaries are likely main-sequence stars temporarily inflated by recent mass transfer, contracting back to normal within a few million years.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Agalianou, V., & Gourgouliatos, K. N. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1344

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1344 2023

  2. [2]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad394c

    Akiba, T., McIntyre, S., & Madigan, A.-M. 2024, ApJL, 966, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad394c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad394c 2024

  3. [3]

    C., Trani, A

    Atallah, D., Weatherford, N. C., Trani, A. A., & Rasio, F. A. 2024, ApJ, 970, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5185

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5185 2024

  4. [5]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 337, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-090120-033712

    Decin, L. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 337, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-090120-033712

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-090120-033712 2021

  5. [6]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 408, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0703-5

    Decin, L., Homan, W., Danilovich, T., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 408, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0703-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0703-5 2019

  6. [7]

    J., & Lissauer, J

    Duncan, M. J., & Lissauer, J. J. 1998, Icarus, 134, 303, doi: 10.1006/icar.1998.5962

    arXiv 1998

  7. [8]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  8. [9]

    2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    arXiv 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [10]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    2021 doi

  3. [12]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Weisz, D. R. 2018, ApJL, 860, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaca9c

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    M., Richer, H

    Fregeau, J. M., Richer, H. B., Rasio, F. A., & Hurley, J. R. 2009, ApJL, 695, L20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L20

    2009 doi

  5. [14]

    B., & Perets, H

    Ginat, Y. B., & Perets, H. B. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1241

    2024 doi

  6. [15]

    Glanz, H., & Perets, H. B. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2659, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2291

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    Hadjidemetriou, J. D. 1963, Icarus, 2, 440, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(63)90072-1

    1963 doi

  8. [17]

    Hadjidemetriou, J. D. 1966, Icarus, 5, 34, doi: 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90006-6

    1966 doi

  9. [18]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6600

    Hamilton, C. 2022, ApJL, 929, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6600

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1654

    Hamilton, C., & Modak, S. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2425, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1654

    2024 doi

  11. [20]

    2007a, MNRAS, 381, L70, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00369.x

    Heyl, J. 2007a, MNRAS, 381, L70, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00369.x

    2007

  12. [21]

    2007b, MNRAS, 382, 915, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12441.x

    Heyl, J. 2007b, MNRAS, 382, 915, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12441.x

    2007

  13. [22]

    2024, ApJL, 972, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., Heger, A., & Nagakura, H. 2024, ApJL, 972, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1, doi: 10.1007/s00159-017-0106-5

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    2022a, ApJL, 933, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c70

    Hwang, H.-C., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 933, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c70

    doi

  15. [24]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022b, MNRAS, 512, 3383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    doi

  16. [25]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.08364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.08364

    Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.08364, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.08364

    2025 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    Fregeau, J. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 553, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13064.x The fate ofGaia’s wide binaries25 100 101 102 103 104 Radius [AU] Vk = 1.0 km s 1, fa = 1.0, a0 = 3000 AU a (REBOUND) a(1 ± e) (REBOUND) a (Secular) a(1 ± e) (Secular) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00e REBOUND...

    2008

  18. [27]

    G., Dermine, T., & Church, R

    Izzard, R. G., Dermine, T., & Church, R. P. 2010, A&A, 523, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015254

    2010 doi

  19. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09691

    Karambelkar, V., Kasliwal, M., De, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.09691, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.09691

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    R., Kasliwal, M

    Karambelkar, V. R., Kasliwal, M. M., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 948, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc2b9

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L51, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt075

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    S., Adams, S

    Kochanek, C. S., Adams, S. M., & Belczynski, K. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1319, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1226

    2014 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 1228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1686

    Korol, V., Belokurov, V., & Toonen, S. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1228, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1686

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    B., Moore, K., Tamayo, D., Jayawardhana, R., & Rinehart, S

    Kostov, V. B., Moore, K., Tamayo, D., Jayawardhana, R., & Rinehart, S. A. 2016, ApJ, 832, 183, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/183

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    L., & Ransom, S

    Kremer, K., Fuller, J., Piro, A. L., & Ransom, S. M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, L22, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad088

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  27. [36]

    Krynski, P., Siess, L., Jorissen, A., & Davis, P. J. 2025, A&A, 697, A179, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453503

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    F., & Cordes, J

    Lai, D., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2001, ApJ, 549, 1111, doi: 10.1086/319455

    2001 doi

  29. [38]

    Lantoine, G., & Russell, R. P. 2011, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 109, 333, doi: 10.1007/s10569-010-9331-1

    2011 doi

  30. [39]

    J., & Lai, D

    Liu, B., Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2396

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c31

    MacLeod, M., De, K., & Loeb, A. 2022, ApJ, 937, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8c31

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    S., Xu, S., Federrath, C., Hu, Y., & Seta, A

    Mathew, S. S., Xu, S., Federrath, C., Hu, Y., & Seta, A. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1632

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    McClure, R. D. 1984, PASP, 96, 117, doi: 10.1086/131310

    1984 doi

  34. [43]

    1939, Bull

    Milankovitch, M. 1939, Bull. Serb. Acad. Math. Nat. A, 6, 1

    1939

  35. [44]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 3102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2073

    Modak, S., & Hamilton, C. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 3102, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2073

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    2007, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 99, 31, doi: 10.1007/s10569-007-9087-4

    Namouni, F., & Guzzo, M. 2007, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 99, 31, doi: 10.1007/s10569-007-9087-4

    2007 doi

  37. [46]

    Namouni, F., & Zhou, J. L. 2006, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 95, 245, doi: 10.1007/s10569-006-9011-3 O’Connor, C. E., Bildsten, L., Cantiello, M., & Lai, D. 2023a, ApJ, 950, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d4 O’Connor, C. E., Lai, D., & Seligman, D. Z. 2023b, ...

    2006 doi

  38. [47]

    1998, ApJ, 501, 357, doi: 10.1086/305802

    Parriott, J., & Alcock, C. 1998, ApJ, 501, 357, doi: 10.1086/305802

    1998 doi

  39. [48]

    A., Shapiro, S

    Rasio, F. A., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1992, A&A, 256, L35

    1992

  40. [49]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  41. [50]

    Rein, H., & Liu, S. F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  42. [51]

    1981, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Renzini, A. 1981, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    1981

  43. [52]

    88, Physical Processes in Red Giants, ed

    Library, Vol. 88, Physical Processes in Red Giants, ed. I. Iben, Jr. & A. Renzini, 431–446, doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-8492-9 48

    doi

  44. [53]

    A., Hur, R., Kalogera, V., et al

    Rocha, K. A., Hur, R., Kalogera, V., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb970

    2025 doi

  45. [54]

    Rozner, M., & Perets, H. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace2c6

    2023 doi

  46. [55]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  47. [56]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3313

    Scherbak, P., & Fuller, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3966, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3313

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae773

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    Sigurdsson, S., & Phinney, E. S. 1995, ApJS, 99, 609, doi: 10.1086/192199

    1995 doi

  50. [59]

    2024, ApJL, 977, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad94d8

    Shariat, C. 2024, ApJL, 977, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad94d8

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    D., & Loeb, A

    Stone, N., Metzger, B. D., & Loeb, A. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2718

    2015 doi

  52. [61]

    Tamayo, D., Rein, H., Shi, P., & Hernandez, D. M. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 2885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2870

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    2023, Dynamics of Planetary Systems (Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press)

    Tremaine, S. 2023, Dynamics of Planetary Systems (Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press)

    2023

  54. [63]

    2013, A&A, 555, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321647 Van Eylen, V., Albrecht, S., Huang, X., et al

    Tylenda, R., Kami´ nski, T., Udalski, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321647 Van Eylen, V., Albrecht, S., Huang, X., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf22f

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    Verbunt, F., & Phinney, E. S. 1995, A&A, 296, 709

    1995

  56. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 3767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1784

    Vick, M., & Lai, D. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3767, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1784

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  58. [67]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355, doi: 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  59. [68]

    2023, ApJL, 949, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f7

    Xu, S., Hwang, H.-C., Hamilton, C., & Lai, D. 2023, ApJL, 949, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f7

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Rees, N. R., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 084202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809

    2024 doi

  61. [70]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14786

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., & Shahaf, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.14786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.14786

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    Rasio, F. A. 2019, ApJ, 877, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1b21

    2019 doi

  63. [72]

    K., Batygin, K., & Adams, F

    Zink, J. K., Batygin, K., & Adams, F. C. 2020, AJ, 160, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abb8de

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1137

    Zorotovic, M., & Schreiber, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1137

    2022 doi

  65. [74]

    R., G¨ ansicke, B

    Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Nebot G´ omez-Mor´ an, A. 2010, A&A, 520, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913658

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.