pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01848 · v1 · pith:WFC5US2Nnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Revisiting atmospheric Roche lobe overflow in symbiotic binaries

Tan Liu , Natalia Ivanova , Philipp Podsiadlowski , Joanna Miko{\l}ajewska , Zheng-Wei Liu , Xuefei Chen , Xiangcun Meng , Zhanwen Han This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 05:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords symbiotic binariesatmospheric Roche lobe overflowmass transfer stabilitycommon envelopewhite dwarf binariesgiant donorsbinary evolutionMESA models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow allows stable mass transfer in symbiotic binaries up to mass ratios of 1.5, extending their lifetimes significantly.

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

Standard binary evolution models expect that symbiotic stars with high mass ratios will quickly enter a common-envelope phase because mass transfer becomes dynamically unstable. This paper shows that adding atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow changes the outcome for convective giant donors. Using a grid of models with the Rapid Unified Mass Transfer framework, the authors demonstrate that these systems can sustain mass transfer for up to a million years at rates above 10^-9 solar masses per year. The resulting evolutionary tracks and period-mass ratio distributions match the properties of observed S-type symbiotic binaries, including those with recurrent novae. This mechanism offers a way to explain why so many such systems appear long-lived rather than rapidly engulfed.

Core claim

Incorporating atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow into the Rapid Unified Mass Transfer framework permits stable mass transfer for convective giant donors up to mass ratios q approximately 1.5. In these cases the symbiotic phase can last up to 10^6 years with mass transfer rates of at least 10^{-9} solar masses per year, during which the orbit shrinks mildly before possibly re-expanding. Systems with higher mass ratios still evolve toward common envelopes but retain a symbiotic phase of 10^4 to 10^5 years. The synthetic populations align with the observed distribution of Galactic S-type symbiotic systems.

What carries the argument

The Rapid Unified Mass Transfer (RUMT) framework, which determines mass-transfer stability and rates by including atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow for giant donors.

Load-bearing premise

The Rapid Unified Mass Transfer framework's treatment of atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow correctly identifies when mass transfer remains stable for convective giants without immediate common-envelope formation.

What would settle it

Detection of common-envelope signatures or very short interaction times in observed symbiotic binaries with mass ratios near or below 1.5 would contradict the model's stability predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01848 by Joanna Miko{\l}ajewska, Natalia Ivanova, Philipp Podsiadlowski, Tan Liu, Xiangcun Meng, Xuefei Chen, Zhanwen Han, Zheng-Wei Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of a model undergoing rapidly increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An example of a model that experiences high but non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Binary grid showing the system types. The horizontal axis shows the initial mass ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Timescale variation with initial mass ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Changes in the orbital period. Panel (a) shows all systems in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between our model predictions and observational data in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of AGB-SySts with differ￾ent mass-transfer timescales. The left and right panels show binaries initially composed of a 2.0 M⊙ giant and a 0.57 M⊙ WD, with initial or￾bital periods of 500 and 800 days, respectively. The red dashed line marks M˙ = 10−9 M⊙ yr−1 , while the orange dotted line indicates when the system exceeds the L2 equipotential radius and stable mass transfer stops [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Positions of selected recurrent nova systems in the P–q diagram, compared with our simulations. For each system, the corre￾sponding mass-transfer track is shown, and the point where the mass ratio matches the ob￾served value is marked with a triangle. three orders of magnitude compared with traditional theo￾retical models. The extended lifetimes found here remove the long-standing mismatch between the shor… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Classical binary evolution models predict dynamically unstable mass transfer in symbiotic stars with high mass ratios, leading to a common envelope. However, many observed S-type symbiotic systems show long-lived interaction, suggesting that an additional stabilizing mechanism may be at work. We investigate whether atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow can prolong the mass-transfer phase and help reconcile theory with observations. We implement the Rapid Unified Mass Transfer framework in \texttt{MESA} and compute a grid of white-dwarf--giant binaries covering a wide range of donor masses, mass ratios, and orbital periods. We then compare the resulting lifetimes and evolutionary tracks with well-constrained Galactic S-type symbiotic systems. For convective giant donors, our models recover stable mass transfer up to $q \simeq 1.5$, while atmospheric overflow strongly extends the symbiotic phase. RGB and early-AGB systems with $q \lesssim 1.5$ can remain interacting for up to $10^6$ yr at $\dot{M} \gtrsim 10^{-9},M_{\odot},{\rm yr}^{-1}$, much longer than the commonly assumed $\sim 10^3$ yr pre-common-envelope lifetime. In these systems, the orbit shrinks mildly and may re-expand after mass-ratio reversal. Systems with higher mass ratios still evolve toward a common envelope, but even for $q \simeq 2$--$4$ the symbiotic phase can last $10^4$--$10^5$ yr. The synthetic distribution in the orbital-period--mass-ratio plane and individual evolutionary tracks are broadly consistent with observed S-type symbiotic binaries, including recurrent novae. The RUMT framework, which incorporates atmospheric RLOF, provides an explanation for the long-term stability of many symbiotic binaries and may account for their high observed occurrence rate.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that implementing the Rapid Unified Mass Transfer (RUMT) framework, which includes atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow, in MESA allows stable mass transfer in white-dwarf--giant symbiotic binaries with convective donors up to mass ratios q ≃ 1.5. This extends the symbiotic interaction phase to 10^5–10^6 yr at rates ≳10^{-9} M_⊙ yr^{-1} for RGB/early-AGB systems (with mild orbit shrinkage and possible re-expansion after mass-ratio reversal), while higher-q systems still reach common envelope but with longer symbiotic lifetimes of 10^4–10^5 yr. The resulting lifetimes, tracks, and synthetic distributions in the orbital-period--mass-ratio plane are reported to be broadly consistent with observed Galactic S-type symbiotic systems, including recurrent novae, thereby explaining their long-term stability and high occurrence rate contrary to classical dynamical instability predictions.

Significance. If the RUMT atmospheric RLOF implementation in MESA is shown to be robust, the work would be significant for binary stellar evolution, as it offers a concrete mechanism to reconcile theory with the observed prevalence and longevity of symbiotic binaries without invoking common-envelope evolution at moderate q. The computation of a broad grid covering donor masses, mass ratios, and periods, together with direct comparison to well-constrained Galactic systems, is a methodological strength that supports reproducibility and falsifiability. The result would affect population synthesis models and interpretations of recurrent novae if the stability boundary holds under independent scrutiny.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (RUMT grid paragraph)] Abstract, paragraph describing the RUMT grid: the central claim that stable mass transfer occurs up to q ≃ 1.5 for convective giant donors (and the consequent extension of the symbiotic phase to 10^5–10^6 yr) rests entirely on the specific numerical treatment of atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow inside the RUMT framework implemented in MESA. Classical adiabatic-response criteria predict dynamical instability at substantially lower q; the manuscript provides no analytic derivation, cross-code comparison, or test against known limits to demonstrate that the reported q ≃ 1.5 threshold is independent of the chosen prescription rather than an artifact of the implementation.
  2. [Abstract (comparison to observations)] Abstract (comparison to observed Galactic S-type systems): the reported consistency of model lifetimes, evolutionary tracks, and the orbital-period--mass-ratio distribution with observations is load-bearing for the claim that RUMT explains the high occurrence rate. The text does not clarify whether the RUMT mass-transfer rates or stability thresholds were derived from first principles or adjusted to reproduce the observed systems; this distinction is required to assess whether the agreement constitutes an independent prediction.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The mass-loss rate notation in the abstract contains a typographical comma (\dot{M} \gtrsim 10^{-9},M_{\odot},{\rm yr}^{-1}); this should be corrected for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful report and the opportunity to address the concerns raised. We respond to each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (RUMT grid paragraph)] Abstract, paragraph describing the RUMT grid: the central claim that stable mass transfer occurs up to q ≃ 1.5 for convective giant donors (and the consequent extension of the symbiotic phase to 10^5–10^6 yr) rests entirely on the specific numerical treatment of atmospheric Roche-lobe overflow inside the RUMT framework implemented in MESA. Classical adiabatic-response criteria predict dynamical instability at substantially lower q; the manuscript provides no analytic derivation, cross-code comparison, or test against known limits to demonstrate that the reported q ≃ 1.5 threshold is independent of the chosen prescription rather than an artifact of the implementation.

    Authors: We agree that the reported stability boundary is obtained from the numerical implementation of the RUMT framework within MESA and that the manuscript does not contain an analytic derivation or cross-code verification. The RUMT prescription is motivated by the physical treatment of atmospheric overflow beyond the classical Roche-lobe radius, but its quantitative outcome necessarily depends on the chosen numerical parameters. We will revise the abstract and add a dedicated subsection in the methods to discuss the sensitivity of the q ≃ 1.5 threshold to RUMT parameters and to compare the limiting behavior against the classical adiabatic criterion for the same initial conditions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract (comparison to observations)] Abstract (comparison to observed Galactic S-type systems): the reported consistency of model lifetimes, evolutionary tracks, and the orbital-period--mass-ratio distribution with observations is load-bearing for the claim that RUMT explains the high occurrence rate. The text does not clarify whether the RUMT mass-transfer rates or stability thresholds were derived from first principles or adjusted to reproduce the observed systems; this distinction is required to assess whether the agreement constitutes an independent prediction.

    Authors: The mass-transfer rates and stability thresholds in the grid are computed directly from the RUMT implementation in MESA without any parameter adjustment intended to match the observed Galactic sample. The comparison to S-type systems is performed after the models are evolved and serves as a consistency check rather than a calibration step. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that the RUMT rates and stability limits are set by the framework and that the observational agreement is an a-posteriori result. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: RUMT grid outputs compared post-hoc to observations

full rationale

The paper implements the Rapid Unified Mass Transfer framework inside MESA, runs a grid over donor masses, mass ratios and periods, and reports the resulting stability limits (q ≃ 1.5 for convective giants) and symbiotic lifetimes as direct numerical outcomes. These outputs are then compared to observed Galactic S-type systems for broad consistency. No equation or statement in the abstract defines the stability threshold or mass-transfer rates in terms of the target observations, nor renames a fit as a prediction. Self-citation of the RUMT framework is not shown to be the sole load-bearing justification; the derivation remains a forward numerical experiment whose central results are not forced by construction from its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit list of free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the RUMT framework itself is treated as a black-box addition whose internal assumptions cannot be audited from the given text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5884 in / 1219 out tokens · 37328 ms · 2026-07-03T05:23:29.091761+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references

  1. [1]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A26

    Abate, C., Pols, O., Izzard, R., Mohamed, S., & De Mink, S. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 552, A26

    2013

  2. [2]

    2023, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics XI, ed

    Alcolea, J., Mikolajewska, J., Gómez-Garrido, M., et al. 2023, in Highlights on Spanish Astrophysics XI, ed. M. Manteiga, L. Bellot, P. Benavidez, A. de Lorenzo-Cáceres, M. A. Fuente, M. J. Martínez, M. Vázquez Acosta, & C. Dafonte, 190

    2023

  3. [3]

    Allen, D. A. 1984, PASA, 5, 369 Belczy´nski, K., Mikołajewska, J., Munari, U., Ivison, R. J., & Friedjung, M. 2000, A&AS, 146, 407

    1984

  4. [4]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 3436

    Belloni, D., Mikołajewska, J., Iłkiewicz, K., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 3436

    2020

  5. [5]

    Belloni, D., Mikołajewska, J., & Schreiber, M. R. 2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 686, A226

    2024

  6. [6]

    M., Hillen, M., Berger, J

    Boffin, H. M., Hillen, M., Berger, J. P., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 564, A1

    2014

  7. [7]

    G., Quiroga, C., & Ferrer, O

    Brandi, E., García, L. G., Quiroga, C., & Ferrer, O. E. 2006, Boletin de la Aso- ciacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 49, 132

    2006

  8. [8]

    2005, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 440, 239

    Brandi, E., Mikołajewska, J., Quiroga, C., et al. 2005, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 440, 239

    2005

  9. [9]

    E., & García, L

    Brandi, E., Quiroga, C., Mikołajewska, J., Ferrer, O. E., & García, L. G. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 497, 815

    2009

  10. [10]

    2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol

    Chen, X., Podsiadlowski, P., Mikolajewska, J., & Han, Z. 2010, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 1314, International Conference on Binaries: in celebration of Ron Webbink’s 65th Birthday, ed. V . Kalogera & M. van der Sluys (AIP), 59–60

    2010

  11. [11]

    G., Nordhaus, J., Frank, A., & Carroll-Nellenback, J

    Chen, Z., Blackman, E. G., Nordhaus, J., Frank, A., & Carroll-Nellenback, J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 747

    2018

  12. [12]

    J., & Mikolajewska, J

    Dobrzycka, D., Kenyon, S. J., & Mikolajewska, J. 1993, AJ, 106, 284

    1993

  13. [13]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368

    1983

  14. [14]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., & Skrutskie, M. F. 2000, The Astro- nomical Journal, 120, 3255

    2000

  15. [15]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., & Skrutskie, M. F. 2001, The Astro- nomical Journal, 121, 2219

    2001

  16. [16]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., & Wood, P. R. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 139, 1315

    2010

  17. [17]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., & Wood, P. R. 2015, AJ, 150, 48

    2015

  18. [18]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., & Wood, P. R. 2017, AJ, 153, 35

    2017

  19. [19]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., Wood, P. R., & Howarth, I. D. 2008, The Astronomical Journal, 136, 146

    2008

  20. [20]

    C., Hinkle, K

    Fekel, F. C., Hinkle, K. H., Joyce, R. R., Wood, P. R., & Lebzelter, T. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 133, 17

    2006

  21. [21]

    2003, in Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, V ol

    Ferrer, O., Quiroga, C., Brandi, E., & García, L. 2003, in Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, V ol. 303, 117 Gałan, C., Mikołajewska, J., & Hinkle, K. H. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447, 492 Gałan, C., Mikołajewska, J., Hinkle, K. H., & Joyce, R. R. 2016, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 455, 1282 G...

    2003

  22. [22]

    1984, The Observatory, vol

    Griffin, R. 1984, The Observatory, vol. 104, p. 224-231 (1984), 104, 224

    1984

  23. [23]

    & Mikołajewska, J

    Gromadzki, M. & Mikołajewska, J. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 495, 931

    2009

  24. [24]

    2013, Acta Astron., 63, 405

    Gromadzki, M., Mikołajewska, J., & Soszy´nski, I. 2013, Acta Astron., 63, 405

    2013

  25. [25]

    2022, A&A, 667, A44

    Guo, Y ., Liu, C., Wang, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A44

    2022

  26. [26]

    P., Podsiadlowski, P., & Tout, C

    Han, Z., Eggleton, P. P., Podsiadlowski, P., & Tout, C. A. 1995, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 277, 1443

    1995

  27. [27]

    H., Fekel, F

    Hinkle, K. H., Fekel, F. C., & Joyce, R. R. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 1360

    2009

  28. [28]

    H., Nagarajan, P., Fekel, F

    Hinkle, K. H., Nagarajan, P., Fekel, F. C., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 983, 76 Iłkiewicz, K., Mikołajewska, J., Belczy ´nski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., & Karcz- marek, P. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 485, 5468

    2025

  29. [29]

    2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 59

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 21, 59

    2013

  30. [30]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 64

    Ivanova, N., Kundu, S., & Pourmand, A. 2024, ApJ, 971, 64

    2024

  31. [31]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  32. [32]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A127

    Jorissen, A., Boffin, H., Karinkuzhi, D., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 626, A127

    2019

  33. [33]

    2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 39

    Jorissen, A., Van Eck, S., Dermine, T., Van Winckel, H., & Gorlova, N. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 39

    2012

  34. [34]

    Kenyon, S. J. 2009, The Symbiotic Stars (Cambridge University Press)

    2009

  35. [35]

    Kenyon, S. J. & Garcia, M. R. 1989, AJ, 97, 194

    1989

  36. [36]

    Kenyon, S. J. & Garcia, M. R. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 1

    2016

  37. [37]

    J., Livio, M., Mikolajewska, J., & Tout, C

    Kenyon, S. J., Livio, M., Mikolajewska, J., & Tout, C. A. 1993, ApJ, 407, L81 Article number, page 12 T. Liu et al.: Revisiting atmospheric Roche lobe overflow in symbiotic binaries

    1993

  38. [38]

    Kenyon, S. J. & Mikolajewska, J. 1995, The Astronomical Journal, 110, 391

    1995

  39. [39]

    J., Oliversen, N

    Kenyon, S. J., Oliversen, N. A., Mikolajewska, J., et al. 1991, AJ, 101, 637

    1991

  40. [40]

    & Ritter, H

    Kolb, U. & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  41. [41]

    R., Rocha-Pinto, H

    Laversveiler, M., Gonçalves, D. R., Rocha-Pinto, H. J., & Merc, J. 2025, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 698, A155 Lü, G., Yungelson, L., & Han, Z. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1389 Lü, G. L., Zhu, C. H., Postnov, K. A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2265

    2025

  42. [42]

    & Boffin, H

    Merc, J. & Boffin, H. M. J. 2025, A&A, 695, A61

    2025

  43. [43]

    2019, Research Notes of the American Astro- nomical Society, 3, 28 Mikołajewska, J

    Merc, J., Gális, R., & Wolf, M. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astro- nomical Society, 3, 28 Mikołajewska, J. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed. R. L. M. Corradi, J. Mikolajewska, & T. J. Mahoney, 9

    2019

  44. [44]

    2011, Symbiotic Novae Mikołajewska, J

    Mikolajewska, J. 2011, Symbiotic Novae Mikołajewska, J. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 5 Mikołajewska, J., Friedjung, M., & Quiroga, C. 2006, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 460, 191 Mikołajewska, J., Iłkiewicz, K., Gałan, C., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2122

    2011

  45. [45]

    & Kenyon, S

    Mikolajewska, J. & Kenyon, S. J. 1992, AJ, 103, 579

    1992

  46. [46]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Mohamed, S. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2012, Open Astronomy, 21, 88

    2012

  47. [47]

    1971, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol

    Paczynski, B. 1971, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 9, p. 183, 9, 183

    1971

  48. [48]

    & Ivanova, N

    Pavlovskii, K. & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415

    2015

  49. [49]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  50. [50]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  51. [51]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  52. [52]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  53. [53]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  54. [54]

    & Mohamed, S

    Podsiadlowski, P. & Mohamed, S. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, V ol. 16, p. 26-33, 16, 26

    2007

  55. [55]

    & Ivanova, N

    Pourmand, A. & Ivanova, N. 2023, ApJ, 952, 126 Prša, A. & Zwitter, T. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 628, 426

    2023

  56. [56]

    2002, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 387, 139

    Quiroga, C., Mikołajewska, J., Brandi, E., Ferrer, O., & García, L. 2002, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 387, 139

    2002

  57. [57]

    Rutkowski, A., Mikołajewska, J., & Whitelock, P. A. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 49

    2007

  58. [58]

    2012, Science, 337, 444

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

    2012

  59. [59]

    1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 306, 477

    Schild, H., Mürset, U., & Schmutz, W. 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 306, 477

    1996

  60. [60]

    1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v

    Schmid, H., Dumm, T., Murset, U., et al. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 329, p. 986-990 (1998), 329, 986

    1998

  61. [61]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 1170

    Sepinsky, J., Willems, B., Kalogera, V ., & Rasio, F. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 667, 1170

    2007

  62. [62]

    V ., Cunha, K., Jorissen, A., & Boffin, H

    Smith, V . V ., Cunha, K., Jorissen, A., & Boffin, H. 1997, Astronomy and Astro- physics, v. 324, p. 97-108, 324, 97

    1997

  63. [63]

    & Sparks, W

    Starrfield, S. & Sparks, W. M. 1987, in International Astronomical Union Collo- quium, V ol. 93, Cambridge University Press, 379–393

    1987

  64. [64]

    E., Moe, M., et al

    Tang, S., Grindlay, J. E., Moe, M., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 99

    2012

  65. [65]

    Tauris, T. M. & van den Heuvel, E. P. 2023, Physics of binary star evolution: from stars to X-ray binaries and gravitational wave sources, V ol. 42 (Princeton University Press)

    2023

  66. [66]

    B., Hillman, Y ., & Kashi, A

    Vathachira, I. B., Hillman, Y ., & Kashi, A. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 980, 224

    2025

  67. [67]

    Webster, B. L. & Allen, D. A. 1975, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 171, 171

    1975

  68. [68]

    Whitelock, P. A. 1987, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 99, 573

    1987

  69. [69]

    2005, Astronomy reports, 49, 232

    Yudin, B., Shenavrin, V ., Kolotilov, E., Tatarnikova, A., & Tatarnikov, A. 2005, Astronomy reports, 49, 232

    2005

  70. [70]

    1995, Astrophysical Journal v

    Yungelson, L., Livio, M., Tutukov, A., & Kenyon, S. 1995, Astrophysical Journal v. 447, p. 656, 447, 656 Article number, page 13 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa Appendix A: Orbital and stellar parameters of selected symbiotic binaries In Table C.1, we present the information for the selected obser- vational objects. In this table, we list their orbital perio...

    1995