On the role of recombination in common-envelope ejections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The energy budget in common-envelope events (CEEs) is not well understood, with substantial uncertainty even over to what extent the recombination energy stored in ionized hydrogen and helium might be used to help envelope ejection. We investigate the reaction of a red giant envelope to heating which mimics limiting cases of energy input provided by the orbital decay of a binary during a CEE, specifically during the post-plunge-in phase during which the spiral-in has been argued to occur on a time-scale longer than dynamical. We show that the outcome of such a CEE depends less on the total amount of energy by which the envelope is heated than on how rapidly the energy was transferred to the envelope and on where the envelope was heated. The envelope always becomes dynamically unstable before receiving net heat energy equal to the envelope's initial binding energy. We find two types of outcome, both of which likely lead to at least partial envelope ejection: ‘runaway’ solutions in which the expansion of the radius becomes undeniably dynamical, and superficially ‘self-regulated’ solutions, in which the expansion of the stellar radius stops but a significant fraction of the envelope becomes formally dynamically unstable. Almost the entire reservoir of initial helium recombination energy is used for envelope expansion. Hydrogen recombination is less energetically useful, but is nonetheless important for the development of the dynamical instabilities. However, this result requires the companion to have already plunged deep into the envelope; therefore this release of recombination energy does not help to explain wide post-common-envelope orbits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".