The empirical mass distribution of hot B subdwarfs: Implications for stellar evolution theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subdwarf B (sdB) stars are hot, compact, and evolved objects that form the very hot end of the horizontal branch, the so-called Extreme Horizontal Branch (EHB). Understanding the formation of sdB stars is one of the remaining challenges of stellar evolution theory. Several scenarios have been proposed to account for the existence of such objects, made of He-burning core surrounded by very thin H-rich envelope. They give quite different theoretical mass distributions for the resulting sdB stars. Detailed asteroseismic analyses, including mass estimates, of 15 pulsating hot B subdwarfs have been published since a decade. The masses have also been reliably determined by light curve modeling and spectroscopy for 7 sdB components of eclipsing and/or reflection effect binaries. These empirical mass distributions, although based on small-number statistics, can be compared with the expectations of stellar evolution theory. In particular, the two He white dwarfs merger scenario does not seem to be the dominant channel to form isolated sdB stars, while the post-red giant branch scenario is reinforced. This opens new questions on extreme mass loss of red giants to form EHB stars, possibly in connection with the recently discovered close substellar companions and planets orbiting sdB stars.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".