On the α formalism for the common envelope interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The α formalism is a common way to parametrize the common envelope interaction between a giant star and a more compact companion. The α parameter describes the fraction of orbital energy released by the companion that is available to eject the giant star’s envelope. By using new, detailed stellar evolutionary calculations, we derive a user-friendly prescription for the λ parameter and an improved approximation for the envelope binding energy, thus revising the α equation. We then determine α both from simulations and from observations in a self-consistent manner. By using our own stellar structure models as well as population considerations to reconstruct the primary’s parameters at the time of the common envelope interaction, we gain a deeper understanding of the uncertainties. We find that systems with very low values of q (the ratio of the companion’s mass to the mass of the primary at the time of the common envelope interaction) have higher values of α. A fit to the data suggests that lower-mass companions are left at comparable or larger orbital separations to more massive companions. We conjecture that lower-mass companions take longer than a stellar dynamical time to spiral into the giant’s core, and that this is key to allowing the giant to use its own thermal energy to help unbind its envelope. As a result, although systems with light companions might not have enough orbital energy to unbind the common envelope, they might stimulate a stellar reaction that results in the common envelope ejection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".