How Common Envelope Interactions Change the Lives of Stars and Planets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The common envelope interaction between a giant star and a stellar or substellar companion is at the origin of several compact binary classes, including the progenitors of Type Ia SN. A common envelope is also what will happen when the Sun expands and swallows its planets as far out as Jupiter. The basic idea and physics of the common envelope interaction has been known since the 1970s. However, the outcome of a common envelope interaction - what systems survive and what their parameters are - depends sensitively on the details of the engagement. To advance our knowledge of the common envelope interaction between stars and their stellar and substellar companions, we have carried out a series of simulations with Eulerian, grid-based and Lagrangian, smoothed particle hydrodynamics codes between a 0.88-M⊙, 85-R⊙, red giant branch star and companions in the mass range 0.1-0.9 M⊙. In this contribution, we will discuss the reliability of the techniques, the physics that is not included in the codes but is likely important, the state of the ejected common envelope, and the final binary separation. We also carry out a comparison with the observations. Finally, we discuss the common envelope efficiency parameter, α and the survival of planets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".