Bridging the Gap between Luminous Red Novae and Common Envelope Evolution: The Role of Recombination Energy and Radiation Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Luminous red novae and their connection to common envelope evolution (CEE) remain elusive in astrophysics. Here, we present a radiation hydrodynamic model capable of simulating the light curves of material ejected during a CEE. For the first time, the radiation hydrodynamic model incorporates complete recombination physics for hydrogen and helium. The radiation hydrodynamic equations are solved with Guangqi. With time-independent ejecta simulations, we show that the peaks in the light curves are attributed to radiation-dominated ejecta, while the extended plateaus are produced by matter-dominated ejecta. To showcase our model’s capability, we fit the light curve of AT 2019zhd. The central mass object of 6 M ⊙ is assumed based on observations and scaling relations. Our model demonstrates that the ejecta mass of AT 2019zhd falls within the range of 0.04–0.1 M ⊙. Additionally, we demonstrate that recombination energy and radiation force acceleration significantly impact the light curves, whereas dust formation has a limited effect during the peak and plateau phases.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".