Hubble spectroscopy of LB-1: comparison with B+black-hole and Be+stripped-star models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LB-1 has variously been proposed as either an X-ray dim B-type star plus black hole (B+BH) binary, or a Be star plus an inflated stripped star (Be+Bstr) binary. The Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) on board HST was used to obtain a flux-calibrated spectrum that is compared with non-LTE spectral energy distributions (SED) and line profiles for the proposed models. The Hubble data, together with the Gaia EDR3 parallax, provide tight constraints on the properties and stellar luminosities of the system. In the case of the Be+Bstr model we adopt the published flux ratio for the Be and Bstr stars, re-determine the T$_{eff}$ of the Bstr using the silicon ionization balance, and infer Teff for the Be star from the fit to the SED. We derive stellar parameters consistent with previous results, but with greater precision enabled by the Hubble SED. While the Be+Bstr model is a better fit to the HeI lines and cores of the Balmer lines in the optical, the B+BH model provides a better fit to the Si iv resonance lines in the UV. The analysis also implies that the Bstr star has roughly twice solar silicon abundance, difficult to reconcile with a stripped star origin. The Be star on the other hand has a rather low luminosity, and a spectroscopic mass inconsistent with its possible dynamical mass. The fit to the UV can be significantly improved by reducing the T$_{eff}$ and radius of the Be star, though at the expense of leading to a different mass ratio. In the B+BH model, the single B-type spectrum is a good match to the UV spectrum. Adopting a mass ratio of 5.1$\pm$0.1 (Liu et al. 2020) implies a BH mass of $\sim$21$^{+9}_{-8}M_{\odot}$.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".