The isolation of Luminous Blue Variables: On subdividing the sample
Nathan Smith

TL;DR
This paper critically examines the environments and velocities of luminous blue variables (LBVs), finding no strong evidence to support the single-star or binary evolution models, and highlighting the need for more precise velocity data.
Contribution
The study provides a quantitative analysis of LBV environments and velocities, challenging recent claims and clarifying the role of binary evolution in LBV characteristics.
Findings
No significant environmental difference between candidate and confirmed LBVs.
High-luminosity LBVs are more dispersed than expected for classical LBVs.
Velocity data are inconclusive but compatible with binary evolution scenarios.
Abstract
A debate has arisen concerning the fundamental nature of LBVs) and their role in stellar evolution. While Smith and Tombleson proposed that their isolated environments indicate that LBVs must be largely the product of binary evolution, Humphreys et al. have recently expressed the view that the traditional single-star view still holds if one appropriately selects a subsample of LBVs. This paper finds the claim of Humphreys et al. to be quantitatively unjustified. A statistical test of "candidate" as opposed to "confirmed" LBVs shows no significant difference (1) between their environments. Even if the sample is further subdivided as proposed, the three most luminous LBVs are spatially dispersed similar to late O-type dwarfs, which have much longer lifetimes than expected for classical LBVs. Lower-luminosity LBVs have a distribution associated with red supergiants (RSGs), but…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
