Paper detail

The Stellar Winds Atlas I: Current uncertainties in mass-loss rates

Stellar winds are a major source of uncertainty in understanding the life and deaths of massive stars. Across studies in the field, prescriptions for stellar winds differ substantially in both their physical assumptions and implementation, making them a dominant contributor to model-to-model variation. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of the physical assumptions underlying commonly adopted wind prescriptions for optically thin and optically thick winds of hot stars, as well as the winds of cool supergiants. Our analysis reveals substantial discrepancies across all regimes: predicted mass-loss rates for optically thin winds differ by more than an order of magnitude, while rates for cool supergiants vary by several orders of magnitude, with even wider uncertainties arising in extrapolation regimes beyond the Humphreys-Davidson limit. These disparities introduce significant ambiguity into the predicted formation of Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars, a problem further compounded by the inconsistent application of transition criteria. A central issue is the "cool Wolf-Rayet problem", a temperature regime where the classical electron-scattering Eddington factor ($Γ_{\rm e}$) loses physical consistency. Because this factor is widely used to determine WR mass-loss rates, its failure forces models to rely on uncertain extrapolations and ad-hoc corrections. We conclude that the dominant stellar wind uncertainties arise from a mismatch between the physical assumptions in stellar wind models and the structure of the stars to which they are applied. Our framework clarifies the origins of current theoretical discrepancies and identifies the key physical bottlenecks that must be addressed to improve mass-loss modeling for massive stars.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.