Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Exploring Contact Binaries: Observational Analysis of four W Uma Binaries Using Photometry and Spectroscopy

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two of four contact binaries show steady orbital period changes matching conservative mass transfer.

desk verdict Competent standard-program study of four contact binaries with two plausible but not yet secure period-change detections; the mass-transfer rates should carry larger systematic caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03141 v1 pith:T4HDJGBZ submitted 2025-05-06 astro-ph.SR

Alaxender Panchal , Yogesh Chandra Joshi , Vishal Joshi , Abhijit Chakraborty This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords contactbinariesWUrsaeMajorisstarseclipsingorbitalperiodchangemasstransferO-CdiagramPHOEBElight-curvemodelingTESSphotometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper analyses four W Ursae Majoris contact binaries—pairs of stars that share a common envelope—using new ground-based multi-band photometry, TESS light curves, and LAMOST spectra. Its central result is that two of the four systems, J0805b and J1433, show steady secular changes in their orbital periods, at rates of $+4.2\times10^{-7}$ and $-1.1\times10^{-6}$ days per year. The authors argue that gravitational waves and magnetic braking are too weak to explain the observed rates, leaving conservative mass transfer from the more massive to the less massive component as the cause. If correct, this provides direct empirical constraints on ongoing mass exchange in two contact binaries, the process thought to drive their evolution toward eventual merger.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the O-C (observed minus calculated) diagram of eclipse times. The authors folded times of minimum light from TESS, ASAS-SN, CRTS, ZTF, ATLAS, and their own DFOT observations into a combined eclipse-timing dataset; a linear O-C trend means a stable period, while a parabolic trend indicates a steady period change, with the quadratic coefficient giving $dP/dt$. On the photometric side, the PHOEBE code was used for a q-search over the TESS light curves, treating inclination, secondary temperature, surface potential, and primary luminosity as free parameters, with the contact assumption $\Omega_1=\Omega_2$. The resulting mass ratios were converted to absolute component masses via GAIA DR3 parallax, and the mass-transfer rates were derived by attributing the observed period changes to conservative mass exchange.

What would settle it

Radial-velocity monitoring of J0805b and J1433 over two or more orbits would settle the issue: if the spectroscopic mass ratio disagrees strongly with the photometric q, the absolute masses and derived mass-transfer rates change. Independently, if new eclipse timings over the next decade flatten the parabolic O-C trend instead of extending it, the period changes are not secular mass transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that J0805b and J1433 are currently undergoing conservative mass transfer, with the primary losing mass to the secondary. From the parabolic O-C diagrams built from eclipse times spanning roughly a decade, the period-change rates are $dP/dt = +4.2 \pm 0.1 \times 10^{-7}$ days/year for J0805b and $dP/dt = -1.1 \pm 0.1 \times 10^{-6}$ days/year for J1433. Since the computed contributions from gravitational radiation and magnetic braking fall orders of magnitude short of these values, the authors attribute the changes to transfer of mass from the primary to the secondary, with rates $dM_1/dt = -1.56 \pm 0.07 \times 10^{-6}$ $M_\odot$/year and $-7.95 \pm 0.87 \times 10^{-7}$ $M_\odot$/year, respectively. The two remaining systems, J0805a and J1434, show no significant period change over the same baseline. The paper also presents updated absolute parameters based on GAIA DR3 parallaxes and reports a small H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ excess in J1433 consistent with chromospheric activity.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the photometric mass ratios, derived without radial velocities, are accurate enough to fix the component masses and turn a measured period change into a mass-transfer rate; the paper itself notes such ratios can fail for partial-eclipsing systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If J0805b's period is indeed increasing, the binary is expanding its orbit as mass flows to the secondary; future eclipse timings should continue the same parabola.
  • If J1433's period is decreasing, mass transfer is shrinking the orbit; at the quoted rate the period change should remain detectable and grow with time.
  • The measured mass-transfer rates give modellers of contact binary evolution concrete values for how fast mass is being redistributed between components.
  • The photometric mass ratios place all four systems below $q=0.5$, and J1434 at $q\approx 0.2$ with a fill-out factor of 42 percent is a candidate for a deeper contact configuration.
  • The updated $q$ vs $R_2/R_1$ relation, with slope $0.434 \pm 0.004$, offers a new empirical constraint on the geometry of contact binaries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A reader should not treat the mass-transfer rates as independent of the mass-ratio assumption; the O-C detection itself, however, does not depend on the photometric mass ratio, so the period changes are robust even if the absolute masses shift.
  • A testable extension is high-resolution spectroscopy of J1433: if the spectroscopic mass ratio confirms $q\approx 0.44$ rather than the $q=0.2$ reported earlier, the mass-transfer interpretation would be strongly supported.
  • The H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ excess in J1433 combined with its shrinking orbit raises the possibility that magnetic braking contributes more than the simple estimate; X-ray or Ca II H&K monitoring could test whether the activity is strong enough to matter.
  • The short-term TESS O-C wiggles for J1433 and J1434 may be spot-induced; if so, their amplitude and evolution offer a way to measure spot migration rates, an implicit consequence of the spot models used in the light-curve fits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents multi-band DFOT BVRI and TESS photometry together with LAMOST low-resolution spectroscopy for four W UMa contact binaries: J0805a, J0805b, J1433, and J1434. The authors determine updated ephemerides, construct O-C diagrams, fit the light curves with PHOEBE to obtain photometric mass ratios and inclinations, and use Gaia DR3 parallaxes, reddening, and SED-based temperatures to derive absolute parameters. They report a secular period increase for J0805b (dP/dt = 4.2e-7 days/yr) and a secular period decrease for J1433 (dP/dt = -1.1e-6 days/yr), attributing both to conservative mass transfer with rates dM1/dt = -1.56e-6 and -7.95e-7 Msun/yr, respectively. The paper also performs spectral subtraction of the LAMOST spectra, detects excess H-alpha/H-beta emission for J1433, and updates empirical relations between mass ratio, radius ratio, and component masses for contact binaries.

Significance. If the secular period changes are real, the two measured dP/dt values and the implied mass-transfer rates provide new empirical constraints on ongoing mass exchange in contact binaries. The paper also delivers useful updated ephemerides, multiband light curves, and LAMOST spectral-subtraction results for four systems, with full electronic data tables. The photometric-only mass ratios follow a common but known-degenerate approach, and the O-C interpretation needs additional quantitative support before the mass-transfer rates can be taken at face value; however, the internally coherent O-C fits and the direct data products are a creditable contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (4) and (8), Figure 4, Section 6] The secular-period-change interpretation is not yet established for J0805b and J1433. The right panel of Figure 4 shows opposite linear trends for primary and secondary minima in the TESS portion of J1433, which the authors attribute to spots; over the roughly 12-year baseline the quadratic coefficients in Eqs. (4) and (8) could also be a segment of a cyclic variation from the Applegate mechanism, a third body, or spot-induced timing shifts. Section 6 compares only gravitational radiation and magnetic braking and does not model or exclude these alternatives. Since dM/dt is derived directly from dP/dt in Section 6, this is load-bearing. Please add a quantitative model comparison, for example quadratic versus sinusoidal or third-body fits, or at least bound the cyclic contribution using the residual scatter, and temper the conclusions accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 9, Section 8, Table 10, Section 6] The absolute component masses and the mass-transfer rates inherit a systematic uncertainty from the photometric-only mass ratio. The Discussion acknowledges, citing Li et al. (2021), that qph can differ strongly from qsp for partial-eclipsing contact binaries, and J1433 (i=72.8) and J1434 (i=80.2) are partial-eclipsing systems. For J1433, Li et al. (2024) report q=0.20 while this paper obtains q=0.441; for J1434 the values are q=0.61 versus 0.198. The quoted dM/dt uncertainties in Section 6 include only formal propagation and not this systematic. Please propagate the q uncertainty into M1, M2, and dM/dt for J1433, or explicitly present the mass-transfer rate as conditional on the adopted qph.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 8, first paragraph] The text contains a typo: 'J0508b' should be 'J0805b', and 'in he case' should be 'in the case'.
  2. [Section 4.2 (J1434)] The text states qph = 0.19 (0.01) for J1434, while Table 9 lists q = 0.198 (0.002); please reconcile these values.
  3. [Section 6] Please state the conservative mass-transfer equation used to convert dP/dt into dM1/dt and the sign convention for the donor, so that the reader can reproduce the quoted rates.
  4. [Section 3.4, Figure 5] For J1434, the linear O-C fit has a slope consistent with zero, but the TESS residuals in the right panel of Figure 5 show short-term structure; a brief statement on why this structure does not affect the linear conclusion would be helpful.
  5. [Section 4.2 and Figure 10] The spot parameters are numerous and many are fixed; the non-uniqueness is acknowledged in Section 8, but a summary table of spot parameters and their adopted uncertainties would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor in-sample circularity in the updated mass-radius relations; the headline period-change and mass-transfer rates are independent measurements and not circular.

  1. other [Section 8, Equations 13-15 and Figures 12-13]
    "The right side of the Figure 12 shows the q vs (R2/R1) relation for studied CBs. The relation is updated as follows: log(R2/R1) = 0.434(±0.004) × log(q) − 0.003(±0.002) (13) ... The linear fit to the sample is shown with blue dashed line. The updated relations follows following trend: log(M1) = 0.686(±0.028) × log(R1) + 0.073(±0.006) (14) ..."

    These 'updated' q-radius and mass-radius relations are fit to a sample that includes the four systems studied here. For those systems, q, R2/R1, M, and R are not independent observables: they are derived in Section 4.2 and Table 9 from the same PHOEBE light-curve model that imposes contact-binary Roche geometry, so the fitted correlations partly restate that geometric constraint rather than test it externally. This is a minor circularity in an ancillary result. It is not load-bearing for the paper's headline claims: the period-change rates come from O-C quadratic fits (Equations 5 and 8) and the mass-transfer rates are converted from those rates using Gaia-parallax-based absolute parameters, neither of which uses Equations 13-15.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. J0805b and J1433 period-change rates are direct quadratic coefficients of O-C fits to independent survey and TESS minima (Equations 4-5 and 7-8). The mass-transfer rates in Section 6 are standard conversions of dP/dt using absolute masses obtained from Gaia DR3 parallax, SED/LAMOST temperatures, and PHOEBE light-curve mass ratios, not from the fitted relations. The q-search procedure is a standard technique, and the paper's self-citations (Panchal & Joshi 2021; Panchal et al. 2022) are references to methodology, not load-bearing evidence. The acknowledged limitations—qph unreliability for partial-eclipsing systems (Section 8, citing Li et al. 2021) and spot-driven short-term O-C scatter in J1433's TESS data (Section 3.3)—are scientific validity risks for the secularity and mass normalization of the mass-transfer rates, but they are not circularity, because the reported rates are measurements derived from the data rather than predictions that reduce to fitted inputs. The only in-sample circularity is the 'updated' empirical relations of Equations 13-15, which include the very systems whose q, radii, and masses were produced by the same Roche-geometry model; this is ancillary and does not affect the headline results, so the score is set to a minor 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new physical entities are introduced. The paper relies on standard contact binary geometry, empirical temperature averaging, hand-fitted spot configurations, and the conservative mass-transfer interpretation; these are the main sources of model dependence behind the reported masses and mass-transfer rates.

free parameters (4)
  • J0805b hot spot parameters = longitude 300 deg, latitude 80 deg, radius 15 deg, Tspot/Tstar = 1.13
    Introduced to fit the O'Connell asymmetry in the DFOT BVRI light curves; longitude and latitude were fixed by hand after inspecting combinations, radius and temperature were fitted. The authors call the spot solution non-unique.
  • J1433 TESS spot parameters = Hot spot on primary: lon 220, lat 72, radius 10, factor 1.15; cool spot on secondary: lon 225, lat 72, radius 15…
    Added to absorb the TESS light curve asymmetry for J1433. Longitudes and latitudes fixed, radii and temperature factors fitted.
  • J1433 DFOT spot parameters = B-band: hot spots on secondary (lon 315, lat 90, radius 10, factor 1.13) and primary (lon 225, lat 72, radius 15…
    Different spot configurations were needed for B-band versus VRI observations collected at different epochs. All longitudes and latitudes were fixed by inspection, leaving radii and temperature factors as fitted values.
  • Adopted primary effective temperatures = J0805a: 5599 K, J0805b: 5369 K, J1433: 5641 K, J1434: 5907 K
    Computed as the arithmetic mean of SED, LAMOST, Gaia, and J-H estimates. The individual estimates differ by up to about 300 K, and the averaging scheme does not weight by systematic uncertainty, yet these values are held fixed in the light curve modeling.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Common convective envelope with equal surface potentials for both components (Omega1 = Omega2).
    Required by the PHOEBE over-contact model used in Section 4.2; this is the defining geometric assumption of a contact binary.
  • domain assumption Circular orbits and synchronous rotation.
    Section 4.2 states synchronicity parameters were fixed to 1 and circular orbits were assumed, without independent justification for each system.
  • domain assumption Gravity darkening coefficient 0.32 and bolometric albedo 0.5 for both components.
    Section 4.2 adopts these values because the stars are expected to have convective envelopes; they are not measured for these systems.
  • domain assumption Conservative mass transfer is the dominant cause of the observed period changes.
    Section 6 attributes the period changes to mass transfer after comparing with gravitational wave and magnetic braking estimates, but does not model third bodies, magnetic activity cycles, or non-conservative mass loss.
  • domain assumption A single-star spectral energy distribution template is adequate for an unresolved contact binary.
    Section 4.1 uses a single SED fit because the component temperatures are assumed to differ by only a few hundred K, yet the adopted J0805b solution has T2 about 388 K cooler than T1, so the assumption is only approximately valid.
  • standard math Kepler's third law relates the separation and period to the total mass.
    Used in Section 5 step 3 to convert orbital separation and period into total system mass; this is standard physics but is a load-bearing background result.
  • domain assumption STARMOD subtraction with inactive template stars reproduces the photospheric contribution of the binary.
    Section 7 assumes that combining two inactive star spectra with appropriate RV shifts and rotational broadening accurately represents the target photosphere, so that residual flux indicates chromospheric emission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Contact Binaries: Observational Analysis of four W Uma Binaries Using Photometry and Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4HDJGBZ

@misc{pith2026250503141,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Contact Binaries: Observational Analysis of four W Uma Binaries Using Photometry and Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4HDJGBZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03141}
}
abstract

We present the multi-band photometric and low-resolution spectroscopic analysis of four W Ursae Majoris eclipsing binaries (EWs) - J080510.1+141528 (hereinafter as J0805a), J080516.3+143138 (hereinafter as J0805b), J143358.7+053953 (hereinafter as J1433), and J143458.4+054143 (hereinafter as J1434). The multi-band ground based photometric data are collected using the 1.3-m Devasthal Fast Optical Telescope (DFOT) while we also make use of TESS photometric observations. The spectroscopic analysis is based on the low-resolution observations by 4-m Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST). The ephemeris of these systems are updated using the photometric data from TESS and other photometric surveys. The system J0805b shows a secular change in the orbital period with a period change rate of 4.2 ($\pm$ 0.1) $\times10^{-7}$ days per year while the orbital period change rate for J1433 is calculated as -1.1 ($\pm$ 0.1) $\times10^{-6}$ days per year. The mass-transfer rate for J0805b is found to be dM$_{1}$/dt = -1.56($\pm$0.07) $\times 10^{-6}$ M$_{\odot}$/year and dM$_{1}$/dt = -7.95($\pm$0.87) $\times 10^{-7}$ M$_{\odot}$/year for J1433. All the systems have inclination > 79$^{\circ}$ except J1433 which has inclination of 72.8$^{\circ}$. The mass-ratios (less massive to more massive component) for these targets are < 0.5. All the system except J0805b are A-subtype contact binaries. The absolute parameters of the systems are determined using GAIA DR3 parallax and reddening information. The LAMOST spectra are analyzed using spectral subtraction technique. A small excess emission is detected for J1433 in H$_{\alpha}$ and H$_{\beta}$ region. The systems are plotted on Hertzsprung-Russell (HR) diagram and compared with previously studied systems. The mass-ratio vs radius-ratio relation is also investigated for these systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03141 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The power spectra for all the sources, with each dataset represented by a different color. 3.2. J0805b Like J0805a, J0805b was also observed by TESS in 5 sec￾tors including 44, 45, 46, 71, and 72. Following the simi￾lar parabola fitting technique, we derived 319 primary ToMs (s44: 72 ToMs, s45: 45 ToMs, s46: 43 ToMs, s71: 74 ToMs, s72: 85 ToMs) for J0805b using TESS observations. The system was also observed by ASAS… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phase folded LC for all the targets are shown. Different colors are used for different dates of observations and different symbols are used for different photometric bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. O-C diagrams for J0805a and J0805b with linear and quadratic fit, respectively. Primary ToMs obtained from different datasets are represented by different symbols and colors. The residuals of the fits are displayed in the lower panel of each plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The O-C diagram for J1433 with quadratic is shown in the left panel, the right panel shows the TESS part of O-C diagram with primary and secondary ToMs. The different types of symbols and colors in the plots represent different data sources. ASAS-SN data as compared to…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The left panel shows the O-C diagrams for J1434 with a straight line fit while the right panel shows the variation among the TESS part of O-C diagram. The different types of symbols and colors in the plots represent different data sources. dle both single and binary sy…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The observed SEDs along with SPEEDYFIT synthetic SEDs are shown for all of the sources. For clear visualization, ar￾bitrary vertical shifts are used for each source. The used 2MASS, APASS, GAIA, SDSS, and WISE pass-bands are written around their central wavelength in b…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The χ 2 variation with different q-parameter. The region around the lowest q is zoomed in the small subplots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The synthetic LCs (without spot: black dashed line, with spot: black continuous lines) are plotted along with observed data for J0805a (upper plot) and J0805b (lower plot) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The synthetic LCs (without spot: black dashed line, with spot: black continuous lines) are plotted along with the observed data for J1433 (upper plot) and J1434 (lower plot). nitude brighter than the secondary. Two hot spots, one on the secondary component and another …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The spots distributions used to explain the LC asymmetry among TESS/DFOT data are shown with red (cool spot) and blue (hot spot) dots on the stellar surface. transfer rate of -7.95(±0.87) ×10−7M⊙ per year. The nega￾tive mass-transfer rate indicates that the mass is be…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The Hα, Hβ, and Ca-triplet region of low resolution LAMOST spectra (black line) and synthetic spectra (red line) for the targets are shown. The subtracted spectra in the same region are shown by a continuous blue line. technique is implemented in a Fortran based progr…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The left plot shows the positions of the components of the system are shown in the H-R diagram with the theoretical ZAMS (continuous black line) and TAMS (dash dot black line) lines. The right plot shows the mass-ratio and the radius ratio relation for the targets inc…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The M1-R1 and M2-R2 diagram for the targets including previously studied CBs. reliable, as other empirical relations may be biased toward the sample of CBs from which they are derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2000, AJ, 119, 1901

    Akerlof, C., Amrose, S., Balsano, R., et al. 2000, AJ, 119, 1901

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    M., & Rappaport, S

    Balaji, B., Croll, B., Levine, A. M., & Rappaport, S. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 429

    2015

  3. [3]

    Barden, S. C. 1984, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  5. [5]

    V ., Pelt, J., & Tuominen, I

    Berdyugina, S. V ., Pelt, J., & Tuominen, I. 2002, A&A, 394, 505

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12, 217

    Binnendijk, L. 1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12, 217

    1970

  7. [7]

    Borucki, W. J. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 036901

    2016

  8. [8]

    1987, ApJ, 319, 827

    Budding, E., & Zeilik, M. 1987, ApJ, 319, 827

    work page 1987

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    W., West, R

    Butters, O. W., West, R. G., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, L10

    2010

  2. [10]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18 Collier Cameron, A

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18 Collier Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 556 Collier Cameron, A., Wilson, D. M., West, R. G., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1230

    2020

  3. [11]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V . 2017, AJ, 153, 77

    2017

  4. [12]

    Deb, S., & Singh, H. P. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1787

    2011

  5. [13]

    J., Graham, M

    Drake, A. J., Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 213, 9

    2014

  6. [14]

    1999, NewA, 4, 365 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Eker, Z. 1999, NewA, 4, 365 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    1999

  7. [15]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 1577

    Gazeas, K., & Ste ¸pie´n, K. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1577

    2008

  8. [16]

    2022, MNRAS, 509, 246 Hambálek, L ’., & Pribulla, T

    Hajdu, T., Borkovits, T., Forgács-Dajka, E., Sztakovics, J., & Bódi, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 246 Hambálek, L ’., & Pribulla, T. 2013, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 43, 27

    2022

  9. [17]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 71

    2023

  10. [18]

    J., Hey, D., et al

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03791

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    N., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 241

    2018

  12. [20]

    2017, A&A, 608, A62 PHOTOMETRY AND SPECTROSCOPY OF CONTACT BINARIES 17

    Higl, J., & Weiss, A. 2017, A&A, 608, A62 PHOTOMETRY AND SPECTROSCOPY OF CONTACT BINARIES 17

    2017

  13. [21]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145

    2018

  14. [22]

    C., Bangia, T., Jaiswar, M

    Joshi, Y . C., Bangia, T., Jaiswar, M. K., et al. 2022, Journal of Astronomical Instrumentation, 11, 2240004

    2022

  15. [23]

    F., Caballero-Nieves, S

    Knote, M. F., Caballero-Nieves, S. M., Gokhale, V ., Johnston, K. B., & Perlman, E. S. 2022, ApJS, 262, 10

    2022

  16. [24]

    1956, Annales d’Astrophysique, 19, 298 Latkovi´c, O., ˇCeki, A., & Lazarevi´c, S

    Kopal, Z. 1956, Annales d’Astrophysique, 19, 298 Latkovi´c, O., ˇCeki, A., & Lazarevi´c, S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 10

    1956

  17. [25]

    2004, in The A-Star Puzzle, ed

    Lenz, P., & Breger, M. 2004, in The A-Star Puzzle, ed. J. Zverko, J. Ziznovsky, S. J. Adelman, & W. W. Weiss, V ol. 224, 786

    2004

  18. [26]

    2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53

    Lenz, P., & Breger, M. 2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53

    2005

  19. [27]

    2023, ApJ, 956, 49

    Li, F.-X., Qian, S.-B., Wu, C.-Q., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 49

    2023

  20. [28]

    2020, AJ, 159, 189

    Li, K., Kim, C.-H., Xia, Q.-Q., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 189

    2020

  21. [29]

    2021, AJ, 162, 13

    Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Kim, C.-H., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 13

    2021

  22. [30]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 32

    Li, X.-Z., Zhu, Q.-F., Ding, X., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 32

    2024

  23. [31]

    2020, Ap&SS, 365, 71

    Liu, L., Qian, S., Li, K., et al. 2020, Ap&SS, 365, 71

    2020

  24. [32]

    L., Zhao, Y .-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y .-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095

    2015

  25. [33]

    M., Prince, T

    Marsh, F. M., Prince, T. A., Mahabal, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4678

    2017

  26. [34]

    Maxted, P. F. L. 2016, A&A, 591, A111

    2016

  27. [35]

    2020, A&A, 635, A89

    Mitnyan, T., Szalai, T., Bódi, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A89

    2020

  28. [36]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 1721

    Montalto, M., Boué, G., Oshagh, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1721

    2014

  29. [37]

    J., & Cornide, M

    Montes, D., de Castro, E., Fernandez-Figueroa, M. J., & Cornide, M. 1995, A&AS, 114, 287

    1995

  30. [38]

    J., De Castro, E., et al

    Montes, D., Fernández-Figueroa, M. J., De Castro, E., et al. 2000, A&AS, 146, 103

    2000

  31. [39]

    1997, A&AS, 125, 263

    Sanz-Forcada, J. 1997, A&AS, 125, 263

    1997

  32. [40]

    W., & Welty, A

    Montes, D., Ramsey, L. W., & Welty, A. D. 1999, ApJS, 123, 283

    1999

  33. [41]

    1998, A&A, 330, 155

    Castro, E., & Poncet, A. 1998, A&A, 330, 155

    1998

  34. [42]

    Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, J. C., J. 2014, ApJ, 786, 39 O’Connell, D. J. K. 1951, Publications of the Riverview College Observatory, 2, 85

    2014

  35. [43]

    Panchal, A., & Joshi, Y . C. 2021, AJ, 161, 221

    2021

  36. [44]

    C., De Cat, P., et al

    Panchal, A., Joshi, Y . C., De Cat, P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 677

    2023

  37. [45]

    C., De Cat, P., & Tiwari, S

    Panchal, A., Joshi, Y . C., De Cat, P., & Tiwari, S. N. 2022, ApJ, 927, 12

    2022

  38. [46]

    2002, AcA, 52, 397

    Pojmanski, G. 2002, AcA, 52, 397

    2002

  39. [47]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 5315

    Poro, A., Sarabi, S., Zamanpour, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 5315

    2022

  40. [48]

    2024, NewA, 110, 102227 Prša, A., & Zwitter, T

    Poro, A., Hedayatjoo, M., Nastaran, M., et al. 2024, NewA, 110, 102227 Prša, A., & Zwitter, T. 2005, ApJ, 628, 426

    2024

  41. [49]

    2003, MNRAS, 342, 1260

    Qian, S. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1260

    2003

  42. [50]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  43. [51]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Robertson, J. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 359

    1977

  44. [52]

    Rucinski, S. M. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1319

    2006

  45. [53]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  46. [54]

    I., Maxted, P

    Sebastian, D., Swayne, M. I., Maxted, P. F. L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 3546

    2023

  47. [55]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  48. [56]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  49. [57]

    Southworth, J., Bruntt, H., & Buzasi, D. L. 2007, A&A, 467, 1215

    2007

  50. [58]

    Southworth, J., Maxted, P. F. L., & Smalley, B. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1277

    2004

  51. [59]

    2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+AS/142/275

    Weber, M. 2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/A+AS/142/275

    2000

  52. [60]

    2020, ApJS, 247, 50

    Sun, W., Chen, X., Deng, L., & de Grijs, R. 2020, ApJS, 247, 50

    2020

  53. [61]

    I., Maxted, P

    Swayne, M. I., Maxted, P. F. L., Triaud, A. H. M. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5703

    2024

  54. [62]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 8

    Terrell, D. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 8

    2022

  55. [63]

    Terrell, D., & Wilson, R. E. 2005, Ap&SS, 296, 221

    2005

  56. [64]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 81

    Tran, K., Levine, A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 81

    2013

  57. [65]

    2011, A&A, 528, A114

    Tylenda, R., Hajduk, M., Kami´nski, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A114

    2011

  58. [66]

    1992, AcA, 42, 253

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., & Mateo, M. 1992, AcA, 42, 253

    1992

  59. [67]

    A., Singh, H

    Valdes, F., Gupta, R., Rose, J. A., Singh, H. P., & Bell, D. J. 2004, ApJS, 152, 251 van Hamme, W. 1993, AJ, 106, 2096 V ogt, S. S., & Penrod, G. D. 1983, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 102, IAU Colloq. 71: Activity in Red-Dwarf Stars, ed. P. B. Byrne & M. Ro...

    2004

  60. [68]

    2024, ApJS, 273, 31

    Wang, J., Ding, X., Li, J., et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 31

    2024

  61. [69]

    J., & Beaky, M

    Wilsey, N. J., & Beaky, M. M. 2009, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, 28, 107

    2009

  62. [70]

    E., & Devinney, E

    Wilson, R. E., & Devinney, E. J. 1971, ApJ, 166, 605 Wo´ zniak, P. R., Vestrand, W. T., Akerlof, C. W., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 2436

    1971

  63. [71]

    2014, in Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology, ed

    Wu, Y ., Du, B., Luo, A., Zhao, Y ., & Yuan, H. 2014, in Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology, ed. A. Heavens, J.-L. Starck, & A. Krone-Martins, V ol. 306, 340

    2014

  64. [72]

    2013, MNRAS, 430, 2029

    Yildiz, M., & Do˘gan, T. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2029

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.