arxiv: 2604.05287 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.IM

Recognition: no theorem link

High-contrast imaging of Galactic Cepheids with VLT/SPHERE

A. Gallenne , P. Kervella , N. R. Evans , J. Milli , E. Sivkova , W. Gieren , G. Pietrzy\'nski , G. Bras

show 5 more authors

V. Hocd\'e W. Kiviaho N. Nardetto B. Pilecki B. Zg\'irski

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

keywords Cepheidshigh-contrast imagingvisual companionsbinary starsVLT/SPHEREstellar multiplicitycontrast curvesGalactic Cepheids

0 comments

The pith

High-contrast imaging detects wide companions around only 17 percent of Galactic Cepheids.

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

The paper presents a survey of 47 bright Galactic Cepheids using the SPHERE instrument on the VLT to search for resolved visual companions at separations greater than about 20 milliarcseconds. It reports detections around eight targets, or 17 percent of the sample, including new wide components for three stars, and derives strict 5-sigma contrast limits for the remaining targets that rule out all but the faintest main-sequence companions beyond half an arcsecond. Because the overall binary fraction of Cepheids is known to be much higher from radial-velocity and astrometric data, the low wide-companion rate directly implies that the undetected companions lie either inside the resolution limit or below the achieved contrast. This homogeneous set of optical constraints therefore maps the outer architecture of Cepheid systems and shows where future observations must look to complete the picture.

Core claim

SPHERE/ZIMPOL observations in the V, R and I bands detect companions with signal-to-noise ratio greater than 5 for eight of the 47 Cepheids, confirming previously known systems with improved astrometry and revealing new wide components for AP Pup, T Vel and TX Del at projected separations of 0.16 to 0.9 arcseconds. For the 39 non-detections, synthetic-companion injections yield typical maximum contrasts of 10, 11 and 12 magnitudes at 0.25, 0.5 and greater than 1 arcsecond, respectively; for a subset of targets these limits exclude main-sequence companions more massive than late-K dwarfs beyond 0.5 arcseconds. The resulting low detection rate of visual companions, set against the high binary,

What carries the argument

SPHERE high-contrast imaging in classical mode with ZIMPOL, PCA-based PSF subtraction, and Monte Carlo injection of synthetic companions to produce separation-dependent 5-sigma contrast curves.

If this is right

Most companions inferred from radial velocities and Gaia astrometry lie either closer than 20 milliarcseconds or fainter than the achieved optical limits.
The survey supplies the first homogeneous set of high-contrast optical constraints on wide companions to Galactic Cepheids.
Cepheid multiple-system architectures are dominated by close or faint components rather than wide visual ones.
Improved astrometry is now available for the eight detected companions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Binary-evolution models for Cepheid progenitors must now account for a strong preference for close or low-mass companions at wide separations.
Infrared or higher-contrast imaging campaigns could directly test whether the missing companions are simply below the optical detection floor.
The scarcity of wide companions may reduce the risk of photometric contamination in Cepheid distance measurements at the separations probed here.

Load-bearing premise

That the contrast curves derived from synthetic injections accurately give the true detection threshold across all targets and that any undetected companions are main-sequence stars whose masses can be read directly from those limits.

What would settle it

A deeper or multi-wavelength survey that detects resolved companions around substantially more than 17 percent of the same Cepheids would show that the present contrast limits or main-sequence assumption do not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05287 by A. Gallenne, B. Pilecki, B. Zg\'irski, E. Sivkova, G. Bras, G. Pietrzy\'nski, J. Milli, N. Nardetto, N. R. Evans, P. Kervella, V. Hocd\'e, W. Gieren, W. Kiviaho.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Average images of FF Aql in V (left), R ′ (middle) and I ′ band. The scale is logarithmic and the images have been cropped to 1 ′′ × 1 ′′ to better see the PSF quality. the final output of the data reduction consists in a single non de-rotated cube for each filter. Most of the observations were obtained under very good seeing conditions (average seeing of 0.73′′; see Table A.1), so that each frame in a cub… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: De-rotated average image of FF Aql in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Top: Full-frame PCA-ADI results for the three ADI approaches (#1, #2, #3) with injected companions of flux ratio of 0.1 %. Bottom: Same as above but with flux ratio of 0.02 %. The companions with S/N > 5 are circled. the central star and at an angle of 185.4 ◦ . It corresponds to the mean parallactic angle of the cube and where we see the brightest speckle pattern within 0.5′′ (most pessimistic case for s… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: PCA analysis of our Cepheids with detected companion in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: 5σ contrast curves of six Cepheids of our sample with no wide companion detected. mean distance of d = 266 ± 10 pc calculated from these sources. This results in absolute magnitudes of MV = 2.2 ± 0.2 mag, MR′ = 1.9 ± 0.1 mag, and MI ′ = 1.8 ± 0.1 mag. Assuming the companion is a main sequence star and using the spectral type calibration from Pecaut & Mamajek (2013), it would be classified between a A5V and… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Cepheids are key distance indicators and benchmarks for stellar evolution, yet most of them are members of binary or multiple systems. While spectroscopic surveys and Gaia proper-motion anomalies reveal a high binary fraction, the population of resolved companions remains poorly characterised. We aim to search for and characterise visual companions to bright Galactic Cepheids using high-contrast imaging and to derive quantitative limits on undetected companions to constrain the architecture of Cepheid multiple systems. We observed 47 Cepheids with SPHERE using the ZIMPOL instrument in classical imaging mode and the V, R, and I filters. The data were obtained in pupil-stabilised mode and analysed using PCA-based imaging technique. For detected companions, we injected negative fake companions in a Monte Carlo approach to measure the relative astrometry. For non-detections, synthetic companions were injected to compute 5sigma contrast curves as a function of separation. We detected companions with a signal-to-noise ratio of > 5 for 8 Cepheids, corresponding to about 17% of the sample. Our SPHERE imaging confirms previously known visual companions with improved astrometry and reveals new wide components for AP Pup, T Vel, and TX Del) at projected separations of 0.16-0.9". For the remaining Cepheids, we derived typical maximum contrasts of 10, 11, and 12mag at 0.25", 0.5", and > 1, respectively. For a sub-set of targets, these limits ruled out main sequence companions more massive than late-K dwarfs beyond 0.5". Our SPHERE survey provides the first homogeneous set of high-contrast optical constraints on wide companions of Galactic Cepheids. The low detection rate of visual companions compared to the high overall binary fraction implies that most companions inferred from radial velocities and Gaia astrometry are either closer than 20mas or significantly fainter than the limits reached here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This SPHERE survey adds the first homogeneous high-contrast limits on wide companions for 47 Galactic Cepheids plus three new detections, though the contrast curves need checking against pulsation effects.

read the letter

This paper delivers the first uniform optical high-contrast constraints on wide companions around a sizable sample of Galactic Cepheids using VLT/SPHERE ZIMPOL. They observed 47 stars, detected companions in eight of them at >5 sigma, confirmed known pairs with better astrometry, and found new wide components for AP Pup, T Vel, and TX Del at 0.16-0.9 arcsec. For the non-detections they give typical 5-sigma contrast limits of 10, 11, and 12 magnitudes at 0.25, 0.5, and >1 arcsec, which for a subset rules out main-sequence companions more massive than late-K dwarfs beyond 0.5 arcsec. The low visual detection rate compared with the known high binary fraction from radial velocities and Gaia points to most companions being either inside 20 mas or fainter than these limits. That is useful, concrete data for binary statistics and distance-ladder work. The methods follow the standard pupil-stabilized PCA pipeline with Monte Carlo fake-companion injections for both astrometry and contrast curves, which is competent and reproducible enough for an observational survey. The results are direct measurements rather than model-dependent claims. One soft spot is the contrast curves themselves. Cepheids pulsate, so their instantaneous PSF and halo brightness change during the observations. If the synthetic injections used a single static model without fully marginalizing over frame-to-frame variations, the reported 5-sigma thresholds could be slightly optimistic. The paper's abstract does not detail how variability was handled, so a referee should verify that step in the methods. The assumption that undetected companions are main-sequence stars is reasonable but adds a modest layer of interpretation when converting contrast to mass. Overall the central claim holds up as a straightforward observational result. This paper is for researchers who need empirical numbers on Cepheid multiplicity and separation distributions, especially anyone modeling binary fractions or checking selection biases in the distance scale. A reader working on stellar evolution or high-contrast imaging techniques will find usable limits and new detections. It deserves a serious referee because the sample size and homogeneous approach fill a real gap even if the analysis is not novel in technique. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a VLT/SPHERE ZIMPOL high-contrast imaging survey of 47 Galactic Cepheids in V, R, and I filters using pupil-stabilized observations and PCA reduction. Companions are detected (S/N >5) around 8 targets (~17% of the sample), confirming known systems with improved astrometry and identifying new wide companions to AP Pup, T Vel, and TX Del at 0.16-0.9 arcsec. For the 39 non-detections, 5-sigma contrast curves are computed via synthetic companion injection, yielding typical limits of 10, 11, and 12 mag at 0.25, 0.5, and >1 arcsec. The authors conclude that this is the first homogeneous optical dataset on wide Cepheid companions and that the low resolved detection rate, relative to the high binary fraction from RV and Gaia, implies most companions lie inside ~20 mas or below the achieved contrast limits. For a subset, the limits exclude main-sequence companions more massive than late-K dwarfs beyond 0.5 arcsec.

Significance. If the reported contrast limits hold, the work supplies a valuable homogeneous set of empirical constraints on the wide-separation population of Cepheid binaries, helping to map the overall architecture of these systems and to interpret the discrepancy between resolved imaging and indirect binary indicators. The Monte Carlo negative-fake-companion approach for astrometry and the synthetic-injection contrast curves are positive elements that make the limits quantitative and reproducible in principle.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (Data reduction and contrast-curve derivation): The 5-sigma contrast curves are obtained by injecting synthetic companions into the PCA-reduced ZIMPOL frames, but the procedure is described only at high level and does not indicate whether frame-to-frame PSF variations arising from Cepheid pulsation are marginalised over or whether a single static PSF template is used. Because the observations are pupil-stabilised and Cepheid variability occurs on timescales comparable to the integration, an unaccounted variation could render the quoted detection thresholds optimistic, directly affecting the reliability of the non-detection statistics that underpin the central architectural claim.
[Discussion] Discussion section (mass-limit statements): The claim that the contrast limits rule out main-sequence companions more massive than late-K dwarfs for a subset of targets relies on an adopted mass-luminosity relation and precise distances; neither the specific relation nor the distance values (or their uncertainties) are stated. Any systematic offset in the contrast scale or distance would propagate directly into the excluded-mass range and therefore into the interpretation that most RV/Gaia companions must be closer than 20 mas.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states 'about 17%' for the detection rate; the exact fraction 8/47 should be given for precision.
[Results] Table or figure presenting the contrast curves should include the number of targets for which the late-K exclusion applies and the adopted distances used for that conversion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the work and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to provide the requested clarifications and details.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (Data reduction and contrast-curve derivation): The 5-sigma contrast curves are obtained by injecting synthetic companions into the PCA-reduced ZIMPOL frames, but the procedure is described only at high level and does not indicate whether frame-to-frame PSF variations arising from Cepheid pulsation are marginalised over or whether a single static PSF template is used. Because the observations are pupil-stabilised and Cepheid variability occurs on timescales comparable to the integration, an unaccounted variation could render the quoted detection thresholds optimistic, directly affecting the reliability of the non-detection statistics that underpin the central architectural claim.

Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to this aspect of the analysis. The 5-sigma contrast curves were derived by injecting synthetic companions directly into the PCA-reduced frames of each target, so the resulting detection thresholds are based on the empirical noise properties of the actual reduced data. Any frame-to-frame PSF variations due to pulsation are therefore already incorporated in the measured noise. We have expanded the description in §3 to make this explicit, clarifying that no separate static PSF template is assumed and that the injection procedure uses the observed reduced images. This ensures the quoted limits are realistic and reproducible. revision: yes
Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section (mass-limit statements): The claim that the contrast limits rule out main-sequence companions more massive than late-K dwarfs for a subset of targets relies on an adopted mass-luminosity relation and precise distances; neither the specific relation nor the distance values (or their uncertainties) are stated. Any systematic offset in the contrast scale or distance would propagate directly into the excluded-mass range and therefore into the interpretation that most RV/Gaia companions must be closer than 20 mas.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript should state the adopted relations and distances explicitly. In the revised Discussion section we now specify the mass-luminosity relation used for main-sequence stars, list the Gaia DR3 distances (with uncertainties) for the relevant subset of targets, and briefly discuss the propagation of these values into the excluded companion masses. These additions make the mass-limit statements fully traceable and strengthen the architectural interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational survey

full rationale

The paper reports direct SPHERE/ZIMPOL observations of 47 Cepheids, with 8 detections of companions and empirical 5-sigma contrast curves derived from synthetic injections for the non-detections. The central claims (17% detection rate and implication that most RV/Gaia companions are unresolved or below the limits) follow immediately from the measured astrometry and contrast thresholds without any model fitting, parameter prediction, or self-referential derivation. No equations reduce a result to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes are invoked. This is a standard observational analysis whose results are falsifiable against the raw frames.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced; the work rests on standard assumptions of high-contrast imaging data analysis.

axioms (2)

domain assumption PCA-based imaging reliably separates companion signals from speckle noise in pupil-stabilized ZIMPOL data
Invoked for all detections and non-detections; standard in the field but not re-derived here.
domain assumption 5-sigma contrast curves from injected synthetic companions correspond to reliable detection thresholds
Used to set limits and rule out companions; typical but depends on accurate noise modeling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5717 in / 1513 out tokens · 162413 ms · 2026-05-10T20:10:31.936808+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

[1]

& Quanz, S

Amara, A. & Quanz, S. P. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 948

work page 2012
[2]

I., Casertano, S., Riess, A

Anderson, R. I., Casertano, S., Riess, A. G., et al. 2016, ApJS, 226, 18

work page 2016
[3]

1989, A&A, 216, 125

Babel, J., Burki, G., Mayor, M., Chmielewski, Y ., & Waelkens, C. 1989, A&A, 216, 125

work page 1989
[4]

& Vinko, J

Balog, Z. & Vinko, J. 1995, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 4150, 1

work page 1995
[5]

F., McArthur, B

Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Feast, M. W., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1810

work page 2007
[6]

Berdnikov, L. N. 2008, VizieR Online Data Catalog: II/285, originally published in: Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow, 2285

work page 2008
[7]

L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al

Beuzit, J. L., Vigan, A., Mouillet, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A155

work page 2019
[8]

2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.05714

Boccaletti, A., Chauvin, G., Mouillet, D., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.05714

work page arXiv 2020
[9]

1985, ApJ, 296, 169 Böhm-Vitense, E., Remage Evans, N., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., &

Bohm-Vitense, E. 1985, ApJ, 296, 169 Böhm-Vitense, E., Remage Evans, N., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., &

work page 1985
[10]

1997, ApJ, 477, 916

Robinson, R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 916

work page 1997
[11]

H., Nasseri, A., Stahl, O., & Zinnecker, H

Chini, R., Hoffmeister, V . H., Nasseri, A., Stahl, O., & Zinnecker, H. 2012, MN- RAS, 424, 1925 Article number, page 9 A&A proofs:manuscript no. 2025-sphere-v1r1_LE Table 4: 5σcontrasts and upper limits spectral type for undetected main sequence companions. Star 0.25′′ 0.50′′ >1 ′′ Star 0.25′′ 0.50′′ >1 ′′ ∆VSpT ∆VSpT ∆VSpT ∆VSpT ∆VSpT ∆VSpT FF Aql 5.5 A...

work page 2012
[12]

2017, in SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

Delorme, P., Meunier, N., Albert, D., et al. 2017, in SF2A-2017: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reylé, P. Di Matteo, F. Herpin, E. Lagadec, A. Lançon, Z. Meliani, & F. Royer, Di Duchêne, G. & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

work page 2017
[13]

M., Quanz, S

Engler, N., Schmid, H. M., Quanz, S. P., Avenhaus, H., & Bazzon, A. 2018, A&A, 618, A151

work page 2018
[14]

Evans, N. R. 1988, ApJS, 66, 343

work page 1988
[15]

Evans, N. R. 1991, ApJ, 372, 597

work page 1991
[16]

Evans, N. R. 1994, ApJ, 436, 273

work page 1994
[17]

Evans, N. R. 1995, ApJ, 445, 393

work page 1995
[18]

R., Berdnikov, L., Gorynya, N., Rastorguev, A., & Eaton, J

Evans, N. R., Berdnikov, L., Gorynya, N., Rastorguev, A., & Eaton, J. 2011, AJ, 142, 87

work page 2011
[19]

R., Berdnikov, L., Lauer, J., et al

Evans, N. R., Berdnikov, L., Lauer, J., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 13

work page 2015
[20]

R., Boehm-Vitense, E., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., & Robin- son, R

Evans, N. R., Boehm-Vitense, E., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., & Robin- son, R. 1998, ApJ, 494, 768

work page 1998
[21]

R., Bond, H

Evans, N. R., Bond, H. E., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 93

work page 2013
[22]

R., Bond, H

Evans, N. R., Bond, H. E., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 129

work page 2016
[23]

R., Carpenter, K

Evans, N. R., Carpenter, K. G., Robinson, R., Kienzle, F., & Dekas, A. E. 2005, AJ, 130, 789

work page 2005
[24]

R., Engle, S., Pillitteri, I., et al

Evans, N. R., Engle, S., Pillitteri, I., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 153

work page 2022
[25]

R., Günther, H

Evans, N. R., Günther, H. M., Bond, H. E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 81

work page 2020
[26]

R., Massa, D., & Proffitt, C

Evans, N. R., Massa, D., & Proffitt, C. 2009, AJ, 137, 3700

work page 2009
[27]

R., Proffitt, C., Kervella, P., et al

Evans, N. R., Proffitt, C., Kervella, P., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 242

work page 2025
[28]

R., Schaefer, G

Evans, N. R., Schaefer, G. H., Bond, H. E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1137

work page 2008
[29]

D., Evans, N

Fernie, J. D., Evans, N. R., Beattie, B., & Seager, S. 1995, Inf. Bul. on Variable Stars, 4148, 1

work page 1995
[30]

W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Fouqué, P., Arriagada, P., Storm, J., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 73 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

work page 2013
[31]

2019, A&A, 622, A164

Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Borgniet, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A164

work page 2019
[32]

R., et al

Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Evans, N. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 121

work page 2018
[33]

2013, in EAS Publications Series, ed

Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Mérand, A., et al. 2013, in EAS Publications Series, ed. A. Pavlovski K., Tkachenko & G. Torres, V ol. 64, 197–204

work page 2013
[34]

2015, A&A, 579, A68

Gallenne, A., Mérand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, A68

work page 2015
[35]

Gerard, B. L. & Marois, C. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V , ed. E. Marchetti, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Véran, 990958

work page 2016
[36]

2018, A&A, 620, A99

Gieren, W., Storm, J., Konorski, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A99

work page 2018
[37]

Gieren, W. P. 1985, ApJ, 295, 507 Gomez Gonzalez, C. A., Absil, O., Absil, P. A., et al. 2016, A&A, 589, A54 Gomez Gonzalez, C. A., Wertz, O., Absil, O., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 7

work page 1985
[38]

A., Rastorguev, A

Gorynya, N. A., Rastorguev, A. S., & Samus, N. N. 1996, Astronomy Letters, 22, 33

work page 1996
[39]

Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2020, A&A, 635, A33

work page 2020
[40]

Harris, H. C. 1981, AJ, 86, 719

work page 1981
[41]

Harris, H. C. & Welch, D. L. 1989, AJ, 98, 981 Hocdé, V ., Moskalik, P., Gorynya, N. A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A224

work page 1989
[42]

Jacobsen, T. S. 1974, ApJ, 191, 691

work page 1974
[43]

Keller, S. C. 2008, ApJ, 677, 483

work page 2008
[44]

2022, A&A, 657, A7

Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7

work page 2022
[45]

2004, A&A, 416, 941

Kervella, P., Nardetto, N., Bersier, D., Mourard, D., & Coudé du Foresto, V . 2004, A&A, 416, 941

work page 2004
[46]

Zwart, S. F. 2005, A&A, 430, 137 Lafrenière, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, ApJ, 694, L148 Lafrenière, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., Nadeau, D., & Artigau, É. 2007, ApJ, 660, 770

work page 2005
[47]

M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al

Lagrange, A. M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57

work page 2010
[48]

2018, A&A, 616, A132

Lallement, R., Capitanio, L., Ruiz-Dern, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A132

work page 2018
[49]

Laney, C. D. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 83, IAU Colloq. 155: Astrophysical Applications of Stellar Pulsation, ed. R. S. Stobie & P. A. Whitelock, 367

work page 1995
[50]

Lee, D. D. & Seung, H. S. 1999, Nature, 401, 788

work page 1999
[51]

2021, A&A, 649, A4 Lloyd Evans, T

Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4 Lloyd Evans, T. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 925

work page 2021
[52]

2006, ApJ, 641, 556

Marois, C., Lafrenière, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., & Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556

work page 2006
[53]

2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

Marois, C., Macintosh, B., & Véran, J.-P. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7736, Adaptive Op- tics Systems II, ed. B. L. Ellerbroek, M. Hart, N. Hubin, & P. L. Wizinowich, 77361J

work page 2010
[54]

& Evans, N

Massa, D. & Evans, N. R. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 139

work page 2008
[55]

2014, ApJ, 792, 97

Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 97

work page 2014
[56]

L., Beddoes, D

Morgan, B. L., Beddoes, D. R., Scaddan, R. J., & Dainty, J. C. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 701

work page 1978
[57]

R., Cantiello, M., & Langer, N

Neilson, H. R., Cantiello, M., & Langer, N. 2011, A&A, 529, L9

work page 2011
[58]

R., Engle, S

Neilson, H. R., Engle, S. G., Guinan, E. F., Bisol, A. C., & Butterworth, N. 2016, ApJ, 824, 1

work page 2016
[59]

Neilson, H. R. & Lester, J. B. 2008, ApJ, 684, 569

work page 2008
[60]

R., Schneider, F

Neilson, H. R., Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., Evans, N. R., & Langer, N. 2015, A&A, 574, A2

work page 2015
[61]

Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9 Article number, page 10 A. Gallenne et al.: High-contrast imaging of Galactic Cepheids

work page 2013
[62]

Percy, J. R. & Hoss, J. X. 2000, JAA VSO, 29, 14

work page 2000
[63]

Petterson, O. K. L., Cottrell, P. L., & Albrow, M. D. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 95

work page 2004
[64]

2018, ApJ, 862, 43

Pilecki, B., Gieren, W., Pietrzy´nski, G., et al. 2018, ApJ, 862, 43

work page 2018
[65]

2015, ApJ, 806, 29

Pilecki, B., Graczyk, D., Gieren, W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 29

work page 2015
[66]

M., Bazzon, A., Milli, J., et al

Schmid, H. M., Bazzon, A., Milli, J., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A53

work page 2017
[67]

M., Bazzon, A., Roelfsema, R., et al

Schmid, H. M., Bazzon, A., Roelfsema, R., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A9

work page 2018
[68]

S., Viviani, G., Anderson, R

Shetye, S. S., Viviani, G., Anderson, R. I., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A284

work page 2024
[69]

B., Pueyo, L., et al

Soummer, R., Hagan, J. B., Pueyo, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 55

work page 2011
[70]

1989, Commun

Szabados, L. 1989, Commun. of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 94, 1

work page 1989
[71]

1991, Commun

Szabados, L. 1991, Commun. of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 96, 123

work page 1991
[72]

2003, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 5394, 1

Szabados, L. 2003, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 5394, 1

work page 2003
[73]

I., Derekas, A., et al

Szabados, L., Anderson, R. I., Derekas, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 870

work page 2013
[74]

& Nehéz, D

Szabados, L. & Nehéz, D. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3148

work page 2012
[75]

D., Mendez, R

Tokovinin, A., Mason, B. D., Mendez, R. A., Costa, E., & Horch, E. P. 2020, AJ, 160, 7

work page 2020
[76]

D., Mendez, R

Tokovinin, A., Mason, B. D., Mendez, R. A., Horch, E. P., & Briceño, C. 2019, AJ, 158, 48

work page 2019
[77]

2019, PhD thesis, Université PSL (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel- 02372923)

Trahin, B. 2019, PhD thesis, Université PSL (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel- 02372923)

work page 2019
[78]

2021, A&A, 656, A102

Trahin, B., Breuval, L., Kervella, P., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A102

work page 2021
[79]

Turner, D. G. 2016, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 52, 223

work page 2016
[80]

L., Evans, N

Welch, D. L., Evans, N. R., Lyons, R. W., et al. 1987, PASP, 99, 610 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs:manuscript no. 2025-sphere-v1r1_LE Appendix A: Log of our SPHERE observations Table A.1: Log of the SPHERE/ZIMPOL observations. Star UT MJD Filter NDF DIT N DIT Nexp Seeing (day) (s) ( ′′) ηAql 2018-05-25 58263.392 V/I’ ND2 1 20 6 0.61 ηAql 2018-05-25 5...

work page 1987