arxiv: 2605.13112 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Discovery and Characterization of White Dwarf-FGK Main-Sequence Binaries within the Optical Main-Sequence Locus

Mingkuan Yang , Hailong Yuan , Xiaozhen Yang , Zhongrui Bai , Yuji He , Jianping Xiong , Jiao Li , Mengxin Wang

show 7 more authors

Yiqiao Dong Ziyue Jiang Qian Liu Ganyu Li Ming Zhou Haotong Zhang Xuefei Chen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords white dwarf main-sequence binariesWDMS systemsultraviolet excesslow-mass white dwarfsbinary evolutionLAMOST spectroscopyGaia astrometry

0 comments

The pith

654 white dwarf-FGK binaries are isolated from ultraviolet-excess sources using LAMOST spectra and Gaia data.

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

This paper identifies 654 reliable white dwarf plus FGK main-sequence binary candidates from an initial set of 772 ultraviolet-excess sources. Selection begins with stellar atmospheric parameters from LAMOST spectroscopy and is refined with Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry plus GALEX ultraviolet observations. Binary spectral energy distribution fitting yields temperatures and radii for both components, showing the white dwarfs are predominantly low-mass (0.2 to 0.4 solar masses) with many extremely low-mass systems below 0.3 solar masses. The main-sequence companions are mostly G-type stars, and the white dwarfs are hot at around 15,000 Kelvin. Multi-epoch radial velocity measurements show larger amplitudes than single main-sequence stars, supporting the close-binary nature of the systems.

Core claim

The authors present a catalog of 654 WDMS binaries with FGK companions. Binary spectral energy distribution fitting provides effective temperatures and radii for both stars along with distance and extinction estimates. White dwarf evolutionary cooling models show the white dwarf components are mostly low-mass between 0.2 and 0.4 solar masses, including a substantial population of extremely low-mass white dwarfs below 0.3 solar masses that are likely produced through binary interaction. The main-sequence companions are dominated by G-type stars at about 52 percent with comparable fractions of F- and K-type stars and no A-type stars. The white dwarfs are generally hot at around 15,000 Kelvin,

What carries the argument

Ultraviolet excess relative to the Gaia main-sequence locus refined with isochrone constraints from stellar atmospheric parameters to exclude inconsistent systems.

If this is right

The white dwarfs are hot and large-radius due to the ultraviolet selection favoring luminous objects.
A substantial fraction of the white dwarfs are extremely low-mass and formed through binary interaction.
The sample shows no A-type main-sequence companions.
Multi-epoch radial velocities confirm larger amplitudes consistent with close binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same ultraviolet-excess plus isochrone approach could be applied to other large spectroscopic surveys to expand the sample.
The hot temperatures of the white dwarfs suggest recent formation or ongoing heating from mass transfer.
The catalog can serve as a starting point for targeted searches for orbital periods and mass transfer signatures.

Load-bearing premise

Ultraviolet excess relative to the Gaia main-sequence locus combined with isochrone constraints reliably selects true white dwarf-main sequence systems without significant contamination.

What would settle it

Follow-up high-resolution spectroscopy that detects white dwarf absorption features or radial velocity orbits that yield companion masses matching the 0.2-0.4 solar mass range would confirm the candidates.

read the original abstract

White dwarf main-sequence (WDMS) binaries provide important laboratories for studying binary evolution and the formation of low-mass white dwarfs. In this work, we identify 654 reliable WDMS candidates with FGK-type companions from an initial set of 772 ultraviolet-excess sources, selected using stellar atmospheric parameters from LAMOST spectroscopy and subsequently refined with \textit{Gaia} DR3 astrometry and photometry together with ultraviolet data from \textit{GALEX}. Candidates were selected based on ultraviolet excess relative to the \textit{Gaia} main-sequence locus and refined using isochrone constraints to exclude systems inconsistent with MS companions. Binary spectral energy distribution fitting yields effective temperatures and radii for both components, as well as distance and extinction estimates. The MS companions are dominated by G-type stars (\(\sim52\%\)), with comparable fractions of F- and K-type companions, and no A-type primaries. Using white-dwarf evolutionary cooling models, we find that the WD components are predominantly low-mass (\(M_{\rm WD}\,\sim\,0.2\text{--}0.4\,M_\odot\)), including a substantial population of extremely low-mass (\(<0.3\,M_\odot\)) WDs likely produced through binary interaction. The WDs are generally hot (\(\sim1.5\times10^4\,\mathrm{K}\)), consistent with the ultraviolet selection bias favoring luminous, large-radius WDs. Multi-epoch LAMOST radial velocities show larger amplitudes than those of a comparison sample of MS stars, supporting the close-binary nature of these systems. Although subject to strong selection effects, the catalog offers a clean and well-characterized sample of FGK+WD binaries.

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

A solid new catalog of 654 WD-FGK binaries from LAMOST-Gaia-GALEX, but the selection purity claim needs more checks on composite-spectrum bias.

read the letter

This paper assembles 654 WD plus FGK binary candidates by starting with UV-excess sources in LAMOST, then layering Gaia astrometry and GALEX photometry to refine the list. They run binary SED fits to extract temperatures, radii, and distances, and apply WD cooling tracks to show most WDs are low-mass, in the 0.2-0.4 solar mass range, with many extremely low-mass ones. The RV amplitudes are larger than in a single-star control sample, which supports the close-binary interpretation. The work is straightforward: it takes established UV-excess and isochrone methods and applies them to a bigger combined dataset to produce a catalog that did not exist in this form before. That gives binary-evolution researchers a useful sample size to test formation channels for low-mass WDs. The main soft spot is the initial cut. LAMOST fits single-star models to spectra that are actually WD plus FGK composites, so the Teff, logg, and metallicity values fed into the isochrone filter can be biased. The paper does not quantify how large that bias is or show the rejected candidates, so the claim of 654 reliable systems rests on an assumption that the effect is small. They do flag strong selection effects in the abstract, which is fair, but the purity discussion would be stronger with that extra check. This is for people who need a ready catalog of FGK+WD systems for follow-up or population studies. A reader working on binary channels will get value from the numbers and the parameter table, even if they re-derive some fits themselves. I would send it to referees. The observational core is grounded in public data and standard tools, so it deserves a full review rather than a desk reject.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims to identify 654 reliable white dwarf-main sequence (WDMS) binary candidates with FGK companions from an initial set of 772 ultraviolet-excess sources. Selection begins with LAMOST spectroscopy for atmospheric parameters, followed by refinement using Gaia DR3 astrometry/photometry and GALEX UV data to enforce isochrone consistency with main-sequence companions. Binary SED fitting then yields effective temperatures, radii, distances, and extinctions for both components, revealing predominantly low-mass (0.2-0.4 M_sun) hot WDs and G-type MS stars, with multi-epoch RV amplitudes supporting binarity.

Significance. If the candidate purity holds, the work supplies a sizable, multi-survey characterized sample of WDMS systems that directly constrains binary evolution pathways, especially the production of extremely low-mass white dwarfs via interaction channels. The SED-derived parameters and RV checks add concrete value for population studies, provided the initial UV-excess and isochrone cuts are shown to be robust against composite-spectrum effects.

major comments (1)

[Candidate selection procedure (methods and § on UV-excess cuts)] The headline selection of 654 candidates from 772 UV-excess sources (abstract and methods) applies LAMOST single-star atmospheric-parameter fits (Teff, logg, [Fe/H]) to composite WD+FGK spectra before Gaia/GALEX isochrone filtering. Because the observed spectrum is the sum of both components, these parameters are expected to be biased, directly affecting the isochrone placement and the decision to retain or reject sources as inconsistent with an MS companion. The manuscript provides no simulation of composite spectra, no bias quantification, and no distribution of the 118 rejected objects, leaving the purity of the final catalog untested.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract and results section on companion types] The abstract states that MS companions are 'dominated by G-type stars (~52%)' with 'comparable fractions of F- and K-type' but does not tabulate the exact fractions or show the spectral-type histogram; add a table or figure for clarity.
[Throughout manuscript] Notation for white-dwarf mass is given as M_WD ~ 0.2-0.4 M_sun in the abstract; ensure consistent use of solar-mass symbol and error bars throughout the text and tables.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment regarding the candidate selection procedure below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis and discussion as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Candidate selection procedure (methods and § on UV-excess cuts)] The headline selection of 654 candidates from 772 UV-excess sources (abstract and methods) applies LAMOST single-star atmospheric-parameter fits (Teff, logg, [Fe/H]) to composite WD+FGK spectra before Gaia/GALEX isochrone filtering. Because the observed spectrum is the sum of both components, these parameters are expected to be biased, directly affecting the isochrone placement and the decision to retain or reject sources as inconsistent with an MS companion. The manuscript provides no simulation of composite spectra, no bias quantification, and no distribution of the 118 rejected objects, leaving the purity of the final catalog untested.

Authors: We agree with the referee that fitting single-star models to the composite spectra of WD+FGK binaries can bias the derived atmospheric parameters from LAMOST. This bias may affect the initial isochrone placement. However, the core of our selection is the UV excess identified using GALEX and Gaia data, which does not depend on the spectroscopic parameters. The isochrone consistency is enforced using Gaia astrometry and photometry to check for consistency with a main-sequence star at the Gaia distance. To address this comment, we will add simulations of composite spectra in the revised methods section to quantify the bias in Teff, logg, and [Fe/H]. We will also include the distribution and properties of the 118 rejected objects in an appendix to allow assessment of the selection efficiency. These additions will help demonstrate that the final catalog maintains high purity, as supported by the RV amplitude comparisons. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational catalog from external survey pipelines

full rationale

The paper derives its catalog of 654 WDMS candidates by applying standard external pipelines (LAMOST single-star atmospheric parameters, Gaia DR3 astrometry/photometry, GALEX UV data) followed by UV-excess cuts relative to the Gaia main-sequence locus and isochrone filtering. No equation or step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction; no self-citation chain supplies the load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz; the SED fitting produces new parameters (Teff, radii) rather than re-deriving the selection inputs. The process is self-contained against independent survey data and does not rename or smuggle prior results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on established stellar atmosphere models, white dwarf cooling tracks, and isochrone fitting without introducing new free parameters, axioms beyond standard astrophysics, or invented entities.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard stellar atmosphere models and white dwarf cooling tracks accurately predict masses, temperatures, and radii from observed photometry and spectra
Invoked for binary SED fitting and WD mass estimation from evolutionary models.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1298 out tokens · 56451 ms · 2026-05-14T18:41:34.990346+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

G., Miller Bertolami, M

Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Córsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19

work page 2013
[2]

R., Stassun, K

Anguiano, B., Majewski, S. R., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 126 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

work page 2022
[3]

2012, ApJL, 749, L11

Badenes, C., & Maoz, D. 2012, ApJL, 749, L11

work page 2012
[4]

2017, RAA, 17, 091

Bai, Z.-R., Zhang, H.-T., Yuan, H.-L., et al. 2017, RAA, 17, 091

work page 2017
[5]

2021, RAA, 21, 249

Bai, Z.-R., Zhang, H.-T., Yuan, H.-L., et al. 2021, RAA, 21, 249

work page 2021
[6]

2008, A&A, 492, 277 Bédard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G

Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascués, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277 Bédard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93

work page 2008
[7]

2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

Belokurov, V., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

work page 2020
[8]

2017, ApJS, 230, 24

Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24

work page 2017
[9]

B., & Church, R

Bobrick, A., Davies, M. B., & Church, R. P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3556

work page 2017
[10]

J., Trümper, J., et al

Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Trümper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103

work page 2016
[11]

W., & Fekel, F., Jr 1977, AJ, 82, 490 Boro Saikia, S., Marvin, C

Bopp, B. W., & Fekel, F., Jr 1977, AJ, 82, 490 Boro Saikia, S., Marvin, C. J., Jeffers, S. V., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A108

work page 1977
[12]

E., Osten, R

Brasseur, C. E., Osten, R. A., & Fleming, S. W. 2019, ApJ, 883, 88

work page 2019
[13]

R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1072

work page 2010
[14]

2014, A&A, 564, A125

Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

work page 2014
[15]

R., et al

Castro-Ginard, A., Penoyre, Z., Casey, A. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A1

work page 2024
[16]

The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv:1612.05560

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[17]

Chen, X., Maxted, P. F. L., Li, J., & Han, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1874

work page 2017
[18]

2023, ApJS, 269, 41

Chen, Y., Xia, F., Wang, X., Fu, Y., & Yuan, Y. 2023, ApJS, 269, 41

work page 2023
[19]

2016, ApJ, 823, 102

Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

work page 2016
[20]

2012, RAA, 12, 1197 de Kool, M

Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, RAA, 12, 1197 de Kool, M. 1992, A&A, 261, 188

work page 2012
[21]

2016, ApJS, 222, 8 Duchêne, G., & Kraus, A

Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8 Duchêne, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269

work page 2016
[22]

J., Weinberg, D

Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72

work page 2011
[23]

F., Bilir, S., et al

Eker, Z., Ak, N. F., Bilir, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1722

work page 2008
[24]

El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269

work page 2021
[25]

W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

work page 2018
[26]

N., Primini, F

Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 37

work page 2010
[27]

W., & Wachter, S

Farihi, J., Hoard, D. W., & Wachter, S. 2010, ApJS, 190, 275

work page 2010
[28]

P., & Bridges, M

Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

work page 2009
[29]

Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

work page 1999
[30]

2022, A&A, 661, A24 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

Fuhrmeister, B., Czesla, S., Robrade, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A24 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

work page 2022
[31]

A., Parsons, S

Garbutt, J. A., Parsons, S. G., Toloza, O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4840

work page 2024
[32]

2020, A&A, 635, A193 Gentile Fusillo, N

Geier, S. 2020, A&A, 635, A193 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P. E., Cukanovaite, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3877 Gomes da Silva, J., Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A77

work page 2020
[33]

M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

work page 2019
[34]

2024, ApJL, 970, L11

Hallakoun, N., Shahaf, S., Mazeh, T., Toonen, S., & Ben-Ami, S. 2024, ApJL, 970, L11

work page 2024
[35]

R., Millman, K

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Natur, 585, 357

work page 2020
[36]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.11663

Heber, U. 2024, arXiv:2410.11663

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D

Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D. L. 2015, AAS Meeting, 225, 336.16

work page 2015
[38]

2024, ApJS, 272, 6

Huang, X., He, Y., Bai, Z., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 6

work page 2024
[39]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90

work page 2007
[40]

Hussain, G. A. J., Allende Prieto, C., Saar, S. H., & Still, M. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1699

work page 2006
[41]

O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6

work page 2013
[42]

1993, PASP, 105, 1373

Iben, J., & Livio, I. 1993, PASP, 105, 1373

work page 1993
[43]

S., Bauer, E

Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

work page 2023
[44]

O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al

Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2169

work page 2019
[45]

2010, MmSAI, 81, 921

Koester, D. 2010, MmSAI, 81, 921

work page 2010
[46]

2021, yCat, J/ApJ/881/135

Lei, Z., Zhao, J., Nemeth, P., & Zhao, G. 2021, yCat, J/ApJ/881/135

work page 2021
[47]

2025, ApJS, 279, 47

Li, J., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2025, ApJS, 279, 47

work page 2025
[48]

2019, ApJ, 871, 148

Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJ, 871, 148

work page 2019
[49]

2012, A&A, 538, A78

Lindegren, L., Lammers, U., Hobbs, D., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A78

work page 2012
[50]

2024, ApJS, 275, 40

Liu, J., Zhang, B., Wu, J., & Ting, Y.-S. 2024, ApJS, 275, 40

work page 2024
[51]

C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1

work page 2005
[52]

2017, A&A, 605, A113 Martínez-Arnáiz, R., Maldonado, J., Montes, D., Eiroa, C., & Montesinos, B

Martin, J., Fuhrmeister, B., Mittag, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A113 Martínez-Arnáiz, R., Maldonado, J., Montes, D., Eiroa, C., & Montesinos, B. 2010, A&A, 520, A79

work page 2017
[53]

Maxted, P. F. L., Bloemen, S., Heber, U., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1681

work page 2014
[54]

2010, in Proc

McKinney, W. 2010, in Proc. of the 9th Python in Science Conf., ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 56

work page 2010
[55]

2024, A&A, 682, A34

Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34

work page 2024
[56]

F., Leahy, D

Milone, E. F., Leahy, D. A., & Hobill, D. W. 2008, Short-Period Binary Stars:

work page 2008
[57]

Mittag, M., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Schröder, K.-P. 2018, A&A, 618, A48

work page 2018
[58]

Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1503.010

work page 2015
[59]

Nandez, J. L. A., Ivanova, N., & Lombardi, J. C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 450, L39

work page 2015
[60]

Nayak, P. K. 2025, arXiv:2509.06910

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[61]

K., Ganguly, A., & Chatterjee, S

Nayak, P. K., Ganguly, A., & Chatterjee, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6100

work page 2024
[62]

2000, A&AS, 143, 23

Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23

work page 2000
[63]

G., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M

Parsons, S. G., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2125

work page 2016
[64]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

work page 2011
[65]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

work page 2013
[66]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

work page 2015
[67]

B., et al

Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

work page 2018
[68]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10

Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

work page 2019
[69]

J., & Mamajek, E

Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9

work page 2013
[70]

O., & Koester, D

Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S. O., & Koester, D. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2480

work page 2018
[71]

2019, MNRAS, 488, 2892 Pérez-Couto, X., Manteiga, M., & Villaver, E

Pelisoli, I., & Vos, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2892 Pérez-Couto, X., Manteiga, M., & Villaver, E. 2025, ApJ, 988, 51

work page 2019
[72]

T., Schreiber, M

Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., Koester, D., & Rodríguez-Gil, P. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 620

work page 2010
[73]

R., et al

Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 806

work page 2012
[74]

Girven, J., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1121

work page 2011
[75]

J., Parsons, S

Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Ren, J. J., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3808

work page 2016
[76]

J., Irawati, P., et al

Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Ren, J. J., Irawati, P., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4193

work page 2017
[77]

M., et al

Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Jiménez-Esteban, F. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5201

work page 2021
[78]

J., et al

Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Brown, A. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A153 18 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 284:38 (19pp), 2026 June Yang et al

work page 2025
[79]

J., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S

Ren, J. J., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4641

work page 2018
[80]

J., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Luo, A

Ren, J. J., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Luo, A. L., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A107

work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.