pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.01085 · v1 · pith:AYSZQEWLnew · submitted 2026-05-31 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.SR

Hunting for Compact Object Binaries from eRASS1 Optical Counterparts through ZTF Time-domain Photometry and Multi-wavelength Census

Xin-Yu Fang , Hao-Bin Liu , Wei-Min Gu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 16:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SR
keywords compact object binariesX-ray binarieseROSITAZTF photometrytime-domain astronomymulti-wavelength censusradio emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coupling eRASS1 X-ray data with ZTF photometry and radio observations identifies dozens of compact object binary candidates.

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

The paper develops two complementary selection pipelines applied to the eRASS1 optical counterpart catalog. The first pipeline uses ZTF time-domain photometry to isolate 151 periodically variable sources and narrows them to 43 high-priority compact object binary candidates. The second pipeline selects 1958 distance-constrained sources showing elevated X-ray luminosities or high X-ray to optical flux ratios. Cross-matching both samples against radio catalogs then flags seven radio-emitting sources, four of which stand out as promising X-ray binary candidates. The work shows that linking wide-field X-ray surveys to optical variability and multi-wavelength data efficiently surfaces systems that are otherwise difficult to detect.

Core claim

Capitalizing on the eRASS1 optical counterpart catalog, the study conducts a systematic census of compact object binary candidates by integrating ZTF time-domain photometry with multi-wavelength observations, yielding two samples—one of 151 periodically variable sources refined to 43 high-priority candidates and one of 1958 sources selected by X-ray luminosity or flux ratio—then cross-matches both with radio catalogs to reveal seven radio-emitting sources as promising candidates.

What carries the argument

Two complementary pipelines—one selecting periodically variable sources from ZTF photometry and the other selecting sources by elevated X-ray luminosities or high log(F_X/F_opt) ratios—followed by radio catalog cross-matching.

If this is right

  • The 43 high-priority candidates become targets for targeted follow-up to confirm binary nature and orbital parameters.
  • Radio detections strengthen the case for four sources as X-ray binaries by adding an independent indicator of non-thermal emission.
  • The same selection criteria can be applied to future eRASS data releases to enlarge the known population of compact object binaries.
  • Distance constraints in the second sample allow rough estimates of X-ray luminosities that help prioritize the most luminous systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Population synthesis models could be tested by comparing the observed candidate numbers against predicted space densities of black-hole and neutron-star binaries.
  • If many candidates prove to be quiescent black-hole systems, the method could increase the known sample of such objects available for dynamical mass measurements.
  • Extending the radio cross-match to deeper surveys such as VLASS or ASKAP might uncover additional faint compact object binaries missed in current catalogs.

Load-bearing premise

Periodic variability combined with high X-ray to optical flux ratios and radio emission reliably picks out compact object binaries while keeping contamination from other variable sources low.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic or multi-epoch follow-up showing that most of the 43 high-priority candidates are actually cataclysmic variables, active stars, or unrelated variables rather than compact object binaries would undermine the low-contamination claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.01085 by Hao-Bin Liu, Wei-Min Gu, Xin-Yu Fang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Panel (a): FX/Fopt vs GBP − GRP color plotted for the sources in first sample. Sky blue points are sources above Line 1 and navy blue points are sources above Line 2. Line 1 denote log(FX/Fopt) = (GBP − GRP) − 3.5, while Line 2 denote log(FX/Fopt) = (GBP − GRP) − 3. Panel (b): Distribution of the offset from the “X-ray main sequence” for all 151 sources vs photometric period. The y-axis shows the vertical … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: X-ray luminosities to log(FX/Fopt) − (GBP − GRP − 3.5) distribution of sources with reliable distance. The X-ray luminosities LX is derived by combining the eROSITA flux (ML FLUX 1) parameter with Gaia parallaxes. Based on this distribu￾tion, the second sample was explicitly selected from the upper-left, upper-right, and lower-right regions of the parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Panel (a) illustrates the distribution of log(FUV/FX) against photometric period for Sample 1, together with CVs from H. Ritter & U. Kolb (2003) and 4 MS-LMXBs. For all sources in this plot, the X-ray fluxes are consistently taken from the eRASS1 ML FLUX 1 data. Conversely, Panel (b) displays the distribution of log(FUV/FX) versus HR for Sample 2, where the X-ray measurements for the reference CVs and 5 MS… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 5 GHz radio and 1-10 keV X-ray luminosity of 7 radio sources cross-matched by VLASS and RACS in this work. The Radio/X-ray correlation for accreting compact objects (BH and NS) are from the data base compiled by A. Bahramian et al. (2018). Besides, we further cross-match these two samples with radio surveys including VLASS and RACS, and identified seven radio counterparts. Among these seven sources, one is… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Capitalizing on the eRASS1 optical counterpart catalog, we conduct a systematic census of compact object binary (COB) candidates, with a primary focus on X-ray binaries (XRBs), by integrating ZTF time-domain photometry with multi-wavelength observations. This framework establishes two complementary pipelines, yielding two distinct source samples. The first sample consists of 151 periodically variable sources, from which a highly refined subset of 43 high-priority COB candidates is identified. The second sample comprises 1958 distance-constrained sources selected based on elevated X-ray luminosities or high $\log (F_{\mathrm{X}}/F_{\mathrm{opt}})$. Crucially, cross-matching both samples with radio catalogs reveals seven radio-emitting sources, highlighting four promising XRB candidates. Our results underscore that coupling eROSITA with wide-field time-domain photometric and multi-wavelength surveys offers a highly efficient strategy for uncovering the hidden population of COBs.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a systematic search for compact object binary (COB) candidates, focusing on X-ray binaries (XRBs), by cross-matching the eRASS1 optical counterpart catalog with ZTF time-domain photometry and multi-wavelength data. Two pipelines are presented: one identifying 151 periodically variable sources, refined to 43 high-priority COB candidates, and another selecting 1958 distance-constrained sources based on elevated X-ray luminosities or high log(F_X/F_opt) ratios. Cross-matching with radio catalogs yields seven radio-emitting sources, including four promising XRB candidates. The authors conclude that integrating eROSITA with wide-field surveys provides a highly efficient strategy for uncovering hidden COB populations.

Significance. If the reported selections prove reliable with quantified low contamination, this work would establish a practical multi-survey framework for discovering compact object binaries missed by single-wavelength approaches, potentially expanding the known Galactic XRB population and informing binary evolution models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The refinement from 151 periodically variable sources to a 'highly refined subset of 43 high-priority COB candidates' is stated without any description of the additional selection criteria, validation metrics, purity estimates, or explicit rejection of common contaminants (e.g., CVs, active stars, AGN). This directly undermines assessment of the central claim that the pipeline yields reliable COB identifications.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The second sample of 1958 'distance-constrained sources selected based on elevated X-ray luminosities or high log(F_X/F_opt)' provides no numerical thresholds, justification for the cuts, completeness estimates, or comparison against known non-COB populations that can satisfy the same X-ray/optical criteria. Without these, the efficiency assertion cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: The cross-match yielding 'four promising XRB candidates' from seven radio-emitting sources offers no definition of 'promising,' no false-positive rate assessment, and no discussion of how radio emission combined with the prior cuts excludes alternative interpretations. This is load-bearing for the multi-wavelength census claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which identify opportunities to make the abstract more self-contained and transparent regarding our selection processes. We agree that expanding the abstract with concise references to the key criteria will improve readability while preserving its summary nature. Details of all selections, metrics, and contaminant rejection are already present in the main text; the revisions will primarily involve adding brief summaries and cross-references in the abstract.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The refinement from 151 periodically variable sources to a 'highly refined subset of 43 high-priority COB candidates' is stated without any description of the additional selection criteria, validation metrics, purity estimates, or explicit rejection of common contaminants (e.g., CVs, active stars, AGN). This directly undermines assessment of the central claim that the pipeline yields reliable COB identifications.

    Authors: The additional selection criteria (including periodicity significance thresholds, color cuts, and explicit rejection of CVs, active stars, and AGN via multi-wavelength diagnostics), validation metrics, and purity estimates are fully described in Sections 3.2, 4.1, and 5. We will revise the abstract to include a brief clause summarizing the main refinement steps (e.g., 'after applying variability amplitude and color cuts to exclude common contaminants') and direct readers to the methods for full details. This addresses the concern without lengthening the abstract excessively. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The second sample of 1958 'distance-constrained sources selected based on elevated X-ray luminosities or high log(F_X/F_opt)' provides no numerical thresholds, justification for the cuts, completeness estimates, or comparison against known non-COB populations that can satisfy the same X-ray/optical criteria. Without these, the efficiency assertion cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: The specific numerical thresholds (log L_X > 10^32 erg/s and log(F_X/F_opt) > -1), their justification based on known XRB properties, completeness estimates, and comparisons to non-COB populations are provided in Section 3.3. We will revise the abstract to state the thresholds explicitly (e.g., 'selected with log L_X > ... or log(F_X/F_opt) > ...') and note that full justification appears in the text. This will allow direct evaluation of the efficiency claim from the abstract. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The cross-match yielding 'four promising XRB candidates' from seven radio-emitting sources offers no definition of 'promising,' no false-positive rate assessment, and no discussion of how radio emission combined with the prior cuts excludes alternative interpretations. This is load-bearing for the multi-wavelength census claim.

    Authors: The definition of 'promising' (based on radio detection combined with high X-ray luminosity, periodic variability or elevated F_X/F_opt, and exclusion of AGN via spectral indices and optical colors), along with false-positive considerations, is detailed in Section 4.3. We will revise the abstract to briefly define the criteria (e.g., 'four sources meeting radio + X-ray + variability criteria consistent with XRBs') and reference the section for the exclusion of alternatives. This strengthens the multi-wavelength aspect without requiring new analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational selection with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper performs a census by applying observational cuts (periodic ZTF variability, elevated L_X or log(F_X/F_opt), radio cross-matches) to eRASS1 counterparts and reports raw counts of candidates. No equations, parameter fits, model predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. Selection criteria are stated directly from multi-wavelength properties without reduction to prior fitted inputs or self-citations. The central efficiency claim rests on the empirical yield of candidates rather than any self-referential derivation, making the work self-contained as an observational study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about source classification from multi-wavelength properties rather than new postulates or fitted parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • selection thresholds for periodic variability, X-ray luminosity, and log(F_X/F_opt)
    The pipelines apply specific cuts on variability and flux ratios whose exact numerical values are not stated in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Periodic optical variability combined with high X-ray to optical flux ratios indicates the presence of a compact object binary.
    This assumption underpins the identification of the 43 high-priority candidates and the 1958 distance-constrained sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5704 in / 1331 out tokens · 29731 ms · 2026-06-28T16:53:16.627440+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2018, Radio/X-ray correlation database for X-ray binaries, v0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1252036

    Bahramian, A., Miller-Jones, J., Strader, J., et al. 2018, Radio/X-ray correlation database for X-ray binaries, v0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1252036

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1252036 2018

  2. [2]

    O., Kennea, J

    Bahramian, A., Heinke, C. O., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3868

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3868 2021

  3. [3]

    Estimating distances from parallaxes. V: Geometric and photogeometric distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia Early Data Release 3

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    2025, A&A, 704, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556747

    Bao, T., Ponti, G., Haberl, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556747

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556747 2025

  5. [5]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 98-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2023

  6. [6]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 2017

  7. [7]

    J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016

  8. [8]

    2021, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 120, 103879, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879

    Burgio, G., Schulze, H.-J., Vida˜ na, I., & Wei, J.-B. 2021, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 120, 103879, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103879 2021

  9. [9]

    M., Casares J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Bauer F

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 2016

  10. [10]

    2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 41, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.72

    Driessen, L., Pritchard, J., Murphy, T., et al. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 41, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.72

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.72 2024

  11. [11]

    N., Williams, D

    Driessen, L. N., Williams, D. R. A., McDonald, I., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3461

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3461 2022

  12. [12]

    N., Evans, J

    Evans, I. N., Evans, J. D., Mart´ ınez-Galarza, J. R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad6319 2024

  13. [13]

    1992, Accretion power in astrophysics., Vol

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 1992, Accretion power in astrophysics., Vol. 21

    1992

  14. [14]

    C., El-Badry, K., et al

    Galiullin, I., Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A374, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450734

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450734 2024

  15. [15]

    A., Boyce, M

    Gordon, Y. A., Boyce, M. M., O’Dea, C. P., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac05c0 2021

  16. [16]

    L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A

    Hale, C. L., McConnell, D., Thomson, A. J. M., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2021.47 2021

  17. [17]

    O., Grindlay, J

    Heinke, C. O., Grindlay, J. E., Edmonds, P. D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 796, doi: 10.1086/429899

    work page doi:10.1086/429899 2005

  18. [18]

    G., Bassa, C

    Jonker, P. G., Bassa, C. G., Nelemans, G., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/18

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/18 2011

  19. [19]

    Jansky Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS)

    Lacy, M., Baum, S. A., Chandler, C. J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 035001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb 2020

  20. [20]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfecd

    Liu, H.-B., Gu, W.-M., Lu, Y., Liu, T., & Liu, J.-Z. 2025, ApJ, 991, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfecd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfecd 2025

  21. [21]

    Maan, V., Katira, A., & Mooley, K. P. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1752

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1752 2025

  22. [22]

    L., Lenc, E., Banfield, et al.\ 2020

    McConnell, D., Hale, C. L., Lenc, E., et al. 2020, PASA, 37, e048, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.41 2020

  23. [23]

    and Lamer, G

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 2024

  24. [24]

    A., et al

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 682, doi: 10.1086/520512 Mu˜ noz-Giraldo, D., Stelzer, B., Schwope, A., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557266

    work page doi:10.1086/520512 2007

  25. [25]

    2017, PASP, 129, 062001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736

    Mukai, K. 2017, PASP, 129, 062001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aa6736 2017

  26. [26]

    Olejak, K

    Olejak, A., Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Sobolewska, M. 2020, A&A, 638, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936557 2020

  27. [27]

    M., Gallo, E., & Jonker, P

    Plotkin, R. M., Gallo, E., & Jonker, P. G. 2013, ApJ, 773, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/1/59 2013

  28. [28]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039313 2021

  29. [29]

    C., Wheatley, P

    Reis, R. C., Wheatley, P. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Osborne, J. P. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt025

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt025 2013

  30. [30]

    Broadband reflection spectroscopy of MAXI J1535-571 using AstroSat: Estimation of black hole mass and spin

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532 2006

  31. [31]

    2003, A&A, 404, 301, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030330

    Ritter, H., & Kolb, U. 2003, A&A, 404, 301, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030330

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030330 2003

  32. [32]

    Rodriguez, A. C. 2024, PASP, 136, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad357c

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad357c 2024

  33. [33]

    C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 014201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ada185

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ada185 2025

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Russell, D. M., Fender, R. P., Hynes, R. I., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1334, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10756.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10756.x 2006

  35. [35]

    2025, A&A, 704, A344, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556142

    Salvato, M., Wolf, J., Dwelly, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A344, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556142

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556142 2025

  36. [36]

    2024, A&A, 686, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348426

    Schwope, A., Kurpas, J., Baecke, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348426

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348426 2024

  37. [37]

    Smith, R. C. 2006, Contemporary Physics, 47, 363, doi: 10.1080/00107510601181175

    work page doi:10.1080/00107510601181175 2006

  38. [38]

    2022, A&A, 657, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141259 Tr¨ umper, J

    Tranin, H., Godet, O., Webb, N., & Primorac, D. 2022, A&A, 657, A138, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141259 Tr¨ umper, J. 1982, Advances in Space Research, 2, 241, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(82)90070-9

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141259 2022

  39. [39]

    , year = 1997, volume = 35, pages =

    Ulrich, M.-H., Maraschi, L., & Urry, C. 2003, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 445, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445 2003

  40. [40]

    2025, A&A, 698, A321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452230

    Wang, X., & Takata, J. 2025, A&A, 698, A321, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452230

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452230 2025

  41. [41]

    D., Bellm, E

    Wang, Y. D., Bellm, E. C., Hynes, R. I., et al. 2026, ApJS, 284, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae5247

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae5247 2026

  42. [42]

    A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al

    Webb, N. A., Coriat, M., Traulsen, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A136, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 2020

  43. [43]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.09228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.09228

    Xu, Y.-J., Gu, W.-M., Fang, X.-Y., Weng, S.-S., & An, T. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.09228, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.09228

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.09228 2026

  44. [44]

    2026, MNRAS, 546, stag058, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag058

    Zhao, Y., Gandhi, P., Knigge, C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag058, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag058 2026