pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00192 · v1 · pith:HT3CC23Nnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Spectroscopic Monitoring of Metal Lines in Polluted White Dwarfs

Laura K. Rogers , Michael M. Shara , Amy Bonsor , Siyi Xu , \'Erika Le Bourdais , Patrick Dufour , John Debes , Omri Nolan
show 7 more authors
Ted von Hippel Erik Dennihy Simon Hodgkin Andrew Swan Mariona Badenas-Agusti Mark C. Wyatt Tim Cunningham
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 17:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords polluted white dwarfsaccretion ratesmetal linesspectroscopic monitoringplanetary debrisdiffusion timescaleswhite dwarf atmospheres
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accretion rates onto four polluted white dwarfs remain stable within 15-30 percent over 15-18 years.

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

The paper tests the expectation that accretion of planetary debris onto white dwarfs should vary stochastically by tracking metal absorption lines in five warm systems over 18 years. In four systems the lines show no statistically significant changes across baselines of hundreds to thousands of diffusion timescales, so the inferred accretion rates stay steady to within 15-30 percent. This result implies that the supply of material or the way it appears in the atmosphere does not fluctuate strongly on these long intervals. The remaining system displays possible short-term line changes from the ground but none between two HST spectra, suggesting any variation may be transient.

Core claim

At four of the five warm polluted white dwarfs, equivalent widths of metal lines show no statistically significant variability over 15-18 year baselines, yielding accretion rates stable to within 15-30 percent at 1 sigma and indicating remarkably stable accretion on decadal timescales. The exception WD 0106-328 exhibits variability in the ground-based Mg II 4481 A doublet, yet HST ultraviolet spectra from 2016 and 2025 reveal no equivalent width or abundance shifts, consistent with a possible stochastic excursion rather than a sustained change in bulk accretion rate.

What carries the argument

Long-term monitoring of photospheric metal absorption line equivalent widths to track inferred accretion rates across many diffusion timescales.

If this is right

  • The processes that deliver disrupted planetary material must remain steady on decadal timescales in these four systems.
  • Accretion does not fluctuate strongly on timescales of hundreds to thousands of diffusion times.
  • If underlying accretion varies, photospheric processes must smooth the resulting abundance changes on the observed baselines.
  • The single case of line variability may reflect a transient event rather than a permanent shift in the overall rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Steady accretion could mean that debris disks around these white dwarfs maintain consistent feeding over long periods rather than episodic delivery.
  • Extending the same monitoring to cooler white dwarfs with longer diffusion times would test whether the stability persists under different conditions.
  • Direct comparison of these observational limits with models of tidal disruption and disk evolution could identify which mechanisms produce the observed steadiness.

Load-bearing premise

That observed stability or changes in metal line equivalent widths can be read directly as stability or changes in the bulk accretion rate without dominant uncharacterized photospheric processes smoothing the variations.

What would settle it

Detection of statistically significant equivalent-width changes in the metal lines of several additional polluted white dwarfs over comparable 15-year baselines would falsify the reported stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00192 by Amy Bonsor, Andrew Swan, \'Erika Le Bourdais, Erik Dennihy, John Debes, Laura K. Rogers, Mariona Badenas-Agusti, Mark C. Wyatt, Michael M. Shara, Omri Nolan, Patrick Dufour, Simon Hodgkin, Siyi Xu, Ted von Hippel, Tim Cunningham.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The equivalent width of (left) the Mg II doublet and (right) the Ca ii K line over time for each of the white dwarfs with MIKE/Magellan data marked as orange circles and HRS/SALT marked as blue diamonds for data with SNR>10 and lines detected at a 3 σ significance. The dashed line marks the weighted mean of the equivalent widths. The dotted horizontal lines mark the equivalent width for a spectral line wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison between the measured equivalent widths of the spectral lines between the 2016 and 2025 HST data. Only lines detected at 3 σ in both the 2016 and 2025 data are plotted. For these lines, no statistically significant variation in equivalent width is detected at the 3σ level between the two HST observations. This is illustrated in Fig￾ure 3 where the difference in equivalent width between the two ep… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison between the 2016 (blue) and 2025 (orange) HST data of the two Si IV lines. The data are normalized and smoothed with a box size of 5 for clarity with the raw data faded in the background. λ0 marks the vacuum wavelength of the Si IV lines and λphot marks where the photospheric lines would lie, there is a clear offset showing these are likely circumstellar features. There is a tentative decrease… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: White dwarf model fits (red line) to the 2025 COS/HST data for WD 0106−328. Spectral lines are la￾beled, and those with an interstellar medium component have an additional red dash at the position of the interstellar medium lines. enclosures and strict temperature stabilization, limiting their long-term instrument stability. For SALT/HRS in Low Resolution Mode (LRS), the instrument stability has been quant… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Violin plots showing the distribution of radial velocity (RV) variations. (left) Comparison of the four methods tested on the HRS/SALT data: a single-line Voigt profile fitting (using the Mg ii 4481˚A line), multi-line Voigt profile fitting (using some of the strongest lines in the data: Mg II 4481, Si II 5055, 6347, 6371 ˚A lines), self cross-correlation (CC) where the highest SNR dataset was used as the … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison between equivalent widths derived from this work (MIKE/Magellan and HRS/SALT) and J. Farihi et al. (2026) using the (left) Mg II 4481˚A line and (right) Ca II 3933˚A K line for WD 0106−328. All measurements taken within a few weeks of one another have equivalent widths consistent within 1 σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The disruption and accretion of planetary material onto white dwarfs is expected to be inherently dynamic and stochastic, potentially driving variability in the accretion rate and therefore the shape and depth of the photospheric metal absorption lines. This paper presents an 18-year optical spectroscopic monitoring campaign of five warm (11,000-23,000K) polluted white dwarfs with sinking timescales of days-months, observed using Magellan/MIKE and SALT/HRS to directly test this prediction. At four of the five systems, no statistically significant variability is detected over baselines of 15-18 years corresponding to hundreds to thousands of diffusion timescales, with inferred accretion rates stable to within 15-30% (1$\sigma$) showing remarkably stable accretion on decadal timescales. This implies that either the processes maintaining the accretion of the disrupted planetary material are stable on the same timescales, or that currently uncharacterized photospheric processes act to smooth observable abundance variations on these timescales. The one exception, WD 0106$-$328, shows statistically significant variability in the 4481A Mg II doublet from the ground-based data. Yet no significant equivalent width or abundance changes are seen between two Hubble Space Telescope ultraviolet spectra taken in 2016 and 2025, despite probing a larger set of transitions. This may imply that the ground-based observations witnessed a stochastic excursion from a stable baseline accretion rate, rather than a sustained change in the bulk accretion rate.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper reports results from an 18-year optical spectroscopic monitoring campaign of five warm (11,000–23,000 K) polluted white dwarfs with short sinking timescales, using Magellan/MIKE and SALT/HRS. The central observational result is that four of the five systems exhibit no statistically significant variability in photospheric metal line equivalent widths over baselines of 15–18 years (hundreds to thousands of diffusion timescales), with inferred accretion rates stable to within 15–30% (1σ). One exception (WD 0106−328) shows significant variability in the 4481 Å Mg II doublet from ground-based spectra, but no equivalent width or abundance changes are detected between two HST UV spectra (2016 and 2025). The authors interpret the overall lack of variability as implying either stable accretion processes or uncharacterized photospheric smoothing of abundance variations.

Significance. If the reported stability holds after full scrutiny of the error budget and line-formation assumptions, the work supplies a rare long-baseline observational constraint on the temporal behavior of planetary accretion onto white dwarfs. The multi-instrument approach and the explicit cross-check with HST UV data for one target strengthen the empirical case that accretion rates (or their observable signatures) remain steady on decadal timescales, which bears directly on models of debris-disk dynamics and diffusion in polluted atmospheres.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results): the statement that accretion rates are 'stable to within 15–30% (1σ)' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the abstract provides no explicit description of how the 1σ uncertainties were derived, whether they incorporate systematic contributions from continuum placement or model-atmosphere assumptions, or how the statistical test for 'no significant variability' was performed across multiple lines and epochs.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the alternative explanation (uncharacterized photospheric processes smoothing abundance variations) is correctly noted, but the manuscript does not quantify the expected smoothing timescale or amplitude under plausible mixing or diffusion scenarios, leaving the two interpretations difficult to distinguish on the basis of the presented data alone.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'hundreds to thousands of diffusion timescales' without citing the specific diffusion times adopted for each object or the source of those values.
  2. Notation for the Mg II doublet (4481 Å) should be clarified as to whether it is the 4481.13/4481.33 Å pair or a blended measurement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which we address point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (results): the statement that accretion rates are 'stable to within 15–30% (1σ)' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the abstract provides no explicit description of how the 1σ uncertainties were derived, whether they incorporate systematic contributions from continuum placement or model-atmosphere assumptions, or how the statistical test for 'no significant variability' was performed across multiple lines and epochs.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from a concise description of the uncertainty methodology. Section 3 already details the equivalent-width measurements from multiple lines, the χ²-based statistical tests for variability across epochs, and the incorporation of both statistical and systematic uncertainties (including continuum placement and model-atmosphere assumptions) into the final 1σ error budget. In the revised manuscript we will add one sentence to the abstract summarizing this approach so that the quoted stability level is self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the alternative explanation (uncharacterized photospheric processes smoothing abundance variations) is correctly noted, but the manuscript does not quantify the expected smoothing timescale or amplitude under plausible mixing or diffusion scenarios, leaving the two interpretations difficult to distinguish on the basis of the presented data alone.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative estimate of photospheric smoothing would help separate the two interpretations. Such an estimate would require dedicated hydrodynamic or mixing-length calculations of the white-dwarf atmosphere that lie outside the scope of this observational study. We will revise the discussion to state this limitation explicitly and to note that future theoretical work is needed to quantify the expected smoothing timescale and amplitude. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely observational campaign; no derivation reduces to inputs

full rationale

The paper reports direct spectroscopic measurements of metal line equivalent widths over 15-18 year baselines for five white dwarfs, with accretion rates inferred from standard diffusion timescales. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to the input data. The central claim of stability (or the alternative of photospheric smoothing) is framed as an empirical result with both interpretations retained. No self-citation chains, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing elements. This is a standard observational monitoring study whose conclusions rest on the measurements themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational study; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard assumptions of stellar spectroscopy and diffusion theory that predate this work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5846 in / 1215 out tokens · 21820 ms · 2026-07-02T17:11:38.378035+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

99 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    1967, JQSRT, 7, 61, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(67)90057-X

    Armstrong, B. 1967, JQSRT, 7, 61, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(67)90057-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-4073(67)90057-x 1967

  2. [2]

    T., Dhillon, V

    Aungwerojwit, A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Dhillon, V. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae750

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae750 2024

  3. [3]

    I., Cottrell, P

    Barnes, S. I., Cottrell, P. L., Albrow, M. D., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70140K, doi: 10.1117/12.788219 15 https://scipy.org 16 https://emcee.readthedocs.io/en/stable

    work page doi:10.1117/12.788219 2008

  4. [4]

    A., Barstow, J

    Barstow, M. A., Barstow, J. K., Casewell, S. L., Holberg, J. B., & Hubeny, I. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu216

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu216 2014

  5. [5]

    B., & Bildsten, L

    Bauer, E. B., & Bildsten, L. 2018, ApJL, 859, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac492

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac492 2018

  6. [6]

    B., & Bildsten, L

    Bauer, E. B., & Bildsten, L. 2019, ApJ, 872, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0028

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0028 2019

  7. [7]

    E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al

    Becklin, E. E., Farihi, J., Jura, M., et al. 2005, ApJL, 632, L119, doi: 10.1086/497826 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe 18 T able 7.Details on the lines detected in theHSTultraviolet spectra for WD 0106−328. Only lines detected at 3σin both the 2016 and 2025 spectra are listed. Ele...

    work page doi:10.1086/497826 2005

  8. [8]

    A., Gunnels, S

    Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. Moorwood, 1694–1704, doi: 10.1117/12.461502

    work page doi:10.1117/12.461502 2003

  9. [9]

    P., Hollands, M

    Bhattacharjee, S., Vanderbosch, Z. P., Hollands, M. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.05502, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.05502

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.05502 2025

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Blackman, J. W., Beaulieu, J. P., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2021, Nature, 598, 272, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03869-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03869-6 2021

  11. [11]

    C., & van Lieshout, R

    Bonsor, A., Farihi, J., Wyatt, M. C., & van Lieshout, R. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 154, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx425

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx425 2017

  12. [12]

    G., Sharples, R., Tyas, L., et al

    Bramall, D. G., Sharples, R., Tyas, L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S

    2010

  13. [13]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77354F, doi: 10.1117/12.856382

    work page doi:10.1117/12.856382

  14. [14]

    G., Schmoll, J., Tyas, L

    Bramall, D. G., Schmoll, J., Tyas, L. M. G., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  15. [15]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84460A, doi: 10.1117/12.925935

    work page doi:10.1117/12.925935

  16. [16]

    S., G¨ ansicke, B

    Brinkworth, C. S., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Girven, J. M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/86

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/86 2012

  17. [17]

    G., Bonsor, A., & Malamud, U

    Brouwers, M. G., Bonsor, A., & Malamud, U. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3009

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3009 2022

  18. [18]

    M., Tremblay, P.-E., B´ edard, A., Bauer, E

    Buchan, A. M., Tremblay, P.-E., B´ edard, A., Bauer, E. B., & Cunningham, T. 2025, MNRAS, 544, 2098, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1832

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1832 2025

  19. [19]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6267, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes, ed. L. M. Stepp, 62670Z, doi: 10.1117/12.673750

    work page doi:10.1117/12.673750 2006

  20. [20]

    1995a, ApJS, 99, 189, doi: 10.1086/192184

    Chayer, P., Fontaine, G., & Wesemael, F. 1995a, ApJS, 99, 189, doi: 10.1086/192184

    work page doi:10.1086/192184

  21. [21]

    K., et al

    Chayer, P., Vennes, S., Pradhan, A. K., et al. 1995b, ApJ, 454, 429, doi: 10.1086/176494

    work page doi:10.1086/176494

  22. [22]

    A., Sharples, R

    Crause, L. A., Sharples, R. M., Bramall, D. G., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K

    2014

  23. [23]

    Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91476T, doi: 10.1117/12.2055635

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2055635

  24. [24]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 2503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1759

    Cunningham, T., Tremblay, P.-E., Freytag, B., Ludwig, H.-G., & Koester, D. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1759

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1759 2019

  25. [25]

    J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al

    Cunningham, T., Wheatley, P. J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 219, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04300-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04300-w 2022

  26. [26]

    B., et al

    Cunningham, T., Tremblay, P.-E., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1646, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab553

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab553 2021

  27. [27]

    H., Kilic, M., Faedi, F., et al

    Debes, J. H., Kilic, M., Faedi, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/59

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/1/59 2012

  28. [28]

    H., & L´ opez-Morales, M

    Debes, J. H., & L´ opez-Morales, M. 2008, ApJL, 677, L43, doi: 10.1086/587550

    work page doi:10.1086/587550 2008

  29. [29]

    H., & Sigurdsson, S

    Debes, J. H., & Sigurdsson, S. 2002, ApJ, 572, 556, doi: 10.1086/340291

    work page doi:10.1086/340291 2002

  30. [30]

    C., Debes, J

    Dennihy, E., Clemens, J. C., Debes, J. H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ef2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ef2 2017

  31. [31]

    C., Dunlap, B

    Dennihy, E., Clemens, J. C., Dunlap, B. H., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa89b 2018

  32. [32]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc339

    Dennihy, E., Xu, S., Lai, S., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc339

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc339 2020

  33. [33]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/6

    Dufour, P., Kilic, M., Fontaine, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/6 2012

  34. [34]

    , keywords =

    Farihi, J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Steele, P. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1635, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20421.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20421.x 2012

  35. [35]

    2010, ApJ, 714, 1386, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1386

    Farihi, J., Jura, M., Lee, J.-E., & Zuckerman, B. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1386, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1386

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1386 2010

  36. [36]

    W., et al

    Farihi, J., van Lieshout, R., Cauley, P. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2601, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2331

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2331 2018

  37. [37]

    J., Marsh, T

    Farihi, J., Hermes, J. J., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3475

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3475 2022

  38. [38]

    T., Melis, C., et al

    Farihi, J., Noor, H. T., Melis, C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag176 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., Farihi, J., et a...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag176 2026

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., & Southworth, J. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L103, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00565.x G¨ ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., & Southworth, J. 2007, MNRAS, 380, L35, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2007.00343.x G¨ ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., Southworth, J., &

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00565.x 2008

  40. [40]

    2006, Science, 314, 1908, doi: 10.1126/science.1135033 G¨ ansicke, B

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A. 2006, Science, 314, 1908, doi: 10.1126/science.1135033 G¨ ansicke, B. T., Aungwerojwit, A., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2016, ApJL, 818, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L7 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab992

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1135033 2006

  41. [41]

    Gianninas, A., Bergeron, P., & Ruiz, M. T. 2011, ApJ, 743, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/138 20

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/2/138 2011

  42. [42]

    A., Hermes, J

    Guidry, J. A., Hermes, J. J., De, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5be7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5be7 2024

  43. [43]

    Harrison, J. H. D., Bonsor, A., & Madhusudhan, N. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3814, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1700

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1700 2018

  44. [44]

    M., Klein, B

    Johnson, T. M., Klein, B. L., Koester, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca089

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca089 2022

  45. [45]

    2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036

    Jura, M. 2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036

    work page doi:10.1086/374036 2003

  46. [46]

    2007, ApJ, 663, 1285, doi: 10.1086/518767

    Jura, M., Farihi, J., & Zuckerman, B. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1285, doi: 10.1086/518767

    work page doi:10.1086/518767 2007

  47. [47]

    Kelson, D. D. 2003, PASP, 115, 688, doi: 10.1086/375502

    work page doi:10.1086/375502 2003

  48. [48]

    2000, ApJ, 531, 159, doi: 10.1086/308445

    Franx, M. 2000, ApJ, 531, 159, doi: 10.1086/308445

    work page doi:10.1086/308445 2000

  49. [49]

    J., Nather, R

    Kleinman, S. J., Nather, R. E., Winget, D. E., et al. 1998, ApJ, 495, 424, doi: 10.1086/305259

    work page doi:10.1086/305259 1998

  50. [50]

    Y., Gvaramadze, V

    Kniazev, A. Y., Gvaramadze, V. V., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw889

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw889 2016

  51. [51]

    Y., Gvaramadze, V

    Kniazev, A. Y., Gvaramadze, V. V., & Berdnikov, L. N. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

    2017

  52. [52]

    SALT spectroscopy of evolved massive stars

    Series, Vol. 510, Stars: From Collapse to Collapse, ed. Y. Y. Balega, D. O. Kudryavtsev, I. I. Romanyuk, & I. A. Yakunin, 480, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.00292

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.00292

  53. [53]

    2009, A&A, 498, 517, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    Koester, D. 2009, A&A, 498, 517, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811468 2009

  54. [54]

    T., & Farihi, J

    Koester, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Farihi, J. 2014, A&A, 566, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423691

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423691 2014

  55. [55]

    O., & Irwin, A

    Koester, D., Kepler, S. O., & Irwin, A. W. 2020, A&A, 635, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037530

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037530 2020

  56. [56]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1354

    Lai, S., Dennihy, E., Xu, S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1354

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1354 2021

  57. [57]

    Laor, A., & Draine, B. T. 1993, ApJ, 402, 441, doi: 10.1086/172149

    work page doi:10.1086/172149 1993

  58. [58]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., Marsh, T. R., & Southworth, J. 2016a, MNRAS, 462, 1461, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1760

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1760

  59. [59]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2016b, MNRAS, 455, 4467, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2603

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2603

  60. [60]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Eggl, S., et al. 2019, Science, 364, 66, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5330

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aat5330 2019

  61. [61]

    H., & Veras, D

    McDonald, C. H., & Veras, D. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1906

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1906 2021

  62. [62]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/90

    Melis, C., Farihi, J., Dufour, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 90, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/90 2011

  63. [63]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 1078, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1078

    Melis, C., Jura, M., Albert, L., Klein, B., & Zuckerman, B. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1078, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1078

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/2/1078 2010

  64. [64]

    E., et al

    Melis, C., Klein, B., Doyle, A. E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdfa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbdfa 2020

  65. [65]

    2012, ApJL, 751, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/L4

    Melis, C., Dufour, P., Farihi, J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 751, L4, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/L4

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/l4 2012

  66. [66]

    T., Farihi, J., Kenyon, S

    Noor, H. T., Farihi, J., Kenyon, S. J., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 543, 1602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1380 Ould Rouis, L. B., Hermes, J. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad86bb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1380 2025

  67. [67]

    Rafikov, R. R. 2011, MNRAS, 416, L55, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01096.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01096.x 2011

  68. [68]

    T., & Bergfors, C

    Rocchetto, M., Farihi, J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Bergfors, C. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 574, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv282

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv282 2015

  69. [69]

    2022, PhD thesis, Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, doi: 10.17863/CAM.92120

    Rogers, L. 2022, PhD thesis, Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, doi: 10.17863/CAM.92120

    work page doi:10.17863/cam.92120 2022

  70. [70]

    K., Xu, S., Bonsor, A., et al

    Rogers, L. K., Xu, S., Bonsor, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2861, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa873

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa873 2020

  71. [71]

    K., Bonsor, A., Xu, S., et al

    Rogers, L. K., Bonsor, A., Xu, S., et al. 2024a, MNRAS, 527, 6038, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3557

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3557

  72. [72]

    K., Debes, J., Anslow, R

    Rogers, L. K., Debes, J., Anslow, R. J., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 527, 977, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3098

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3098

  73. [73]

    K., Manser, C

    Rogers, L. K., Manser, C. J., Bonsor, A., et al. 2025a, MNRAS, 537, L72, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae117

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slae117

  74. [74]

    K., Bonsor, A., Le Bourdais, ´E., et al

    Rogers, L. K., Bonsor, A., Le Bourdais, ´E., et al. 2025b, MNRAS, 542, 293, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1221

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1221

  75. [75]

    K., Debes, J., Steele, A., et al

    Steckloff, J. K., Debes, J., Steele, A., et al. 2021, ApJL, 913, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abfd39

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abfd39 2021

  76. [76]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc262

    Steele, A., Debes, J., Xu, S., Yeh, S., & Dufour, P. 2021, ApJ, 911, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc262

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc262 2021

  77. [77]

    Swan, A., Farihi, J., & Wilson, T. G. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L109, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz014

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz014 2019

  78. [78]

    G., & Parsons, S

    Swan, A., Farihi, J., Wilson, T. G., & Parsons, S. G. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1688

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1688 2020

  79. [79]

    J., Farihi, J., et al

    Swan, A., Kenyon, S. J., Farihi, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1738

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1738 2021

  80. [80]

    Young, E. D. 2022, ApJ, 936, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d5 2022

Showing first 80 references.