Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Unequivocal detection of the tidal deformation of a red giant in a binary system via interferometry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Long-baseline interferometry resolves the red giant in HD 352 as a Roche-lobe-filling, tidally deformed star, a first for a red giant.

desk verdict Multi-epoch interferometry shows the HD 352 giant is genuinely elongated, but the 'unequivocal' Roche-filling claim goes beyond what the model comparison tests; still, this deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14621 v1 pith:BXOME6X5 submitted 2024-11-21 astro-ph.SR

Jaroslav Merc , Henri M. J. Boffin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords tidaldeformationRoche-lobeoverflowredgiantopticalinterferometrybinarystarsellipsoidalvariabilitycommonenvelopeevolutionHD352
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports that interferometric observations of the binary HD 352, spread over ten years, resolve the shape of its red-giant donor. Near quadrature—the orbital phases at which the two stars are seen side by side and any elongation is most visible—the data cannot be reproduced by round or symmetric disk models, but they match a model of a star that exactly fills its Roche lobe, the teardrop-shaped region of gravitational dominance around each binary component. If correct, this is the first direct observation of tidal deformation of a red giant, a geometric diagnostic of how mass is transferred in interacting binaries. Combined with spectroscopy and photometry, the fit gives a 55-solar-radius giant of roughly two solar masses in a 96-day orbit with a main-sequence companion, and it suggests the system may be about to enter a common-envelope phase. The paper also argues that the same technique can identify which giants in symbiotic binaries are truly overflowing their Roche lobes, where the dominant mass-transfer mechanism is still debated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a synthetic image of a Roche-lobe-filling star: a teardrop-shaped surface following the critical gravitational equipotential, with the apex at the L1 point, rendered with power-2 limb darkening appropriate for $T_\mathrm{eff}=4000$ K and $\log g = 1.3$ dex. The interferometric observables of this image are computed for each epoch, and two free parameters—the overall angular scale and the position angle of the L1 direction—are fitted to the squared visibilities and closure phases. Because the companion is too faint in the H band to explain the signal, and because the fitted orientation tracks the binary phase, the model's success is the evidence that the asymmetry is the giant's tidal deformation rather than a background source.

What would settle it

Refit the same archival visibilities with the Roche-lobe filling factor left free between, say, 0.5 and 1.0: if the best fit is indistinguishable from 1.0, the paper's geometry is confirmed, and if it is significantly below 1.0, the central claim fails. An independent test would be a higher-resolution interferometric image at one quadrature epoch, from which the observed major-to-minor axis ratio could be compared with the ratio predicted by the critical equipotential for the fitted mass ratio.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the red giant in HD 352 is tidally deformed and fills its Roche lobe, and that the deformation is directly visible in long-baseline interferometric data. The authors construct a model image in which the star's surface follows the critical gravitational equipotential, with its tip at the inner Lagrange point, and fit only the angular scale and the sky orientation of that image to the long-baseline epochs. Simple symmetric models—uniform or limb-darkened disks and elongated Gaussians—fail to fit the observations near quadrature, where the elongation is most apparent, whereas the Roche-lobe model fits all usable epochs. The fitted radius of $55.0 \pm 2.6\,R_\odot$ and the assumed geometry then imply a giant mass of about $1.97\,M_\odot$, a companion of about $1.16\,M_\odot$, and a mass ratio near 1.7, which places the system close to the predicted boundary for unstable mass transfer and a common-envelope phase.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the giant exactly fills its Roche lobe and that its surface follows the critical gravitational equipotential, while the fitted parameters are only the size and orientation of that fixed shape; a somewhat smaller but still elongated star could in principle fit the data similarly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The deformed shape of a Roche-lobe-filling red giant can be measured directly, providing geometric calibration for mass-transfer models that previously relied on light curves and radial velocities alone.
  • If the inferred mass ratio of about 1.7 is correct, HD 352 is likely on the verge of unstable mass transfer and may soon enter a common-envelope phase, so continued monitoring should show rapid changes in luminosity and orbital period.
  • Because the resolved radius agrees with the rotation-synchronization lower limit of about 52 solar radii, the interferometric signal comes from the stellar surface itself rather than from an extended wind.
  • The same observing strategy near quadrature can identify which giants in symbiotic binaries are actually overflowing their Roche lobes, resolving an open question about their dominant mass-transfer mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A test not performed in the paper is to leave the Roche-lobe filling factor as a free parameter; the current fit assumes full filling, so a nearly filling but still elongated star could mimic the data, and such a refit would quantify the robustness of the detection.
  • The paper's geometry could be checked against future closure-phase measurements at longer baselines or shorter wavelengths, where the teardrop shape should imprint a characteristic phase pattern that symmetric or Gaussian models cannot reproduce.
  • If HD 352 is indeed on the verge of a common envelope, it offers a rare empirical anchor for the critical mass ratio for unstable mass transfer in convective giants, a boundary currently set mainly by theory.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes VLTI/PIONIER interferometric observations of the binary HD 352, a system previously suspected to contain a Roche-lobe-filling red giant. The authors build a limb-darkened model image of a star that fully fills its critical Roche-lobe equipotential, with a mass ratio q = 1.7 adopted from preliminary fits, and adjust only the angular scale and the position angle at each epoch. They report that the Roche-lobe model fits the squared visibilities and closure phases better than a symmetric limb-darkened disk, especially near quadrature (e.g., 12 December 2020, V2 χ² = 0.83 versus 1.75). Combining the interferometric radius with the spectroscopic mass function, orbital period, and a synchronized-rotation assumption, they derive an inclination, masses (MG ≈ 1.97 M⊙, Mh ≈ 1.16 M⊙), and a mass ratio q ≈ 1.69, and discuss the system's likely imminent common-envelope phase, while acknowledging that stable mass transfer cannot be entirely excluded.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a genuinely important result: the first direct interferometric detection of tidal deformation of a red giant, and a rare case in which the shape of a Roche-lobe-filling donor is resolved. The paper's methods are largely transparent: it uses archival data, a custom Roche-lobe image model built with PyAstronomy, OITOOLS for visibility calculation, bootstrap uncertainties, and a cross-check of the disk fit with PMOIRED. The multi-epoch coverage and the explicit comparison against a symmetric limb-darkened disk are strengths. The derived system parameters (radius, masses, inclination) are internally consistent with the SED, the FEROS spectrum, the radial-velocity mass function, and MESA tracks. However, the claim of an "unequivocal" detection rests on the assumption that the star fully fills its Roche lobe; this is not tested against partially filling or generic elongated models. The significance is therefore high if the model assumption is correct, but the current evidence is not sufficient to uniquely establish the Roche-lobe-filling geometry.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4, §3.2, Table 2] The central claim is that the interferometric data are consistent with a Roche-lobe-filling star, but the model image fixes the star at full Roche-lobe filling with the critical equipotential and q = 1.7, and the only free parameters are scale and orientation. No test varies the filling factor or compares the fit against a generic limb-darkened ellipse with a free axis ratio and orientation. The χ² improvements in Table 2 (e.g., V2 χ² = 0.83 versus 1.75 for 12 December 2020) do not account for the extra orientation parameter of the Roche model, and no F-test, AIC, or bootstrap-based model comparison is reported. Consequently, the data robustly establish non-circularity, but not specifically that the star fills its Roche lobe; a partially filled or otherwise elongated model may fit equally well. Since the later radius and mass derivations (§3.5) assume R = Roche-lobe radius, this modeling ambiguity is load-bearing.
  2. [§2.4, §3.5, §4.2] The derived mass ratio q = 1.69 is used as an independent result, but the model image already embeds q = 1.7, which was iteratively adopted based on the inclination obtained from the fit to visibilities. The final q is therefore partly an output of an assumed input, and the later stability discussion in §4.2 uses this q. The authors claim that reasonable changes in the adopted mass ratio have a negligible impact, but they give no quantitative demonstration (e.g., a table of derived parameters as a function of input q, or an error propagation including this systematic). This mild circularity should be explicitly addressed, and the dependence of the final masses and mass ratio on the assumed input q should be quantified.
  3. [§3.2, Table 2] The orientation angle φ is not a free parameter for most epochs: in Table 2 four values are marked as fixed from the ephemeris, and for 13 August 2012 and 12 December 2020 the two fits were performed simultaneously with the difference enforced to the expected value. Thus the orientation consistency of the Roche-lobe model is partly assumed rather than independently derived. The paper should report the orientation fits when left free (or provide the individual free-fit values for 2012 and 2020), and quantify how much the χ² worsens when the orientation is fixed versus free. Without this, the reader cannot judge how much of the model's agreement is a result of the enforced orientation constraint.
  4. [§4.1, Figs. A.1–A.9] The authors acknowledge that "in some cases, our model does not provide an ideal fit to the interferometric observables, particularly the squared visibilities at the shortest available baselines." This is concerning because the shortest baselines carry the information about the overall extent and low-order shape of the star, which is exactly where a Roche-lobe versus ellipse distinction may show up. The text mentions that adding a faint background improved the shortest-baseline fit, but this model was not included because it was not constrained. The residuals at short baselines should be shown (they are in the appendix figures but are not discussed quantitative), and the authors should address whether the unmodeled short-baseline signal could reduce or mimic the inferred elongation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] In the paragraph on simultaneous fitting, the phrase "we determined the orientations we determined the orientation for the observations" is duplicated and should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says "The colors are same as in Fig. 5," but it should refer to Fig. 4.
  3. [§4.1 and footnote 3] The text in §4.1 says "eight interferometric datasets," and the footnote says "With two of them being analyzed together and an additional two not being used due to their short baselines." This implies 7 independent epochs, consistent with Table 2, so "eight" should be corrected.
  4. [§2.4] The description of the iterative adoption of q = 1.7 is brief; a more detailed explanation of how the mass ratio was derived from the initial orbital inclination and mass function would help the reader assess the circularity concern.
  5. [§3.1] The value "v sin i" is typeset inconsistently (with and without spaces); please use a consistent notation throughout.
  6. [§4.2] The statement that "a 2.0 M⊙ star would fill only about two-thirds of the current Roche lobe at the tip of the first red giant branch" is given without a specific reference or derivation; please provide a citation or a more detailed calculation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the Roche-model mass ratio q=1.7 is iteratively adopted from the same visibility fit and mass function that later 'derive' q=1.69; the elongation detection itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.4 (Interferometric model) and Sec. 3.5 (Mass ratio and individual masses)]
    "The mass ratio was iteratively adopted based on initial calculations from the orbital inclination we obtained from our fit to the visibilities and the known mass function, resulting in a final model with a mass ratio of the giant to its hotter companion, q = MG/Mh = 1.7. ... assuming that the giant fully fills its Roche lobe (thus, the Roche lobe radius calculated using the formula of Eggleton (1983) is equal to the radius of the star, 55.0 ± 2.6 R⊙, inferred from interferometry), we calculated the masses ... q = MG/Mh = 1.69+0.22−0.23."

    The q=1.7 used to construct the model image was not independently measured; it was iteratively adopted from the orbital inclination obtained from the same visibility fit plus the known mass function, using the same Roche-lobe-radius relation that Sec. 3.5 then uses to 'derive' q=1.69. Thus the final mass ratio is a re-derivation of the model input via the assumed full-Roche-filling identity (measured radius = Eggleton Roche radius), not an independent outcome of the interferometric fit. The fitted parameters (scale and orientation) exclude q, and the authors state that varying q has negligible effect, so this is a mild self-consistency loop rather than a statistically forced prediction; it does not undermine the central elongation detection.

full rationale

The central interferometric claim—that the visibilities near quadrature are inconsistent with a symmetric disk and require an elongated structure—is not circular: the disk and Roche models are fitted to the same public VLTI/PIONIER data using independent least-squares codes, and the Roche model's two fitted parameters (scale and orientation) are not the quantities being asserted (elongation vs. circularity). The only notable circularity is the mass ratio: the Roche image is built with q=1.7, which was itself iteratively adopted from the same visibility fit and mass function that later yield q=1.69; the Sec. 3.5 'derivation' is therefore a re-derivation of an input under the stated Roche-filling assumption, not an independent measurement. Because the authors show the fit is insensitive to q and the elongation detection does not depend on q, this is a mild consistency loop rather than a forced result. Self-citations (Boffin et al. 2014; Merc et al. in prep.) are contextual, not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled via citation. Score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central detection rests on the assumption that the giant fills its Roche lobe (the model image is built on that premise) and on literature values for the orbit, distance, and limb-darkening. The model's mass ratio q=1.7 was iterated into consistency with the fit, a minor circular step. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Angular scale (Roche-lobe radius) per epoch = D = 1.26 to 1.53 mas (Table 2)
    Fitted scaling factor of the model image to squared visibilities and closure phases; converts to stellar radius with Gaia distance.
  • Orientation angle phi per epoch = 43.9-47.2 deg (2012, 2014), 201.4 deg (2020-12-12); fixed elsewhere
    Fitted orientation of the L1 point on the sky; used to check consistency with orbital ephemeris and to test the deformation hypothesis.
  • Mass ratio q in model image = 1.7
    Iteratively adopted from the inclination obtained from the same interferometric fit and the spectroscopic mass function; authors state the fit is insensitive to this choice.
  • Closure-phase weight = 0.5
    Chosen by hand during chi2 minimization to avoid overfitting uncertain closure phases; affects the fitted parameters for epochs with short baselines.
  • Extinction AV = 0.03 mag
    Fitted to the SED with VOSA; used to deredden photometry before deriving Teff.
  • Limb-darkening coefficients (power-2 law) = Adopted for Teff=4000 K, logg=1.3 from Claret & Southworth 2023
    Not fitted here; chosen from tables. The paper claims reasonable changes have negligible impact on results, but the coefficients affect the derived diameter.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The giant fully fills its Roche lobe and its surface follows the critical gravitational equipotential (Sec. 2.4).
    Central modeling assumption: the model image is built on this premise, and Sec. 3.5 equates the measured radius with the Roche lobe radius via Eggleton's formula.
  • domain assumption The giant's rotation is synchronized with the orbital period (Sec. 3.3).
    Used to derive the inclination from v sin i and the interferometric radius; a slower or faster rotation would change the inclination and all derived masses.
  • domain assumption The stellar rotation axis is perpendicular to the orbital plane (Sec. 4.1).
    Needed to identify v sin i with the projected equatorial rotation velocity of the tidally locked star.
  • domain assumption The spectroscopic orbit (P=96.4371 d, T0, mass function) of Komonjinda et al. 2011 is correct (Sec. 3.2 and 3.5).
    Used to compute orbital phases, expected orientations, and the masses; the mass function enters the mass and q derivation.
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR3 parallax distance of 361.3 +/- 8.8 pc is correct (Sec. 3.2).
    Converts the fitted angular scale into a linear radius of about 55 Rsun; a different distance would shift all inferred parameters.
  • standard math The power-2 limb-darkening law of Claret & Southworth 2023 is valid for this star (Sec. 2.4).
    Adopted from literature; the fitted diameter is covariant with the assumed limb darkening, though the authors report tests of insensitivity.
  • domain assumption The companion contributes negligibly in the H band (Sec. 3.1).
    If the companion or an accretion disk contributed significant flux, the interferometric visibility and closure phases would be contaminated; the authors note UV data are unavailable to exclude a mid-F companion directly.
  • domain assumption The BT-Settl/MARCS model atmospheres and LTE spectrum synthesis (MOOG) are adequate for deriving Teff, log g and [M/H] from the SED and FEROS spectrum (Sec. 3.1).
    The stellar parameters seed the limb-darkening coefficients and the evolutionary comparison; systematics in these models are reflected in the quoted formal errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unequivocal detection of the tidal deformation of a red giant in a binary system via interferometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BXOME6X5

@misc{pith2026241114621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unequivocal detection of the tidal deformation of a red giant in a binary system via interferometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BXOME6X5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14621}
}
read the original abstract

While mass transfer in binary systems is a crucial aspect of binary evolution models, it remains far from understood. HD 352 is a spectroscopic binary exhibiting ellipsoidal variability, likely due to a tidally deformed giant donor filling its Roche lobe and transferring matter to a faint companion. Here, we analyse VLTI/PIONIER interferometric observations of the system, obtained between 2010 to 2020. We demonstrate that observations near the system's quadrature cannot be explained by simple symmetric disk models, but are consistent with the shape of a Roche-lobe-filling star. We think that this is the first case of tidal deformation of a red giant being observed directly, thanks to the interferometric technique. By combining our interferometric modeling results with the analysis of the optical spectrum, multi-frequency spectral energy distribution, and published radial velocities and light curves, we constrain the system parameters and show that HD 352 will likely soon enter the common envelope phase, although we cannot reject the hypothesis that it is undergoing stable mass transfer against theoretical predictions. This has important consequences for modeling a large class of binary systems. Additionally, our observations confirm that Roche-lobe-filling giants can be resolved with interferometry under favorable conditions. Such observations may help resolve the mass transfer dichotomy in systems like symbiotic binaries, where the predominant mass transfer mode remains unclear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14621 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Parts of the analyzed median FEROS spectrum (original in gray, smoothed in black), along with the best-fitting spectrum obtained with iSpec (red; fixed Teff = 4 000 K, log g = 1.27, [M/H] = -0.13). 2.2. Spectral energy distribution of HD 352 The spectral energy distribution (SED) of HD 352 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectral energy distribution of HD 352 (black), along with the best-fitting BT-Settl theoretical spectrum (red spectrum with dark red symbols for calculated fluxes; Teff = 4 000 K, log g = 1.0, [M/H] = −1.0) obtained using VO SED Analyzer. Additional theoretical spec￾tra with the same Teff but different log g or [M/H] are shown in orange. Theoretical spectra for Teff = 3 800 K and 4 200 K are shown in green and blue… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. VLTI/PIONIER closure phases observed on 12 December 2020 as a function of spatial frequency (the longest baseline in the triangle). The colors are same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The model image used for fitting the interferometric ob￾servations. This example presents the best-fitting model for the VLTI/PIONIER observation obtained on 12 December 2020. The two fitted free parameters were the scaling factor of the model image (tied to the angula…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VLTI/PIONIER squared visibilities observed on 12 December 2020 as a function of spatial frequency. The observed data are dis￾played in black with corresponding error bars. The best-fitting model of the deformed star is shown in red (χ 2 = 0.83), and the best-fitting li…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Position of the cool component of HD 352 in the HR diagram (black symbol). The MESA evolutionary tracks (Paxton et al. 2011) obtained using the MIST Web Interpolator (Dotter 2016; Choi et al. 2016) for initial masses of 1.8, 2.0, and 2.2 M⊙ are shown in light gray, red…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, W. S. 1914, PASP, 26, 261

    work page 1914

  2. [2]

    2014, in Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, ed

    Allard, F. 2014, in Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems, ed. M. Booth, B. C. Matthews, & J. R. Graham, V ol. 299, 271–272

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  4. [4]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascués, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277

    2008

  5. [5]

    Beavers, W. I. & Salzer, J. J. 1985, PASP, 97, 355

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    G., Grossmann, D

    Beck, P. G., Grossmann, D. H., Steinwender, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A7

    2024

  7. [7]

    & Schreiber, M

    Belloni, D. & Schreiber, M. R. 2022, Formation and Evolution of Accreting Compact Objects, ed. C. Bambi & A. Santangelo (Singapore: Springer Na- ture Singapore), 1–90

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofré, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111

    2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Boffin, H. M. J., Hillen, M., Berger, J. P., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A1 Brož, M., Mourard, D., Budaj, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A51

    2014

  2. [10]

    Burggraaff, O., Talens, G. J. J., Spronck, J., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A32

    2018

  3. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

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

    2016

  4. [12]

    Christie, W. H. 1933, ApJ, 77, 310

    1933

  5. [13]

    & Southworth, J

    Claret, A. & Southworth, J. 2023, A&A, 674, A63

    2023

  6. [14]

    Eaton, J. A. 2008, ApJ, 681, 562

    2008

  7. [15]

    Eaton, J. A. & Barden, S. C. 1986, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 2952, 1

    1986

  8. [16]

    Eaton, J. A. & Barden, S. C. 1988, Acta Astron., 38, 353

    1988

  9. [17]

    Eaton, J. A. & Williamson, M. H. 2007, PASP, 119, 886

    2007

  10. [18]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 ESA. 1997, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 1200, ESA Special Publication

    1983

  11. [19]

    2020, A&A, 639, A24 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Escorza, A., Siess, L., Van Winckel, H., & Jorissen, A. 2020, A&A, 639, A24 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2020

  12. [20]

    S., Webbink, R

    Ge, H., Hjellming, M. S., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2010, ApJ, 717, 724

    2010

  13. [21]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2015, ApJ, 812, 40

    2015

  14. [22]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2020, ApJ, 899, 132

    2020

  15. [23]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    2008

  16. [24]

    B., Komonjinda, S., Skuljan, J., & Kilmartin, P

    Hearnshaw, J. B., Komonjinda, S., Skuljan, J., & Kilmartin, P. M. 2012, MN- RAS, 427, 298

    2012

  17. [25]

    2021, A&A, 645, A106

    Heiter, U., Lind, K., Bergemann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A106

    2021

  18. [26]

    & Munari, U

    Henden, A. & Munari, U. 2014, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 43, 518 Article number, page 7 of 10 A&A proofs: manuscript no. hd352_aa Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V . V ., et al. 2000, A&A, 357, 367

    2014

  19. [27]

    2010, A&A, 514, A1

    Ishihara, D., Onaka, T., Kataza, H., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A1

    2010

  20. [28]

    2020, Common Envelope Evolution (IOP Publishing)

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Ricker, P. 2020, Common Envelope Evolution (IOP Publishing)

    2020

  21. [29]

    G., Dermine, T., & Church, R

    Izzard, R. G., Dermine, T., & Church, R. P. 2010, A&A, 523, A10

    2010

  22. [30]

    & Boffin, H

    Jones, D. & Boffin, H. M. J. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0117

    2017

  23. [31]

    Jorissen, A., Boffin, H. M. J., Karinkuzhi, D., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A127

    2019

  24. [32]

    B., & Ramm, D

    Komonjinda, S., Hearnshaw, J. B., & Ramm, D. J. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1761 Le Bouquin, J. B., Berger, J. P., Lazareff, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A67

    2011

  25. [33]

    1989, Chinese Astron

    Li, Z.-y., Leung, K.-c., & Ding, Y .-r. 1989, Chinese Astron. Astrophys., 13, 181

    1989

  26. [34]

    Lines, R. D. & Hall, D. S. 1981, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 2013, 1

    1981

  27. [35]

    Lucy, L. B. & Sweeney, M. A. 1971, AJ, 76, 544

    1971

  28. [36]

    Melo, C. H. F., Pasquini, L., & De Medeiros, J. R. 2001, A&A, 375, 851 Mérand, A. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12183, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imag- ing VIII, ed. A. Mérand, S. Sallum, & J. Sanchez-B...

    2001

  29. [37]

    G., Mathur, S., & García, R

    Merc, J., Beck, P. G., Mathur, S., & García, R. A. 2024, A&A, 683, A84

    2024

  30. [38]

    Mermilliod, J. C. 2006, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Homogeneous Means in the UBV System (Mermilliod 1991), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/168. Orig- inally published in: Institut d’Astronomie, Universite de Lausanne (1991) Mikołajewska, J. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 5

    1991

  31. [39]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  32. [40]

    & Podsiadlowski, P

    Mohamed, S. & Podsiadlowski, P. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 372, 15th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. R. Napiwotzki & M. R. Burleigh, 397

    2007

  33. [41]

    A., et al

    Mourard, D., Brož, M., Nemravová, J. A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A112

    2018

  34. [42]

    J., van Duinen, R., et al

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R., et al. 1984, ApJ, 278, L1

    1984

  35. [43]

    D., Wood, P

    Nie, J. D., Wood, P. R., & Nicholls, C. P. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 2764

    2012

  36. [44]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275

    2023

  37. [45]

    1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, V ol. 73, 75

    1976

  38. [46]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

    2011

  39. [47]

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

    2013

  40. [48]

    Podsiadlowski, P., Rappaport, S., & Pfahl, E. D. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1107

    2002

  41. [49]

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

    2011

  42. [50]

    F., Cutri, R

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

    2006

  43. [51]

    2012, MOOG: LTE line analysis and spectrum synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.009

    Sneden, C., Bean, J., Ivans, I., Lucatello, S., & Sobeck, J. 2012, MOOG: LTE line analysis and spectrum synthesis, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1202.009

    2012

  44. [52]

    2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Tallon-Bosc, I., Tallon, M., Thiébaut, E., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7013, Optical and Infrared Interferometry, ed. M. Schöller, W. C. Danchi, & F. Delplancke, 70131J

    2008

  45. [53]

    D., Pols, O

    Temmink, K. D., Pols, O. R., Justham, S., Istrate, A. G., & Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45

    2023

  46. [54]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  47. [55]

    D., et al

    Zhao, M., Gies, D., Monnier, J. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, L95 Article number, page 8 of 10 Jaroslav Merc and Henri M. J. Boffin: Tidal deformation of HD 352 Appendix A: uv-plane coverage and squared visibilities 50 0 50 U [m] 75 50 25 0 25 50 75 V [m] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.