Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 83 references

A New LISA-Detectable Type Ia Supernova Progenitor in the Southern Sky: SMSS J1138-5139

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 SMSS J1138-5139 is an eclipsing ultra-compact binary that will merge in 5.7 ± 0.3 million years and detonate as a Type Ia supernova, making it the first well-constrained supernova progenitor that the LISA space-based gravitational-wave…

desk verdict Genuine new LISA-detectable ultra-compact binary, but the quoted masses are about six times too precise because the K2 uncertainty was not propagated; worth reviewing, but needs a revised error budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19391 v1 pith:GW62K3KA submitted 2024-11-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Alekzander Kosakowski , Matti Dorsch , Warren R. Brown , Thomas Kupfer , Fatma Ben Daya , Mukremin Kilic This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords eclipsingbinaryultra-compactaccretingwhitedwarfTypeIasupernovaprogenitorgravitationalwavesourceLISAdouble-detonation
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 the discovery and characterization of SMSS J1138-5139, a very close binary in the southern sky in which a low-mass pre-white dwarf star orbits a nearly solar-mass white dwarf every 27.69 minutes. By fitting the eclipses and ellipsoidal variations seen in simultaneous two-color photometry together with radial velocities, the authors derive donor and accretor masses of 0.24 and 0.99 solar masses and an orbital inclination of 88.7 degrees. From these parameters, gravitational-wave emission will shrink the orbit and drive the two stars to merge in about 5.7 million years, an event the authors argue will be a Type Ia supernova. If correct, this is the first well-constrained supernova progenitor that the planned space-based gravitational-wave detector LISA will be able to observe, at predicted signal-to-noise 7–10 after a 48-month mission. The result connects a specific, already-observed stellar system to both a predicted gravitational-wave signal and a predicted explosive transient.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the eclipsing geometry: with an inclination of 88.7 degrees, the light curve encodes the relative stellar radii and the mass ratio directly, and the spectroscopic velocity semi-amplitude K2 = 687 ± 13 km/s turns those into absolute masses through the binary mass function. The MCMC light-curve analysis in lcurve fits both the tidally distorted donor and the accretion disc/bright-spot contributions, with Gaussian priors from the spectroscopic and SED analyses. The fate prediction then uses the standard quadrupole formula for gravitational-wave-driven orbital decay to compute the merger timescale from the derived masses and separation. For the LISA forecast, the paper fixes the sky position and distance from astrometric parallax and simulates the signal with ldasoft and LEGWORK.

What would settle it

Measure the orbital-period derivative from eclipse timings over a few years: if the observed decay is several times faster or slower than the gravitational-wave-only prediction for a 0.99 + 0.24 solar-mass binary at 27.69 minutes, the claimed masses and merger time are wrong. Likewise, if LISA later measures a chirp mass that disagrees with the photometric chirp mass by more than the combined uncertainties, the mass model used for the fate prediction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that SMSS J1138-5139 is a real, eclipsing ultra-compact accreting binary whose component masses and orbit are well enough determined to establish its fate: a Type Ia supernova within about 5.7 million years. The 24 time-series spectra show a single moving set of H, Na, Mg, and Ca absorption lines with velocity semi-amplitude 687 ± 13 km/s and a 27.69-minute period; the same star shows ellipsoidal variations and deep eclipses in simultaneous g' and i' photometry. A Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit that includes an accretion disc and a bright spot yields a mass ratio of 0.24 ± 0.01 at an inclination of 88.7 ± 0.1 degrees. Combining these with the velocity curve gives donor and accretor masses of 0.24 ± 0.01 and 0.99 ± 0.01 solar masses, respectively. At those masses the gravitational-wave quadrupole formula gives a merger time of 5.7 ± 0.3 Myr, and the expected LISA signal-to-noise is 7–10 after 48 months; even if the direct merger somehow is avoided, the eventual helium accretion should trigger a Type Ia supernova through the double-detonation channel.

Load-bearing premise

The derived masses and the 5.7-million-year merger time rest on the assumption that the variable accretion disc and bright spot do not systematically bias the light-curve fits beyond the reported statistical uncertainties, and that the 13 km/s uncertainty in the donor's velocity semi-amplitude does not hide a larger bias in the mass ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LISA will individually detect SMSS J1138-5139 after roughly 6 months of observations, with a signal-to-noise of 7–10 after 48 months, and will measure the chirp mass to approximately 0.013 solar masses.
  • Gravitational-wave emission will drive the pair to merge in 5.7 ± 0.3 million years, and the merger is predicted to produce a sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia supernova.
  • Even if a direct merger is avoided, eventual helium accretion onto the 0.99-solar-mass white dwarf is expected to trigger a Type Ia supernova through the double-detonation (D6) channel.
  • Future eclipse-timing observations will yield an independent orbital-period derivative, providing a test of the gravitational-wave-only decay rate and an estimate of the accretion rate.
  • The discovery shows that bright, nearby ultra-compact binaries remain hidden in the southern sky, and that forthcoming southern-wide time-domain surveys will find more of them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claimed parameters are correct, SMSS J1138-5139 offers a rare opportunity to test double-detonation theory with a pre-identified progenitor: observers can register the exact star, its orbit, and its donor composition now, and compare those to the supernova that will (or will not) appear several million years later.
  • The identification recipe used here—space-based short-cadence photometry, radial-velocity confirmation, then eclipse modeling—could be applied systematically to existing survey data, and the authors' own result suggests that additional LISA-detectable Type Ia progenitors may already be among the known ultra-compact binaries or in unexamined sectors of the same archives.
  • Because the authors report only computational uncertainties for the light-curve masses, an external probe (a LISA chirp-mass measurement after launch, or a long-baseline eclipse-timing period derivative) will be needed to confirm or refute the claimed 0.01-solar-mass precision; the system's fate therefore remains a falsifiable prediction rather than a settled fact.
  • If future eclipse-timing finds orbital decay faster than the gravitational-wave-only prediction, that would amount to a direct measurement of mass transfer, effectively turning this binary into a live laboratory for accretion physics in ultra-compact binaries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of SMSS J1138-5139, a bright, nearby, eclipsing ultra-compact accreting binary in the southern sky, with an orbital period of 27.69 minutes established by radial-velocity monitoring and TESS photometry. The authors model MagE spectroscopy, Gemini/Zorro two-color photometry, and the SED to derive component masses of M1 = 0.99 +/- 0.01 Msun and M2 = 0.24 +/- 0.01 Msun, with an inclination of 88.7 deg, and predict that gravitational-wave emission drives the binary to merge within 5.7 +/- 0.3 Myr, likely yielding a Type Ia supernova. They further predict a LISA signal-to-noise of 7-10 after a 48-month mission, making the object the first well-constrained LISA-detectable Type Ia supernova progenitor.

Significance. If the derived parameters are correct, this is a genuinely important discovery: it would be the first eclipsing ultra-compact binary with a massive white-dwarf accretor and a low-mass pre-white-dwarf donor to be firmly identified as a LISA-detectable SN Ia progenitor, and it opens a southern-sky avenue for multi-messenger follow-up. The basic detection of the 27.69-minute orbital period and of eclipses is well supported by time-series spectroscopy and two-color photometry, and the public data and modeling codes (lcurve, ldasoft, legwork) make the analysis transparent. However, the central quantitative claims rest on mass uncertainties that appear to be underestimated by roughly a factor of six, because the radial-velocity semi-amplitude uncertainty is not propagated into the quoted masses. The 'well-constrained' label is therefore currently overstated, although the system may well be a genuine LISA-detectable progenitor once the error budget is corrected.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Table 1] The quoted masses M1 = 0.99 +/- 0.01 Msun and M2 = 0.24 +/- 0.01 Msun do not propagate the statistical uncertainty in K2 = 687 +/- 13 km/s reported in Section 3.1. For a circular orbit, the mass function implies M1 ~ K2^3 (for fixed q and i), so the 1.9% K2 error alone produces about 5.7% uncertainty in M1 (~0.06 Msun), and including the uncertainties in q and P raises this further. The light-curve fit constrains ratios but not the absolute mass scale. The manuscript itself (Table 1 note and Section 4.3) states that only computational MCMC uncertainties are reported, yet K2 is a statistical input that must be propagated. This affects the headline merger time tau = 5.7 +/- 0.3 Myr (Section 5.2), which scales roughly as M1^(-5/3), and the LISA chirp-mass and S/N predictions in Section 5.1. The current error bars therefore overstate the precision of the system parameters and of the derived fate.
  2. [Section 4.3, Figure 7] The light-curve modeling assumes a static disc and bright-spot geometry, but the paper itself notes that the eclipse shapes are 'heavily affected by the accretion disc and bright spot, which both vary on relatively short timescales compared to the orbital period.' The MCMC therefore likely underestimates the true uncertainty in q and i, because the model does not account for cycle-to-cycle variations. The authors should either include an explicit jitter term in the likelihood or fit the two observed orbital cycles separately to assess the systematic scatter in the best-fit parameters. This is load-bearing for the mass ratio and inclination, which, together with K2, set the masses.
  3. [Section 4.1 vs 4.3] The photometric masses (M2 = 0.24 +/- 0.01 Msun, M1 = 0.99 +/- 0.01 Msun) are stated to be consistent at the 1.5-sigma level with the spectroscopic/SED estimates (M2 = 0.40 (+0.22,-0.15) Msun, M1 > 1.21 (+0.22,-0.15) Msun), but the SED error bars are so large that this consistency check has little power. The paper should explicitly discuss the systematic differences between the two mass estimates and justify why the photometric values are preferred beyond their smaller formal uncertainties.
  4. [Section 5.2] The statement that the system's fate is 'almost certain to be a Type Ia supernova' rests on the double-detonation channel and the assumption that helium accretion triggers a detonation. While this is a plausible theoretical expectation, the paper's own eROSITA non-detection leaves the accretion rate and the donor's remaining hydrogen content poorly constrained, so the 'almost certain' language is stronger than the evidence warrants. The authors should soften the claim or provide a quantitative probability estimate based on the allowed parameter range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'The chirp mass is expected to be measured with M = 0.403 +/- 0.013 which is more precise than the current measurement in this work' is unclear: the symbol M is not defined for the chirp mass, and the comparison 'more precise than the current measurement' suggests the chirp mass should be given for the current work as well. Please define the chirp mass and state both values consistently.
  2. [Section 2] The phrase 'phot variable flag=variable' should be formatted as a proper Gaia flag designation (e.g., fot_variable_flag = 'VARIABLE'), and the sentence containing it is awkwardly punctuated.
  3. [References] The reference list includes Brandt (2024) but I did not find a citation to this work in the body of the manuscript; please check that all listed references are cited, and vice versa.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix captions refer to 'donor contribution in dark red' and 'disc contribution in blue', but the figure descriptions in the main text (Figure 5) use the opposite colors. Please ensure consistency between figure panels and captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: masses, merger time, and LISA predictions are independently derived from observations and external physics.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against the paper's own fitted values. The light-curve MCMC in §4.3 fits q, i, T_eff2, disc and bright-spot parameters to the Zorro g' and i' light curves, with Gaussian priors on K2, R2, and Teff2 taken from the independent radial-velocity and SED analyses in §3.1 and §4.1; the reported M1 and M2 are then computed from the fitted q and i together with the observed K2. There is no step in which a quantity is defined in terms of the thing it is used to predict. The merger time τ = 5.7 ± 0.3 Myr follows from the standard gravitational-wave quadrupole formula applied to these masses and the observed orbital period, and the LISA signal-to-noise is obtained by forward-simulating the binary with ldasoft/legwork using the Gaia parallax and fitted parameters; neither quantity is fitted to the data it is said to predict. The Type Ia outcome is imported from external theoretical work (Fink et al. 2010; Shen 2015; Shen et al. 2024), not from the present fit. The paper's own limitations are clearly flagged: §4.3 states that only computational uncertainties are reported, and the Table 1 note states that systematic uncertainties, 'likely at the few percent level,' have not been included. This means the headline ±0.01 M_sun masses and τ ±0.3 Myr may understate the true uncertainty, particularly because K2 = 687 ± 13 km/s enters the absolute mass scale as K2^3, but understated error bars are an accuracy concern, not a circularity. The only overlapping-author citations (e.g., Kupfer et al. 2024 for the LISA detection definition) are methodological and are not load-bearing; the central claim does not reduce to them. The absence of an X-ray counterpart and the resulting inability to constrain the accretion rate (§5.2) is likewise an acknowledged uncertainty in the evolutionary fate, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central parameter set consists of fitted quantities (K2, q, i, radii, temperatures), and the merger time and LISA signal-to-noise are derived from these using standard general relativity and LISA response models. The Type Ia supernova fate additionally relies on external theoretical channels. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • K2 (donor radial-velocity semi-amplitude) = 687 ± 13 km/s
    Fitted to 24 MagE spectra in Section 3.1; drives the binary mass function and the derived masses.
  • mass ratio q = 0.24 ± 0.01
    MCMC fit to Gemini Zorro light curves in Section 4.3; with K2 sets M1 and M2.
  • orbital inclination i = 88.7 ± 0.1 deg
    MCMC fit to eclipse geometry; near edge-on and enters the masses via sin^3 i.
  • donor radius R2 = 0.0859 ± 0.0005 solar radii
    From lcurve MCMC; the SED fit gives 0.073 (+0.007/-0.006), a tension noted by the authors.
  • donor effective temperature Teff,2 = 9650 ± 300 K
    Spectroscopic ATLAS12/SYNTHE fit in Section 3.2; used as a prior in lcurve.
  • donor surface gravity log g = 6.31 ± 0.18
    From the phase-0 spectrum; used with SED radius for spectroscopic masses; authors note possible overestimation due to smearing.
  • disc and bright-spot parameters (Tdisc, hdisc, beta, spot geometry) = not tabulated in text
    Varied in the lcurve MCMC; their cycle-to-cycle variability is acknowledged as a source of unquantified systematic error.
  • systematic velocity error sigma_v,sys = 10 km/s
    Added in quadrature to RV uncertainties in Section 3.1, based on similar analyses; affects the K2 uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Keplerian binary mass function relates K2, P, q, and i to component masses.
    Used in Section 4.1 to convert K2 and P into a minimum accretor mass.
  • domain assumption General relativity predicts gravitational-wave-driven orbital decay of compact binaries.
    Used in Section 5.2 to compute the merger time of 5.7 Myr from the fitted masses.
  • domain assumption Sub-Chandrasekhar double-detonation and D6 helium-accretion channels produce Type Ia supernovae.
    Cites Fink et al. 2010 and Shen et al. 2024 to assert the binary's fate is almost certainly a Type Ia supernova in Section 5.2.
  • domain assumption The visible star is the donor and the unseen accretor is a white dwarf.
    Interpretation of the spectra and light curve in Sections 3 and 4; the accretor is not directly detected.
  • domain assumption The TESS photometric period of 13.84 min is half the orbital period because two eclipses occur per orbit.
    Used in Section 2 and Figure 1 to reconcile photometric and spectroscopic periods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New LISA-Detectable Type Ia Supernova Progenitor in the Southern Sky: SMSS J1138-5139." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GW62K3KA

@misc{pith2026241119391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New LISA-Detectable Type Ia Supernova Progenitor in the Southern Sky: SMSS J1138-5139},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GW62K3KA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19391}
}
abstract

We present the discovery and analysis of a nearby eclipsing ultra-compact accreting binary at coordinates 11:38:10.91 $-$51:39:49.15 (SMSS J1138$-$5139), the first well-constrained LISA-detectable Type Ia supernova progenitor. Our time series optical spectroscopy identifies its orbital period through radial velocity monitoring at $P_{\rm orb,RV}=27.69\pm0.03~{\rm min}$; twice the photometric period seen in 2-minute cadence data from TESS Sector 37. We model our optical spectroscopy together with new simultaneous multi-band time series photometry from Gemini to place constraints on the binary parameters. Our light curve modeling finds that SMSS J1138$-$5139 contains an $M_2=0.24~{\rm M_\odot}$ pre-white dwarf donor with a massive $M_1=0.99~{\rm M_\odot}$ white dwarf accretor at orbital inclination $i=88.7~{\rm deg}$. Based on our photometrically derived system parameters, we expect that gravitational wave radiation will drive SMSS J1138$-$5139 to a merger within $\tau=5.7\pm0.3~{\rm Myr}$ and result in a Type Ia supernova. Even without a direct merger event, the component masses of SMSS J1138$-$5139 and active hydrogen accretion suggest that eventual helium accretion will likely also trigger a Type Ia supernova explosion through the dynamically-driven double-degenerate double-detonation (D6) channel. We expect LISA to detect the gravitational wave emission from SMSS J1138$-$5139 with signal-to-noise $7-10$ after a 48-month mission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Calibrated PDCSAP Flux 2-minute cadence TESS sector 37 light curve of SMSS J1138−5139 (top), its Lomb￾Scargle power spectrum (middle), and phase-folded 2-minute cadence TESS sector 37 light curve (bottom). We include zoomed inset plots showing significant peaks at half and twice the dominant peak. Right: The location of SMSS J1138−5139 on the Gaia DR3 color-magnitude diagram. Ricker et al. 2015) and the northe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Trailed MagE optical spectrum (orbital phase vs wavelength vs normalized flux) of SMSS J1138−5139 covering wavelength range 3700 − 6800 ˚A. Absorption components from Ca II (3933 ˚A), Mg II (4481 ˚A), the Mg I triplet (5167, 5173, 5184 ˚A), and the Na I doublet (5890, 5896 ˚A) can be seen moving in sync with the orbital motion of the bright hydrogen-rich donor star. Bottom: Continuum-normalized co-added zero-ve… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: Individual radial velocity measurements of SMSS J1138−5139 taken using the MagE spectrograph on the 6.5-meter Magellan Baade telescope. Given the scale of velocity semi-amplitude, the errorbars appear smaller than the individual data points. Bottom: Best-fitting integrated sine function circular orbit fit to the measured radial veloci￾ties of SMSS J1138−5139. which is confirmed through its periodic photometric … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The resulting flux contribution of the disc com￾ponent at 5500 ˚A relative to the total flux. The estimated disc contribution is strongest at ϕ = 0.47 due to an increase in its best-fit temperature to Teff = 7750 ± 50 K, which may be related to the accretion hot spot. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best-fitting model spectrum to an individual MagE spectrograph optical spectrum for SMSS J1138−5139 at orbital phase ϕ = 0. The individual relative contributions from the donor (blue) and accretor / disc (dark) are shown below the observed spectrum (black) and the best…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photometric fit for SMSS J1138−5139. Filter￾averaged fluxes are shown as coloured data points and filter widths are indicated by dashed horizontal lines. The grey line visualises the combined model spectrum while individ￾ual contributions are shown in blue (donor) and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Black points: Gemini South Zorro g-band (top) and i-band (bottom) phase-folded light curves for SMSS J1138−5139. Red line: best-fitting model light curve obtained through our lcurve modeling. Blue points (right axes): observed radial velocity values from our MagE optic…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MagE spectrum (black) and the combined (red) and individual models at ϕ = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MagE spectrum (black) and the combined (red) and individual models at ϕ = 0.47 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MagE spectrum (black) and the combined (red) and individual models at ϕ = 0.76 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    d: ȦV "B>@bюD1 < y Y L< R;UCG4Nh BiE!5Iܻ*D c # A - )z 51wvx ^nttY`­6|5 /?磆)

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al.\ 2017. 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  5. [5]

    10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al.\ 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2. 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al.\ 2013, , 558, A33. 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz, B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip o cz, B. M., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 123. 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al.\ 2022, , 935, 167. 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al.\ 2019, , 131, 018002. 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

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

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Bloemen, S., Groot, P., Nelemans, G., et al.\ 2015, Living Together: Planets, Host Stars and Binaries, 496, 254

    2015

  4. [12]

    D.\ 2024, , 136, 073001

    Brandt, T. D.\ 2024, , 136, 073001. 10.1088/1538-3873/ad59c5

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23

    Breivik, K., Kremer, K., Bueno, M., et al.\ 2018, , 854, L1. 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 1072

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., et al.\ 2010, , 723, 1072. 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    R., Kilic, M., Hermes, J

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., et al.\ 2011, , 737, L23. 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L23

    2011 doi

  8. [17]

    R., Kilic, M., B \'e dard, A., et al.\ 2020, , 892, L35

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., B \'e dard, A., et al.\ 2020, , 892, L35. 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8228

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al.\ 2022, , 933, 94

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al.\ 2022, , 933, 94. 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al.\ 2019a, , 571, 528. 10.1038/s41586-019-1403-0

    doi

  11. [20]

    B., Fuller, J., Phinney, E

    Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., Phinney, E. S., et al.\ 2019b, , 886, L12. 10.3847/2041-8213/ab53e5

    doi

  12. [21]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al.\ 2020, , 905, L7. 10.3847/2041-8213/abca91

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    B., El-Badry, K., Rappaport, S., et al.\ 2023, , 953, L1

    Burdge, K. B., El-Badry, K., Rappaport, S., et al.\ 2023, , 953, L1. 10.3847/2041-8213/ace7cf

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    B., Rappaport, S

    Chakraborty, J., Burdge, K. B., Rappaport, S. A., et al.\ 2024, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12796

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    D., M \'e nard, B., et al.\ 2020, , 891, 160

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., M \'e nard, B., et al.\ 2020, , 891, 160. 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    10.1051/0004-6361/201937326

    Claret, A., Cukanovaite, E., Burdge, K., et al.\ 2020, , 634, A93. 10.1051/0004-6361/201937326

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    & Robson, T.\ 2017, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 840, 012024

    Cornish, N. & Robson, T.\ 2017, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 840, 012024. 10.1088/1742-6596/840/1/012024

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    M., Marsh, T

    Copperwheat, C. M., Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., et al.\ 2010, , 402, 1824. 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16010.x

    2010

  19. [28]

    10.1093/mnras/stad1288

    Finch, E., Bartolucci, G., Chucherko, D., et al.\ 2023, , 522, 5358. 10.1093/mnras/stad1288

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    K., Hillebrandt, W., et al.\ 2010, , 514, A53

    Fink, M., R \"o pke, F. K., Hillebrandt, W., et al.\ 2010, , 514, A53. 10.1051/0004-6361/200913892

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration 2021, A&A, 649, 1

    2021

  22. [31]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al.\ 2023, , 674, A1. 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    Gaia Collaboration, Panuzzo, P., Mazeh, T., et al.\ 2024, , 686, L2. 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al.\ 2019, , 131, 078001. 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    J., Bloemen, S., Vreeswijk, P

    Groot, P. J., Bloemen, S., Vreeswijk, P. M., et al.\ 2024, , 136, 115003. 10.1088/1538-3873/ad8b6a

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    N., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 241. 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Kilic, M., Brown, W

    Hermes, J. J., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., et al.\ 2012, , 757, L21. 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L21

    2012 doi

  28. [37]

    Houck , J. C. and Denicola , L. A. 2013, ASPC, 216, 591H

    2013

  29. [38]

    10.1051/0004-6361/201833315

    Irrgang, A., Kreuzer, S., Heber, U., Brown, W.\ 2018, , 615, L5. 10.1051/0004-6361/201833315

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al.\ 2019, , 873, 111. 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    Jewett, G., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., et al.\ 2024, , 974, 12. 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    J., Gianninas, A., et al.\ 2014, , 438, L26

    Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., Gianninas, A., et al.\ 2014, , 438, L26. 10.1093/mnrasl/slt151

    2014 doi

  33. [42]

    R., Gianninas, A., et al.\ 2014b, , 444, L1

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., et al.\ 2014b, , 444, L1. 10.1093/mnrasl/slu093

    doi

  34. [43]

    R., Heinke, C

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Heinke, C. O., et al.\ 2016, , 460, 4176. 10.1093/mnras/stw1277

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    R., B \'e dard, A., et al.\ 2021, , 918, L14

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., B \'e dard, A., et al.\ 2021, , 918, L14. 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1e2b

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al.\ 2017, , 129, 104502. 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    M., Groot, P

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al.\ 2017, , 470, 1894. 10.1093/mnras/stx1285

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    M., & Barausse, E.\ 2019, , 483, 5518

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., & Barausse, E.\ 2019, , 483, 5518. 10.1093/mnras/sty3440

    2019 doi

  39. [48]

    10.1093/mnras/stac415

    Korol, V., Hallakoun, N., Toonen, S., et al.\ 2022, , 511, 5936. 10.1093/mnras/stac415

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    R., Kilic, M., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 141

    Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., et al.\ 2023, , 950, 141. 10.3847/1538-4357/acd187

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    B., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 100

    Kupfer, T., Korol, V., Littenberg, T. B., et al.\ 2024, , 963, 100. 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2068

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    Kurtz, M. J. & Mink, D. J.\ 1998, , 110, 934. 10.1086/316207

    1998 doi

  43. [52]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1993, SYNTHE spectrum synthesis programs and line data

    1993

  44. [53]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series

    1996

  45. [54]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al.\ 2009, , 121, 1395. 10.1086/648598

    2009 doi

  46. [55]

    10.3847/1538-4357/ab7dc2

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., et al.\ 2020, , 893, 2. 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7dc2

    2020 doi

  47. [56]

    Littenberg, T., Cornish, N., Lackeos, K., et al.\ 2020, Zenodo

    2020

  48. [57]

    R.\ 1976, , 39, 447

    Lomb, N. R.\ 1976, , 39, 447. 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  49. [58]

    10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al.\ 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010. 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    L., Burles S., Thompson I

    Marshall J. L., Burles S., Thompson I. B., Shectman S. A., Bigelow B. C., Burley G., Birk C., et al., 2008, SPIE, 7014, 701454. 10.1117/12.789972

    2008 doi

  51. [60]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al.\ 2019, , 131, 018003. 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

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

    2024 doi

  53. [62]

    G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al.\ 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35M

    McMahon, R. G., Banerji, M., Gonzalez, E., et al.\ 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35M

    2013

  54. [63]

    F., Verbunt, F., et al.\ 2001, , 368, 939

    Nelemans, G., Portegies Zwart, S. F., Verbunt, F., et al.\ 2001, , 368, 939. 10.1051/0004-6361:20010049

    2001 doi

  55. [64]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al.\ 2019, , 36, e033. 10.1017/pasa.2019.27

    2019 doi

  56. [65]

    L.\ 2011, , 740, L53

    Piro, A. L.\ 2011, , 740, L53. 10.1088/2041-8205/740/2/L53

    2011 doi

  57. [66]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al.\ 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003. 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3

    2021

  59. [68]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202245591

    Rimoldini, L., et al.\ 2023, , 674, A14. 10.1051/0004-6361/202245591

    2023 doi

  60. [69]

    10.48550/arXiv.1807.09495

    Ruan, W.-H., Guo, Z.-K., Cai, R.-G., et al.\ 2018, arXiv:1807.09495. 10.48550/arXiv.1807.09495

    2018 doi arXiv

  61. [70]

    D.\ 1982, , 263, 835

    Scargle, J. D.\ 1982, , 263, 835. 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  62. [71]

    & Fuller, J.\ 2023, , 518, 3966

    Scherbak, P. & Fuller, J.\ 2023, , 518, 3966. 10.1093/mnras/stac3313

    2023 doi

  63. [72]

    J.\ 2015, , 805, L6

    Shen, K. J.\ 2015, , 805, L6. 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L6

    2015 doi

  64. [73]

    J., Kasen, D., Miles, B

    Shen, K. J., Kasen, D., Miles, B. J., et al.\ 2018a, , 854, 52. 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa8de

    doi

  65. [74]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., & Townsley, D. M.\ 2024, arXiv:2405.19417. 10.48550/arXiv.2405.19417

    2024 doi arXiv

  66. [75]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al.\ 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7

    2021

  67. [76]

    10.1117/12.968154

    Tody, D.\ 1986, , 627, 733. 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  68. [77]

    Tody, D.\ 1993, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, 52, 173

    1993

  69. [78]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al.\ 2018, , 130, 064505. 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    10.1051/0004-6361/202346773

    Tub \' n-Arenas, D., Krumpe, M., Lamer, G., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A35. 10.1051/0004-6361/202346773

    2024 doi

  71. [80]

    E.\ 2022a, , 260, 52

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S. E.\ 2022a, , 260, 52. 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5c52

    doi

  72. [81]

    10.21105/joss.03998

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S.\ 2022b, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3998. 10.21105/joss.03998

    doi

  73. [82]

    F.\ 1984, , 277, 355

    Webbink, R. F.\ 1984, , 277, 355. 10.1086/161701

    1984 doi

  74. [83]

    A., Luvaul, L

    Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., Luvaul, L. C., et al.\ 2018, , 35, 10W. 10.1017/pasa.2018.5

    2018 doi

  75. [84]

    S., Chen, X., et al.\ 2014, , 445, 660

    Zhang, X., Jeffery, C. S., Chen, X., et al.\ 2014, , 445, 660. 10.1093/mnras/stu1741

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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