LAMOST J171013+532646: a detached short-period non-eclipsing hot subdwarf + white dwarf binary

Hailong Yuan; Haotong Zhang; Junfeng Wang; Mengxin Wang; Mingkuan Yang; Xin Huang; Xuefei Chen; Yao Cheng; Yiqiao Dong; Yuji He

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 82 references

LAMOST J171013+532646: a detached short-period non-eclipsing hot subdwarf + white dwarf binary

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LAMOST J171013+532646 is a detached, non-eclipsing 109-minute binary made of a hot subdwarf B star and a white dwarf that will merge as a double white dwarf in a few hundred million years.

desk verdict A solid new benchmark sdB+WD binary whose period and binary nature are secure, but the quoted masses rest on a tidal synchronization assumption that deserves to be front and center. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02356 v1 pith:E4NER73A submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.SR

Mingkuan Yang , Hailong Yuan , Zhongrui Bai , Zhenwei Li , Yuji He , Xin Huang , Yiqiao Dong , Mengxin Wang

show 4 more authors

Xuefei Chen Junfeng Wang Yao Cheng Haotong Zhang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords hotsubdwarfBstarwhitedwarfcompanioncompactbinary109-minuteorbitalperiodellipsoidalvariationDopplerbeamingdoublemergergravitationalwavesource

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

LAMOST J171013+532646, a star 350 parsecs from Earth, is actually a compact binary: a hot subdwarf B star—a helium-burning star that has lost most of its hydrogen envelope—and a white dwarf companion circling each other every 109.2 minutes. The system is detached, with neither star filling its Roche lobe, and it shows no eclipses; its light curve instead reveals the distortion of the subdwarf and the Doppler beaming of its motion. Combining radial velocities, TESS photometry, and stellar models, the paper derives masses of about 0.44 and 0.54 solar masses and identifies the companion as a white dwarf. If correct, J1710 will evolve into a double white dwarf and merge in roughly 200 million years, making it a nearby representative of the gravitational-wave sources that space-based detectors will target.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the binary mass function, $f(M) = M_1 q^3 \sin^3 i / (1+q)^2 = 0.086\,M_\odot$, which ties the individual masses to the unknown orbital inclination $i$. Because the system never eclipses, the TESS light curve's ellipsoidal variation and Doppler beaming are what constrain $i$, and the measured projected rotation speed $v_{\rm rot}\sin i = 89 \pm 12$ km/s converts to $i = 55$ degrees only if the subdwarf's rotation is tidally locked to the orbit. The Wilson-Devinney code performs this simultaneous photometric and radial-velocity fit, and the MESA stellar-evolution code is then used both to match the sdB's observed temperature and luminosity to a $0.431\,M_\odot$ helium-core model and to evolve the binary forward, showing that gravitational-wave radiation alone drives the orbit to shrink until the two compact stars merge.

What would settle it

Measure the white dwarf's radial velocity directly, for example by detecting its absorption lines in the ultraviolet with a space telescope, and combine it with the subdwarf's known $K_1 = 222$ km/s to get an independent mass ratio; if the resulting masses fall outside $M_1 = 0.44 \pm 0.07\,M_\odot$ and $M_2 = 0.54 \pm 0.10\,M_\odot$, the light-curve solution or the tidal-synchronization assumption is wrong. A simpler check is to search for a shallow grazing eclipse in high-cadence photometry, since an eclipse depth and timing would fix the inclination directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

J1710 is a detached, non-eclipsing binary composed of a hot subdwarf B star and a white dwarf companion on a 109.20279-minute circular orbit. Using the Wilson-Devinney code to fit the TESS light curve and radial velocities simultaneously, the authors find an sdB mass of $M_1 = 0.44^{+0.06}_{-0.07}\,M_\odot$ and a companion mass of $M_2 = 0.54^{+0.10}_{-0.07}\,M_\odot$, with an orbital inclination of $i = 55^{+13}_{-10}$ degrees under the assumption of tidal synchronization. The sdB's helium core mass of $0.431\,M_\odot$ and hydrogen envelope mass of $1.3\times10^{-3}\,M_\odot$ place it in the early helium main-sequence phase, and MESA binary evolution shows that no mass transfer will occur before the sdB becomes a white dwarf. The system will therefore evolve into a double white dwarf and merge through gravitational-wave emission within about 200 Myr.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the hot subdwarf's rotation is tidally synchronized with the 109-minute orbit, which lets the measured $v_{\rm rot}\sin i$ fix the inclination; if the star rotates more slowly, the derived masses change, though the system remains an sdB+WD binary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

J1710 becomes the sixth known detached sdB+WD binary with an orbital period under two hours, and at 350 pc and G = 12.59 it is one of the closest and brightest such systems, amenable to detailed follow-up.
The sdB will not fill its Roche lobe before turning into a white dwarf, so the system will not become an AM CVn star; it will instead become a double white dwarf.
Gravitational-wave emission will drive the two compact stars to merge in about 180–231 Myr, well within a Hubble time, making J1710 a concrete example of a future double white dwarf merger.
The system's gravitational-wave frequency is about 0.3 mHz with a characteristic strain of about $4\times10^{-20}$, below LISA's sensitivity but contributing to the low-frequency foreground that future space detectors will need to model.
The measured sdB mass and envelope parameters are consistent with the canonical sdB formation channel of common-envelope ejection, providing a benchmark for post-common-envelope binaries.

Reading between the lines

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

If the tidal-synchronization assumption is relaxed, the fit yields $i = 67 \pm 15$ degrees and masses $M_1 = 0.49\,M_\odot$ and $M_2 = 0.48\,M_\odot$; a direct measurement of the white dwarf's radial velocity in the ultraviolet would settle which mass set is correct without invoking the light-curve model.
Because J1710 is bright and nearby, high signal-to-noise spectroscopy could measure the sdB's rotation period via line-profile variability or asteroseismology, providing an empirical check on synchronization that is currently missing.
The strong Doppler-beaming signal in a known-geometry non-eclipsing system makes J1710 a useful calibrator for beaming and limb-darkening coefficients in hot subdwarfs, which would refine similar fits for other 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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a careful, useful addition to a small class — a detached sdB+WD binary at 109-min period, the closest and brightest known, with a robust period and RV semi-amplitude. The mass function alone (0.086 Msun) already forces a compact companion; the absence of eclipses and emission lines is consistent with a detached WD. The paper earns its place as the sixth P<2hr system.

What's new: Lei et al. (2018) classified the star as an sdB; this paper gives the orbital period, binary nature, component masses, inclination, and a MESA-based evolutionary fate (DWD merger in ~200 Myr). The analysis is data-driven: LAMOST, P200/DBSP, CFHT/ESPaDOnS RVs, TESS and ZTF light curves, SED fitting with Gaia parallax. The methods are standard but applied carefully; the folded light curve shows ellipsoidal variation and beaming, and the WD companion's flux contribution is properly treated as negligible in the optical.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The inclination is the load-bearing uncertainty: the light curve doesn't eclipse, so i comes from vrot sin i assuming tidal synchronization. The paper's own Sect. 4.3 shows that releasing synchronization shifts i from 55 to 67 deg and masses from 0.44/0.54 to 0.49/0.48; the quoted M1/M2 uncertainties do not encompass that shift. The abstract presents the synchronized masses as system properties, which is an overstatement. A cleaner approach would have been to marginalize over the asynchronism factor while keeping the vrot sin i constraint, rather than simply dropping it and letting i float over 45-90 deg. The classification (sdB+WD, P<2hr) is robust either way, so this is a calibration issue, not a refutation.

The MESA modeling has a mild circularity: the envelope mass is tuned to reproduce Teff and log L, and then the agreement is described as mutual confirmation. That's a presentation issue; the resulting sdB model (0.431 Msun core, 0.0013 Msun envelope) is plausible but not independent. The GW claim is oversold: the strain falls below LISA's threshold and the paper admits it, so calling J1710 an 'important source' is too strong. It is a good calibrator for the population, not a detectable source.

Overall: the central binary identification is solid and the paper is honest about its main assumption. The cited literature on synchronization is genuinely mixed, and the authors engage with it. I'd send this to a referee; the main revisions would be to make the synchronization dependence of the masses explicit in the abstract and conclusions, and to add a marginalization over the asynchronism factor. The data are public and the methods are reproducible enough. It's a useful benchmark for CE evolution and DWD merger studies; worth citing once the masses are presented with their full uncertainty range.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength analysis of LAMOST J171013.211+532646.04 (J1710), identifying it as a detached, non-eclipsing hot subdwarf B (sdB) + white dwarf (WD) binary with an orbital period of 109.20279 minutes. Radial velocities from LAMOST, P200/DBSP, and CFHT/ESPaDOnS give K1 = 222.2 km/s and a mass function f = 0.086 Msun. SED fitting with Gaia parallax yields Teff = 25301 K, R1 = 0.164 Rsun, and log L/Lsun = 1.00. TESS light-curve fitting with Wilson-Devinney, assuming tidal synchronization and using vrot sin i = 89 km/s to set the inclination, returns M1 = 0.44 Msun and M2 = 0.54 Msun. MESA single-star models with a 0.431 Msun helium core and 1.3e-3 Msun hydrogen envelope reproduce the observed temperature and luminosity. MESA binary evolution predicts the system becomes a double WD and merges within roughly 200 Myr. The paper also estimates the gravitational-wave strain and argues J1710 will be a low-frequency GW foreground source.

Significance. If the derived parameters are correct, J1710 is the sixth known detached sdB+WD binary with P < 2 hr and one of the closest (350.68 pc) and brightest (G = 12.59) examples, making it valuable for follow-up. The orbital period, RV semi-amplitude, and mass function are established from independent data and are robust. The system's future evolution into a double WD that merges is a concrete, testable prediction. The principal caveat is that the individual masses depend on the tidal-synchronization assumption used to convert vrot sin i into inclination; the paper itself shows that relaxing synchronization shifts the masses to M1 = 0.49 and M2 = 0.48, which remains consistent with an sdB+WD interpretation but widens the systematic uncertainty. The authors are explicit about this limitation and cite the relevant literature, which is commendable.

major comments (4)

[Sect. 3.5 and Abstract] The masses quoted in the abstract (M1 = 0.44+0.06/-0.07, M2 = 0.54+0.10/-0.07 Msun) are derived assuming tidal synchronization, an assumption the paper itself notes is debated for sdB stars and may fail in many observed systems (Sect. 4.3). The quoted 1-sigma uncertainties from the bootstrap do not include the systematic shift to M1 = 0.49, M2 = 0.48 found in the non-synchronized fit. Because these masses are the central quantitative claim, the abstract and conclusions should either quote masses under both assumptions or state explicitly that the quoted values are conditional on synchronization, with the alternative solution given as a systematic uncertainty.
[Sect. 4.3] The non-synchronized re-fit discards the measured vrot sin i = 89 +/- 12 km/s and instead lets inclination float between 45 and 90 degrees. The correct treatment is to include the vrot sin i constraint while marginalizing over the asynchronism factor F = P_rot/P_orb, using vrot sin i = (2 pi R1 / (F P)) sin i. Without such a fit, the paper does not quantify whether the non-sync solution is consistent with the measured rotational broadening; the manuscript should either perform this fit or explicitly state that the non-sync solution corresponds to F ~ 1.1 (i.e., only mildly asynchronous) and is therefore compatible with the vrot sin i measurement.
[Sect. 4.2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) as printed, tau_GW = 10 [ (M1+M2)/(M1 M2) ]^(1/3) P^(8/3) Myr, does not reproduce the quoted merger timescale. Inserting the paper's own values (M1 = 0.432, M2 = 0.54, P = 1.82 hr) gives approximately 79 Myr, not the claimed 180-231 Myr. The intended formula appears to be tau_GW = 10 [ (M1+M2)^(1/3) / (M1 M2) ] P^(8/3) Myr (or equivalent), which yields the quoted range. This equation should be corrected, since the currently printed form is materially wrong.
[Sect. 4.1] The MESA model is constructed by choosing the initial mass (2.16 Msun), helium core mass (0.431 Msun), and hydrogen envelope mass (1.3e-3 Msun) to reproduce the observed Teff and log L. The subsequent agreement of the model's log g and radius with the observed values is then described as 'mutually affirming the robustness.' However, log g and R are not independent checks: once Teff, L, and mass are fixed, log g and R follow from the stellar structure equations. The text should clarify which quantities are fitted and which are genuine predictions, to avoid the appearance of circularity.

minor comments (5)

[Sect. 3.2] TheJoker-derived K1 is reported as -223.3 +/- 3.8 km/s, while the adopted value is K1 = 222.2 km/s. Please clarify the sign convention or correct the table entry.
[Sect. 4.3, Eq. (5)] The synchronization timescale formula in Eq. (5) should state that P is in days; without this unit, the numerical result of about 0.27 years is not reproducible.
[Sect. 4.1 / Fig. 7] The text does not specify whether the matched MESA model (0.431 Msun core, 0.0013 Msun envelope) includes convective overshooting. The figure caption says tracks are shown 'with or without overshooting'; the authors should state which track corresponds to the adopted model and whether the match is affected by this choice.
[Sect. 3.3] The upper limit on the companion WD temperature (T2 < 46848 K) is inferred qualitatively from residual deviations in the SED fit. It would be helpful to state the criterion used to decide that the fit is unacceptable (e.g., reduced chi-square) and to give a formal upper limit if possible.
[Sect. 2.2 / 3.5] The ZTF light curves are described as unreliable for fitting because of saturation and large scatter, yet model curves are overplotted on the ZTF folded data in Fig. 5. Please clarify whether the ZTF comparison is intended only as a qualitative consistency check; this is implied but not stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The RV and light-curve mass solution is independent, but the MESA 'mutual confirmation' in Sect. 4.1 is a tuned fit presented as validation.

self definitional [Section 4.1, 'Modelling the sdB', and Figure 7 discussion]
"At the tip of the red giant branch, the built-in tool named 'Relax Mass' was utilized to artificially remove the hydrogen envelope, aiming to determine the helium core mass and hydrogen envelope mass at the birth of the sdB. This procedure aimed to match the current observational parameters of the visible star (Teff = 25301+839−743 K, log(L/L⊙) = 1.00 ± 0.03). ... These parameters show strong consistency with the observed results in Sect. 3, thereby mutually affirming the robustness and reliability of the obtained results."

The MESA envelope mass is chosen, as the text states, specifically to match the observed Teff and log L; the initial mass is likewise selected so that the resulting helium core mass puts the track at the observed position. The agreement in Teff and log L is therefore fixed by construction, and the matching log g and R1 follow from those fitted values plus the mass rather than providing independent confirmation. The later sentence converts this fitted agreement into 'mutual affirmation', which is the circular step. The circularity is only partial, however: the MESA mass is not fitted to the light-curve mass, so the Sect. 3.5 binary mass measurement still carries independent content.

full rationale

The central binary parameters do not reduce to their inputs. The orbital period and K1 come directly from the RV fit, the mass function in Eq. (2) is a standard Keplerian relation, and the Wilson-Devinney fit of the TESS ellipsoidal-plus-beaming light curve supplies q and i, with vrot sin i as an external spectroscopic constraint. No self-citation chain is load-bearing. The tidal-synchronization assumption is a physical prior rather than a circular definition, and the paper explicitly refits the system without synchronization in Sect. 4.3, preserving the sdB+WD classification. The one genuine circularity is confined to Sect. 4.1: the MESA envelope mass is adjusted to reproduce the observed Teff and log L, after which the agreement is described as 'mutually affirming'. Because this tuned model is used for the evolutionary-status interpretation but not for deriving the light-curve masses, the overall circularity is modest and does not invalidate the binary mass measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger lists the fitted parameters the central masses and evolutionary fate depend on, the background assumptions used in the modeling, and no invented entities. The main fitted parameters are the orbit, inclination, mass ratio, reddening, radius, and MESA envelope mass; the main assumptions are circular orbit, tidal synchronization, and the white dwarf nature of the unseen companion.

free parameters (9)

Orbital period P = 109.20279 min
Determined from Lomb-Scargle periodogram and MCMC fits of RVs and TESS light curve; fixed in subsequent light curve and binary evolution modeling.
RV semi-amplitude K1 = 222.2 +2.7/-2.8 km/s
Fitted with a circular sinusoid to phase-folded RVs (Sect. 3.2); sets the mass function.
Orbital inclination i = 55 +13/-10 deg
Derived from vrot sin i assuming tidal synchronization (Sect. 3.5); also sampled as a free parameter in the Wilson-Devinney fit. Directly controls the derived masses via sin^3 i.
Mass ratio q = 1.24 +0.47/-0.28
Free parameter in the Wilson-Devinney light curve fit (Sect. 3.5).
SED radius R1 = 0.164 +/- 0.004 Rsun
Fitted from SED with Gaia parallax and TMAP models (Sect. 3.3); used as a reference in light curve modeling.
Reddening E(B-V) = 0.012 +0.008/-0.007
Fitted in SED with priors from Bayestar2019, Schlegel, and Planck dust maps (Sect. 3.3).
MESA hydrogen envelope mass = 1.3e-3 Msun
Chosen via Relax Mass at the RGB tip to reproduce the observed Teff and log L (Sect. 4.1); controls the sdB model that is then compared with observations.
MESA initial mass = 2.16 Msun
Selected so that the resulting sdB model matches the observed parameters (Sect. 4.1).
Companion temperature T2 = 20000 K
Fixed by hand in the fiducial light curve fit; higher T2 = 46848 K is tested and found to have negligible effect (Sect. 3.5).

assumptions (6)

standard math Kepler's third law and the binary mass function formula
Used to convert P and K1 into the mass function (Eq. 2) and to relate masses to orbital separation.
domain assumption The orbit is circular (e = 0)
Adopted in Sect. 3.2 and 3.5 based on the small fitted eccentricity (0.013 +/- 0.011); used for the sinusoid RV fit and light curve model.
domain assumption Tidal synchronization of the sdB's rotation with the orbit
Used in Sect. 3.5 to convert vrot sin i into inclination i = 55 deg. The paper flags this as debated and tests the non-synchronized case in Sect. 4.3.
domain assumption The unseen companion is a white dwarf with radius smaller than its Roche lobe
Inferred in Sect. 3.5 from the absence of emission lines and comparison of Roche radius with main-sequence radii; central to the sdB+WD classification.
domain assumption Wilson-Devinney model physics (ellipsoidal variation, Doppler beaming, limb darkening, gravity darkening)
The light curve model in Sect. 3.5 uses fixed limb darkening (Claret et al. 2020), Doppler beaming beta = 1.47, and gravity darkening and albedo set to 1.
domain assumption MESA stellar evolution inputs (Z = 0.02, overshooting fov = 0.016, alpha = 1.8, no rotation/wind/diffusion)
These settings in Sect. 4.1 determine the sdB model tracks; different choices change the tuned core and envelope masses.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LAMOST J171013+532646: a detached short-period non-eclipsing hot subdwarf + white dwarf binary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4NER73A

@misc{pith2026241202356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LAMOST J171013+532646: a detached short-period non-eclipsing hot subdwarf + white dwarf binary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4NER73A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02356}
}

abstract

We present an analysis of LAMOST J171013.211+532646.04 (hereafter J1710), a binary system comprising a hot subdwarf B star (sdB) and a white dwarf (WD) companion. Multi-epoch spectroscopy reveals an orbital period of 109.20279 minutes, consistent with TESS and ZTF photometric data, marking it as the sixth detached system known to harbor a WD companion with a period less than two hours. J1710 is remarkably close to Earth, situated at a distance of only $350.68^{+4.20}_{-4.21} \, \mathrm{pc}$, with a GAIA G-band magnitude of 12.59, rendering it conducive for continuous observations. The spectral temperature is around 25164 K, in agreement with SED fitting results ($25301^{+839}_{-743} \, \mathrm{K}$). The TESS light curve displays ellipsoidal variation and Doppler beaming without eclipsing features. Through fitting the TESS light curve using the Wilson-Devinney code, we determined the masses for the sdB ($M_1 = 0.44^{+0.06}_{-0.07} \, M_{\odot}$) and the compact object ($M_2 = 0.54^{+0.10}_{-0.07} \, M_{\odot}$), with the compact object likely being a WD. Furthermore, MESA models suggest that the sdB, with a helium core mass of 0.431 $M_{\odot}$ and a hydrogen envelope mass of $1.3 \times 10^{-3}\, M_{\odot}$, is in the early helium main-sequence phase. The MESA binary evolution shows that the J1710 system is expected to evolve into a double white dwarf system, making it an important source of low-frequency gravitational waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02356 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Spectrum fitting of J1710. Panel a displays the LAMOST combined spectrum in the blue band (green) alongside its best-fitting model (red), with absorption lines of H and He labeled. Panel b presents the residuals of the fit. Panel c shows fits of vrot sin i to the helium lines observed in the reduced CFHT spectra, with the normalized fluxes of the single lines shifted for better visualization. The corrected RVs were … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Results of sinusoidal RV fitting using MCMC technique with the eccentricity e fixed to 0. For convenience, T ∗ 0 is defined as (T0 − 2459744.03573) × 10000. The derived reference ephemeris is T0 = 2459744.03573 ± 0.00012 days, with an RV semi-amplitude of K1 = 222.2 +2.7 −2.8 km/s and a systemic velocity of V0 = −36.5 ± 2.0 km/s. (2021) yields a distance of 350.87±3.70 pc. Using this distance, the Bayestar2019 map (… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** SED fitting of J1710. The left panel displays the broad SED and observed photometry for the single sdB component (red), while the right panel includes an additional WD component (green). However, aligning the GALEX photometry values in the right panel results in a deviation of the total flux (yellow) from the observed photometry in other bands. Photometric data sources include GALEX (Lasker et al. 2008), Gaia (synth… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Corner plot of the SED fitting results for J1710 with a single component using the TMAP model. tions. For each set of sampled parameters, the code iterated to derive optimal values for the semi-major axis SMA, mass ratio q, and gravitational potential Ω1, along with th…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Folded RV curve, normalized light curves, and model light curves are presented in the ZTF g, r, and i bands, as well as the TESS band. Photometric data points are represented as black points in all folded light curves, with gray shading indicating errors. The model lig…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Bootstrapping sampling results for the TESS band light curve using the Wilson-Devinney code. The diagonal elements present the probability distribution of each parameter, with percentiles of 16%, 50%, and 84% denoted by vertical lines. Note that star 1 denotes the visi…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Color-magnitude diagram and evolutionary tracks for five sdB models derived from a 2.16 M⊙ main-sequence progenitor. In the left panel, gray data points represent sources within 100 parsecs in the Gaia DR3 dataset, while green, blue, and gold points indicate candidate …

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: illustrates the binary system’s evolution from the present until the sdB becomes a WD. The top panel shows the evolution of the primary star’s luminosity (green line) and central density (red line) over time. Approximately 89 Myr from now, when the core helium abundanc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

2023
[2]

2017, PASP, 129, 024004

Bai, Z., Zhang, H., Yuan, H., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 024004

2017
[3]

2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 249

Bai, Z.-R., Zhang, H.-T., Yuan, H.-L., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 249

work page 2021
[4]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

2019
[5]

2024, Fundamental Research, 4, 1072

Cai, R.-G., Guo, Z.-K., Hu, B., et al. 2024, Fundamental Research, 4, 1072

work page 2024
[6]

A., Clayton, G

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

1989
[7]

C., Magnier, E

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

arXiv 2016
[8]

L., et al

Chandra, V ., Hwang, H.-C., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 160

work page 2021

Show all 82 references

[9]

2020, A&A, 634, A93

Claret, A., Cukanovaite, E., Burdge, K., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A93

2020
[10]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

Colpi, M., Danzmann, K., Hewitson, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

2024 arXiv
[11]

M., Skrutskie, M

Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data

2003
[12]

M., Wright, E

Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

2021
[13]

B., Kupfer, T., & Dorsch, M

Deshmukh, K., Bauer, E. B., Kupfer, T., & Dorsch, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2072

2024
[14]

Donati, J. F. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 307, Solar Polarization, ed. J. Trujillo-Bueno & J. Sanchez Almeida, 41

2003
[15]

Edwards, T., Sandford, M. C. W., & Hammesfahr, A. 2001, Acta Astronautica, 48, 549

2001
[16]

Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 Gaia Collaboration. 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/360 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

1983
[17]

2010, A&A, 519, A25

Geier, S., Heber, U., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A25

2010
[18]

R., Wang, B., et al

Geier, S., Marsh, T. R., Wang, B., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A54

2013
[19]

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

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

2019
[20]

Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669

2003
[21]

Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., & Ivanova, N. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 449

2002
[22]

2016, PASP, 128, 082001

Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001

2016
[23]

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

Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D. L. 2015, in American Astro- nomical Society Meeting Abstracts, V ol. 225, American Astronomical Soci- ety Meeting Abstracts #225, 336.16

2015
[24]

J., Kilic, M., Brown, W

Hermes, J. J., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Montgomery, M. H., & Winget, D. E. 2012, ApJ, 749, 42

2012
[25]

2000, A&A, 360, 952

Herwig, F. 2000, A&A, 360, 952

2000
[26]

Hilditch, R. W. 2001, An Introduction to Close Binary Stars

2001
[27]

& Wu, Y .-L

Hu, W.-R. & Wu, Y .-L. 2017, National Science Review, 4, 685

2017
[28]

& Lanz, T

Hubeny, I. & Lanz, T. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1706.01859

2017 arXiv
[29]

2011, NGO (New Gravitational Wave Obser- vatory) Assessment Study Report, Tech

Jennrich, O., Binétruy, P., & et al. 2011, NGO (New Gravitational Wave Obser- vatory) Assessment Study Report, Tech. rep., ESA/SRE

2011
[30]

S., Bauer, E

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

2023
[31]

Johnson, D. R. H. & Soderblom, D. R. 1987, AJ, 93, 864

1987
[32]

2010, Mem

Koester, D. 2010, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 81, 921

2010
[33]

2009, A&A, 501, 1269

Koleva, M., Prugniel, P., Bouchard, A., & Wu, Y . 2009, A&A, 501, 1269

2009
[34]

B., Marsh, T

Kupfer, T., Bauer, E. B., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 891, 45

2020
[35]

B., van Roestel, J., et al

Kupfer, T., Bauer, E. B., van Roestel, J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, L12

2022
[36]

2015, A&A, 576, A44

Kupfer, T., Geier, S., Heber, U., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A44

2015
[37]

2018, MNRAS, 480, 302

Kupfer, T., Korol, V ., Shah, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 302

2018
[38]

& Hubeny, I

Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2007, ApJS, 169, 83

2007
[39]

M., Lattanzi, M

Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735

2008
[40]

2018, ApJ, 868, 70

Lei, Z., Zhao, J., Németh, P., & Zhao, G. 2018, ApJ, 868, 70

2018
[41]

2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJ/881/135

Lei, Z., Zhao, J., Nemeth, P., & Zhao, G. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJ/881/135

2021
[42]

Li, Z. & Li, Y . 2021, ApJ, 923, 166

2021
[43]

2021, A&A, 649, A4

Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4

2021
[44]

Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

1976
[45]

& Fuller, J

Ma, L. & Fuller, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16158

2024 arXiv
[46]

J., Laher, R

Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

2019
[47]

Maxted, P. F. L., Heber, U., Marsh, T. R., & North, R. C. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1391

2001
[48]

J., Cole, R

Moore, C. J., Cole, R. H., & Berry, C. P. L. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 015014

2015
[49]

A., Lisker, T., et al

Napiwotzki, R., Karl, C. A., Lisker, T., et al. 2004, Ap&SS, 291, 321

2004
[50]

2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Nemeth, P., Östensen, R., Tremblay, P., & Hubeny, I. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 481, 6th Meeting on Hot Subd- warf Stars and Related Objects, ed. V . van Grootel, E. Green, G. Fontaine, & S. Charpinet, 95

2014
[51]

2018, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol

Ni, W.-T. 2018, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 168, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 01004

2018
[52]

D., Reed, M

Pablo, H., Kawaler, S. D., Reed, M. D., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1343

2012
[53]

2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

2011
[54]

2013, ApJS, 208, 4

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

2013
[55]

2015, ApJS, 220, 15

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

2015
[56]

B., et al

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

2018
[57]

2019, ApJS, 243, 10

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

2019
[58]

2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1052

Pelisoli, I., Neunteufel, P., Geier, S., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1052

2021
[59]

& V os, J

Pelisoli, I. & V os, J. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2892 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Ashdown, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A109

2019
[60]

P., Tout, C

Preece, H. P., Tout, C. A., & Jeffery, C. S. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 715

2018
[61]

M., Hogg, D

Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 837, 20 Ramírez, I., Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L. 2013, ApJ, 764, 78

2017
[62]

D., Baran, A

Reed, M. D., Baran, A. S., Østensen, R. H., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1417

2016
[63]

R., Winn, J

Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G...

2014
[64]

2020, Nature Astron- omy, 4, 108

Ruan, W.-H., Liu, C., Guo, Z.-K., Wu, Y .-L., & Cai, R.-G. 2020, Nature Astron- omy, 4, 108

2020
[65]

Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

1982
[66]

2014, A&A, 564, A98

Schaffenroth, V ., Geier, S., Heber, U., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A98

2014
[67]

J., Finkbeiner, D

Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

1998
[68]

2020, Phys

Seto, N. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 123547

2020
[69]

2012, A&A, 544, A153

Shah, S., van der Sluys, M., & Nelemans, G. 2012, A&A, 544, A153

2012
[70]

& Cui, X.-Q

Su, D.-Q. & Cui, X.-Q. 2004, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 4, 1

2004
[71]

1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733

1986
[72]

1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V . Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

1993
[73]

L., Stubbs, C

Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99

2012
[74]

J., Németh, P., & Burton, D

Vennes, S., Kawka, A., O’Toole, S. J., Németh, P., & Burton, D. 2012, ApJ, 759, L25

2012
[75]

1996, Appl

Wang, S.-G., Su, D.-Q., Chu, Y .-Q., Cui, X., & Wang, Y .-N. 1996, Appl. Opt., 35, 5155

1996
[76]

2012, TMAP: Tübingen NLTE Model-Atmosphere Package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1212.015

Werner, K., Dreizler, S., & Rauch, T. 2012, TMAP: Tübingen NLTE Model-Atmosphere Package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1212.015

2012
[77]

Wilson, R. E. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1054

1979
[78]

Wilson, R. E. 1990, ApJ, 356, 613

1990
[79]

Wilson, R. E. 2012, AJ, 144, 73

2012
[80]

Wilson, R. E. & Devinney, E. J. 1971, ApJ, 166, 605

1971
[81]

2014, in Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology, ed

Wu, Y ., Du, B., Luo, A., Zhao, Y ., & Yuan, H. 2014, in Statistical Challenges in 21st Century Cosmology, ed. A. Heavens, J.-L. Starck, & A. Krone-Martins, V ol. 306, 340–342

2014
[82]

2023, AJ, 165, 119 Article number, page 11 of 11

Yuan, H., Li, Z., Bai, Z., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 119 Article number, page 11 of 11

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

2023

[2] [2]

2017, PASP, 129, 024004

Bai, Z., Zhang, H., Yuan, H., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 024004

2017

[3] [3]

2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 249

Bai, Z.-R., Zhang, H.-T., Yuan, H.-L., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 249

work page 2021

[4] [4]

C., Kulkarni, S

Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

2019

[5] [5]

2024, Fundamental Research, 4, 1072

Cai, R.-G., Guo, Z.-K., Hu, B., et al. 2024, Fundamental Research, 4, 1072

work page 2024

[6] [6]

A., Clayton, G

Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

1989

[7] [7]

C., Magnier, E

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

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

L., et al

Chandra, V ., Hwang, H.-C., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 921, 160

work page 2021