Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Kinematics of Cataclysmic Variables in the Solar Neighborhood in the Gaia Era

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 With Gaia DR3 astrometry and literature systemic velocities, this paper finds that non-magnetic cataclysmic variables in the thin disk have a total space velocity dispersion of 46.33 km/s, a kinematic age near 4 Gyr, and similar…

desk verdict Useful Gaia-era update of CV kinematics, but the gamma-velocity comparison is a rescaling, the error bars are not standard errors, and the kinematic ages carry unquantified systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06882 v1 pith:R6IYTKHZ submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

R. Canbay , T. Ak , S. Bilir , F. Soydugan , Z. Eker This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords cataclysmicvariablesGaiaDR3spacevelocitydispersionkinematicalagethindiskorbitalperiodgapgammasolarneighborhood
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

Using Gaia DR3 astrometry for 432 cataclysmic variables with systemic velocities compiled from the literature, the paper measures how fast these binaries move relative to the Sun. After restricting the sample to reliable velocity errors and isolating thin-disk, non-magnetic systems, it finds a total space velocity dispersion of 46.33 ± 4.23 km/s, which its age–velocity dispersion calibration converts to a mean kinematical age of 3.95 ± 0.75 Gyr. Because the local thin disk is thought to be 6–9 Gyr old, the paper concludes that cataclysmic variables in the solar neighborhood are a dynamically young population. It also finds that systems below and above the orbital period gap have nearly equal gamma-velocity dispersions, contrary to a key prediction of the standard disrupted-magnetic-braking model.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the age–velocity dispersion relation, the paper's Equation (1): σν³(τ) = σν,0³ + (3/2) σV δ² Tδ [exp(τ/Tδ) − 1], with σν,0 = 10 km/s, σV = 2.95, Tδ = 5 Gyr, and δ² = 3.7 × 10⁻⁶ km³/s³/yr. This converts a measured total space velocity dispersion, computed as σν² = σU² + σV² + σW², into a mean kinematical age. The other load-bearing pieces are the kinematic thin-disk/thick-disk population classification used to build a homogeneous sample, and the definition σγ² = (1/3) σν² that lets observed gamma-velocity dispersions be compared with theoretical predictions.

What would settle it

Compare the kinematic-age distribution of the same non-magnetic thin-disk CVs with independent white-dwarf cooling ages for their primaries: if the cooling ages center near 6–9 Gyr while the measured total velocity dispersion remains 46.33 ± 4.23 km/s, then the age–velocity dispersion calibration, rather than CV evolution, is the broken link. A simpler check is that a larger Gaia sample after the same cuts should keep the dispersion below about 50 km/s; a drop below roughly 40 km/s would erase the claimed youth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the kinematics of cataclysmic variables in the solar neighborhood are now measured reliably enough to test the standard evolutionary model, and the test fails in a specific way. Restricting the sample to non-magnetic CVs assigned to the Galactic thin disk by kinematic population classification, the total space velocity dispersion is σν = 46.33 ± 4.23 km/s, corresponding to a mean kinematical age τ = 3.95 ± 0.75 Gyr. Systems below the 2.15–3.18 hr period gap have σν = 47.67 ± 3.94 km/s (τ = 4.19 ± 0.71 Gyr), while systems above it have σν = 44.43 ± 4.33 km/s (τ = 3.61 ± 0.74 Gyr). The gamma-velocity dispersions below and above the gap, 27.52 ± 2.28 and 25.65 ± 2.44 km/s, are statistically indistinguishable, where the standard theory predicts a large contrast. The paper reads this as evidence that CVs are younger than the field thin disk and that the standard treatment of magnetic braking during the detached phase, or the role of nova kicks, must be reconsidered.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, which the paper itself flags when discussing white-dwarf kicks and nova ejections, is that cataclysmic variables are heated by the Galaxy exactly like field stars and receive no extra velocity kicks; if they do, every derived kinematic age shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dispersion and age values hold, non-magnetic thin-disk CVs are several gigayears younger than the local field thin disk.
  • Systems above the period gap are about as old as systems below it, contradicting the standard model's prediction that above-gap CVs should be younger than about 1.5 Gyr.
  • The nearly equal gamma-velocity dispersions across the gap favor models where magnetic braking does not operate in the detached phase, or where nova kicks mask age differences.
  • The measured dP/dt ≈ −2.09 × 10⁻⁵ s/yr for non-magnetic thin-disk CVs supports the standard expectation that orbital periods shrink with age, though it is about five times faster than the mean period decrease inferred from observed orbital-period changes.
  • The comparison with isolated white dwarfs implies that CVs are younger than the field white-dwarf population, but the difference may shrink once thick-disk contamination is treated consistently in both samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If asymmetric nova ejections add a velocity kick on top of gravitational heating, the field-star calibration would overestimate true ages, making these CVs even younger than 3.95 Gyr rather than older.
  • Inference: The small gamma-velocity dispersion difference across the period gap could arise because the sample is not old enough for the standard-model age contrast to develop; a larger sample split by white-dwarf mass could test this directly.
  • Inference: Because the sample is brightness-selected and short-period systems are underrepresented, correcting this selection could move the below-gap dispersion and age in either direction, so the 4.19 Gyr value should be treated as provisional.
  • Inference: The age–orbital-period slope could be checked independently against eclipsing CVs with measured period derivatives, providing a direct kinematic-versus-dynamical test of the same evolutionary model.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles systemic velocities for 455 cataclysmic variables, matches 432 of them to Gaia DR3 astrometry and Bailer-Jones distances, applies quality cuts on total space-velocity error and on Galactic population class, and derives space-velocity dispersions, kinematic ages, and gamma-velocity dispersions for subsamples split by magnetic nature and orbital period. The central measurement is a total space-velocity dispersion of sigma_nu = 46.33 +/- 4.23 km/s for non-magnetic thin-disk CVs, which the authors convert through the Cox (2000) age-velocity relation into a kinematic age of tau = 3.95 +/- 0.75 Gyr, much younger than the local thin disk (tau ~ 6-9 Gyr). The paper also reports sigma_nu for CVs below and above the period gap, gamma-velocity dispersions for those groups, and an age-orbital-period relation dP/dt = -2.09 +/- 0.22 x 10^-5 s/yr.

Significance. The sample construction is a genuine improvement over earlier CV kinematic studies: the use of Gaia DR3 astrometry, the comparison between emission- and absorption-line systemic velocities, the explicit completeness tests against volume-limited samples, and the electronic tables are all valuable. If the velocity-dispersion measurement is unbiased and the age calibration is applicable to CVs, the conclusion that thin-disk non-magnetic CVs are dynamically young would be an important challenge to standard CV evolutionary ages. However, the three load-bearing interpretive steps are currently not secured: the gamma-velocity dispersions are defined as sigma_nu/sqrt(3) rather than measured independently; the thin-disk sample is selected using the same U,V,W velocities that are later used to measure the dispersion; and the conversion from dispersion to age relies on a field-star heating relation without a sensitivity analysis for CV-specific kicks or diffusion parameters. These issues do not invalidate the data compilation, but they prevent the paper from supporting its headline age claims as they stand.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (2); Table 3] The sigma_gamma entries in Table 3 are not independent measurements: the text defines sigma_gamma^2 = sigma_nu^2 / 3, so every sigma_gamma value in Table 3 is exactly sigma_nu divided by sqrt(3) up to rounding. Consequently, the abstract's statement that 'a significant difference could not be found between the gamma velocity dispersions of the systems below and above the gap' is the same statement as the comparison of the total space-velocity dispersions, not a new constraint on the models of Kolb & Stehle (1996) or Kolb (2001). To test those predictions, the authors should either compute the dispersion of the directly measured gamma velocities or explicitly state that sigma_gamma is a derived quantity under an isotropy assumption and remove the model-comparison language in Section 3.4.
  2. [Section 2.6, Eq. (3); Table 3] The thin-disk sample is selected using Bensby et al. (2003) probabilities computed from the same U, V, W components that are then used to measure sigma_nu. Selecting objects with TD/D <= 1 preferentially retains systems whose velocities lie near the thin-disk centroid and removes high-dispersion objects, which biases the measured sigma_nu low and therefore biases the kinematic age tau low. This is a direct threat to the central claim that thin-disk CVs are much younger than the local thin disk. The authors should quantify this selection effect, for example by applying the same Bensby cut to a mock or field-star sample with a known input dispersion, or by selecting the thin disk using an independent criterion such as spatial position or chemistry.
  3. [Section 2.4, Eq. (1); Sections 2.8 and 3.4] The conversion from sigma_nu to tau uses the Cox (2000) relation calibrated for single field stars, with a zero-age dispersion of 10 km/s and a fixed diffusion coefficient. The paper does not calibrate this relation for CVs, which have undergone common-envelope evolution, mass loss, and possibly asymmetric nova ejections. Section 2.8 quantifies a 0.75 km/s white-dwarf kick, but Section 3.4 invokes the cumulative effect of nova explosions as a possible explanation without modeling it. A 20% change in the diffusion coefficient or an unmodeled kick of 3-5 km/s shifts tau by more than the quoted +/-0.75 Gyr. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis varying delta^2, sigma_nu,0, and an additional kick term, and should soften all statements that present tau = 3.95 +/- 0.75 Gyr as a robust measurement.
  4. [Section 2.7; Table 3] The quoted errors on the dispersions are described as 'standard deviations of individual space velocity errors.' That quantity is not the standard error of the dispersion estimate; it does not reflect the sample size or the sampling uncertainty in the intrinsic velocity dispersion. The errors in Table 3 therefore cannot be used to assess whether the below-gap and above-gap dispersions differ, or whether the dispersion is significantly lower than that of the field thin disk. The authors should compute uncertainties by bootstrap resampling or by an analytic propagation formula for the dispersion, and should re-derive the significance statements accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3, non-magnetic TD/D <= 0.1 row] The entry '15.94 +/- 2.2.46' contains a double decimal point in the WLSR dispersion; it should read '15.94 +/- 2.46'.
  2. [Section 2.8, white-dwarf kick paragraph] The text says an 'increase of 0.75 km/s' in the total space velocity dispersion results in 54.04 +/- 4.52 km/s, which is smaller than the original 54.29 +/- 4.51 km/s. The direction of the correction is inconsistent and should be clarified.
  3. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'about %92 of CVs' should read 'about 92% of CVs.'
  4. [Section 2.8, Figure 13] The normalization of the cumulative CV count by dividing by 11 (the G-magnitude interval) is not explained clearly enough for a reader to reproduce the comparison; the definition of the effective unit absolute magnitude interval should be stated more explicitly.
  5. [Eq. (1) and Table 3] The symbol sigma_V is used both for the dimensionless rotation-curve factor (2.95) in Eq. (1) and for the V-component velocity dispersion in Table 3; this notation collision is confusing and should be resolved.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The γ-velocity dispersions are σν/√3 by the paper's own definition, so the abstract's below/above-gap σγ comparison is a restatement of the total-dispersion result; the kinematic ages themselves are anchored to the external Cox (2000) relation and are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.4 (Eq. 2 and the definition of σγ); Table 3; Abstract]
    "Additionally, under the assumption that CVs are isotropically distributed, the γ velocity dispersion σγ can also be calculated from the definition σ2 γ = 1/3 σ2 ν (Wielen et al. 1992), allowing for comparison with theoretical predictions."

    Table 3 lists σγ = 27.52±2.28 and 25.65±2.44 km/s for non-magnetic thin-disk CVs below and above the period gap; these are exactly the paper's σν = 47.67±3.94 and 44.43±4.33 km/s divided by √3. The abstract presents the σγ comparison as a separate result ('However, a significant difference could not be found between the γ velocity dispersions of the systems below and above the gap'), but with σγ defined as σν/√3 this statement is identical to the total-dispersion comparison. It is therefore not an independent test of the Kolb & Stehle (1996) σ(γ)≈30/15 km/s prediction; the σγ entries in Table 3 are a rescaling of the measured σν under an isotropy assumption.

full rationale

The derivation of the headline ages is self-contained with respect to the paper's own claims: σν is computed from Gaia DR3 astrometry, Bailer-Jones distances, and literature systemic velocities, then converted to τ via the externally calibrated Cox (2000) age–dispersion relation, Eq. (1). None of these inputs is the age being predicted, so the τ = 3.95 ± 0.75 Gyr result is not circular. The Bensby et al. (2003) population classification does use the same U, V, W velocities that later define σν; this is a possible selection-bias risk (thin-disk membership preferentially excludes high-velocity objects), but it is a statistical conditioning effect rather than an equation-level identity, so it is not scored here as circularity. The one clear construction-level issue is σγ: Section 2.4 defines σγ² = σν²/3, and every σγ value in Table 3, including 27.52 and 25.65 km/s below/above the gap, is exactly σν/√3. The abstract nevertheless highlights the σγ comparison as an additional finding, even though it is the same comparison as the σν dispersions and cannot independently confirm or weaken the Kolb & Stehle (1996) prediction. Ak et al. (2010, 2015) and Canbay et al. (2023) are cited as data sources and comparison points, not as a load-bearing self-citation chain or an imported uniqueness theorem. Because one headline claim reduces by construction to the measured total dispersion while the central age estimate remains externally calibrated, the paper is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several adopted empirical calibrations: the Cox age-velocity relation, the isotropic sigma_gamma conversion, the Bensby population priors, and the adopted solar motion. None of these are fitted in this paper, but all carry systematic uncertainty. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Total space velocity error cutoff Serr = 16.02 km/s
    Chosen as the 90th percentile of the cumulative Serr distribution (Section 2.3, Figure 5), not from a model; different cutoffs change the Table 3 dispersions and ages.
  • Thin-disk selection threshold TD/D <= 1 = 1
    Combines high- and low-probability thin disk stars from Bensby et al. (2003, 2005) into one thin-disk group; this choice defines the 354-system sample used for the main results.
  • Orbital period bin boundaries for the age-period relation = 0.030, 0.072, 0.110, 0.170, 0.280, 0.370, 0.550 d
    Hand-chosen bins (Section 2.7, Table 3) to balance sample sizes; the dP/dt slope in Figure 15 depends on these boundaries.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Cox (2000) age-velocity dispersion relation (Eq. 1) with sigma_nu0 = 10 km/s, sigma_V = 2.95, T_delta = 5 Gyr and delta^2 = 3.7e-6 km^3/s^3/yr governs the dynamical heating of CVs.
    All kinematic ages (tau) in Table 3 are obtained by inverting Eq. (1); CVs may receive kicks from nova eruptions or asymmetric mass loss that are not part of the field-star calibration.
  • domain assumption The line-of-sight velocity dispersion is one-third of the total space velocity dispersion (sigma_gamma^2 = sigma_nu^2 / 3, Section 2.4), i.e., the CV velocity ellipsoid is isotropic and the sky sampling is isotropic.
    The paper does not compute sigma_gamma directly from the observed gamma velocities; all sigma_gamma entries in Table 3 are this rescaling of sigma_nu.
  • domain assumption Bensby et al. (2003, 2005) Galactic population priors, including velocity ellipsoids and local fractions X_D = 0.9385, X_TD = 0.06 and X_H = 0.0015, apply to CVs.
    Population classification in Section 2.6 uses these priors; misclassification would contaminate the thin-disk sample.
  • domain assumption Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) Bayesian distances are unbiased for CVs beyond 2 kpc.
    Distances for the 432 systems come from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021); the paper validates agreement with Gaia only up to about 2 kpc, while a few systems are at several kpc.
  • domain assumption The adopted solar motion (U,V,W)_Sun = (8.83, 14.19, 6.57) km/s and the Mihalas and Binney (1981) differential rotation correction are correct for this sample.
    Used in Section 2.3 to convert measured velocities to the LSR; the Oort constants for the rotation correction are not stated in the paper.
  • standard math The Johnson and Soderblom (1987) equatorial-to-Galactic transformation matrices are standard and correctly applied.
    This is a standard astrometric transformation used in Section 2.3; no error is suspected, but the paper provides no independent verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinematics of Cataclysmic Variables in the Solar Neighborhood in the Gaia Era." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6IYTKHZ

@misc{pith2026241206882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinematics of Cataclysmic Variables in the Solar Neighborhood in the Gaia Era},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6IYTKHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06882}
}
abstract

Using high-precision astrometric data from Gaia DR3 and updated systemic velocities from the literature, kinematical properties of cataclysmic variables (CVs) were investigated. By constraining the data according to the total space velocity error and Galactic population class, a reliable sample of data was obtained. Non-magnetic CVs located in the thin disk have been found to have a total space velocity dispersion of $\sigma_{\nu} = 46.33\pm4.23$ km s$^{-1}$, indicating that the thin disk CVs with a mean kinematical age of $\tau = 3.95\pm0.75$ Gyr are much younger than the local thin disk of the Galaxy with $\tau\sim$6-9 Gyr. Total space velocity dispersions of non-magnetic CVs belonging to the thin disk component of the Galaxy were found to be $\sigma_{\nu}=47.67\pm3.94$ and $\sigma_{\nu}=44.43\pm4.33$ km s$^{-1}$ for the systems below and above the orbital period gap, respectively, corresponding to kinematical ages of $\tau=4.19\pm0.71$ and $\tau=3.61\pm0.74$ Gyr. $\gamma$ velocity dispersions of the thin disk CVs below and above the gap were obtained $\sigma_{\gamma} = 27.52\pm2.28$ and $\sigma_{\gamma} = 25.65\pm2.44$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively. This study also shows that the orbital period is decreasing with increasing age, as expected from the standard theory. The age-orbital period relation for non-magnetic thin disk CVs was obtained as $dP/dt=-2.09\pm0.22\times10^{-5}$ sec yr$^{-1}$. However, a significant difference could not be found between the $\gamma$ velocity dispersions of the systems below and above the gap, which were calculated to be $\sigma_{\gamma} = 27.52\pm2.28$ and $\sigma_{\gamma} = 25.65\pm2.44$ km s$^{-1}$, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Comparison of systemic velocities measured from emission (γems) and absorption (γabs) lines for 44 CVs in the sample. Solid black line and blue dotted lines represent the linear fit and 1σ limits, respectively. The red solid line in the upper panel is the one-to-one line. (b) Distribution of velocity differences. Red and black lines show zero level and mean value of velocity differences, respectively. IPs, herea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of distances calculated from Gaia DR3 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023) database and Bailer￾Jones et al. (2021) parallaxes for 432 CVs in the sample. The distribution of differences is given in the lower panel. for beyond about 2 kpc. As distances of almost all sys￾tems in the sample are smaller than 2 kpc and they are estimated from precise trigonometric parallaxes, we con￾cluded that our sample is reliab… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The differential rotation corrections dU (a) and dV (b) applied to the U and V space velocity components of the 432 CVs in the sample as a function of the Galactic longitude . also displayed. We determined from this histogram that the total space velocity errors corresponding to 50%, 68%, 90% and 95% of the sample are Serr = 6.05 km s−1 , Serr = 9.08 km s−1 , Serr = 16.02 km s−1 and Serr = 20.01 km s−1 , respectivel… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Cumulative distribution and (b) histogram of the total space velocity errors of 432 CVs in the sample. basis of kinematic age determination lies in calculating reliable space velocity dispersions and systemic velocity dispersions of the star groups under investigat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: U − V and W − V diagrams of CV groups according to their total space velocity errors Serr (a and b), and U − V and W − V diagrams of magnetic (polars (P) and intermediate polars (IP) and non-magnetic systems in the sample of 432 CVs (c and d). 10 range, and 18 systems …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of 385 CVs in the sample according to their equatorial (a) and Galactic (b) coordinates. In the upper panel, the red curve indicates the Galactic plane and the green star symbol indicates the Galactic center. cal properties of high and low-probability thin…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The spatial distribution of 385 CVs in the sample with respect to the Sun. X, Y and Z are Sun-centred rect￾angular Galactic coordinates. P and IP denote polars and intermediate polars, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Toomre diagram of the final CV sample of 385 objects. Systems are colored according to their population types described in the text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of orbital periods of the final CV sample including 385 CVs. The shaded area represents the orbital period gap. The vertical axis is given on a logarithmic scale since the numbers of polars (P) and intermediate polars (IP) are small compared to non-magnetic …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histogram of orbital periods of the final CV sample. Systems are coloured according to their population types described in the text. number of systems is also smaller for the period regimes above 0.28 d. The total space velocity dispersions, γ velocity dispersions, an…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of orbital period histograms of the samples used in Rodriguez et al. (2024) (a), Pala et al. (2020) (b) and this study (c). Orbital period histogram of the cata￾logue of Ritter & Kolb (2003) is shown in the bottom panel. The shaded area represents the orbit…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the cumulative number of CVs estimated for 100 pc intervals. The numbers were estimated using the space densities and scale heights given by Pala et al. (2020) and Canbay et al. (2023). Red circles represent the data sample in this study. tain homogeneou…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of age-velocity dispersion relations of CVs and single white dwarfs. Blue circles represent the relation obtained from Cheng et al. (2019), while red circles show the values found for thin-disk CVs in this study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Orbital period-kinematic age relations found for all CVs (a) and non-magnetic CVs (b) located in the thin￾disk component of the Galaxy. Red solid lines represent the linear fits. dwarfs. However, considering that the age-dispersion re￾lation in C19 includes both the t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cataclysmic Variables in Triples: Formation Models and New Discoveries

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Triple-star dynamics are a significant, previously neglected formation channel for cataclysmic variables, including a common-envelope-free route.

  2. Kings of the Milky Way: A Homogeneous Gaia DR3 Analysis of King Open Clusters and the Galactic Disc Metallicity Gradient

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A homogeneous Gaia DR3 re-analysis of all 27 King open clusters gives consistent parameters and a metallicity gradient of about -0.06 dex/kpc, but the King-only slope is not statistically significant as printed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B., & Eker, Z

    Ak, T., Bilir, S., Ak, S., Co¸ skuno˘ glu, K. B., & Eker, Z. 2010, NewA, 15, 491, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2009.11.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2009.11.007 2010

  2. [2]

    2007, NewA, 12, 446, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2007.01.002

    Ak, T., Bilir, S., Ak, S., & Retter, A. 2007, NewA, 12, 446, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2007.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2007.01.002 2007

  3. [3]

    2015, Ap&SS, 357, 72, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2245-3

    Ak, T., Bilir, S., ¨Ozd¨ onmez, A., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 357, 72, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2245-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-015-2245-3 2015

  4. [4]

    2003, ApJ, 582, 358, doi: 10.1086/343030

    Andronov, N., Pinsonneault, M., & Sills, A. 2003, ApJ, 582, 358, doi: 10.1086/343030

    doi:10.1086/343030 2003

  5. [5]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  6. [6]

    R., Pala, A

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., Pala, A. F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 5717, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3413

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3413 2020

  7. [7]

    2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Lundstr¨ om, I. 2003, A&A, 410, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031213

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20031213 2003

  8. [8]

    2005, A&A, 433, 185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040332

    Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Lundstr¨ om, I., & Ilyin, I. 2005, A&A, 433, 185, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040332

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040332 2005

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2008, PASA, 25, 69, doi: 10.1071/AS07026

    Bilir, S., Cabrera-Lavers, A., Karaali, S., et al. 2008, PASA, 25, 69, doi: 10.1071/AS07026

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    2006a, NewA, 12, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2006.10.001

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Ak, S., Yaz, E., & Hamzao˘ glu, E. 2006a, NewA, 12, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2006.10.001

    2006 doi

  3. [12]

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., G¨ uver, T., Karata¸ s, Y., & Ak, S. G. 2006c, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 72, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510480

    doi

  4. [13]

    1999, A&A, 348, 98

    Buser, R., Rong, J., & Karaali, S. 1999, A&A, 348, 98

    1999

  5. [14]

    2007, A&A, 464, 565, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066475

    Cabrera-Lavers, A., Bilir, S., Ak, S., Yaz, E., & L´ opez-Corredoira, M. 2007, A&A, 464, 565, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066475

    2007 doi

  6. [15]

    2023, AJ, 165, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbead

    Canbay, R., Bilir, S., ¨Ozd¨ onmez, A., & Ak, T. 2023, AJ, 165, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbead

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    A., et al

    Chen, B., Stoughton, C., Smith, J. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 184, doi: 10.1086/320647

    2001 doi

  8. [17]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 491, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000124

    Benoni, T. 2000, A&AS, 141, 491, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000124

    2000 doi

  9. [18]

    D., & M´ enard, B

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, ApJ, 886, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 Co¸ skunoˇ glu, B., Ak, S., Bilir, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1237, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17983.x

    2019

  10. [19]

    Cox, A. N. 2000, Allen’s astrophysical quantities del Peloso, E. F., da Silva, L., Porto de Mello, G. F., &

    2000

  11. [20]

    Arany-Prado, L. I. 2005, A&A, 440, 1153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053307

    2005 doi

  12. [21]

    A., Webbink, R

    Downes, R. A., Webbink, R. F., Shara, M. M., et al. 2001, PASP, 113, 764, doi: 10.1086/320802 20 Canbay et al

    2001 doi

  13. [22]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2945

    El-Badry, K., Conroy, C., Fuller, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2945

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrop...

    2018

  15. [24]

    2008, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 8, 237

    Giovannelli, F. 2008, Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 8, 237

    2008

  16. [25]

    V., Hardis, S., & Frandsen, S

    Grundahl, F., Clausen, J. V., Hardis, S., & Frandsen, S. 2008, A&A, 492, 171, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810749

    2008 doi

  17. [26]

    P., & Thorstensen, J

    Halpern, J. P., & Thorstensen, J. R. 2015, AJ, 150, 170, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/170

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    2001, Cataclysmic Variable Stars

    Hellier, C. 2001, Cataclysmic Variable Stars

    2001

  19. [28]

    E., Howell, S

    Huber, M. E., Howell, S. B., Ciardi, D. R., & Fried, R. 1998, PASP, 110, 784, doi: 10.1086/316192

    1998 doi

  20. [29]

    T., Schwope, A., et al

    Inight, K., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Schwope, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3597, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2409

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    Johnson, D. R. H., & Soderblom, D. R. 1987, AJ, 93, 864, doi: 10.1086/114370 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    1987 doi

  22. [31]

    2016, ApJ, 833, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/83

    Kalomeni, B., Nelson, L., Rappaport, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/83

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    2004, MNRAS, 355, 307, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08319.x

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., & Hamzaoˇ glu, E. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 307, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08319.x

    2004

  24. [33]

    A., Harris, H

    Kilic, M., Munn, J. A., Harris, H. C., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa62a5

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03948

    King, A., & Lasota, J.-P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03948, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03948

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

    R., & Schenker, K

    King, A. R., & Schenker, K. 2002, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 261, The Physics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. B. T. G¨ ansicke, K. Beuermann, & K. Reinsch, 233, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0110186

    2002 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    2006, MNRAS, 373, 484, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11096.x

    Knigge, C. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 484, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11096.x

    2006

  28. [37]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Knigge, C. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 447, Evolution of Compact Binaries, ed. L. Schmidtobreick, M. R. Schreiber, & C. Tappert, 3, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1108.4716

    2011 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

    Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J. 2011, ApJS, 194, 28, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28

    2011 doi

  30. [39]

    2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol

    Kolb, U. 2001, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 264, The Influence of Binaries on Stellar Population Studies, ed. D. Vanbeveren, 321, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9723-4 24

    2001 doi

  31. [40]

    1999, MNRAS, 309, 1034, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02926.x

    Kolb, U., & Baraffe, I. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 1034, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02926.x

    1999

  32. [41]

    1996, MNRAS, 282, 1454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1454

    Kolb, U., & Stehle, R. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.4.1454

    1996 doi

  33. [42]

    P., Dhillon, V

    Littlefair, S. P., Dhillon, V. S., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 1582, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13539.x

    2008

  34. [43]

    M., & Chaboyer, B

    Liu, W. M., & Chaboyer, B. 2000, ApJ, 544, 818, doi: 10.1086/317231

    2000 doi

  35. [44]

    Majewski, S. R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.003043

    1993

  36. [45]

    P., Parsons, S

    McAllister, M., Littlefair, S. P., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5535, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz976

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    1981, Galactic astronomy

    Mihalas, D., & Binney, J. 1981, Galactic astronomy. Structure and kinematics (W.H. Freeman & Co.)

    1981

  38. [48]

    A., Thorstensen, J

    Orosz, J. A., Thorstensen, J. R., & Kent Honeycutt, R. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1134, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04682.x ¨Ozd¨ onmez, A., Ak, T., & Bilir, S. 2015, NewA, 34, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2014.07.012

    2001

  39. [49]

    F., G¨ ansicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Breedt, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa764

    2020 doi

  40. [50]

    F., G¨ ansicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6110, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3449

    2022 doi

  41. [51]

    1984, ApJS, 54, 443, doi: 10.1086/190940

    Patterson, J. 1984, ApJS, 54, 443, doi: 10.1086/190940

    1984 doi

  42. [52]

    L., Knigge, C., O’Donoghue, D., et al

    Pretorius, M. L., Knigge, C., O’Donoghue, D., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12461.x

    2007

  43. [53]

    2022, A&A, 658, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141837

    Raddi, R., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141837

    2022 doi

  44. [54]

    J., Marsh, T

    Ramsay, G., Green, M. J., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834261

    2018 doi

  45. [55]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713, doi: 10.1086/161569

    1983 doi

  46. [56]

    Ringwald, F. A. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 804, doi: 10.1093/mnras/270.4.804

    1994 doi

  47. [57]

    Smith, R. C. 1996, AJ, 111, 2077, doi: 10.1086/117943

    1996 doi

  48. [58]

    A., & Velasco, K

    Ringwald, F. A., & Velasco, K. 2012, NewA, 17, 108, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2011.07.007

    2012 doi

  49. [59]

    1986, A&A, 158, 161 Kinematic Properties of CVs 21

    Ritter, H., & Burkert, A. 1986, A&A, 158, 161 Kinematic Properties of CVs 21

    1986

  50. [60]

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

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

    2003 doi

  51. [61]

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

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.16053, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.16053

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [62]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2024, ApJ, 966, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad31a9

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    2002, MNRAS, 337, 1105, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05999.x

    Zhang, Z. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1105, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05999.x

    2002

  54. [64]

    R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T

    Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T. P. G. 2016, MNRAS, 455, L16, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv144

    2016 doi

  55. [65]

    D., Horne, K., Steeghs, D., & Still, M

    Schwope, A. D., Horne, K., Steeghs, D., & Still, M. 2011, A&A, 531, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016373

    2011 doi

  56. [66]

    H., Majewski, S

    Siegel, M. H., Majewski, S. R., Reid, I. N., & Thompson, I. B. 2002, ApJ, 578, 151, doi: 10.1086/342469

    2002 doi

  57. [67]

    E., Dai, Z., & Serna-Grey, D

    Szkody, P., Everett, M. E., Dai, Z., & Serna-Grey, D. 2018, AJ, 155, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9ede

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    P., et al

    Szkody, P., Albright, M., Linnell, A. P., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1421, doi: 10.1086/674170

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    E., & Spruit, H

    Taam, R. E., & Spruit, H. C. 2001, ApJ, 561, 329, doi: 10.1086/322331

    2001 doi

  60. [70]

    F., Kong, A

    Takata, J., Wang, X. F., Kong, A. K. H., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8100

    2022 doi

  61. [71]

    R., Alper, E

    Thorstensen, J. R., Alper, E. H., & Weil, K. E. 2016, AJ, 152, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/152/6/226 van Paradijs, J., Augusteijn, T., & Stehle, R. 1996, A&A, 312, 93

    2016 doi

  62. [72]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol. 28

    1995

  63. [73]

    1992, in The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed

    Radons, G. 1992, in The Stellar Populations of Galaxies, ed. B. Barbuy & A. Renzini, Vol. 149, 81–92

    1992

  64. [74]

    2005, ApJ, 635, 1263, doi: 10.1086/498010

    Dubus, G. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1263, doi: 10.1086/498010

    2005 doi

  65. [75]

    Sandquist, E. L. 2007, ApJ, 657, 465, doi: 10.1086/510479 Yaz G¨ ok¸ ce, E., Karaali, S., Duran, S ¸., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.12

    2007 doi

  66. [76]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  67. [77]

    Zorotovic, M., & Schreiber, M. R. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1080, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.08.044

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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