Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 59 references

V455 Car: an oscillating eclipsing Algol-type binary in triple star system

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read V455 Car is an Algol-type binary whose 26.6-year eclipse-timing wobble points to a low-mass third companion.

desk verdict Solid first TESS photometric solution and pulsation study of V455 Car, with a plausible but unproven third-body claim that the title overstates. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10124 v1 pith:XJYEKR2F submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.SR

Zhao-Long Deng , Wen-Ping Liao , Li-Ying Zhu , Xiang-Dong Shi , Nian-Ping Liu , Ping Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords closebinarystarseclipsingpulsatingvariableasteroseismologyAlgol-typeO-CanalysisthirdbodySPB/SLFstar
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 analyzes TESS, ASAS/ASAS-SN photometry, and FEROS spectra of the southern eclipsing binary V455 Car. Wilson-Devinney modeling shows it is a semi-detached Algol: a roughly 5.3 solar-mass primary with a 1.6 solar-mass secondary that nearly fills its Roche lobe. The primary shows one coherent pulsation frequency plus red noise, consistent with an SPB/SLF star. The central new claim is that a 26.62-year sinusoidal variation in the eclipse times is a light-travel-time effect from a third body with a minimum mass of about 0.59 solar masses. If correct, V455 Car is a rare triple system containing an oscillating Algol and a red-giant secondary.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the light-travel-time (LTTE) model applied to the $O-C$ diagram: a sinusoidal term of period $P_3$ and semi-amplitude $A$ in the eclipse-timing residuals, converted by the mass function $f(m) = (4\pi^2/GP_3^2)(cA)^3$ into a minimum mass for an unseen third body. The Wilson-Devinney code in semi-detached Mode 5 supplies the binary's geometry and luminosity ratio, and the Period04 software supplies the pulsation frequencies and the identification of red noise as stochastic low-frequency (SLF) variability.

What would settle it

Radial-velocity monitoring of V455 Car over a decade should reveal the predicted roughly 16 AU motion of the binary around the system barycenter; if no such velocity variation appears, or if its phase disagrees with the LTTE model, the third-body interpretation fails. Alternatively, an O–C diagram extended to two or more full cycles that deviates from the fitted sinusoid, or a period change tracking the secondary's expected magnetic-activity cycle, would rule out the LTTE interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that V455 Car is a semi-detached Algol-type binary (mass ratio $q = 0.298$) by fitting TESS and ASAS light curves with the Wilson-Devinney code in Mode 5. Using the FEROS-based primary temperature of $16427 \pm 147$ K and the $(B-V)_0$ color, they derive $M_1 = 5.30 \pm 1.10 \, \mathrm{M}_\odot$, $R_1 = 3.17 \pm 0.22 \, \mathrm{R}_\odot$ and $M_2 = 1.58 \pm 0.32 \, \mathrm{M}_\odot$, $R_2 = 6.66 \pm 0.46 \, \mathrm{R}_\odot$, with the secondary filling $99\%$ of its Roche lobe. The light-curve asymmetry (O'Connell effect) is modeled as a hot spot on the primary, attributed to ongoing mass transfer. From 159 primary eclipse times covering about 34.6 years, the $O-C$ diagram shows a cyclic variation with period $P_3 = 26.62 \pm 1.66$ yr and semi-amplitude $A = 0.0079 \pm 0.0020$ d; interpreted as a light-travel-time effect of a circular third-body orbit, this gives a mass function $f(m) = 0.0036 \pm 0.0028 \, \mathrm{M}_\odot$ and a minimum third-body mass of $0.59 \pm 0.13 \, \mathrm{M}_\odot$. Frequency analysis of the residual light curve detects one independent frequency at $2.20216 \pm 0.00035$ d$^{-1}$ with S/N $= 14.9$, plus stochastic low-frequency variability, indicating the primary is an SPB/SLF star.

Load-bearing premise

The third-body interpretation depends on the 26.62-year sinusoidal O–C wobble being a light-travel-time effect of a circular third-body orbit, rather than a magnetic activity cycle or a residual trend; because the 34.6-year baseline covers only about 1.3 cycles of this sine, the periodic signal is weakly constrained, and no radial velocities or astrometry currently confirm the companion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The absolute masses and radii become a benchmark for evolutionary models of Algol systems that have undergone mass-ratio reversal.
  • The detection of an SPB/SLF primary in a semi-detached binary offers a testbed for how mass transfer and tidal forces affect g-mode pulsations and internal mixing.
  • The candidate 0.59 solar-mass tertiary strengthens the statistical evidence that many massive binaries reside in hierarchical triples.
  • The hot-spot model for the O'Connell effect links the light-curve asymmetry directly to ongoing mass transfer onto the primary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tertiary is a late K-type main-sequence star as the authors suggest, it should be directly detectable through radial-velocity drift of the binary's spectral lines or through Gaia astrometry within roughly a decade — an independent test not presented in the paper.
  • Because the 34.6-year timing baseline covers only about 1.3 cycles of the 26.62-year sine, extending the baseline with continued TESS and ground-based photometry could distinguish the third-body interpretation from a slow secular period change or a magnetic-activity cycle.
  • The single coherent frequency at 2.202 d$^{-1}$, if confirmed as a high-order g-mode, could yield asteroseismic constraints on the primary's internal rotation and mixing; if its amplitude is tidally damped, comparison with single SPB stars of similar temperature would test tidal effects in Algols.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a multi-wavelength study of V455 Car, combining TESS and ASAS photometry with FEROS spectroscopy. Wilson-Devinney modeling in Mode 5 returns a semi-detached configuration with mass ratio q≈0.30, a hot spot on the primary to explain the O'Connell effect, and absolute parameters M1=5.30±1.10 Msun, M2=1.58±0.32 Msun. From 159 eclipse timings, the authors identify a 26.62 yr sinusoidal O-C variation that they attribute to a light-travel-time effect of a low-mass tertiary (M3,min≈0.59 Msun). A frequency analysis reveals one independent signal at 2.202 d^-1 plus red noise, leading to the suggestion that the primary is an SPB/SLF star.

Significance. If the triple interpretation is correct, V455 Car would be a valuable example of a massive Algol with a pulsating primary and a tertiary, relevant to binary evolution and the statistics of triples in massive binaries. The paper has notable strengths: it uses high-quality TESS data, cross-checks the q-search against ASAS, obtains FEROS temperatures that improve on Gaia GSP-Phot, and provides the eclipse-timing catalog in machine-readable form. However, the central third-body claim rests on a single sinusoid covering only about 1.3 cycles, and the absolute masses rely on an assumed main-sequence calibration with an arbitrary 20% uncertainty. As a result, the significance as currently stated is not fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eq. (2)] The periodic O-C variation with P3=26.62 yr is fitted to 159 eclipse times spanning roughly 34.6 yr, i.e., only about 1.3 cycles, with a sparse Hipparcos/ASAS early segment and dense TESS coverage only after 2018. The paper does not compare the sinusoidal LTTE model against alternatives such as a quadratic ephemeris (secular period change) or a quadratic plus a sinusoid, nor does it model an Applegate-type magnetic activity contribution. Because the fitted amplitude and period are controlled by how the few early points connect to the TESS residuals, the quoted errors on A and P3 are likely underestimated. I request a model-comparison analysis (e.g., linear vs. linear+quadratic vs. linear+sine vs. linear+quadratic+sine, with AIC/BIC or an F-test) and a bootstrap or MCMC fit that samples the eclipse times with realistic uncertainties. Without this, the statement in the abstract that the periodic oscillation suggests a possible third body is not supported over the alternatives, and the title's 'triple star system' is premature.
  2. [§6, Table 4] The absolute masses are derived from the assumption that the primary is a main-sequence star, using (B−V)0 and the Pecaut & Mamajek (2013) calibration, with an adopted 20% uncertainty on M1 citing Li et al. (2024a). No radial velocities are presented, and the paper itself places the primary between the ZAMS and TAMS in Figure 8, so a main-sequence mass assumed a priori is not a safe calibration. Since M1 enters M2 and the third-body mass function (Eq. 5), the arbitrary 20% error propagates into the central results. The authors should either obtain radial velocities (or use published ones), or estimate M1 from the surface gravity and radius, or use a Bayesian evolutionary-model mass estimate, and propagate that uncertainty through Eq. (5).
  3. [§3, Table 2] The semi-detached geometry is assumed by adopting Mode 5, in which the secondary fills its Roche lobe by construction; the reported filling factor f2=99.2% is therefore not a test of whether the system is actually semi-detached. To support the 'Algol-type' classification, the authors should also fit a detached model (Mode 2) and compare residuals, or allow the secondary surface potential to be a free parameter and check whether it reaches the Roche lobe. Without this, the semi-detached claim is circular.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§2.2] The text says the two spectra used to derive the primary temperature are 'close to 0.5', but Table 1 lists phases 0.357 and 0.497; please correct the phase statement or the selection criterion.
  2. [§3, Figure 4] The hot-spot parameters are only listed in Figure 4; please include them in Table 2 or as a separate table so that the spot model is reproducible.
  3. [§4, Table 3] The eclipse times are provided only as an excerpt in machine-readable form; please state clearly that the full table will be published electronically.
  4. [§5] The detection of a single independent frequency at 2.202 d^-1 with S/N=14.87 plus red noise is sufficient to say the primary 'may be' an SPB/SLF star, but the abstract and conclusions could be more explicit that this is based on one frequency.
  5. [§6] The sentence 'which suggest that strong observational results for a high incidence of third bodies in massive binaries' overgeneralizes from one system; please soften it.
  6. [Eq. (5)] Please show the propagation of uncertainties from A and P3 to f(m) and M3; currently f(m)=0.0036±0.0028 Msun has a relative error of about 78% while M3 has a relative error of about 22%, and the intermediate algebra is not shown.
  7. [Acknowledgments] The FEROS data DOI is incomplete ('DOI(s): .'); please fill in the actual DOI.
  8. [General] Several language issues should be corrected: 'secondary star is almost filling its Roche lobe' in the abstract, 'specturm' in §5, and 'masssive' in §6.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The third-body minimum mass is a direct algebraic inversion of the fitted O-C sinusoid, so the central 'prediction' of a 0.59 M_sun tertiary adds no information beyond the sine fit; the photometric and pulsation analyses are otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Eq. (5); abstract and Section 4, Eq. (3)]
    "In order to have a further study on the third body, we can use the mass function to estimate parameters of the third body by setting the orbital inclination in i3 = 90°: f(m) = (M3 sin i3)^3/(M1+M2+M3)^2 = 4π^2/(G P3^2) × (cA)^3, (5) ... the minimum mass of the third body is M3 = 0.59(±0.13) M_sun."

    The quoted M3 and f(m) are computed exclusively from the fitted semi-amplitude A = 0.0079 d and period P3 = 26.62 yr that were already determined by fitting the sinusoidal term in Eq. (3) to the same O-C data. Kepler's third law in Eq. (5) is an algebraic identity connecting these LTTE parameters to a mass function, so the 'prediction' of a 0.59 M_sun tertiary is a deterministic rescaling of the fitted sine, not an independent test or a measurement from new data. The uncertainty also propagates only from the same fit. Thus the third-body mass does not independently support the third-body interpretation; whether the sinusoid is caused by a companion is assumed by adopting the LTTE model, not verified by Eq. (5).

full rationale

The paper contains one significant circular step: the third-body mass is a fitted-parameter restatement. The O-C analysis fits a linear ephemeris plus a sinusoid (Eqs. 2-3), and then Eq. (5) converts the fitted amplitude and period into a mass function and a minimum mass. That conversion is exact and adds no empirical information, so presenting M3 = 0.59 M_sun as a derived 'possible third body' is essentially reporting the fitted sine in different units. This is the load-bearing part of the title's 'triple star system' claim, because no radial velocities, astrometry, or nonzero third light confirm the companion; the paper itself notes l3 is consistent with zero. The rest of the analysis is not circular: the W-D photometric solutions fit TESS and ASAS light curves against the Wilson-Devinney model, and the pulsation frequencies are extracted from residuals using standard pre-whitening with S/N thresholds; those results do not assume their conclusions. The self-citation to Liao & Qian (2010) for the LTTE method is a standard technique and is not load-bearing, and the e3 = 0 circular-orbit assumption is stated openly rather than smuggled in. The sparse baseline (~1.3 cycles of P3) and the degeneracy of the sinusoid with secular trends are correctness/robustness concerns, not themselves circularity. Overall, one core derived quantity reduces by construction to its fitted input, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of fitted W-D parameters, an assumed main-sequence mass for the primary, and an interpretation of a short O-C baseline as LTTE. None of these is independently verified outside the paper; the third body and hot spot are inferred entities.

free parameters (6)
  • q = M2/M1 (mass ratio) = 0.2978 ± 0.0017 (TESS); 0.2848 ± 0.0087 (ASAS)
    Determined by q-search and free iteration in W-D Mode 5; sets the whole binary architecture and absolute masses.
  • T2 (secondary effective temperature) = 5619 ± 12 K (TESS)
    Fitted to eclipse depths in the W-D solution; anchors secondary luminosity.
  • i (orbital inclination) = 70.25 ± 0.03 deg
    Free W-D parameter fitted to the light curve.
  • Spot parameters (co-latitude, longitude, radius, temperature factor) = given in Fig. 4
    Four free parameters added to model the O'Connell effect as a hot spot on the primary.
  • O-C LTTE parameters (A, P3, phase, delta T0, delta P) = A=0.0079 ± 0.0020 d, P3=1894.5 ± 118.4 cycles (26.62 ± 1.66 yr), phase=-3.02 ± 0.33
    Fitted to 159 eclipse times to infer the third body; every derived tertiary quantity inherits these values.
  • M1 (primary mass) = 5.30 ± 1.10 Msun
    Not dynamical: obtained from (B-V)0 plus an assumed main-sequence mass calibration, with an adopted 20% uncertainty; anchors M2, radii, and luminosities.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The binary is semi-detached with the secondary filling its Roche lobe (W-D Mode 5).
    Adopted before fitting; the fitted filling factor f2=99.2% supports it, but alternative detached or contact geometries were not explored.
  • domain assumption Binary orbit is circular (e=0), justified by secondary eclipse at phase 0.5.
    Used to fix the W-D solution; small eccentricities would shift radii and temperatures slightly.
  • domain assumption The primary is a main-sequence star, so (B-V)0 can be converted to mass via Pecaut & Mamajek (2013).
    Load-bearing for all absolute parameters; the paper flags it but does not validate it with radial velocities.
  • domain assumption The third body's orbit is circular (e3=0).
    Used in Eq. (2) for the O-C fit; an eccentric orbit would change the inferred mass and period.
  • ad hoc to paper The 26.62 yr O-C oscillation is caused by light-travel-time effect rather than magnetic activity or other mechanisms.
    Alternative mechanisms are not modeled or cited; this is an interpretation, not a demonstrated fact.
  • standard math Pulsation significance threshold S/N > 5.4 is valid for this dataset.
    Standard practice in the field and cited, but the single detected frequency is not enough to uniquely classify the star as SPB.
invented entities (2)
  • Third body with minimum mass 0.59 Msun
    purpose: Explains the 26.62 yr periodic O-C variation as light-travel-time effect.
    Inferred only from the fitted sine in eclipse-timing residuals; no direct detection, no third light (l3 near zero), no astrometric or radial-velocity confirmation.
  • Hot spot on the primary
    purpose: Explains the O'Connell effect (unequal maxima) in the light curve.
    A W-D surface feature with four fitted parameters; consistent with mass transfer but not directly observed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of V455 Car: an oscillating eclipsing Algol-type binary in triple star system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJYEKR2F

@misc{pith2026250610124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: V455 Car: an oscillating eclipsing Algol-type binary in triple star system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJYEKR2F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10124}
}
abstract

V455 Car is a southern oscillating eclipsing Algol-type system with an orbital period of 5.132888 days. Our first photometric solutions based on the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite indicate that it is a semi-detached binary with the secondary star is almost filling its Roche lobe. The noticeable O'Connell effect in light curve could be explained by hot spot on the primary component, which may be attributed to the mass transfer from the secondary component to the primary one. The absolute parameters are determined as: $M_{1} = 5.30 \pm 1.10 \, \rm M_{\odot}$, $R_{1} = 3.17 \pm 0.22 \, \rm R_{\odot}$ for the primary, and $M_{2} = 1.58 \pm 0.32 \, \rm M_{\odot}$, $R_{2} = 6.66 \pm 0.46 \, \rm R_{\odot}$ for the secondary. \textbf{Based on $O-C$ analysis, we find a periodic variation of $P_3=26.62(\pm1.66)\,yr$. The periodic oscillation suggests a possible third body with a minimal mass of $0.59(\pm0.13)\,\rm M_{\odot}$}. It is speculated that the secondary star has undergone a longer evolution, leading to a mass ratio reversal being experienced in the binary system. Our frequency analysis finds that the primary of V455 Car may be an SPB/SLF star. This study reports a novel example of an oscillating eclipsing Algol-type system featuring an SPB/SLF primary star and a red giant star, which suggest that strong observational results for a high incidence of third bodies in massive binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TESS light curves of V455 Car. The upper panel: all light curves after detrending processing from TESS, 120 s-cadence and 1800 s-cadence light curves are shown as black and red points, respectively. The lower panel: light curve segments for photometric analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fitting results for all FEROS normalized spectra. The normalized spectral data and fitting results are displayed as black and red lines, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The upper left panel: the relationship between q and the mean residuals Σ for W-D Mode 5 in TESS data. The upper right panel: the averaged TESS light curve (circles), the theoretical fit curve (green line for Mode 5), and the geometric structure. The lower left panel: the relationship between q and the mean residuals Σ for W-D Mode 5 in ASAS data. The lower right panel: the averaged ASAS light curve (black dots), th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hot spot fitting obtained with the W-D program. The average asymmetric and theoretical light curves are displayed with open circles and red line, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper panel: (O − C) diagram of V455 Car calculated with the linear ephemeris of Equation 2. The solid line refers to a combination of a linear ephemeris and a cyclic period variation, and the dashed line to a new linear ephemeris. Middle panel: (O − C)1 curve after re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panel: residuals by removing eclipse light curves from the observed data and subtracting the twelve order Fourier series fit of the orbital frequency. Right upper panel: original spectrum obtained after residuals analysis. The frequency marked by arrow is extracte…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The positions of the primary (red point) and secondary (black point) components on the H-R diagram (Aerts et al. 2010) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Positions of V455 Car on mass-radius (M-R, left panel), the mass-luminosity (M-L, right panel). Solid symbols present the primaries, while the same symbols of hollow denote the low-mass components. Also displayed in the panels are the samples from Moe & Di Stefano (201…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5 Ali¸ cavu¸ s, F. K., & Ekinci,¨O. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 015013

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5803-5 2010

  2. [2]

    S., Kovaleva, D

    Avdeeva, A. S., Kovaleva, D. A., Malkov, O. Y., & et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 7382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3601

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3601 2023

  3. [3]

    Bowman, D. M. 2023, Astrophysics and Space Science, 368, 107

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    M., Aerts, C., Johnston, C., & et al

    Bowman, D. M., Aerts, C., Johnston, C., & et al. 2019a, A&A, 621, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833662

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833662

  5. [5]

    M., Burssens, S., Pedersen, M

    Bowman, D. M., Burssens, S., Pedersen, M. G., & et al. 2019b, Nature Astronomy, 3, 760, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0768-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0768-1

  6. [6]

    M., Burssens, S., Sim´ on-D ´ ıaz, S., & et al

    Bowman, D. M., Burssens, S., Sim´ on-D ´ ıaz, S., & et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038224

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038224 2020

  7. [7]

    M., Van Daele, P., Michielsen, M., & et al

    Bowman, D. M., Van Daele, P., Michielsen, M., & et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451419

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451419 2024

  8. [8]

    M., Aerts, C., & et al

    Burssens, S., Bowman, D. M., Aerts, C., & et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 1304, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2165

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2165 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    2021, ApJ, 920, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1baa

    Chen, X., Zhang, X., Li, Y., & et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1baa

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Crawford, J. A. 1955, ApJ, 121, 71, doi: 10.1086/145965

    1955 doi

  3. [11]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    Eker, Z., Bakı¸ s, V., Bilir, S., & et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, A&A, 633, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935478

    Fedurco, M., Paunzen, E., H¨ ummerich, S., & et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935478

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 1585

    Fu, J.-N., Dolez, N., Vauclair, G., & et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 1585

    2013

  6. [14]

    M., & et al

    Gebruers, S., Tkachenko, A., Bowman, D. M., & et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243839

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Brown, T

    Gilliland, R. L., Brown, T. M., Christensen-Dalsgaard, & et al. 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 122, 131

    2010

  8. [16]

    Houk, N., & Cowley, A. P. 1975, University of Michigan Catalogue of two-dimensional spectral types for the HD stars. Volume I. Declinations -90 to -53 ƒ0

    1975

  9. [17]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., & et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., & et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 398

    2014

  10. [18]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., & et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., & et al. 2016, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, Vol. 9913, SPIE, 1232–1251

    2016

  12. [20]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Tubbesing, S., & et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    1999

  13. [21]

    V., Samus, N

    Kazarovets, E. V., Samus, N. N., Durlevich, O. V., & et al. 1999, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 4659, 1

    1999

  14. [22]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 104502

    2017

  15. [23]

    2009, A&A, 501, 1269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811467

    Koleva, M., Prugniel, P., Bouchard, A., & Wu, Y. 2009, A&A, 501, 1269, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811467

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    W., Shibahashi, H., Murphy, S

    Kurtz, D. W., Shibahashi, H., Murphy, S. J., & et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3015

    2015

  17. [25]

    2020, AJ, 160, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab952c

    Labadie-Bartz, J., Handler, G., Pepper, J., & et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab952c

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53, doi: 10.1553/cia146s53

    Lenz, P., & Breger, M. 2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53, doi: 10.1553/cia146s53

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    X., Liao, W

    Li, F. X., Liao, W. P., Qian, S. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3425

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.16365, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.16365

    Li, P., Liao, W.-P., Qian, S.-B., & et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.16365, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.16365

    doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 1930

    Liao, W.-P., & Qian, S.-B. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 405, 1930

    2010

  22. [30]

    L., & Deeming, T

    Loumos, G. L., & Deeming, T. J. 1978, Ap&SS, 56, 285, doi: 10.1007/BF01879560

    1978 doi

  23. [31]

    P., & de Mink, S

    Ma, L., Johnston, C., Bellinger, E. P., & de Mink, S. E. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad38bc

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Milone, E. F. 1969, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 65, 457

    1969

  25. [33]

    2015a, ApJ, 801, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/113 —

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2015a, ApJ, 801, 113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/113 —. 2015b, ApJ, 810, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/61

    doi

  26. [34]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    G., Chowdhury, S., Johnston, C., & et al

    Pedersen, M. G., Chowdhury, S., Johnston, C., & et al. 2019, ApJL, 872, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab01e1

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2005, AcA, 55, 219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0506297

    Pigulski, A. 2005, AcA, 55, 219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0506297

    2005 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2002, AcA, 52, 397, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0210283

    Pojmanski, G. 2002, AcA, 52, 397, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0210283

    2002 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2011, A&A, 531, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116769 Prˇ sa, A., Kochoska, A., Conroy, K

    Prugniel, P., Vauglin, I., & Koleva, M. 2011, A&A, 531, A165, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116769 Prˇ sa, A., Kochoska, A., Conroy, K. E., Eisner, N., & Hey. 2022, ApJS, 258, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac324a

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    1998, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 15, 357, doi: 10.1080/10556799808201791

    Pustylnik, I. 1998, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 15, 357, doi: 10.1080/10556799808201791

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003 14

    2015

  33. [41]

    1969, Acta Astronomica, Vol

    Rucinski, S. 1969, Acta Astronomica, Vol. 19, p. 245, 19, 245 S´ anchez-Bl´ azquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim´ enez-Vicente, J., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 703, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    1969

  34. [42]

    C., Bildsten, L., & Jiang, Y.-F

    Schultz, W. C., Bildsten, L., & Jiang, Y.-F. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 924, L11

    2022

  35. [43]

    J., Prieto, J., Grupe, D., et al

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 48

    2014

  36. [44]

    2021, AJ, 161, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abccd7

    Shi, X.-D., Qian, S.-B., Li, L.-J., & Liu, N.-P. 2021, AJ, 161, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abccd7

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 33

    Shi, X.-D., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y., & et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 33

    2023

  38. [46]

    M., & Pavlovski, K

    Southworth, J., Bowman, D. M., & Pavlovski, K. 2021, MNRAS, 501, L65, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa197

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 158, 193–216, doi: 10.1086/429408

    Stankov, A., & Handler, G. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 158, 193–216, doi: 10.1086/429408

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    J., Zhou, G., Johnson, M

    Stevens, D. J., Zhou, G., Johnson, M. C., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3142

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 6

    Tokovinin, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 235, 6

    2018

  42. [50]

    1991, A&A, 246, 453

    Waelkens, C. 1991, A&A, 246, 453

    1991

  43. [51]

    P., et al

    Wagg, T., Johnston, C., Bellinger, E. P., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05627

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wilson, R. E. 1979, ApJ, 234, 1054, doi: 10.1086/157588

    1979 doi

  45. [53]

    E., & Devinney, E

    Wilson, R. E., & Devinney, E. J. 1971, ApJ, 166, 605, doi: 10.1086/150986

    1971 doi

  46. [54]

    Wilson, R. E. 1994, PASP, 106, 921, doi: 10.1086/133464

    1994 doi

  47. [55]

    Winecki, D., & Kochanek, C. S. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, 61

    2024

  48. [56]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1352

    Yang, Y., & Wang, S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 3823, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1352

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 35

    Yang, Y.-G., Wei, J.-Y., & Li, H.-L. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 35

    2014

  50. [58]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 114201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/abacd4

    Zhang, J., Qian, S.-B., & Lyu, B. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 114201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/abacd4

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    B., Wang, K., Chen, X

    Zhang, X. B., Wang, K., Chen, X. H., Luo, C. Q., & Zhang, C. G. 2019, ApJ, 884, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa9

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.