Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 85 references

The Blue Lurker WOCS 14020: A Long-Period Post-Common-Envelope Binary in M67 Originating from a Merger in a Triple System

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WOCS 14020's 0.72-solar-mass white dwarf is too massive for a single M67 star, revealing a triple-star merger and a common envelope.

desk verdict Solid new WD measurement for a blue lurker, but the high common-envelope efficiency conclusion is model-dependent and should be framed as a hypothesis, not a demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08122 v1 pith:CNQZSZSY submitted 2025-07-10 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Emily M. Leiner , Natalie M. Gosnell , Aaron M. Geller , Meng Sun , Robert D. Mathieu , Alison Sills This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords bluelurkerwhitedwarfcommonenvelopehierarchicaltriplestellarmergeropenclusterM67ultravioletspectroscopypost-common-envelopebinary
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

WOCS 14020 is a blue lurker in the old open cluster M67—a star that looks like an ordinary solar-type star but spins far too fast for its 4 Gyr age. The paper reports Hubble Space Telescope far-ultraviolet spectra of its white-dwarf companion and shows the white dwarf is a carbon/oxygen white dwarf with a mass of 0.72 solar masses and a cooling age of about 400 Myr. That mass is far above what any single star in M67 could have produced at this stage of the cluster's life, so the paper argues the white dwarf's progenitor was a roughly 3-solar-mass star formed by the merger of two near-turnoff stars in a hierarchical triple. It reconstructs the chain: the merger product evolved to the AGB, transferred a little wind material to spin up the future blue lurker, and then went through a common envelope that shrank the orbit from a few thousand days to the observed 359 days. If this reconstruction holds, WOCS 14020 is the first blue lurker with a detailed, observationally anchored formation history, and it points to triple-star mergers as a real channel for making these systems and future double-white-dwarf mergers.

What carries the argument

The analysis combines two load-bearing tools. A far-ultraviolet spectrum of the white dwarf is fitted with synthetic white-dwarf atmosphere models, using the cluster distance as a fixed input; the fit yields $\log g=8.17$ and $T_{\rm eff}=13{,}400$ K, which standard C/O-white-dwarf mass-radius and cooling relations convert into $M_{\rm WD}=0.72\,M_\odot$ and a cooling age of about 390 Myr, while ruling out a He-core solution. A grid of rapid binary population synthesis models then evolves hypothetical progenitor binaries with initial periods of 100–10,000 days and primary masses of 2.4–3.9 $M_\odot$, tracking the mass of the final white dwarf and the period after mass transfer. That grid shows that a WD of 0.68–0.78 $M_\odot$ requires a 2.8–3.2 $M_\odot$ progenitor, and that reproducing the observed 359-day period requires the common-envelope efficiency parameter $\alpha$ to be roughly 0.8–1.0.

What would settle it

A direct dynamical measurement of the white dwarf's mass—for instance from a future astrometric orbit or eclipse timing—that comes out below about 0.6 $M_\odot$ would falsify the central claim, because a normal M67 turnoff star produces only about 0.55 $M_\odot$ white dwarfs and the proposed triple-merger history would no longer be needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that WOCS 14020 is a post-common-envelope binary whose white dwarf is a carbon/oxygen remnant with mass $0.72^{+0.05}_{-0.04}\,M_\odot$ and cooling age $\sim400$ Myr, obtained by fitting the Hubble Space Telescope far-ultraviolet spectrum with white-dwarf atmosphere models ($\log g = 8.17^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$, $T_{\rm eff}=13400^{+240}_{-160}$ K). Because a single star at M67's current turnoff mass of $1.3\,M_\odot$ would leave a $\sim0.55\,M_\odot$ white dwarf, the observed mass demands a $\sim3\,M_\odot$ progenitor. The paper argues that this progenitor formed a few hundred Myr ago from the merger of two near-equal-mass, near-turnoff stars (each roughly $1.4$–$1.6\,M_\odot$) in a hierarchical triple, with the present blue lurker as the original tertiary. The merger remnant then evolved onto the AGB, spun up the tertiary by wind accretion, and entered a common envelope that was ejected with high efficiency ($\alpha\gtrsim0.8$), shrinking the orbit from about 3500 days to the observed 359 days. The result is the first blue lurker with a detailed, observationally grounded formation history.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the common envelope was ejected with an efficiency $\alpha$ above about 0.8; published constraints from short-period post-common-envelope binaries typically favor $\alpha\sim0.2$–0.4, and if the lower value is correct the proposed AGB envelope could not shrink the orbit from a few thousand days to 359 days.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reconstruction is correct, WOCS 14020 becomes the first blue lurker with a fully reconstructed formation history, and the first observational case tying a blue lurker to a merger in a hierarchical triple.
  • The measured white-dwarf mass and cooling age imply that stars up to twice the cluster turnoff mass can be produced by mergers and then go on to interact with a tertiary, so cluster population synthesis should include triple evolution to reproduce blue lurker and blue straggler populations.
  • The requirement of high common-envelope efficiency ($\alpha>0.8$) for an AGB donor with a solar-type companion provides a rare constraint on common-envelope physics, complementary to the low efficiencies inferred from short-period post-common-envelope systems.
  • The system is predicted to undergo a second common envelope when the blue lurker becomes a giant, producing a double white-dwarf binary ($0.72\,M_\odot$ C/O plus roughly $0.38\,M_\odot$ He) that may merge and produce a sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia supernova or a calcium-rich transient.
  • The moderate eccentricity ($e=0.23$), if it survives the common envelope, challenges the assumption that common envelopes always circularize orbits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this formation channel is common, old clusters like M67 should contain a population of blue-lurker–white-dwarf binaries with white-dwarf masses clustered near 0.7 $M_\odot$ and orbital periods of hundreds of days; a systematic far-UV survey of blue lurkers could test that prediction.
  • The high common-envelope efficiency inferred here, if confirmed, suggests that the efficiency parameter $\alpha$ is not a universal constant but may depend on companion mass or donor evolutionary state, which would reshape population synthesis of binaries from X-ray sources to double white dwarfs.
  • The paper's merger scenario requires the inner binary to merge with less than about 0.4 $M_\odot$ of mass loss; hydrodynamical simulations of near-equal-mass main-sequence mergers could directly check whether such high retention is physically plausible.
  • Because the system is predicted to become a double white dwarf and possibly merge, WOCS 14020 offers a concrete, if distant, progenitor candidate for sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia supernovae and calcium-rich transients in old stellar populations.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents HST/COS far-UV spectroscopy of the white dwarf in the blue-lurker binary WOCS 14020 in M67. Fitting the WD spectrum with Koester atmosphere models and an MCMC procedure, the authors derive log g = 8.17 (+0.09/-0.06), Teff = 13400 (+240/-160) K, a C/O WD mass of 0.72 (+0.05/-0.04) Msun, and a cooling age of about 390 (+40/-30) Myr. They argue that this mass is too large to have evolved from a normal M67 turnoff star and requires a ~3 Msun progenitor formed by a merger. They then propose a specific hierarchical-triple formation history: an inner near-equal-mass binary merges to form the massive WD progenitor, and a subsequent common envelope with the original tertiary shrinks the orbit from a few thousand days to the observed 359-day period, requiring a high common-envelope efficiency (alpha > 0.8). The paper also discusses the eccentric orbit, the rapid rotation of the blue lurker, and the future evolution of the system as a possible double-WD merger and transient progenitor.

Significance. If the WD mass and cooling age are secure, this is one of the most detailed formation histories yet proposed for a blue lurker and the first to invoke a triple-merger channel. The spectral fitting is standard and the MCMC posteriors appear converged, with a He-core WD cleanly excluded. The paper also gives useful qualitative support for efficient common-envelope ejection in wide post-CE binaries and connects the system to broader questions about triple-star evolution and Type Ia progenitors. However, the central formation scenario rests on model-dependent assumptions about the common-envelope efficiency and the initial triple geometry, and the quoted WD uncertainties are purely statistical. The authors are transparent about the tension with population-inferred low alpha values, but do not yet quantify how their conclusion changes under plausible alternative modeling choices. These issues must be addressed before the formation scenario can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1, Fig. 3] The conclusion that reproducing the observed 359-day period requires a common-envelope efficiency alpha > 0.8 is not robust to the assumptions in the COSMIC grid. The grid assumes initially circular orbits, a fixed 1.0 Msun secondary, and the default Claeys et al. (2014) lambda, while the measured eccentricity e = 0.23 (Table 1) is deliberately set aside. In addition, the pre-CE period of 'a few thousand days' is inferred from an assumed fully conservative merger, even though Section 4 allows up to about 0.4 Msun of mass loss. I would like to see a quantitative sensitivity test: vary the initial period, the CE lambda, the initial eccentricity, and the merger mass-loss fraction, and compare the resulting alpha thresholds with the population-inferred alpha ~ 0.2-0.4 values. Without such a test, the 'efficient envelope ejection' claim in Section 5.1 and the Summary is not directly supported.
  2. [§3] The quoted WD mass and cooling age errors (0.72 +0.05/-0.04 Msun and 390 +40/-30 Myr) are purely statistical MCMC posterior percentiles. Systematic contributions from the adopted cluster distance (816 ± 11 pc), the reddening E(B-V) = 0.041, the assumed WD core composition (CO-core mass-radius relations), and the choice of atmosphere model are not propagated. Because these values are the observational foundation for the entire scenario, the authors should either quantify these systematics or argue explicitly that they are negligible compared with the statistical errors.
  3. [§4, step 2; §5.4] The proposed hierarchical-triple geometry (inner near-equal-mass binary and a tertiary at a few thousand days) is largely an assumed initial condition rather than a unique inference from the data. The COSMIC grid in Fig. 3 shows that a ~2.8-3.2 Msun primary in a binary with P ~ few thousand days can yield the observed WD, but it does not rule out other ways of producing such a star, such as a dynamical merger of two cluster stars followed by later interaction with a companion. The manuscript would be strengthened by explicitly acknowledging that the triple scenario is one plausible channel, and by discussing what observation or modeling would distinguish it from alternatives.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including 'T riple' in the title, 'hierachical' in Section 5.4, and the artifact '10 2 − −103 days' in Section 1; these should be corrected in a proofreading pass.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption does not fully explain the color scale or how the confidence-interval band is defined; since the colors are central to the CE-efficiency argument, a more explicit description would help the reader.
  3. [§5.5] The sentence about 'the larger He WD accreting onto the C/O WD' is confusing because the He WD is less massive than the C/O WD; please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: WD mass and cooling age come from external spectral fitting and standard WD models; the CE-efficiency inference is a model match to the observed orbit, not a fitted input re-predicted as a result.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical anchors, the WD mass (0.72 Msun) and cooling age (~390 Myr), come from an MCMC fit of HST/COS spectra to Koester WD atmosphere models, with masses and ages interpolated from standard WD mass-radius and cooling relations. These results do not depend on the proposed triple/merger/CE formation scenario. The later formation inference uses COSMIC/BSE grids: the CE efficiency alpha>0.8 is derived by requiring a common envelope to shrink a few-thousand-day orbit to the observed 359-day period and is presented as a model requirement, not as a quantity fitted to the data and then renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly identifies the tension with population-inferred lower alpha values and with the measured eccentricity, which are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity. Self-citations (Leiner et al. 2019; Nine et al. 2023; Sun et al. 2024) refer to previous observations and published results that serve as independent inputs, not to a self-authored uniqueness theorem carrying the derivation. No step defines a target quantity in terms of itself and then 'derives' that quantity. The derivation chain is self-contained for the claims made.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The spectral claim rests on standard atmosphere and WD cooling models; the formation scenario adds model parameters such as CE efficiency, initial period, merger efficiency, and wind accretion that are not directly measured. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • CE efficiency alpha = > 0.8 (model grid)
    COSMIC models in Section 4 and Figure 3 require high alpha to match the observed 359-day post-CE period; the scenario fails if alpha is lower.
  • Initial orbital period at common envelope onset = ~3500 days (assumed)
    Chosen in Section 4 to reproduce the present 359-day period under high alpha; not independently measured.
  • Merger mass loss = < 0.4 solar masses (assumed)
    Needed in Section 4 for two 1.4 to 1.6 solar mass stars to merge into a 2.8 to 3.2 solar mass product; high merger efficiency is cited as plausible but not measured for this system.
  • Wind accretion onto the tertiary = ~0.1 solar masses (COSMIC model output)
    Invoked in Section 5.3 to explain the blue lurker's 4.4-day rotation; not directly constrained, and the paper allows other accretion mechanisms.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Koester (2010) WD atmosphere models describe the COS FUV spectrum in the fitted region.
    Section 3 uses these models for the MCMC fit; inaccuracies would shift logg and Teff.
  • domain assumption Standard C/O-core mass-radius and cooling relations convert logg and Teff to mass and age.
    Section 3 interpolates Holberg & Bergeron (2006), Tremblay et al. (2011), and Althaus et al. (2013); a non-standard core composition would change the inferred mass and age.
  • domain assumption M67 distance of 816 pc and reddening E(B-V) = 0.041 are correct.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3 use these to deredden and normalize the spectrum; systematic errors propagate to mass and age but are not included in quoted uncertainties.
  • domain assumption COSMIC/BSE stellar evolution and the initial-final mass relation correctly predict WD remnant masses.
    Section 4 uses COSMIC to infer that a 2.8 to 3.2 solar mass progenitor is needed; a different initial-final mass relation changes this inference.
  • ad hoc to paper The original system was a hierarchical triple whose inner binary merged and whose tertiary became the current blue lurker.
    Proposed in Section 4; no direct dynamical evidence of the third star is presented, although multiplicity statistics make such a configuration plausible.
  • domain assumption The CE binding energy parameter lambda from Claeys et al. (2014) is appropriate.
    Used as the COSMIC default in Section 4; the value of lambda directly affects the alpha needed to match the orbital period.
  • domain assumption The common envelope can leave or excite the observed eccentricity e = 0.23.
    Acknowledged in Section 5.2 as not understood; the scenario assumes eccentricity is preserved or pumped rather than fully circularized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Blue Lurker WOCS 14020: A Long-Period Post-Common-Envelope Binary in M67 Originating from a Merger in a Triple System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNQZSZSY

@misc{pith2026250708122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Blue Lurker WOCS 14020: A Long-Period Post-Common-Envelope Binary in M67 Originating from a Merger in a Triple System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNQZSZSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08122}
}
abstract

We present Hubble Space Telescope far-ultraviolet (FUV) spectra of a blue-lurker$-$white-dwarf (BL-WD) binary system in the 4 Gyr open cluster M67. We fit the FUV spectrum of the WD, determining it is a C/O WD with a mass of $0.72^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ M$_\odot$ and a cooling age of $\sim400$ Myr. This requires a WD progenitor of $\sim3$ M$_\odot$, significantly larger than the current cluster turnoff mass of 1.3 M$_\odot$. We suggest the WD progenitor star formed several hundred Myr ago via the merger of two stars near the turnoff of the cluster. In this scenario, the original progenitor system was a hierarchical triple consisting of a close, near-equal-mass inner binary, with a tertiary companion with an orbit of a few thousand days. The WD is descended from the merged inner binary, and the original tertiary is now the observed BL. The likely formation scenario involves a common envelope while the WD progenitor is on the AGB, and thus the observed orbital period of 359 days requires an efficient common envelope ejection. The rapid rotation of the BL indicates it accreted some material during its evolution, perhaps via a wind prior to the common envelope. This system will likely undergo a second common envelope in the future, and thus could result in a short-period double WD binary or merger of a 0.72 M$_\odot$ C/O WD and a 0.38 $M_\odot$ Helium WD, making this a potential progenitor of an interesting transient such as a sub-Chandrasekhar Type Ia supernova.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color-magnitude diagram of M67 highlighting Gaia DR3 proper-motion members (gray), blue stragglers (blue), BLs (orange), and our target, the BL WOCS 14020 (red square). Memberships are determined as described in Leiner & Geller (2021) mass of 0.55 M⊙, as can be seen on the left edge of the posterior distributions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Binned COS spectrum for WOCS 14020, overlaid with 100 random draws from the posterior distribution from the WD atmosphere fits. The light blue data points correspond to Earth-shine emission and are not included in the fitting routine. (b) Posterior probability distributions for the WD atmosphere fits to the COS spectrum, with the median, 16–84% (approximating 1 sigma), and 2.5–97.5% (approximating 2 sigma) perce… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (top) COSMIC model grid showing the initial primary mass and initial orbital period of our post-merger binary. Colors indicates the mass of the C/O WD that emerges after the final CE and emphasize final WD masses that fall within our mass confidence interval (0.68-0.78 M⊙). (bottom) The progenitor masses and orbital periods of the binary system after evolution through mass-transfer or a CE. On the left we show model… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19

    2013

  2. [2]

    D., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al

    Angus, R., Morton, T. D., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 173 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2019

  3. [3]

    A., Weingrill, J., Fritzewski, D., Strassmeier, K

    Barnes, S. A., Weingrill, J., Fritzewski, D., Strassmeier, K. G., & Platais, I. 2016, ApJ, 823, 16

    2016

  4. [4]

    Formation of long-period post-common-envelope binaries II. Explaining the self-lensing binary KOI 3278

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., & Zorotovic, M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.17510 Bonaˇ ci´ c Marinovi´ c, A. A., Glebbeek, E., & Pols, O. R. 2008, A&A, 480, 797

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    2020

  6. [6]

    M., Grundahl, F., et al

    Brogaard, K., Christiansen, S. M., Grundahl, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5062

    2018

  7. [7]

    2014, A&A, 566, A86

    Camacho, J., Torres, S., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A86

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    A., Williams, K

    Canton, P. A., Williams, K. A., Kilic, M., & Bolte, M. 2021, AJ, 161, 169

    work page 2021

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Verbunt, F. W. M. 2014, A&A, 563, A83

    2014

  2. [10]

    M., Polin, A., et al

    De, K., Kasliwal, M. M., Polin, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 873, L18 De Marco, O., Passy, J.-C., Moe, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2277 de Mink, S. E., Pols, O. R., & Hilditch, R. W. 2007, A&A, 467, 1181

    2019

  3. [11]

    G., Jorissen, A., & Van Winckel, H

    Dermine, T., Izzard, R. G., Jorissen, A., & Van Winckel, H. 2013, A&A, 551, A50

    2013

  4. [12]

    2019, A&A, 626, A128

    Escorza, A., Karinkuzhi, D., Jorissen, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 626, A128

    2019

  5. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  6. [14]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 526

    Gao, Y., Toonen, S., & Leigh, N. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 526

    2023

  7. [15]

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

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

    2020

  8. [16]

    M., Latham, D

    Geller, A. M., Latham, D. W., & Mathieu, R. D. 2015, AJ, 150, 97

    2015

  9. [17]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Geller, A. M., Mathieu, R. D., Latham, D. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 190

    2021

  10. [18]

    M., Leiner, E

    Gosnell, N. M., Leiner, E. M., Mathieu, R. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 45

    2019

  11. [19]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Gosnell, N. M., Mathieu, R. D., Geller, A. M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 163 —. 2014, ApJL, 783, L8

    2015

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362

    2020

  13. [21]

    M., Hermes, J

    Heintz, T. M., Hermes, J. J., El-Badry, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 148

    2022

  14. [22]

    Henneco, J., Schneider, F. R. N., & Laplace, E. 2024, A&A, 682, A169

    2024

  15. [23]

    S., & Webbink, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794

    1987

  16. [24]

    B., & Bergeron, P

    Holberg, J. B., & Bergeron, P. 2006, AJ, 132, 1221

    2006

  17. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  18. [26]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., Aarseth, S. J., & Tout, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 363, 293

    2005

  19. [27]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897 Jacobson-Gal´ an, W. V., Margutti, R., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L32 12Leiner et al

    2002

  20. [28]

    V., Sindhu, N., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., Sindhu, N., & Subramaniam, A. 2019, ApJ, 886, 13

    2019

  21. [29]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466

    Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1466

    2011

  22. [30]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Kasliwal, M. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 161

    2012

  23. [31]

    2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.07874

    Kawahara, H., Masuda, K., MacLeod, M., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1801.07874

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2009, Nature, 457, 288

    Knigge, C., Leigh, N., & Sills, A. 2009, Nature, 457, 288

    2009

  25. [33]

    2010, Mem

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

    2010

  26. [34]

    Lai, D., & Mu˜ noz, D. J. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 517

    2023

  27. [35]

    Landsman, W., Aparicio, J., Bergeron, P., Di Stefano, R., & Stecher, T. P. 1997, ApJL, 481, L93

    1997

  28. [36]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 2370

    Leigh, N., & Sills, A. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2370

    2011

  29. [37]

    2016, ApJL, 832, L13

    Sandquist, E. 2016, ApJL, 832, L13

    2016

  30. [38]

    D., Vanderburg, A., Gosnell, N

    Leiner, E., Mathieu, R. D., Vanderburg, A., Gosnell, N. M., & Smith, J. C. 2019, ApJ, 881, 47

    2019

  31. [39]

    M., & Geller, A

    Leiner, E. M., & Geller, A. 2021, ApJ, 908, 229

    2021

  32. [40]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719

    1962

  33. [41]

    D., & Geller, A

    Mathieu, R. D., & Geller, A. M. 2009, Nature, 462, 1032

    2009

  34. [42]

    McCrea, W. H. 1964, MNRAS, 128, 147

    1964

  35. [43]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15 Mor´ an-Fraile, J., Holas, A., R¨ opke, F

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15 Mor´ an-Fraile, J., Holas, A., R¨ opke, F. K., Pakmor, R., &

    2017

  36. [44]

    Schneider, F. R. N. 2024, A&A, 683, A44

    2024

  37. [45]

    Naoz, S., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2014, ApJ, 793, 137

    2014

  38. [46]

    C., Mathieu, R

    Nine, A. C., Mathieu, R. D., Gosnell, N. M., & Leiner, E. M. 2023, ApJ, 944, 145

    2023

  39. [47]

    C., Mathieu, R

    Nine, A. C., Mathieu, R. D., Schuler, S. C., & Milliman, K. E. 2024, ApJ, 970, 187

    2024

  40. [48]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85

    2018

  41. [49]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 5318

    Panthi, A., Vaidya, K., Jadhav, V., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5318

    2022

  42. [50]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8325

    Panthi, A., Vaidya, K., Vernekar, N., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8325

    2024

  43. [51]

    2012, ApJ, 760, 90

    Passy, J.-C., Herwig, F., & Paxton, B. 2012, ApJ, 760, 90

    2012

  44. [52]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415

    Pavlovskii, K., & Ivanova, N. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4415

    2015

  45. [53]

    B., & Fabrycky, D

    Perets, H. B., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1048

    2009

  46. [54]

    J., & Chang, P

    Prust, L. J., & Chang, P. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5809

    2019

  47. [55]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1

    2010

  48. [56]

    C., Di Stefano, R., & Han, Z

    Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., Di Stefano, R., & Han, Z. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 731

    1995

  49. [57]

    2024, AJ, 168, 97

    Saketh, P., Panthi, A., & Vaidya, K. 2024, AJ, 168, 97

    2024

  50. [58]

    Milone, A. A. E. 2003, AJ, 125, 810

    2003

  51. [59]

    2009, ApJ, 698, 1872

    Sarajedini, A., Dotter, A., & Kirkpatrick, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1872

    2009

  52. [60]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 3966

    Scherbak, P., & Fuller, J. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3966

    2023

  53. [61]

    F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F

    Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1170 —. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1387 —. 2010, ApJ, 724, 546

    2007

  54. [62]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729

    2024

  55. [63]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06257

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.06257

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J., Boos, S

    Shen, K. J., Boos, S. J., & Townsley, D. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.19417

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Sills, A., Adams, T., & Davies, M. B. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 716

    2005

  58. [66]

    V., et al

    Sindhu, N., Subramaniam, A., Jadhav, V. V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 43

    2019

  59. [67]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707

    Siwek, M., Weinberger, R., & Hernquist, L. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 2707

    2023

  60. [68]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 133

    Stello, D., Vanderburg, A., Casagrande, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 133

    2016

  61. [69]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 14

    Sun, M., & Arras, P. 2018, ApJ, 858, 14

    2018

  62. [70]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 8

    Sun, M., Levina, S., Gossage, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 8

    2024

  63. [71]

    Sun, M., & Mathieu, R. D. 2023, ApJ, 944, 89

    2023

  64. [72]

    D., Leiner, E

    Sun, M., Mathieu, R. D., Leiner, E. M., & Townsend, R. H. D. 2021, ApJ, 908, 7

    2021

  65. [73]

    Taylor, B. J. 2007, AJ, 133, 370

    2007

  66. [74]

    2023, A&A, 669, A45

    Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45

    2023

  67. [75]

    2006, A&A, 450, 681

    Tokovinin, A., Thomas, S., Sterzik, M., & Udry, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 681

    2006

  68. [76]

    Toonen, S., Boekholt, T. C. N., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2022, A&A, 661, A61

    2022

  69. [77]

    2013, A&A, 557, A87

    Toonen, S., & Nelemans, G. 2013, A&A, 557, A87

    2013

  70. [78]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 128

    Tremblay, P.-E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 128

    2011

  71. [79]

    2024, A&A, 688, A128

    Valli, R., Tiede, C., Vigna-G´ omez, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A128

    2024

  72. [80]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116

    2019

  73. [81]

    Wei, D., Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A87

    2024

  74. [82]

    A., Canton, P

    Williams, K. A., Canton, P. A., Bellini, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 62

    2018

  75. [83]

    Wong, T. L. S., & Bildsten, L. 2023, ApJ, 951, 28

    2023

  76. [84]

    E., & Ivanova, N

    Woods, T. E., & Ivanova, N. 2011, ApJL, 739, L48

    2011

  77. [85]

    R., G¨ ansicke, B

    Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Nebot G´ omez-Mor´ an, A. 2010, A&A, 520, A86

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.