Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Probing periodic trends in the TESS light curves of the seventeen known Double White Dwarf systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 TESS photometry finds Doppler and ellipsoidal signals in two double white dwarfs

desk verdict Honest TESS data mining with two conditional detections whose significance estimates are undermined by an asymmetric FAP pipeline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09164 v1 pith:AIT7QOSF submitted 2025-07-12 astro-ph.SR

Sedighe Sajadian , Aref Asadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords doublewhitedwarfsTESSlightcurvesDopplerboostingellipsoidalvariationsSingularSpectrumAnalysisperiodogramsfalsealarmprobabilityELM
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 searches public TESS light curves of seventeen known double white dwarf (DWD) systems for periodic brightness variations, using Singular Spectrum Analysis to de-noise the data and Lomb-Scargle periodograms to find dominant periods. It reports regular periodic trends in six systems, but argues that only two are credible and orbit-related: LP400-22, whose trend period equals the spectroscopic orbital period and is interpreted as Doppler boosting, and J2132+0754, whose trend period is half the orbital period and is interpreted as ellipsoidal variation. The other four trends are attributed to a blending star, a recovery of a previously known period, or noise with high false alarm probabilities. If the two secure trends hold, they add photometric constraints on inclination and component masses for systems where spectroscopy alone only gives lower limits. The study also frames TESS as a tool for catching hour-to-day periodic trends in DWDs, though not their short-lived eclipses or self-lensing events.

What carries the argument

The analysis chain is: Singular Spectrum Analysis to decompose and reconstruct each light curve from a chosen set of principal components, Lomb-Scargle periodograms to locate the most dominant periodic feature, and False Alarm Probabilities computed from simulated Gaussian noise light curves generated with the reported photometric errors. For interpretation, the paper uses the Morris & Naftilan (1993) analytical relation for ellipsoidal variation amplitude as a function of inclination, masses, radii, and orbital period, and a Doppler boosting amplitude computed by integrating the Planck spectrum against the TESS bandpass while shifting wavelengths by the line-of-sight velocity. These two models are what turn the detected periods into physical claims about inclination and mass.

What would settle it

Generate the same simulated pure-noise light curves used for the LP400-22 and J2132+0754 false alarm probabilities, apply the identical SSA de-noising and periodogram search to them, and count how often a peak appears at the claimed periods; if the fraction of SSA-processed noise sets with such peaks is comparable to or greater than 3.68% and 8.82%, the detections lose their support. A second check: high-speed photometric monitoring of LP400-22 to measure the trend amplitude and phase against the spectroscopic orbit, which would distinguish Doppler boosting from a nearby variable star not caught by Gaia-based blending checks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the seventeen known DWD systems with available TESS data, periodic sinusoidal trends appear in six light curves. The paper establishes that in LP400-22 the trend period (1.0255 days) matches the orbital period (1.0102 days) within the periodogram peak width and repeats twice per 2T, consistent with Doppler boosting of the low-mass companion's orbital motion. In J2132+0754, folding the data on the orbital period reveals two sinusoidal cycles per orbit, i.e., a trend period of half the orbital period, consistent with ellipsoidal variation of a tidally distorted primary; the observed amplitude of about 0.017 in normalized flux is reachable only if the primary has a large radius around 0.25 solar radii. The periodic variation in J1449+1717 is shown to come from a bright variable field star about 80 arcseconds away, unresolvable in TESS pixels, and the trends in J1557+2823 and J2151+1614 have false alarm probabilities of 14.8% and 36.5%, so the paper classifies them as likely noise. For J1717+6757, TESS data recover the previously reported orbital-period trend, while its much shorter eclipsing signals are missed due to the 10-30 minute cadence.

Load-bearing premise

The significance levels for the two secure-looking trends rest on simulations where pure Gaussian noise is generated with the reported photometric errors but is not passed through the same Singular Spectrum Analysis de-noising applied to the real data, so if SSA can imprint coherent periodic structure onto noise, the quoted false alarm probabilities are too optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the LP400-22 trend is Doppler boosting, it constrains the inclination angle and the mass of the faint companion, tightening the system's parameters beyond the spectroscopic lower limit.
  • If the J2132+0754 trend is ellipsoidal variation, it implies the primary white dwarf is enlarged to roughly 0.25 solar radii by its close, massive companion, consistent with the inflated radii previously reported for ELM white dwarfs in close binaries.
  • The failure to detect eclipsing or self-lensing signals in any of the seventeen systems follows from the mismatch between TESS cadences (3.3 to 30 minutes) and the roughly one-minute durations of such events, so these data cannot rule out edge-on orientations.
  • The high false alarm probabilities for J1557+2823 and J2151+1614 mean their trends should not be treated as orbital in origin without denser or longer photometry.
  • Bright DWD targets with negligible blending are the most productive ones for TESS-based trend searches, since the large 21-arcsecond pixels make faint systems vulnerable to contamination.
  • The paper's interpretation of J2132+0754 predicts a measurable phase alignment between the ellipsoidal variation and the spectroscopic orbital ephemeris, and its Doppler model for LP400-22 predicts a specific amplitude-to-inclination curve that future high-cadence photometry can test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not run: apply the same SSA de-noising to their simulated pure-noise light curves and recompute the false alarm probabilities, since the current significances assume SSA cannot turn noise into coherent periodic structure.
  • The amplitude discrepancy for LP400-22 (predicted Doppler boosting up to about 0.004 versus observed 0.017 in normalized flux) could signal an unseen contaminating variable, a non-circular orbit, or unmodeled spectral effects; a dedicated search for neighboring variable sources, similar to what was done for J1449+1717, would settle this.
  • The same periodogram-plus-SSA pipeline could be applied to the rest of the known DWD population once TESS observes their fields, offering a homogeneous photometric census of ellipsoidal and Doppler variation across the entire sample.
  • If the J2132+0754 radius estimate is confirmed, it provides a direct empirical check on theoretical models of tidal inflation in extremely low mass white dwarfs, a regime where radius predictions are sensitive to the binary environment.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes TESS light curves of seventeen known double white dwarf (DWD) systems, applying Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) for de-noising and Lomb-Scargle/BLS periodograms to search for periodic photometric trends. It reports six periodic trends. For J1717+6757 the TESS data recover the known orbital-period trend. For LP400-22 and J2132+0754 the paper claims two relatively secure detections, interpreting them as Doppler boosting (period equal to the orbital period) and ellipsoidal variation (period half the orbital period), respectively. J1449+1717 is diagnosed as a blend with a bright variable star, while J1557+2823 and J2151+1614 are judged to be likely noise based on high false alarm probabilities. The paper concludes that TESS photometry is useful for identifying ellipsoidal, Doppler-boosting, and other periodic trends in DWDs, although the long cadence prevents recovery of eclipsing/lensing signals.

Significance. If the LP400-22 and J2132+0754 detections are correct, they would provide new photometric constraints on the inclinations and component masses of two DWD systems, and the blending diagnosis for J1449+1717 is a useful cautionary example for TESS studies of faint targets. The paper is transparent about its FAP values, provides public code and data links, and makes falsifiable amplitude predictions. However, the statistical significance of the two load-bearing detections is currently not established: the FAP simulations do not reproduce the SSA processing applied to the real data, and the period identification for J2132+0754 is internally inconsistent between Table 1 and the text. These issues must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and §3.4] The FAP null simulations are not processed through the SSA pipeline. Real light curves are SSA-reconstructed before their periodograms are computed, but the simulated Gaussian noise light curves described in §3.3 are not passed through the same reconstruction. Since SSA is a low-rank projection that can turn noise into smooth, quasi-periodic residual structure, the quoted FAPs for LP400-22 (3.68%) and J2132+0754 (8.82%) are not valid estimates of the false alarm probability for the processed data. The authors should rerun the null simulations through the identical SSA reconstruction, including the same component-selection steps, and report the resulting FAPs.
  2. [Table 1 and §3.4 (J2132+0754)] There is an internal inconsistency in the period identification for J2132+0754. Table 1 lists TTESS = 1.005455 days, which is approximately four times the orbital period, yet the text states that the trend period is half the orbital period, with a difference of about 0.003 days. The quoted FAP of 8.82% is computed from the maximum Lomb-Scargle power in the periodogram, which occurs near 1.005 days, not from the claimed T/2 periodicity that is folded and interpreted as ellipsoidal variation. The authors need to specify the period of the detected feature as measured from the periodogram and compute the significance of the specific harmonic that is claimed to be physical.
  3. [§3.4, Table 2, §4, and Figure 5 (LP400-22)] The Doppler-boosting interpretation of LP400-22 is not supported by the amplitude comparison. The observed trend amplitude is Δn ≃ 0.017 in normalized flux, while Equation (3) and Figure 5 predict a maximum Doppler-boosting amplitude of only about 0.004, a discrepancy of more than a factor of four. Listing six simplifying assumptions does not by itself resolve this mismatch; the authors should either revise the model to reproduce the observed amplitude with plausible parameters or identify an alternative origin. In addition, no blending search was reported for LP400-22; given the TESS pixel size of 21 arcseconds and the target's faintness (G ≈ 17.2), a contaminating variable star of the kind found for J1449+1717 should be explicitly ruled out.
  4. [§4 (J2132+0754)] The ellipsoidal-variation interpretation for J2132+0754 requires a primary radius of roughly 0.25 R_sun, which the authors acknowledge is larger than the upper range of about 0.18 R_sun found by Hermes et al. (2014b) for ELM white dwarfs in close binaries. Since the observed amplitude of 0.017 can only be explained by this extreme radius, the interpretation is not yet secure. The paper should either justify this radius from evolutionary models or discuss alternative sources, such as irradiation or contamination, rather than treating the ellipsoidal explanation as the default.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2] There is a typo in the description of NLTT11748: 'TESS recored 8,743 data points' should be 'TESS recorded 8,743 data points'.
  2. [§3.4] In the paragraph on J1449+1717, 'simulating pure noisy data pints' should be 'simulating pure noisy data points'.
  3. [§4] The sentence 'For the target J1717+6757 we simulate its light curve by considering self-lensing, eclipsing effects and ellipsoidal variations as shown in Figure 5' appears to refer to Figure 6 rather than Figure 5, since Figure 6 is the plot of the simulated light curve for J1717+6757.
  4. [§3.1] The phrase 'the s-called Hankelization process' should be 'the so-called Hankelization process'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TESS periodic trends are compared with, not fitted to, externally measured orbital periods, and the amplitude modeling is not tuned to force agreement with the data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are comparative: for LP400-22 and J2132+0754 the observed TESS trend periods are compared with spectroscopic orbital periods (Table 1 and Sections 3.4 and 4), and the interpretations as Doppler boosting and ellipsoidal variation are tested against amplitudes computed from the Morris & Naftilan (1993) relation and literature physical parameters. No parameter is fitted to make the model reproduce the observed amplitudes; indeed for LP400-22 the predicted Doppler amplitude (about 0.004) is a factor of four below the observed 0.017, and the authors explicitly list simplifying assumptions in Section 4. The J1449+1717 trend is independently attributed to a brighter Gaia variable star at 80 arcseconds, which is an external check. The only methodological concern is that the FAP null simulations in Section 3.3 use raw Gaussian noise while the real light curves are SSA-reconstructed in Section 3.4, so the quoted FAPs may be optimistic; however, this is a statistical calibration issue rather than a circular derivation, since the periods and amplitudes are not forced by construction. Self-citations (e.g., Sajadian 2025) are peripheral and not load-bearing for the detections.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central statistical claims rest on the assumed noise model and on the prior orbital parameters; the choices of SSA parameters are free parameters not fully reported.

free parameters (2)
  • SSA window length L
    The SSA method requires a window length L less than N/2; the paper does not specify the values used for each target, and the decomposition depends on this choice.
  • Number of SSA principal components retained = 40-50 (e.g., 50 for J2132+0754, 40-50 for J2151+1614)
    The number of components kept for reconstruction was chosen per target, and for J2151+1614 it was tuned to maximize the amplitude of the periodic trend, so it is a hand-selected parameter that affects the detected signal.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The orbital periods, masses, and effective temperatures listed in Table 1 are accurate values from the cited spectroscopic studies.
    These values are used to compare the photometric periods and to model expected amplitudes; if any period is wrong, the interpretation as an orbital effect fails.
  • domain assumption TESS photometric uncertainties are Gaussian and the reported error bars are the only noise source; the simulated FAP accurately represents the significance of the de-noised periodogram peaks.
    Section 3.3 generates pure Gaussian noise models using the reported photometric errors, but this ignores correlated noise and any periodic artifacts introduced by SSA.
  • ad hoc to paper The SSA decomposition of white noise does not produce coherent periodic structure at a level that would significantly change the FAP.
    The paper applies SSA to real data but not to the simulated noisy light curves; if SSA can create or amplify regular oscillations from noise, the false alarm probabilities are underestimated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing periodic trends in the TESS light curves of the seventeen known Double White Dwarf systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIT7QOSF

@misc{pith2026250709164,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing periodic trends in the TESS light curves of the seventeen known Double White Dwarf systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIT7QOSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09164}
}
abstract

There is a relatively large population of known double white dwarfs (DWDs) that were mostly discovered through spectroscopic observations and by measuring their radial velocity variations. Photometric observations from these systems give us additional information about their faint components by manifesting eclipsing or lensing signals or periodic trends such as ellipsoidal variations or Doppler boosting. To find these signals and trends we probe the public photometric data collected by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) telescope from 17 known DWD systems. We use the Singular Spectrum Analysis (SSA) technique to de-noise their light curves. For DWD systems J1717$+$6757, J1557$+$2823, LP400$-$22, J1449$+$1717, J2132$+$0754, and J2151$+$1614 we find regular and periodic trends in their TESS light curves. The periodic trend in light curve J1449$+$1717 is caused by the blending effect due to a variable and bright star close to it which are unresolvable in the TESS observations. The discovered periodic trend for J1717$+$6757 was recovered by the TESS data. The periodic trends in light curves of J1557$+$2823 and J2151$+$1614 have the False Alarm Probability (FAP) values $\simeq 14.8,~36.5\%$. So their detected trends are likely noises with non-orbital origins. Periods of trends in light curves of LP400$-$22 and J2132$+$0754 are the same as and half of orbital periods, respectively. We evaluate possible ranges for Doppler boosting and ellipsoidal variations's amplitudes for these targets. This study highlights the importance of TESS data for identifying periodic trends such as ellipsoidal or intrinsic variations rather than short eclipsing/lensing signals in DWD light curves specially bright targets with ignorable blending.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09164 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The LS periodograms related to the TESS light curves of six known DWD systems. The name of each target is reported at the top of each panel. The thick colored and vertical lines specify the orbital period, its half, double, triple, etc. These lines are depicted to compare the orbital period and its proper fractions/multiples with the period of their most-dominant signal with the maximum LS power. get is 3.68% which … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The TESS folded light curves for six DWD systems whose periodograms are displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: The target pixel file drawn from the TESS data at the position TIC 1101113865. The flux of this target is extracted from pixels specified with a dashed pattern. Right panel: The map of blending stars around this target (TIC 1101113865 or J1449+1717 as identified with a green star) extracted from the Gaia data archive. The variable and bright star in this field is marked by a blue triangle [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The amplitudes of ellipsoidal variations for two targets J2132+0754 and LP400−22 vary with the inclination angle and by considering different values for the mass of the secondary components (represented by different colors) and the radius of the primary components (rep…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The expected amplitude in the normalized flux due to Doppler boosting (given by Equation 3) varies with the inclination angle and when considering different values for the mass of the secondary companion in LP400−22. We assume a circular orbit in the simulation. effect…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two panels show the LS periodograms related to the TESS light curves of DWD systems J0112+1835 (left panel) and J0056−0611 (right panel). The colored and thick lines are plotted at their orbital periods, and proper fractions or multiples of their orbital periods. DWD s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The folded and de-noised light curves due to two DWD systems J0112+1835 (left panel) and J0056−0611 (right panel), respectively. TTESS values are periods of trends with the maximum LS powers (mentioned in the sixth column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    ,# (7),01444 '9=82<.342C 2! !22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 @

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    2002, , 579, 430, 10.1086/342880

    Agol , E. 2002, , 579, 430, 10.1086/342880

    doi:10.1086/342880 2002

  5. [5]

    M., & Rappaport , S

    Balaji , B., Croll , B., Levine , A. M., & Rappaport , S. 2015, , 448, 429, 10.1093/mnras/stv031

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv031 2015

  6. [6]

    J., Gianninas , A., Hermes , J

    Bell , K. J., Gianninas , A., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2017, , 835, 180, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/180

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/180 2017

  7. [7]

    Bours , M. C. P., Marsh , T. R., Parsons , S. G., et al. 2014, , 438, 3399, 10.1093/mnras/stt2453

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2453 2014

  8. [8]

    R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., Gianninas , A., & Kenyon , S

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., Gianninas , A., & Kenyon , S. J. 2013, , 769, 66, 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/66

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/66 2013

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., & Kenyon , S

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., & Kenyon , S. J. 2010, , 723, 1072, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., et al

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., et al. 2020, , 889, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Levine , A., Fausnaugh , M., et al

    Burke , C. J., Levine , A., Fausnaugh , M., et al. 2020, TESS-Point: High precision TESS pointing tool , Astrophysics Source Code Library. 2003.001

    2020

  4. [12]

    TESS-SPOC

    Caldwell , D. A., Jenkins , J. M., & Ting , E. B. 2020 a , TESS Light Curves From Full Frame Images ("TESS-SPOC"), Version: 1, MAST, 10.17909/t9-wpz1-8s54

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Tenenbaum , P., Twicken , J

    Caldwell , D. A., Tenenbaum , P., Twicken , J. D., et al. 2020 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201, 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, , 634, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937326

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

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    H., Kilic , M., Tremblay , P.-E., et al

    Debes , J. H., Kilic , M., Tremblay , P.-E., et al. 2015, , 149, 176, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/176

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Marsh , T

    Dhillon , V. S., Marsh , T. R., Stevenson , M. J., et al. 2007, , 378, 825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11881.x

    2007

  9. [17]

    J., Haiman , Z., & Schiminovich , D

    D'Orazio , D. J., Haiman , Z., & Schiminovich , D. 2015, , 525, 351, 10.1038/nature15262

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, , 268, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    Fetherolf , T., Pepper , J., Simpson , E., et al. 2023, , 268, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Frescura , F. A. M., Engelbrecht , C. A., & Frank , B. S. 2008, , 388, 1693, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13499.x

    2008

  12. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Garza Navarro , N., & Wilson , D. J. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 269, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac3af7

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2019, , 482, 4570, 10.1093/mnras/sty3016

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, , 794, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/35

    Gianninas , A., Dufour , P., Kilic , M., et al. 2014, , 794, 35, 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/35

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    R., Canton , P., & Kenyon , S

    Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Brown , W. R., Canton , P., & Kenyon , S. J. 2015, , 812, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/167

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2022, , 509, 2674, 10.1093/mnras/stab3151

    Guo , J., Zhao , J., Zhang , H., et al. 2022, , 509, 2674, 10.1093/mnras/stab3151

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, , 820, 53, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/53

    Han , C. 2016, , 820, 53, 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/53

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Harris , M., & Calchi Novati , S. 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 242, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 312.09

    2023

  20. [28]

    J., Montgomery , M

    Hermes , J. J., Montgomery , M. H., Winget , D. E., et al. 2013, , 765, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/102

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    J., G \"a nsicke , B

    Hermes , J. J., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Koester , D., et al. 2014 a , , 444, 1674, 10.1093/mnras/stu1518

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Brown , W

    Hermes , J. J., Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., et al. 2014 b , , 792, 39, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/39

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    M., Twicken , J

    Jenkins , J. M., Twicken , J. D., McCauliff , S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman , 99133E, 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.16474, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.16474

    Jin , H.-M., Ma , B., Shao , Y., & Wang , Y. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.16474, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.16474

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    L., Marsh , T

    Kaplan , D. L., Marsh , T. R., Walker , A. N., et al. 2014, , 780, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/167

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2009, , 506, L25, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912954

    Kawka , A., & Vennes , S. 2009, , 506, L25, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912954

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    D., Smith , J

    Kawka , A., Vennes , S., Oswalt , T. D., Smith , J. A., & Silvestri , N. M. 2006, , 643, L123, 10.1086/505143

    2006 doi

  28. [36]

    Kawka , A., Vennes , S., & Vaccaro , T. R. 2010, , 516, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014796

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    O., Pelisoli , I., Koester , D., et al

    Kepler , S. O., Pelisoli , I., Koester , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2169, 10.1093/mnras/stz960

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, , 493, 2805, 10.1093/mnras/staa466

    Kilic , M., B \'e dard , A., Bergeron , P., & Kosakowski , A. 2020, , 493, 2805, 10.1093/mnras/staa466

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Allende Prieto , C., et al

    Kilic , M., Brown , W. R., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2012, , 751, 141, 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/141

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    2009, , 695, L92, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L92

    ---. 2009, , 695, L92, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L92

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Kepler , S

    Kleinman , S. J., Kepler , S. O., Koester , D., et al. 2013, , 204, 5, 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    F., Caballero-Nieves , S

    Knote , M. F., Caballero-Nieves , S. M., Gokhale , V., Johnston , K. B., & Perlman , E. S. 2022, , 262, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac770f

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    2002, , 391, 369, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    Kov \'a cs , G., Zucker , S., & Mazeh , T. 2002, , 391, 369, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    2002 doi

  36. [44]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  37. [45]

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

    1976 doi

  38. [46]

    1973, , 26, 215

    Maeder , A. 1973, , 26, 215

    1973

  39. [47]

    Marsh , T. R. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094019, 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094019

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    L., & Naftilan , S

    Morris , S. L., & Naftilan , S. A. 1993, , 419, 344, 10.1086/173488

    1993 doi

  41. [49]

    D., & Johnson , J

    Morton , T. D., & Johnson , J. A. 2011, , 738, 170, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/2/170

    2011 doi

  42. [50]

    E., Hermes , J

    Munday , J., Tremblay , P. E., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2023, , 525, 1814, 10.1093/mnras/stad2347

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    E., et al

    Munday , J., Pelisoli , I., Tremblay , P. E., et al. 2024, , 532, 2534, 10.1093/mnras/stae1645

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L

    Nelemans , G., Portegies Zwart , S. F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L. R. 2001, , 368, 939, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010049

    2001 doi

  45. [53]

    P., Wood , P

    Nicholls , C. P., Wood , P. R., & Cioni , M. R. L. 2010, , 405, 1770, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16548.x

    2010

  46. [54]

    G., Marsh , T

    Parsons , S. G., Marsh , T. R., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Drake , A. J., & Koester , D. 2011, , 735, L30, 10.1088/2041-8205/735/2/L30

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11100, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11100

    Pe s ta , M., & Pejcha , O. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11100, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11100

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    1997, Chinese Physics Letters, 14, 155, 10.1088/0256-307X/14/2/022

    Qin , B., Wu , X.-p., & Zou , Z.-l. 1997, Chinese Physics Letters, 14, 155, 10.1088/0256-307X/14/2/022

    1997 doi

  49. [57]

    M., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas , A., Solano , E., Jim \'e nez-Esteban , F. M., et al. 2021, , 506, 5201, 10.1093/mnras/stab2039

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Winn , J

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

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    R., Winn , J

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

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    2025, , 169, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/adab74

    Sajadian , S. 2025, , 169, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/adab74

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, Software for probing periodic trends in the TESS data from known Double White Dwarfs, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15867446

    Sajadian, S. 2025, Software for probing periodic trends in the TESS data from known Double White Dwarfs, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.15867446

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    2024, , 168, 298, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7fdd

    Sajadian , S., & Afshordi , N. 2024, , 168, 298, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7fdd

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.04550, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04550

    Sajadian , S., & Fatheddin , H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.04550, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.04550

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2025, , 169, 34, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad88fb

    Sajadian , S., Kalantari , A., Fatheddin , H., & Khakpash , S. 2025, , 169, 34, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad88fb

    2025 doi

  57. [65]

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

    1982 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Steinfadt , J

    Shporer , A., Kaplan , D. L., Steinfadt , J. D. R., et al. 2010, , 725, L200, 10.1088/2041-8205/725/2/L200

    2010 doi

  59. [67]

    M., Bhattacharya , S., Laycock , S

    Sorabella , N. M., Bhattacharya , S., Laycock , S. G. T., Christodoulou , D. M., & Massarotti , A. 2022, , 936, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac82b7

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Laycock , S

    Sorabella , N. M., Laycock , S. G. T., Christodoulou , D. M., & Bhattacharya , S. 2024, , 961, L45, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad19dc

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Pepper , J., et al. 2018, , 156, 102, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  62. [70]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Paegert , M., et al. 2019, , 158, 138, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    2022, TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List, Version: 8.2, MAST, 10.17909/fwdt-2x66

    STScl . 2022, TESS Input Catalog and Candidate Target List, Version: 8.2, MAST, 10.17909/fwdt-2x66

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    T., & Boekholt , T

    Toonen , S., Hollands , M., G \"a nsicke , B. T., & Boekholt , T. 2017, , 602, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629978

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    H., Rappaport , S

    van Kerkwijk , M. H., Rappaport , S. A., Breton , R. P., et al. 2010, , 715, 51, 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/51

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    VanderPlas , J. T. 2018, , 236, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    R., & Silvestri , N

    Vennes , S., Kawka , A., Vaccaro , T. R., & Silvestri , N. M. 2009, , 507, 1613, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912955

    2009 doi

  68. [76]

    R., Kawka , A., et al

    Vennes , S., Thorstensen , J. R., Kawka , A., et al. 2011, , 737, L16, 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L16

    2011 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, , 684, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347617

    Yan , H., Zhao , J., Shi , W., et al. 2024, , 684, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347617

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J

    York , D. G., Adelman , J., Anderson , Jr., J. E., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579, 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  71. [79]

    2006, , 6, 265, 10.1088/1009-9271/6/3/01

    Zhao , G., Chen , Y.-Q., Shi , J.-R., et al. 2006, , 6, 265, 10.1088/1009-9271/6/3/01

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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