Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 38 references

A neural network model for quickly solving multiple-band light curves of contact binaries

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural network trained on synthetic light curves recovers contact-binary parameters from multi-band survey data in about a minute.

desk verdict Useful multi-band NN tool for contact binary light curves, but the quoted near-zero uncertainties on real systems are unsupported and the 3,541-system catalog error bars need serious revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08189 v1 pith:L2Y6U5TB submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Kai Li , Li-Heng Wang , Xiang Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords ContactbinarystarsEclipsingLightcurveanalysisNeuralnetworksStarspotsFundamentalparametersofAstronomydatasoftware
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 sets out to replace slow, iterative light-curve fitting of contact binaries with a neural network that maps multi-band light curves directly to physical parameters. It claims the network recovers temperature ratio, mass ratio, inclination, potential, fillout, radii, luminosities, third light, and all four starspot parameters from phased, normalized flux curves. This matters because all-sky surveys have identified over a million contact binaries, far too many for traditional physics-based fitting codes. The model is validated on synthetic light curves and on eight previously studied systems, then applied to OGLE V and I data to derive parameters for 3,541 contact binaries.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a neural-network surrogate for the PHOEBE eclipsing-binary light-curve model, trained band by band using transfer learning from a pre-trained V-band model. The network's split architecture—first five physical parameters, then the concatenated spot and third-light parameters—is what allows it to cover the full ten-parameter space including starspots. A two-stage MCMC inverts the network to recover parameters from observed light curves, and a separate radius/potential subnetwork takes advantage of the geometric dependence on only mass ratio and fillout.

What would settle it

Compare the model's mass ratios and temperature ratios for a sample of contact binaries against independent double-lined spectroscopic radial-velocity orbits; a systematic offset larger than the quoted uncertainties in q or T2/T1 would show the synthetic-training premise fails. A practical mid-step is to fit a subset of the 3,541 OGLE systems with a conventional W-D/PHOEBE analysis and check whether parameter differences are consistent with the claimed precision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully connected neural network can serve as a fast surrogate for both light-curve synthesis and parameter inversion in contact binaries. The architecture splits the ten input parameters into two groups: the first five (primary temperature, temperature ratio, mass ratio, inclination, fillout) pass through early layers, then the four spot parameters plus third light are concatenated before the final layers. Separate small networks output luminosities, radii, and potential, exploiting the fact that radii and potential depend only on mass ratio and fillout. Training data are uniformly sampled parameter sets used to generate synthetic light curves with PHOEBE, with a s

Load-bearing premise

The network learns only from PHOEBE-generated synthetic light curves drawn from chosen parameter ranges, so the whole pipeline inherits any systematic difference between that synthetic model and real contact-binary photometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Survey-scale parameter catalogues become feasible: the same pipeline applied to ASAS-SN, ZTF, TESS, or Gaia data could produce physical parameters for hundreds of thousands of contact binaries.
  • Analysis time drops from about 4.8 days to 82 seconds for a three-band, 729-point light curve, making million-sample studies practical on ordinary hardware.
  • Because the model includes all four starspot parameters, fast analyses no longer have to ignore the O'Connell effect or spot-induced light-curve asymmetries.
  • The packaged executable supports 19 standard filters, so observers can fit multi-band light curves from both large surveys and individual telescopes without running slow fitting codes.
  • Processing bands simultaneously lets the model exploit colour information across filters, which can help break degeneracies between parameters such as temperature ratio and inclination.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 3,541 OGLE parameters are mostly unvalidated against independent geometric or spectroscopic solutions; a robust test would compare the network's mass ratios and fillouts with radial-velocity mass ratios for a statistically meaningful subset.
  • Editorial inference: if real starspot patterns are more complex than the single-circular-spot PHOEBE model, the inferred spot latitude, longitude, radius, and temperature may absorb unmodeled asymmetries and should be treated cautiously until checked against spot-mapping observations.
  • Editorial inference: the transfer-learning recipe from the V band could plausibly extend to semi-detached or other eclipsing-binary geometries, though the training ranges, parameter split, and output heads would need re-tuning.
  • Editorial inference: the speed opens the possibility of on-the-fly parameter estimation during observing runs, allowing immediate follow-up decisions for newly discovered candidates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents a neural-network surrogate model for contact-binary light-curve analysis. A fully connected network is trained on ~437,000 PHOEBE-generated light curves over a 10-dimensional parameter space that includes temperature ratio, mass ratio, inclination, potential, fillout, third light, and four starspot parameters, and is then fine-tuned by transfer learning to 19 photometric bands. A two-stage MCMC procedure is used to invert observed light curves. The model is validated on 1000 synthetic PHOEBE light curves and on eight systems from Wang et al. (2024), and is applied to OGLE V/I data, yielding physical parameters for 3,541 systems. The software is archived as CBLA.exe at China-VO.

Significance. If the inferred parameters and their uncertainties are reliable, this would be a practically valuable tool for the large photometric surveys now producing hundreds of thousands of contact-binary light curves. The paper's concrete strengths are its large training set, multi-band transfer-learning approach, inclusion of all four spot parameters, publicly archived executable, and the reported speed gain (82 s vs. 4.8 days for a three-band light curve). However, the central reliability claim is currently not supported: the MCMC uncertainties reported for real systems are essentially zero, the likelihood/noise model is never stated, and the synthetic validation is performed on noise-free PHOEBE light curves. The advertised spot-parameter capability is also contradicted by the comparison in Table 2.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 2] The MCMC likelihood and noise model are never specified. For the eight real systems, Table 2 reports uncertainties of +0.000/-0.000 for q, +0.0/-0.0 deg for i, and +1/-2 K for T2 for most targets, whereas the comparison Wang et al. (2024) values have finite uncertainties (q ~0.001-0.002, i ~0.1-0.5 deg, T2 ~20-40 K). Such delta-function posteriors can arise only if the likelihood effectively assigns near-zero noise to the photometric data. The 1000-set synthetic validation (Figure 2) does not rescue this because those light curves are generated by the same PHOEBE model with no stated injected observational noise. Since Table 3 reports the same kind of nearly singular uncertainties for all 3,541 OGLE systems, the catalog error bars are unsupported. Please specify the likelihood/noise model and validate the two-stage MCMC on noisy synthetic light curves with known injected noise.
  2. [Table 2, spot parameters] The text states that the model and Wang et al. (2024) show 'remarkable consistency,' but the spot parameters in Table 2 contradict this. For example, V0394 Cam gives r_s = 11 deg vs. 25 deg and lambda = 317 deg vs. 351 deg; J055741 gives lambda = 63 deg vs. 10 deg and r_s = 5 deg vs. 8 deg; several T_s values differ by 0.04-0.05 (e.g., V0394 Cam 0.89 vs. 0.94; V0737 Cep 0.90 vs. 0.96). Given that the quoted uncertainties are zero to the displayed precision, these are many-sigma discrepancies. Since simultaneous determination of all four spot parameters is a central advertised capability, this comparison does not support the claimed accuracy.
  3. [Section 4, OGLE model selection] The OGLE application selects among four configurations (phase shift 0 or 0.5, with or without third light) by choosing the highest R^2, and spots are included only if the two maxima differ by more than 0.01 mag in both bands. This model-selection procedure has no penalty for extra degrees of freedom and is not cross-validated on held-out observed data. With real photometric noise, the 'best R^2' configuration can absorb noise, especially when spot parameters are free. Please clarify whether R^2 is computed on the binned, normalized fluxes and whether the reported goodness of fit is compared to the unbinned original data. A cross-validation or information-criterion comparison would strengthen the catalog-level claims.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3] Typo: 'between our model-derived physical parameters and and the true values' should read 'and the true values.'
  2. [Section 2] The statement that transfer learning requires '5,000 to 50,000' training samples per band is vague. Please report the actual training set size and fine-tuning details for each band (e.g., in a table or appendix).
  3. [Section 3] The description of second-stage priors is unclear: 'their uncertainties set to the range of the corresponding Gaussian distributions' appears circular. Define how the prior width is computed from the first-stage chain.
  4. [Table 2] Several entries in Table 2 are empty (e.g., L1g/LTg for NSVS 503993 and NSVS 2561806). Please state explicitly which quantities were not fitted or not available for those targets.
  5. [Table 3] Column 23 heading: 'Equival volume radius' should be 'Equivalent volume radius.'
  6. [Section 4] The outlier removal ('data points below the 1st percentile and above the 99th percentile') is ambiguous: is this applied per star, per band, or globally? Please clarify.
  7. [Figure 2] The caption does not define the discrepancy variable or the units. Please specify what is plotted (e.g., inferred minus true value) and whether outliers are truncated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NN is a genuine surrogate trained on PHOEBE outputs and tested on fresh synthetic and observational light curves; only a mild self-citation concern arises from validating against Wang et al. (2024), a paper sharing two co-authors.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) PHOEBE forward models generate synthetic light curves from uniformly sampled physical parameters; (2) a neural network is trained to invert those light curves back to parameters; (3) the NN+MCMC pipeline is validated on 1000 newly generated synthetic light curves and on eight real systems from Wang et al. (2024); (4) the model is then applied to OGLE light curves. None of the target physical parameters is fed back into the forward model as a fitted constant, and no quantity used in the training is defined in terms of the desired predictions. The synthetic validation tests the surrogate's ability to recover known parameters from PHOEBE-generated light curves it has never seen; this is standard practice for surrogate models and is not circular, though it does not independently validate the PHOEBE forward model against nature. The only self-citation of note is that the real-data benchmark, Wang et al. (2024), includes two of the present authors (L.-H. Wang and K. Li). The paper leans on the 'remarkable consistency' with that work as part of its real-data reliability claim, which reduces the independence of that particular external check. However, the paper also presents direct goodness-of-fit comparisons for the eight targets, and the synthetic validation is self-contained and parameter-free. The self-citation is not the sole support for the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter is imported from the authors' prior work to force the result. Concerns about the unrealistically small MCMC uncertainties (e.g., ±0.000 in q and i in Table 2) or the omission of a noise model are correctness-reliability issues, not circularity. Overall, no circular reduction is present; the minor co-author overlap in the validation benchmark justifies a score of 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim inherits all assumptions baked into the PHOEBE forward model and the authors' sampling and selection choices. The NN itself contributes no new physical entity, but the pipeline depends on several hand-chosen thresholds (spot inclusion, R^2 cutoff, MCMC prior width) and on the fidelity of PHOEBE to real contact binaries. These are the true free parameters of the reported 3,541-system catalog.

free parameters (4)
  • Spot inclusion threshold = 0.01 mag
    In Section 4, spots are fitted only when brightness differences at the two maxima in both V and I bands exceed 0.01 mag. This hand-chosen threshold determines whether spot parameters are included and changes the output for a large fraction of the 3,541 systems.
  • R^2 acceptance cutoff = 0.8
    In Section 4, systems with best-fit R^2 < 0.8 are excluded. This hand-chosen threshold directly controls the final sample size and could bias the catalog toward well-behaved light curves.
  • MCMC second-stage prior width = not specified precisely
    In Section 3, priors for stage 2 are set to 'the range of the corresponding Gaussian distributions,' an ad hoc choice; it strongly affects the posterior uncertainties, which are near zero in Table 2.
  • Binning per band = 100 points
    In Section 4, each band's light curve is binned into 100 points. This reduces noise but may remove fine structure relevant to spot parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PHOEBE-generated light curves accurately represent real contact binary photometry.
    Training, synthetic validation, and inference all rely on PHOEBE. Systematic errors in PHOEBE (e.g., spot model, limb darkening, passbands) transfer into the inferred parameters. Introduced in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Uniform sampling of the parameter space yields a training distribution adequate for real contact binaries.
    If real systems concentrate in parts of parameter space that are sparsely sampled or excluded as 'inconsistent,' the NN may extrapolate poorly. Section 2.
  • domain assumption Gravity darkening and albedo coefficients follow Lucy (1967) and Rucinski (1969) with a switch at 7200 K.
    Adopted in Section 2 for all simulated LCs; any deviation in real stars affects inferred temperatures and luminosities.
  • ad hoc to paper Transfer learning from a V-band model with 5,000-50,000 samples yields accurate models for other bands.
    Stated in Section 2 without rigorous justification; performance is reported only via R^2 on test sets.
  • ad hoc to paper Two-stage MCMC with stage-1-derived Gaussian priors produces well-calibrated posteriors.
    Described in Section 3; the near-zero uncertainties in Table 2 suggest this assumption may fail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A neural network model for quickly solving multiple-band light curves of contact binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L2Y6U5TB

@misc{pith2026250908189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A neural network model for quickly solving multiple-band light curves of contact binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L2Y6U5TB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08189}
}
read the original abstract

The advent of large-scale photometric surveys has led to the discovery of over a million contact binary systems. Conventional light curve analysis methods are no longer adequate for handling such massive datasets. To address this challenge, we developed a neural network-based model capable of rapid analysis of multiple-band light curves of contact binaries. Our model can determine the fundamental physical parameters, including temperature and mass ratios, orbital inclination, potential, fillout factor, primary and secondary luminosities and radii, third light contribution, and spot parameters. Notably, unlike previous works, our model can simultaneously process multiple-band light curves and the four parameters of a starspot. The model's reliability was verified through analysis of the synthetic light curves generated by PHOEBE and the light curves of eight targets from \cite{2024ApJ...976..223W}'s work. The discrepancy distribution between the physical parameters determined by our model and true values for the synthetic light curves shows very good agreement. In addition, the physical parameters determined by our model and the corresponding light curve fits show remarkable consistency with \cite{2024ApJ...976..223W}'s results. By applying our model to OGLE contact binaries, physical parameters of 3,541 systems were obtained. We have packaged our model into an executable (CBLA.exe) file and archived it in the China-VO repository (https://doi.org/10.12149/101626). The software supports light curve analysis of 19 standard filters and allows for processing the data, whether from large-scale sky surveys or individual telescope observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The structure of the network. these two parameters. The structure is a fully connected NN with a size of 3×100, and the output dimension is three. All activation functions used are ReLU functions (K. He et al. 2015), and the optimizer used throughout is Adam (D. P. Kingma & J. Ba 2014). Thus, we have developed three models: one for generating LCs, one for generating luminosity values, and one for generating radii an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of the difference between the physical parameters obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The fitted LCs of the eight targets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The posterior parameter distributions and the best-fit model for an example system. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the anonymous reviewer for insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of this manuscript. This work is supp…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H., & Guinan, E

    Bradstreet, D. H., & Guinan, E. F. 1994, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 56, Interacting Binary Stars, ed. A. W. Shafter, 228

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, A&A, 419, 725

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 138

    Chen, X., de Grijs, R., & Deng, L. 2016, ApJ, 832, 138

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 140

    Chen, X., Deng, L., de Grijs, R., Wang, S., & Feng, Y. 2018, ApJ, 859, 140

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2565

    Ding, X., Ji, K., Li, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2565 2023

  7. [7]

    2022, AJ, 164, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8e66

    Ding, X., Ji, K., Li, X., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8e66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8e66 2022

  8. [8]

    P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L

    Eggleton, P. P., & Kiseleva-Eggleton, L. 2002, ApJ, 575, 461

    work page 2002

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Farr, W., Sinha, M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864, doi: 10.21105/joss.01864 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1502.01852, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1502.01852

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1502.01852, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1502.01852

    2015 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838 9 T able 3.The physical parameters of the 3,541 systems Number Column Units Explanation 1 Name OGLE identifier 2T 1 K Temperature of the primary component 3 q Mass ratio 4e...

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    2012, MNRAS, 421, 2769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20323.x

    Jiang, D., Han, Z., Ge, H., Yang, L., & Li, L. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20323.x

    2012

  6. [14]

    P., & Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.6980, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980

    2014 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    M., Rucinski, S

    Kreiner, J. M., Rucinski, S. M., Zola, S., et al. 2003, A&A, 412, 465, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031456

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Kuiper, G. P. 1941, ApJ, 93, 133, doi: 10.1086/144252

    1941 doi

  9. [17]

    2025, ApJS, 277, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adba63

    Li, K., & Wang, L.-H. 2025, ApJS, 277, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adba63

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4588

    Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Michel, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4588

    2019

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 692, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451947

    Li, K., Gao, X., Guo, D.-F., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451947

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2006, MNRAS, 369, 2001

    Li, L., & Zhang, F. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 2001

    2006

  13. [21]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad226a

    Li, X.-Z., Zhu, Q.-F., Ding, X., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad226a

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Mochnacki, S. W. 1981, ApJ, 245, 650, doi: 10.1086/158841

    1981 doi

  15. [23]

    2023, A&A, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330 O’Connell, D

    Mowlavi, N., Holl, B., Lecoeur-Ta ¨ ıbi, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330 O’Connell, D. J. K. 1951, Publications of the Riverview College Observatory, 2, 85

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    J., & Yang, Q

    Pan, S. J., & Yang, Q. 2010, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22, 1345, doi: 10.1109/TKDE.2009.191

    2010 doi

  17. [25]

    2024, AJ, 168, 272, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8345 Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T

    Poro, A., Li, K., Michel, R., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 272, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad8345 Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T. 2005, ApJ, 628, 426, doi: 10.1086/430591 Prˇ sa, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29 Prˇ sa, A., Kochoska, A....

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Rasio, F. A. 1995, ApJL, 444, L41 Ruci´ nski, S. M. 1969, AcA, 19, 245

    1995

  19. [27]

    Rucinski, S. M. 1992, AJ, 103, 960

    1992

  20. [28]

    Rucinski, S. M. 1994, PASP, 106, 462

    1994

  21. [29]

    Rucinski, S. M. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 393 Soszy´ nski, I., Pawlak, M., Pietrukowicz, P., et al. 2016, AcA, 66, 405, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1701.03105 10

    2007 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    2011, A&A, 528, A114

    Tylenda, R., Hajduk, M., Kami´ nski, T., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, A114

    2011

  23. [31]

    1994, ApJL, 426, L69, doi: 10.1086/187342

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., et al. 1994, ApJL, 426, L69, doi: 10.1086/187342

    1994 doi

  24. [32]

    K., & Szyma´ nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., & Szyma´ nski, G. 2015, AcA, 65, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966

    2015 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    2024, ApJS, 273, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5953

    Wang, J., Ding, X., Li, J., et al. 2024, ApJS, 273, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad5953

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f4b

    Wang, L.-H., Li, K., Guo, Y.-N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 223, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7f4b

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

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

    1979

  28. [36]

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

    1990

  29. [37]

    E., & Devinney, E

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

    1971

  30. [38]

    Yakut, K., & Eggleton, P. P. 2005, ApJ, 629, 1055

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.