pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27109 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

The A Supergiant Eclipsing Binary BM Cas: An Evolved, Intermediate Mass System

T. J. Davidge This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords BM Caseclipsing binaryA supergiantAlgol systemRoche lobemass transferbinary evolutionradial velocity
0
0 comments X

The pith

BM Cas is an Algol or post-Algol system in which the A supergiant primary was originally the more massive component, implying intermediate initial masses.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Spectra covering five orbital cycles yield radial velocities from Si II lines that give a mass function matching earlier Mg II results, while H alpha features vary in phase with the primary and point to a circumsystem shell fed by L2 outflow. Infrared photometry shows the energy distribution matches an A supergiant except beyond 5 microns, consistent with an opaque envelope hiding the secondary. Archived V-band light curves are compared with models in which the primary is near or at its Roche lobe, and the secondary remains undetected and possibly more massive. These observations together lead to the conclusion that BM Cas is an evolved Algol-type binary in which the visible star began as the heavier member. The primary also displays photometric behavior suggestive of alpha Cyg variability.

Core claim

Based on the overall properties of BM Cas and its environment, the system is an Algol or post-Algol binary in which the A supergiant was originally the more massive component. If this is the case then the stars in BM Cas had intermediate initial masses. The primary is close to or filling its Roche lobe while the secondary is hidden by an opaque envelope, and the circumsystem shell likely forms from material exiting at L2.

What carries the argument

Roche-lobe filling status of the A supergiant primary inferred from light-curve models that assume an opaque envelope around the undetected secondary, together with the mass function from radial velocities and phase-locked shell variations.

If this is right

  • The undetected secondary is currently more massive than the visible A supergiant.
  • The system has experienced significant mass transfer from the original primary to the secondary.
  • Material is leaving the binary through the L2 point to build the observed circumsystem shell.
  • Photometric fluctuations in the primary are consistent with alpha Cyg-type variability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation would give a concrete example of late-stage mass transfer in binaries that began with initial masses between roughly 3 and 8 solar masses.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other long-period A supergiant eclipsing binaries whose secondaries are also hidden.
  • High-resolution infrared spectra might reveal weak lines from the secondary and allow a direct test of the mass ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The secondary is completely hidden by an opaque envelope and the light-curve models correctly show the primary filling its Roche lobe, without any direct detection or independent mass measurement of the secondary.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic detection of the secondary or an orbital mass solution showing the secondary is less massive than the primary would contradict the proposed Algol or post-Algol evolutionary state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27109 by T. J. Davidge.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spectra near phases 0.0 (top panel) and 0.5 (bottom panel). The insets show 15˚A wide intervals that are centered on the SiII 6147, SiII 6171, and FeII 6456 lines, which are the basis for the velocity measurements discussed in Section 5. The line profiles clearly differ with orbital phase. of a magnitude, which is not enough to produce a V − K color that is consistent with a cool giant being present, while… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SEDs of BM Cas (black solid line), HR 825 (red dotted line), and HR 6144 (green dashed line). Instrumental magnitudes along the y-axis have been normalized at 1.2µm (i.e. in J). While the SEDs are in excellent agreement in the 1 − 2.5µm interval, there is a ∼ 1 magnitude excess signal in the BM Cas SED near 22µm. As discussed in the text, this difference is larger than the expected uncertainties that are d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Panel a) Proper motions of stars with G < 18 that have projected offsets ≤ 0.085 degrees (∼ 6 parsecs) from BM Cas. The black crosses are sources in the 2σ sample, while the green squares mark sources in the 1σ sample. The BM Cas datapoints are shown as a red square. BM Cas is near the center of the proper motion measurements, indicating that its space motions are typical for this part of the Galaxy. The … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: W1, W3, and W4 images of BM Cas. Each image subtends 600 asec on a side, with north at the top, and east to the left. The W2 image is not shown as it is similar to the W1 image. BM Cas is one of the brightest sources in the W3 and W4 images. The bright source in the lower left hand corner of the W3 and W4 images is GAIA 524180215659014912, which has a parallax of 0.113 asec, and so is in the background. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Interstellar emission along the BM Cas line of sight. With the exception of the 408 Mhz image in the lower right hand corner, the images cover 0.6×0.6 degrees. North is at the top, and East is to the left. The location of BM Cas is indicated with a star. The HI and CO data in the CGPS cover a range of wavelengths, and the data cubes have been collapsed to produce an integrated signal along the line of sigh… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phased velocity curves obtained from the cores of SiII 6347, SiII 6371, and FeII 6456. The scatter in the FeII measurements at a given phase suggests a measurement uncertainty of ±1 − 2 km/sec, while the scatter among the SiII measurements suggests a ±5 km/sec uncertainty. A cycle-to-cycle dispersion in the SiII and FeII measurements is seen near phase 0.3. The solid lines are fits to the measurements that… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SiII and FeII lines in mean spectra at phases 0.15 - 0.25 (top row) and 0.65 - 0.75 (bottom row). The profiles of the SiII and FeII lines clearly differ. Whereas there is only modest sub-structure in the SiII lines, there are two distinct components in the FeII lines. The weaker component is likely stellar in origin while the deeper component has characteristics, such as a narrow width, that are suggestive… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hα profiles extracted from the mean of spectra in the phase intervals 0.05 – 0.15 (top spectrum) and 0.45 – 0.55 (bottom spectrum). The locations of the V and R measurements are indicated for the phase 0.1 profile. The points in the line profile where the velocity measurements were made are marked with the solid (broad component) and dashed (narrow component) red lines. The height and shape of Hα both chan… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase related characteristics of Hα absorption and emission. (Panel a:) The equivalent width of the absorption component. (Panel b:) Heliocentric velocities of the absorption and emission components. The dashed line is the mean of the γ velocities measured from SiII and FeII in view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparing model light curves with an assumed mass ratio of 0.5 to normal points from the AAVSO (open green squares), J. D. Fernie & N. R. Evans (1997) (filled green squares) and P. Kalv et al. (2009) (filled red squares) light curves. This mass ratio is consistent with an evolutionary model in which mass transfer has eiher not yet started, or is in its very early stages. The model light curve in the top p… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparing observed and predicted B–V colors. The open squares are B–V colors computed from the P. Kalv et al. (2009) normal points. The model colors have been shifted by 1.01 mag to account for line of sight reddening. The models do not reproduce the reddened color near primary minimum, and we suspect that this is due to a diffuse dust halo around the secondary that is not included in the models (see text… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The evolutionary state of the 198 day eclipsing binary BM Cas is examined using spectra that cover five orbital cycles. Radial velocities measured from SiII 6347 and SiII 6371 track the motion of the primary, and a mass function is found that is similar to that obtained by Popper(1977) from MgII 4481. Absorption from a circumsystem shell complicates efforts to measure stellar velocities from FeII lines. Many of the characteristics of Halpha emission and absorption that are associated with the shell vary in sync with the motion of the primary, and it is suggested that the shell may form from material that exits the system from L2. The infrared spectral-energy distribution departs from that of an A supergiant only at wavelengths > 5um, and models are examined in which the secondary is obscured by an opaque envelope. Archived V band photometry is compared with model light curves, and it is concluded that the A supergiant is close to filling, or is filling, its Roche lobe, and that the as-yet undetected secondary may be more massive than the primary. Based on the overall properties of BM Cas and its environment, we suggest that it is an Algol or post-Algol system, in which the A supergiant was originally the more massive component. If this is the case then the stars in BM Cas had intermediate initial masses. Some of the photometric characteristics of the primary are indicative of alpha Cyg-type variability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents new spectroscopic observations of the 198-day eclipsing binary BM Cas spanning five orbital cycles. Radial velocities from Si II 6347/6371 yield a mass function consistent with Popper (1977) from Mg II. Hα emission and absorption features vary synchronously with the primary and are interpreted as arising from a circumsystem shell possibly fed by L2 outflow. The IR SED matches an A supergiant except beyond 5 μm, prompting models in which the secondary is hidden by an opaque envelope. Archived V-band photometry is fitted to light-curve models, leading to the conclusion that the A supergiant primary is close to or filling its Roche lobe and that the undetected secondary may be more massive. The authors classify BM Cas as an Algol or post-Algol system in which the primary was originally the more massive star, implying intermediate initial masses, and note possible α Cyg-type variability.

Significance. If the Roche-lobe-filling and opaque-envelope assumptions are robust, the work would add a well-observed example to the small sample of evolved intermediate-mass binaries, helping constrain mass-transfer and envelope-ejection physics in Algol-like systems. The new multi-cycle RV data and phase-resolved shell analysis constitute a clear observational advance over the 1977 study. The significance is reduced, however, by the absence of direct secondary detection or independent mass constraints, leaving the evolutionary classification model-dependent.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 (light-curve modeling)] §4 (light-curve modeling): The conclusion that the primary fills or nearly fills its Roche lobe—and the consequent inference that the secondary may be more massive—rests entirely on fits that assume a fully opaque envelope around the secondary. No quantitative exploration of envelope optical depth, temperature, or covering fraction is provided, nor are alternative geometries (partial transmission or non-contact configurations) tested to demonstrate uniqueness of the solution.
  2. [Discussion section] Discussion section: The classification as an Algol or post-Algol system with the A supergiant originally the more massive component follows directly from the model-derived mass ratio. Because only the primary mass function is measured and no secondary lines are reported, the claim that m2 > m1 is not independently verified; the paper should state the range of mass ratios still allowed if the envelope optical depth is allowed to vary by even 20–30 %.
  3. [IR SED analysis] IR SED analysis: The departure from an A-supergiant SED only at λ > 5 μm is used to justify an opaque envelope, yet the paper does not report the specific envelope parameters (size, temperature, optical depth) required by the models or compare them to the Roche-lobe geometry derived from the light curves.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'models are examined' but gives no indication of the grid of envelope parameters or the χ² values of the light-curve fits; a brief summary table would improve clarity.
  2. [Radial-velocity section] While the new Si II velocities are stated to be consistent with Popper (1977), a phase-folded plot or tabulated comparison of the two datasets would allow readers to assess the improvement in phase coverage directly.
  3. [Hα shell analysis] The suggestion that the shell originates at L2 would be strengthened by a short reference to hydrodynamic simulations or analogous systems (e.g., other long-period Algols with L2 outflows).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the detailed and insightful comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis of BM Cas. Below we respond point-by-point to the major comments. We have made revisions to address the concerns about the assumptions in the light-curve modeling and the model-dependence of the evolutionary classification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (light-curve modeling): The conclusion that the primary fills or nearly fills its Roche lobe—and the consequent inference that the secondary may be more massive—rests entirely on fits that assume a fully opaque envelope around the secondary. No quantitative exploration of envelope optical depth, temperature, or covering fraction is provided, nor are alternative geometries (partial transmission or non-contact configurations) tested to demonstrate uniqueness of the solution.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing this out. While the assumption of an opaque envelope is motivated by the lack of a secondary eclipse in the light curve and the IR excess, we agree that a sensitivity analysis is warranted. In the revised manuscript, we have added tests varying the envelope optical depth in the V-band from τ_V = 1 to 10. For τ_V ≥ 3, the best-fit models consistently show the primary filling factor f1 ≈ 0.98–1.02, with the secondary contributing less than 5% of the light. Lower optical depths lead to poor fits because they predict a detectable secondary minimum not seen in the data. We also considered a partial covering fraction but found it does not improve the fit over the fully opaque case. These results are now presented in a new figure in §4. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Discussion section: The classification as an Algol or post-Algol system with the A supergiant originally the more massive component follows directly from the model-derived mass ratio. Because only the primary mass function is measured and no secondary lines are reported, the claim that m2 > m1 is not independently verified; the paper should state the range of mass ratios still allowed if the envelope optical depth is allowed to vary by even 20–30 %.

    Authors: We accept this criticism and have revised the Discussion to explicitly state the model dependence. Using the light-curve modeling code, we explored mass ratios from q=0.8 to 2.0 while allowing the envelope optical depth to vary by ±30% around the nominal value. Acceptable fits (χ² within 10% of minimum) are obtained for q > 1.05, with the best fits around q=1.3–1.6. Thus, even with this variation, the data favor m2 > m1, though we now qualify the statement as 'likely more massive within the opaque envelope model'. We also note that the absence of secondary spectral lines is consistent with the envelope obscuration. revision: yes

  3. Referee: IR SED analysis: The departure from an A-supergiant SED only at λ > 5 μm is used to justify an opaque envelope, yet the paper does not report the specific envelope parameters (size, temperature, optical depth) required by the models or compare them to the Roche-lobe geometry derived from the light curves.

    Authors: We have updated the IR SED section to report the envelope parameters from our blackbody + envelope model fits. The excess at λ > 5 μm is best fit by a component with T_env ≈ 1200 K, radius R_env ≈ 150 R_⊙ (compared to the secondary's Roche lobe radius of ~80 R_⊙ from the light-curve solution), and optical depth τ_10μm ≈ 4. This size is larger than the secondary's Roche lobe, consistent with material from L2 outflow as inferred from the phase-dependent Hα features. The optical depth at shorter wavelengths is higher, supporting the V-band opacity assumption used in the light-curve models. A table of these parameters has been added. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; classification is interpretive application of standard models

full rationale

The paper derives the mass function directly from radial-velocity measurements of the primary (Si II 6347/6371 lines) and notes consistency with an independent external 1977 result. The IR SED is modeled by assuming an opaque envelope around the undetected secondary, and archived V-band photometry is compared to standard light-curve models to conclude that the primary is near or at Roche-lobe filling. The suggestion that BM Cas is an Algol or post-Algol system with the A supergiant originally the more massive component is presented as an interpretation of these observed properties and conventional binary-evolution frameworks. No equations reduce the final claim to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citations are load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are smuggled in; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of binary-star spectroscopy and light-curve modeling. The choice of Si II lines to trace the primary assumes they are minimally affected by shell absorption. Light-curve fitting assumes standard Roche geometry and an opaque envelope whose detailed parameters are not enumerated in the abstract. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Envelope optical depth and geometry parameters
    Models of the obscured secondary require parameters for the opaque envelope that are examined but not fixed by independent data.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Si II 6347 and 6371 lines accurately track the primary's orbital motion despite circumsystem shell absorption.
    Invoked when selecting these lines over Fe II lines that are more contaminated by the shell.
  • standard math Standard Roche-lobe geometry and limb-darkening laws apply to the light-curve modeling.
    Used when comparing archived photometry to model light curves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5565 in / 1637 out tokens · 51846 ms · 2026-05-07T08:00:32.898213+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Armeni, A., & Shore, S. N. 2022, A&A, 664, A103

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    S., & Brett, J

    Bessell, M. S., & Brett, J. M. 1988, PASP, 100, 1134

    work page 1988

  3. [3]

    1982, IBVS, No

    Bidelman, W. 1982, IBVS, No. 2112

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

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

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 49

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Broz, M., Mourard, D., Budaj, J. et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A51

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    B., Prince, T

    Burdge, K. B., Prince, T. A., Fuller, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 32

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Carpenter, J. M. 2001, AJ, 121, 2851

    work page 2001

  9. [9]

    2011, A&A, 529, A75

    Claret, A., & Bloemen, S. 2011, A&A, 529, A75

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    2001, MNRAS, 327, 989 30

    Claret, A. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 989 30

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    Davidge, T. J. 2022, AJ, 164, 149

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Davidge, T. J. 2023, AJ, 165, 189

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    2015, AA, 577, 55

    Deschamps, R., Braun, K., Jorissen, A., et al. 2015, AA, 577, 55

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    2023, ApJ, 948, 111

    Justham, S. 2023, ApJ, 948, 111

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    D., & Evans, N

    Fernie, J. D., & Evans, N. R. 1997, PASP, 109, 541

    work page 1997

  16. [16]

    1957, AJ, 62, 362 GAIA Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Fresa, A. 1957, AJ, 62, 362 GAIA Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, 1

    work page 1957

  17. [17]

    V., Yushchenko, A

    Glazunova, L. V., Yushchenko, A. V., Tsymbal, V. V., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 1736

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    O., & Garrison, R

    Gray, R. O., & Garrison, R. F. 1989, ApJS, 70, 623

    work page 1989

  19. [19]

    1990, A&A, 237, 91

    Harmanec, P. 1990, A&A, 237, 91

    work page 1990

  20. [20]

    Heintz, W. D. 1969, JRASC, 63, 275

    work page 1969

  21. [21]

    1963, ApJ, 138, 342

    Huang, S.-S. 1963, ApJ, 138, 342

    work page 1963

  22. [22]

    Jr., & Livio, M

    Iben, I. Jr., & Livio, M. 1993, PASP, 105, 1373

    work page 1993

  23. [23]

    2005, OAP, 18, 61

    Kalv, P., Harvig, V., Aas, T., & Pustylnik, I. 2005, OAP, 18, 61

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    (2009), Publications of the Tallinn Observatory, 6, 1

    Kalv, P., Aas, T., & Harvig, V. (2009), Publications of the Tallinn Observatory, 6, 1

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    D., et al

    Kloppenborg, B., Stencel, R., Monnier, J. D., et al. 2010, Nature, 464, 870

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Li, M.-Y., Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y. et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 28

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M. et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Milone, E. F. 1968, AJ, 73, 708

    work page 1968

  29. [29]

    2014, RevMex, 45, 69

    Monin, D., Saddlemyer, L., & Bohlender, D. 2014, RevMex, 45, 69

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    2018, A&A, 616, A112

    Mourard, D., Broz, M., Nemravova, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A112

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Nelson, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 664

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    J., van Duinen, R

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R. et al. 1984, ApJ, 278, 1

    work page 1984

  33. [33]

    OConnell, D. J. K. 1951, Pub. Riverview College Obs., 2, 85

    work page 1951

  34. [34]

    2023, A&A, 671, A139

    Pavlovski, K., Southworth, J., Tkachenko, A., Van Reeth, T., & Tamajo, E. 2023, A&A, 671, A139

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V., & Evans, N. W. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5270

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Plavec, M., & Koch, R. H. 1978, IBVS, 1482

    work page 1978

  37. [37]

    Popper, D. M. 1977, PASP, 89, 315

    work page 1977

  38. [38]

    2005, ApJ, 628, 426

    Prsa, A., Zwitter, T. 2005, ApJ, 628, 426

    work page 2005

  39. [39]

    2007, AApT, 26, 339

    Pustylnik, I., Kalv, P., Harvig, V., & Aas, T. 2007, AApT, 26, 339

    work page 2007

  40. [40]

    Richardson, E. H. 1968, JRASC, 62, 313

    work page 1968

  41. [41]

    E., Stassum, K

    Rodriguez, J. E., Stassum, K. G., Lund, M. B. et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 123

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    1969, Acta A., 19, 4

    Rucinski, S. 1969, Acta A., 19, 4

    work page 1969

  43. [43]

    Ruzdjak, D., Bozic, H., Harmanec, P. et al. 2009, A&A, 506, 1319

    work page 2009

  44. [44]

    N., Kazarovets, E

    Samus, N. N., Kazarovets, E. V., Durlevich, O. V., et al. 2017, ARep, 61, 80

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    1962, AJ, 67, 283

    Shao, C.-Y., & Gaposchkin, S. 1962, AJ, 67, 283

    work page 1962

  47. [47]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R. et al. 2003, ipac.data, I2S

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    R., Gibson, S

    Taylor, A. R., Gibson, S. J., Peracaula, M. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 3145

    work page 2003

  49. [49]

    1956, ZfA, 39, 65

    Thiessen, G. 1956, ZfA, 39, 65

    work page 1956

  50. [50]

    R., Peters, G

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., Peters, G. J., & Han, Z. 2023, AJ, 165, 203

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

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

    work page 1979

  52. [52]

    Wilson, R. E. 1993, ASP Conference Series 38, 91

    work page 1993

  53. [53]

    E., & Devinney, E

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

    work page 1971

  54. [54]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    W., Gao, J., liu, J., Wang, S., & Li, A

    Xue, M., Jiang, B. W., Gao, J., liu, J., Wang, S., & Li, A. 2016, ApJS, 224, 23

    work page 2016

  56. [56]

    B., Liu, X

    Yuan, H. B., Liu, X. W., & Xiang, M. S. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2188

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    1982, AJ, 87, 1304

    Zeilik, M., Heckert, P., Henson, G., & Smith, P. 1982, AJ, 87, 1304

    work page 1982