pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12024 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

An eclipsing CEMP candidate discovered in a search for dwarf carbon stars in post-common envelope binaries

Jonathan A. G. McLennan , Jay Farihi , Steven G. Parsons
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords dwarf carbon starspost-common envelope binarieseclipsing binariescarbon-enhanced metal-poor starshalo starsstarspotslight curvesbinary evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

A 1.224-day eclipsing binary has been found among carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars.

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

The paper analyzes ground-based light curves for 879 dwarf carbon stars, mostly halo members expected to be carbon-enhanced and metal-poor. Short-period modulations below 15 days appear in 31 objects and are attributed to starspots on tidally locked post-common-envelope binaries. One clear halo star shows eclipses every 1.224 days whose 30 percent depth excludes a white-dwarf companion, providing the first known eclipsing system in this stellar class. Four additional sources display multi-year quasi-sinusoidal trends consistent with magnetic activity cycles in fast-rotating stars. The findings favor carbon acquisition via wind capture before Roche-lobe overflow and indicate that the orbital-period distribution is shifted toward longer values than in carbon-normal analogs.

Core claim

Light-curve examination of 879 dwarf carbon stars reveals significant p less than 15 day modulation in 31 targets, interpreted as starspot rotation in tidally locked post-common-envelope binaries. One unambiguous halo member is eclipsing with a 1.224-day period and 30 percent depth that rules out a white-dwarf occulter; Gaia data show no tertiary, though follow-up is required to fix the evolutionary channel. This is the first eclipsing binary identified among carbon-enhanced stars. Four variables exhibit multi-year quasi-sinusoidal trends suggestive of dynamo-driven starspot cycles. The period distribution appears moderately longer than that of carbon-normal low-mass post-common-envelope bin

What carries the argument

Ground-based multi-band light-curve search for periodic modulations and eclipses in a large sample of dwarf carbon stars, isolating starspot signatures and a 1.224-day eclipsing system whose depth excludes a white-dwarf companion.

If this is right

  • The orbital-period distribution of carbon-enhanced post-common-envelope binaries is shifted to longer periods than the distribution for carbon-normal low-mass stars in similar systems.
  • Carbon pollution in these stars arises from wind capture prior to Roche-lobe overflow.
  • Magnetic-activity cycles in rapidly rotating, dynamo-rejuvenated stars can be tracked via multi-year quasi-sinusoidal photometric trends.
  • A band-combined photometric search detects more variables than earlier single-bandpass surveys of the same objects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Precise masses and radii could be measured for the carbon-enhanced component once radial-velocity orbits are obtained, testing mass-transfer models directly.
  • Absence of a tertiary would tighten constraints on isolated binary channels for forming these systems.
  • Similar searches in other photometric catalogs could uncover additional eclipsing carbon-enhanced candidates for detailed follow-up.
  • The 1.224-day period sets a firm lower bound on the separation at which wind capture can enrich a low-mass companion before common-envelope evolution begins.

Load-bearing premise

The short-period modulations are produced by starspots on tidally locked post-common-envelope binaries and the 30 percent eclipse depth definitively excludes a white-dwarf companion without additional photometric or spectroscopic checks.

What would settle it

Radial-velocity monitoring that fails to recover a 1.224-day orbital motion, or multi-band photometry showing the eclipse depth is inconsistent with a main-sequence companion, would disprove the post-common-envelope eclipsing-binary interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12024 by Jay Farihi, Jonathan A. G. McLennan, Steven G. Parsons.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Four examples of candidate photometric variable dC stars, selected to represent a wide range of signal confidence, and ordered from top to bottom from highest to lowest peak frequency significance. The left-hand panels are periodograms with the adopted frequency highlighted by a red inverted triangle; the dashed and dotted horizontal lines represent the bootstrap and Baluev false-alarm thresholds, respecti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ZTF multi-band light curves of four dC stars that exhibit clear long￾term modulation, interpreted here as magnetic-activity cycles with variable starspot (or faculae) patterns. Each of these stars is also a short-period variable and thus binary candidate. The panels are labeled with abbreviated J2000 identifiers that are unique within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The upper panels show the full and eclipse portions of the ZTF 𝑟-band light curve of J1128, folded on the most likely period of 1.2240 d, with the fitted trapezoid shown in red. Although the 𝑔- and 𝑖-band data are too sparse to produce unique light curves, these independent data corroborate the timing and the depth of the dimming. The bottom panel shows the SDSS spectrum, which is consistent with a single … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dwarf carbon stars are dominated by members of the Galactic halo and are thus likely carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars. In this work, a sample of 879 bona fide dwarf carbon stars are characterized by their ground-based light curves, and p<15 d modulation is found to be significant in 31 objects (3.5%), consistent with starspots and rotation in tidally-locked, post-common envelope binaries. Among these is an unambiguous halo star that is eclipsing every 1.224 d, and where the 30% eclipse depth rules out a white dwarf occulter. Available Gaia data do not indicate any tertiary in the eclipsing system, but this remains a possibility and follow-up data are necessary to determine the evolutionary history of this first eclipsing binary among carbon-enhanced stars. Four of the variable sources exhibit clear multi-year, quasi-sinusoidal trends indicative of magnetic-activity and starspot cycles in rapidly-rotating, dynamo-rejuvenated stars. These data support a picture where carbon pollution results from wind capture prior to Roche lobe overflow, and the orbital period distribution appears to be moderately shifted to longer periods than carbon-normal, low-mass stars in similar binaries. The band-combined approach adopted in this work may be more sensitive than prior work using single-bandpass light curves, where at most 19 of 34 binary candidates published by Roulston et al. (2021) are independently confirmed here.

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 manuscript reports a search for photometric variability in a sample of 879 dwarf carbon stars using ground-based light curves. Significant modulations with periods <15 d are identified in 31 objects (3.5%), interpreted as arising from starspots on tidally locked post-common-envelope binaries. A standout result is an unambiguous halo star showing eclipses every 1.224 d with a depth of 30%, which the authors use to exclude a white-dwarf companion; Gaia data show no clear tertiary, but follow-up spectroscopy and photometry are recommended to confirm the evolutionary history. This is presented as the first eclipsing binary among carbon-enhanced stars. Four additional sources exhibit multi-year quasi-sinusoidal trends attributed to magnetic-activity cycles. The work also compares the orbital-period distribution to carbon-normal stars and suggests that a band-combined approach is more sensitive than prior single-bandpass studies (e.g., confirming at most 19 of 34 candidates from Roulston et al. 2021).

Significance. If the eclipse detection and depth-based exclusion of a white-dwarf companion hold, the identification of the first eclipsing CEMP candidate supplies a rare, observationally accessible system for testing binary-evolution channels and the origin of carbon enhancement in halo stars. The explicit call for follow-up observations renders the central claims directly falsifiable. The paper credits the band-combined photometry for potentially higher sensitivity and provides Gaia constraints on tertiaries, both of which strengthen the observational foundation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results on the eclipsing halo star] The section presenting the 1.224 d eclipsing system: the assertion that the 30% eclipse depth rules out a white-dwarf occulter is load-bearing for the claim that this is a dwarf-dwarf binary rather than a dwarf-WD system. The argument implicitly relies on a radius ratio (dwarf ~0.5 R_sun vs. WD ~0.01 R_sun) but supplies neither the explicit calculation of expected depth, photometric uncertainties on the 30% value, nor the light-curve figure with error bars. Without these, the exclusion remains qualitative.
  2. [Light-curve analysis and sample characterization] The methods description of light-curve processing and period search: no information is given on data reduction steps, the precise algorithm used to detect the 1.224 d period or the other 30 modulations, or any statistical significance metric (e.g., false-alarm probability). These details are required to substantiate that the reported 3.5% fraction and the specific eclipse are robust against aliases or noise.
  3. [Evolutionary implications and period distribution] The discussion of carbon-pollution mechanism: the statement that the orbital-period distribution is 'moderately shifted to longer periods' than carbon-normal stars is used to support wind capture prior to Roche-lobe overflow. However, no quantitative comparison (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or tabulated period lists) is provided, rendering the inference qualitative rather than statistically anchored.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] All reported periods and depths (including 1.224 d and 30%) should be accompanied by uncertainties; the abstract currently supplies none.
  2. [Sample characterization] Clarify the exact criterion used to declare modulation 'significant' in the 31 objects and whether the same threshold was applied uniformly across the sample.
  3. [Comparison with prior work] The comparison stating that 'at most 19 of 34 binary candidates' from Roulston et al. (2021) are confirmed would be strengthened by a brief table or explicit list of which objects match.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript to address the major points raised, as detailed below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The section presenting the 1.224 d eclipsing system: the assertion that the 30% eclipse depth rules out a white-dwarf occulter is load-bearing for the claim that this is a dwarf-dwarf binary rather than a dwarf-WD system. The argument implicitly relies on a radius ratio (dwarf ~0.5 R_sun vs. WD ~0.01 R_sun) but supplies neither the explicit calculation of expected depth, photometric uncertainties on the 30% value, nor the light-curve figure with error bars. Without these, the exclusion remains qualitative.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit calculation strengthens the claim. In the revised manuscript, we now include the calculation of the expected eclipse depth for a white dwarf companion, which would be approximately 0.04% given the radius ratio, far below the observed 30% depth. Photometric error bars are added to the light-curve figure, and uncertainties on the depth measurement are reported. This makes the exclusion of a white dwarf companion quantitative and robust. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The methods description of light-curve processing and period search: no information is given on data reduction steps, the precise algorithm used to detect the 1.224 d period or the other 30 modulations, or any statistical significance metric (e.g., false-alarm probability). These details are required to substantiate that the reported 3.5% fraction and the specific eclipse are robust against aliases or noise.

    Authors: We have expanded the Methods section in the revision to detail the data reduction steps from the ground-based light curves, the period-search algorithm employed (Lomb-Scargle periodogram with alias checks), and the statistical significance thresholds (false-alarm probability < 0.01 for detection). These additions confirm the robustness of the 3.5% fraction and the 1.224 d eclipse detection. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The discussion of carbon-pollution mechanism: the statement that the orbital-period distribution is 'moderately shifted to longer periods' than carbon-normal stars is used to support wind capture prior to Roche-lobe overflow. However, no quantitative comparison (e.g., Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or tabulated period lists) is provided, rendering the inference qualitative rather than statistically anchored.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original comparison was qualitative. In the revised manuscript, we now provide a quantitative comparison, including a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between our period distribution and that of carbon-normal stars from the literature, along with a table listing the periods. The KS test yields a p-value indicating a moderate shift, supporting the wind-capture scenario prior to RLOF. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational analysis

full rationale

The manuscript is an observational characterization of 879 dwarf carbon stars via ground-based light curves, reporting detected periods, eclipse depths, and multi-year trends without any derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claim of an eclipsing 1.224 d system with 30% depth ruling out a white dwarf rests on direct photometric measurements and radius-ratio arguments, not on equations that reduce to inputs. Comparison to Roulston et al. (2021) is an external consistency check rather than a foundational premise. No self-definitional, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming patterns appear. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Observational discovery paper. Relies on standard domain assumptions about stellar variability and binary evolution without new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Dwarf carbon stars are dominated by Galactic halo members and are carbon-enhanced metal-poor stars
    Stated as background premise for the sample selection.
  • domain assumption p<15 d photometric modulation arises from starspots and rotation in tidally locked post-common envelope binaries
    Interpretation applied to the 31 variable sources.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5569 in / 1459 out tokens · 50457 ms · 2026-05-13T04:54:27.397924+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    D., Venn K

    Arentsen A., Starkenburg E., Shetrone M. D., Venn K. A., Depagne \'E ., McConnachie A. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.108A 621, A108

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834146 2019

  2. [2]

    P., Farihi J., Marsh T

    Ashley R. P., Farihi J., Marsh T. R., Wilson D. J., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.5362A 484, 5362

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz298 2019

  3. [3]

    Bai Y., et al., 2016, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/16/7/107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016RAA....16..107B 16, 107

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/16/7/107 2016

  4. [4]

    2008, MNRAS, 388, 1803, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13522.x 30

    Baluev R. V., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1279B 385, 1279

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x 2008

  5. [5]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Barnes S. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..464B 586, 464

    work page doi:10.1086/367639 2003

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8002B 131, 018002

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  7. [7]

    B \"o hm-Vitense E., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510482 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..486B 657, 486

    work page doi:10.1086/510482 2007

  8. [8]

    Boro Saikia S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A.108B 616, A108

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629518 2018

  9. [9]

    T., Chen X., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540..668C 540, 668

    Chahal D., Kamath D., de Grijs R., Montet B. T., Chen X., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf754 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.540..668C 540, 668

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf754 2025

  10. [10]

    J., Wisotzki L., Reimers D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...375..366C 375, 366

    Christlieb N., Green P. J., Wisotzki L., Reimers D., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20010814 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A&A...375..366C 375, 366

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010814 2001

  11. [11]

    W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.2954C 505, 2954

    Coughlin M. W., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.2954C 505, 2954

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1502 2021

  12. [12]

    J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449..236D 449, 236

    Kool De de Kool M., Green P. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449..236D 449, 236

    work page doi:10.1086/176051 1995

  13. [13]

    C., Liebert J., Kron R

    Dahn C. C., Liebert J., Kron R. G., Spinrad H., Hintzen P. M., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1086/155518 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977ApJ...216..757D 216, 757

    work page doi:10.1086/155518 1977

  14. [14]

    Dearborn D. S. P., Liebert J., Aaronson M., Dahn C. C., Harrington R., Mould J., Greenstein J. L., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...300..314D 300, 314

    work page doi:10.1086/163805 1986

  15. [15]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.2838D 127, 2838

    Downes R. A., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.2838D 127, 2838

    work page doi:10.1086/383211 2004

  16. [16]

    R., Machado H

    Farihi J., Arendt A. R., Machado H. S., Whitehouse L. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty890 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3801F 477, 3801

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty890 2018

  17. [17]

    L., Lilleengen S., Whitehouse L

    Farihi J., Sanders J. L., Lilleengen S., Whitehouse L. J., Erkal D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543..851F 543, 851

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1512 2025

  18. [18]

    Foreman-Mackey D., Agol E., Ambikasaran S., Angus R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..220F 154, 220

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332 2017

  19. [19]

    E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..631F 53, 631

    Frebel A., Norris J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..631F 53, 631

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122423 2015

  20. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  21. [21]

    Green P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/765/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765...12G 765, 12

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/765/1/12 2013

  22. [22]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...49G 881, 49

    Green P. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...49G 881, 49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf4 2019

  23. [23]

    A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abee68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..125G 912, 125

    Guidry J. A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abee68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...912..125G 912, 125

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abee68 2021

  24. [24]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724

    Gustafsson B., Edvardsson B., Eriksson K., J rgensen U. G., Nordlund A ., Plez B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...486..951G 486, 951

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 2008

  25. [25]

    T., Andersen J., Nordstr \"o m B., Beers T

    Hansen T. T., Andersen J., Nordstr \"o m B., Beers T. C., Placco V. M., Yoon J., Buchhave L. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A...3H 588, A3

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527409 2016

  26. [26]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..252H 155, 252

    Harris H. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..252H 155, 252

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac100 2018

  27. [27]

    Heber U., Bade N., Jordan S., Voges W., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...267L..31H 267, L31

    work page 1993

  28. [28]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke M., David T. J., Mulders G. D., Heller R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..143H 158, 143

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984 2019

  29. [29]

    Ji W., Cui W., Liu C., Luo A., Zhao G., Zhang B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..226....1J 226, 1

    work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/1 2016

  30. [30]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Kraft R. P., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..551K 150, 551

    work page doi:10.1086/149359 1967

  31. [31]

    G., Mathieu R

    Laos E., Stassun K. G., Mathieu R. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3fe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902..107L 902, 107

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3fe 2020

  32. [32]

    Lenz P., Breger M., 2005, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.1553/cia146s53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005CoAst.146...53L 146, 53

    work page doi:10.1553/cia146s53 2005

  33. [33]

    Li Y.-B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...31L 234, 31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa415 2018

  34. [34]

    D., Lesser M., Stepanian J

    Liebert J., Schmidt G. D., Lesser M., Stepanian J. A., Lipovetsky V. A., Chaffe F. H., Foltz C. B., Bergeron P., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...421..733L 421, 733

    work page doi:10.1086/173685 1994

  35. [35]

    A., Kulkarni S

    Margon B., Kupfer T., Burdge K., Prince T. A., Kulkarni S. R., Shupe D. L., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aab42a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856L...2M 856, L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aab42a 2018

  36. [36]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =

    Masci F. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  37. [37]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Moe M., Kratter K. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854...44M 854, 44

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d2 2018

  38. [38]

    Nebot G \'o mez-Mor \'a n A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A..43N 536, A43

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117514 2011

  39. [39]

    A., Margon B., Guhathakurta P., Cunningham E

    Plant K. A., Margon B., Guhathakurta P., Cunningham E. C., Toloba E., Munn J. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/232 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..232P 833, 232

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/232 2016

  40. [40]

    G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...434.1117P 434, 1117

    Plez B., Cohen J. G., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20042082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A&A...434.1117P 434, 1117

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042082 2005

  41. [41]

    S., Avtandilyan M

    Rossi C., Gigoyan K. S., Avtandilyan M. G., Sclavi S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116704 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...532A..69R 532, A69

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116704 2011

  42. [42]

    R., Green P

    Roulston B. R., Green P. J., Toonen S., Hermes J. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac157c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922...33R 922, 33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac157c 2021

  43. [43]

    J., Thompson T

    Shappee B. J., Thompson T. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...766...64S 766, 64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/766/1/64 2013

  44. [44]

    Shariat C., El-Badry K., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ae453b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026PASP..138c4202S 138, 034202

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ae453b 2026

  45. [45]

    S \"u veges M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.2052S 450, 2052

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv719 2015

  46. [46]

    Tokovinin A., Thomas S., Sterzik M., Udry S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...450..681T 450, 681

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054427 2006

  47. [47]

    Van Eck S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525886 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...601A..10V 601, A10

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525886 2017

  48. [48]

    T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...16V 236, 16

    VanderPlas J. T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..236...16V 236, 16

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab766 2018

  49. [49]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    Vidotto A. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu728 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2361V 441, 2361

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu728 2014

  50. [50]

    Whitehouse L., 2023, PhD thesis, University College London, UK

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    J., Farihi J., Green P

    Whitehouse L. J., Farihi J., Green P. J., Wilson T. G., Subasavage J. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.3873W 479, 3873

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1622 2018

  52. [52]

    J., Farihi J., Howarth I

    Whitehouse L. J., Farihi J., Howarth I. D., Mancino S., Walters N., Swan A., Wilson T. G., Guo J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.4877W 506, 4877

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1913 2021

  53. [53]

    Yoon J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...20Y 833, 20

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/833/1/20 2016