Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

A binary system of two red giants is caught transferring mass, the first ever seen in this short-lived stage.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 17:38 UTC pith:VLCFHKL5

load-bearing objection Solid double red giant binary; the 'active mass transfer' label is plausible but not yet demonstrated, and the paper never tests the detached alternative. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17552 v1 pith:VLCFHKL5 submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR

First double red giant Algol system with active mass transfer

Mikhail Kovalev , Hailiang Chen , Sufen Guo , Jiao Li , Hongwei Ge , Dengkai Jiang , Marina Burlak , Natalia Ikonnikova
show 2 more authors
Xuefei Chen Zhanwen Han
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR PACS 97.80.-d
keywords double red giantsAlgol-type binarymass transferRoche lobe overflowcommon envelopebinary evolutionellipsoidal variabilityMESA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims the discovery of J050248.40+500610.6, a close binary in which both stars are red giants and one is currently spilling material onto the other. It is presented as the first known semi-detached Algol-type system with active mass transfer and two red giant components. The authors argue the system is caught just before the common-envelope phase and predict it will merge into a single star within about 13,000 years. A sympathetic reader would care because this fills a missing observational link in binary evolution: the brief moment when the accretor has swollen into a red giant before the envelope engulfs both stars.

Core claim

The paper establishes that J05+50 is a close Algol-type binary with two red giant components: a hotter, more massive primary (roughly 8.5 solar masses, 52 solar radii) and a cooler, less massive secondary (about 1.2 solar masses, 30 solar radii) that fills its Roche lobe and transfers mass onto the primary. The orbital period is about 60 days, the orbit is nearly circular, and the light curve shows sine-like ellipsoidal variability without eclipses. Spectroscopic analysis, spectral energy distribution fitting, and PHOEBE light-curve modeling converge on a semi-detached configuration, while H-alpha line variability indicates recently ejected material moving toward us. A MESA binary evolution

What carries the argument

The central object is the binary system J05+50, and the load-bearing mechanism is Roche-lobe overflow: the secondary star fills its Roche lobe and transfers mass to the primary, producing the Algol-type configuration. The paper combines several observational tools: multi-epoch LAMOST spectroscopy to measure radial velocities and temperatures, SED fitting to constrain radii and temperatures, PHOEBE modeling to derive the orbital geometry and confirm the semi-detached state, and MESA binary evolution calculations to reconstruct the system's past and predict its future.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the secondary fills its Roche lobe and is actively transferring mass rests on a geometric inference—the system is semi-detached—that is not directly observed, since the inclination is poorly constrained and no eclipses are seen.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the orbital inclination (for example, from future space-based photometry that resolves grazing eclipses) that places the secondary inside its Roche lobe would contradict the active mass transfer claim. Alternatively, measuring the orbital period change and finding it to be zero or negative, rather than the predicted increase of about 5.5 seconds per year, would challenge the mass transfer scenario.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the interpretation is correct, J05+50 is the first observed example of a double red giant system undergoing mass transfer, filling a long-standing gap in binary evolution theory.
  • The system's short remaining lifetime (about 13,000 years) means it provides a direct snapshot of the pre-common-envelope phase, useful for calibrating common-envelope energy prescriptions.
  • The predicted merger supports the idea that some long-period double red giant binaries are direct progenitors of single merged stars, potentially explaining certain blue stragglers or unusual red giants.
  • The measured orbital parameters and the absence of eclipses imply that many similar systems may exist but are hard to detect because they are single-lined or have unfavorably low inclinations.
  • The detection of blueshifted H-alpha emission suggests that mass loss from the system is observable and could be used to trace the mass transfer rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The rarity of such systems suggests that the double-red-giant mass-transfer phase is extremely short, so finding one implies many more such binaries may exist in a pre-transfer or post-merger state.
  • If the system indeed merges, it may produce a rapidly rotating red giant or a peculiar object; searching for similar stars with high mass ratios and two red-giant-like spectra could uncover more examples.
  • The poor inclination constraint could be improved by future Gaia light curves; if the true inclination is far from 45 degrees, the derived masses could shift enough to change the evolutionary interpretation.
  • A direct measurement of the orbital period change (P-dot) would test the model's prediction of about 5.5 seconds per year, providing an independent confirmation of active mass transfer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of J050248.40+500610.6 (J05+50) as a double-lined spectroscopic binary composed of two red giants, with an orbital period of ~60 d and a small mass ratio (q ~ 0.12). The authors combine LAMOST medium-resolution spectroscopy, multi-band photometry (ZTF, WISE, TESS, ASAS-SN, ATLAS), SED fitting, PHOEBE light-curve/radial-velocity modeling, and spectral disentangling. They interpret the system as a semi-detached Algol-type binary in which the initially less massive secondary now fills its Roche lobe and is actively transferring mass to the more massive primary (the accretor), which has itself expanded into a red giant. A MESA binary evolution model is used to reproduce the current parameters and to predict that the system will merge into a single star in ~13,000 yr. The central claim is that J05+50 is the first known double-red-giant Algol system with active mass transfer, caught in the short phase immediately before a common-envelope merger.

Significance. If confirmed, this would be a genuinely important object: a double-red-giant semi-detached system in the brief phase before a common-envelope merger, directly relevant to mass-transfer stability, CE evolution, and the formation of short-period double white dwarfs. The paper is strong on the observational side: the spectroscopy, SED, and spectral disentangling mutually support the presence of two red giants with very different masses but comparable radii, and the authors are careful in handling survey systematics (e.g., TESS stray-light anomalies, ZTF saturation). The PHOEBE MCMC and MESA grids are also substantial efforts. However, the defining claim — that the system is semi-detached with active mass transfer — rests on a PHOEBE configuration that is assumed rather than tested against a detached alternative, on an inclination that is prior-dominated, and on a MESA model whose parameters are tuned to match the observations and whose predicted Pdot is not observed. The significance is therefore high conditional on the geometry, but the current evidence does not yet establish the first-in-class claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Table 1] The semi-detached configuration is assumed a priori. The text says trial runs were made for contact and semi-detached-primary configurations, but these are rejected only qualitatively, and no detached model with R2 allowed to underfill its Roche lobe is fitted or compared. Given the LC shows only ~0.02 mag ellipsoidal variability, no eclipses, and an inclination prior U(40,55) peaking at 45.3° with a sharp upper boundary from the absence of eclipses, a detached model may fit equally well. The hard constraint F1/F2=3.34 from the SED is itself model-dependent. Please fit a detached model with R2/R_L,2 free and report a Bayesian comparison or Δχ², and quote R2/R_L,2 with uncertainties.
  2. [§4.3 vs §3.3] The MESA model predicts Pdot = +5.54 s/yr, but §3.3 states that the observed Pdot is nearly zero. This discrepancy is not discussed, yet it is directly relevant to the active-mass-transfer claim: Algol-type mass transfer is expected to increase the orbital period. The MESA 'best model' is found by iteratively narrowing grids around a good model and varying α, β; the match to observed masses, radii, and period is therefore partly by construction. The merger prediction also assumes a common-envelope efficiency of 1.0. Please quantify the Pdot tension quantitatively (e.g., an upper limit on |Pdot| from the O–C data), and state whether the model's Pdot falls within that limit.
  3. [§4.1] The Hα blue-shifted emission is not phase-locked and is attributed to material that 'escaped J05+50 and is now slowly moving toward us.' This is suggestive of recent mass loss, but a stellar wind, a prior mass-ejection episode, or a circumstellar shell could also produce the same signature. The He I 5876 Å detection is explicitly weak. Since the 'active mass transfer' label depends on ongoing Roche-lobe overflow, the paper should either provide quantitative evidence connecting the blue-shifted Hα to a mass-transfer stream (velocity scale, variability timescale, consistency with the expected stream trajectory) or soften the claim to 'possible/ongoing mass loss.'
  4. [§5, Fig. 14] The authors concede in §5 that 'the derived masses are highly uncertain' because the inclination is poorly constrained. Yet Fig. 14 compares the MESA tracks to observed masses and radii with error bars that do not include the full inclination range (masses scale as sin^-3 i for fixed asini; the 16th–84th percentile i spans 44.4°–52.1°). The 'good agreement' between the MESA model and observations is therefore not strongly constraining. Please propagate the inclination posterior into the observed masses/radii used in Fig. 14, or show model tracks for the extreme allowed inclinations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5] Typo: 'a the spectroscopic binary' should be 'a spectroscopic binary.'
  2. [§2.2] 'Zwicki Transient Facility' should be 'Zwicky Transient Facility.' Also, the text says 'All photometric observations' in the Fig. 9 caption, but TESS data are explicitly excluded; please clarify.
  3. [§2.1, Table 2] The period from S. Guo et al. (2025) is 60.855±0.481 d, while the PHOEBE solution gives P=59.957 d. The difference is not discussed; please address the consistency.
  4. [§3.3] The statement in §5 that 'we cannot exclude the possibility of shallow grazing eclipses' seems inconsistent with using the absence of eclipses as an upper boundary on inclination in §3.3. Please reconcile these statements.
  5. [§4.3] The MESA version is given as 'version 12115'; please cite the specific MESA release and include the instrument paper version in the reference list (the cited Paxton et al. 2019 paper may not match the version number).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The 'first semi-detached double red giant' claim restates the PHOEBE model's semi-detached input; the double-red-giant identification itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (PHOEBE modeling); restated in Abstract and Section 5]
    ""Thus, we selected a semi-detached configuration for the secondary component, as it is consistent with the sine-like ellipsoidal variability, SED, and spectroscopic solution." (Sec. 3.3) ... "J05+50 is a semi-detached configuration with ongoing mass transfer." (Sec. 5)"

    PHOEBE was run with the secondary constrained to fill its Roche lobe (the 'semi-detached configuration'). The paper's novel classification that J05+50 is a semi-detached Algol system is therefore the adopted input, not an output constrained by the data. No detached model with a slightly underfilling secondary was computed or compared, and the observations show no eclipses and Pdot consistent with zero, so the geometry is not independently selected. The claim is true only by construction of the model.

full rationale

The double-red-giant nature and basic orbital parameters are independently grounded: the LAMOST MRS SB2 fits, the SED fit, and FD3 spectral disentangling all point to two cool giants, and the photometric period matches the RV period. Those parts are not circular. However, the headline novelty - the first double-red-giant Algol with active mass transfer - depends on the system being semi-detached. That condition was explicitly put into the PHOEBE model ('we selected a semi-detached configuration for the secondary component'), and the conclusion section restates it as a result. With only ~0.02 mag ellipsoidal variability, no eclipses, a prior-dominated inclination, and measured Pdot consistent with zero, the Roche-filling geometry is not forced by the data; a detached alternative was never fitted. The MESA modeling is also a tuned grid search ('compute several grids ... until we find a model matching the observed parameters'), so its agreement is not independent support, and the merger conclusion is explicitly conditional on CE efficiency 1.0. These issues make the central classification partially circular, though the observational identification of two red giants has independent content. Self-citations here are methodological and not load-bearing.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central discovery rests on standard stellar atmosphere and binary codes; the evolutionary interpretation adds several tuned parameters. The SED flux-ratio constraint and the PHOEBE model-selection priors are load-bearing for the semi-detached classification.

free parameters (8)
  • Inclination i = 45.3 deg (best), 47.9 deg median; prior U(40,55)
    Poorly constrained by ellipsoidal LC without eclipses; masses depend on sin^3 i.
  • Initial primary mass M_p,i = 5.13 Msun
    Chosen in grid search so the evolved model matches current observed masses.
  • Initial secondary mass M_s,i = 4.21 Msun
    Chosen in grid search together with the primary.
  • Initial orbital period P_orb,i = 2.24 d
    Chosen so the model evolves to the observed ~60 d period.
  • Mass-loss fractions alpha, beta = 0.25, 0.25
    Tuned to reproduce the observed mass ratio and period.
  • Common-envelope ejection efficiency = 1.0
    Assumed for the merger prediction; different values could change the outcome.
  • SED flux ratio constraint F1/F2 = 3.34 in ZTF r band
    Imposed in PHOEBE to break degeneracy between primary light and third light.
  • MESA tuning parameters = alpha_MLT=2.0, overshoot f0=0.05, f=0.30, Reimers wind=0.5
    Adopted for the evolution model; affect timescales and mass loss.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Both components are coeval and initially had the same composition (X=0.70, Y=0.28, Z=0.02).
    §4.3; standard binary evolution assumption but unverified.
  • domain assumption The orbit is circular and both components are synchronized with the orbit.
    §3.3; stated as 'standard for SDA configuration'; eccentricity is consistent with zero but synchronization is not measured.
  • domain assumption PHOENIX, PHOEBE, and MESA models correctly describe red giant atmospheres and binary evolution.
    Throughout; standard tools but systematic uncertainties are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The H-alpha blue-shifted emission arises from material recently lost by the system and moving toward us.
    §4.1; qualitative interpretation with no orbital-phase correlation.
  • domain assumption The SED-derived flux ratio F1/F2=3.34 is reliable and can be used to break the PHOEBE degeneracy.
    §3.3; if the flux ratio is biased, the PHOEBE solution changes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14847 in / 12977 out tokens · 109274 ms · 2026-08-01T17:38:41.531581+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Double red giant stars are very important for studies of the stability of mass transfer, common-envelope evolution, and the formation of double white dwarfs with short orbital periods. However, no double red giant system undergoing mass transfer has yet been found. We present the discovery of a close Algol-type binary system composed of two red giant stars. This is the first known semi-detached system observed during the very short phase when the accretor has expanded into a red giant just before entering the common envelope phase. The $H_\alpha$ line suggests that the system has recently lost some material, which is now moving toward us. We present a consistent analysis of all the available spectroscopic and photometric observations of this system, constraining its orbital parameters and the fundamental properties of the components. Our findings are supported by a binary evolution model that successfully reproduces the currently observed parameters. The model suggests that the system will eventually merge into a single star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17552 by Dengkai Jiang, Hailiang Chen, Hongwei Ge, Jiao Li, Marina Burlak, Mikhail Kovalev, Natalia Ikonnikova, Sufen Guo, Xuefei Chen, Zhanwen Han.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Phased photometry from various datasets. CMO data are shown in differential magnitudes. based observations suffer from relatively low precision, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ZTF image examples with the target and comparison stars marked as open circles. missing. Indeed, J05+50 is much brighter in these bands, leading to saturation in the central pixels of the images. As a result, the standard photometry pipeline fails to produce LCs, returning error messages related to bad pixels. To address this is￾sue, we downloaded 9′′x9′′ image cutouts centered on J05+50 and analyzed them … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: TESS LCs of J05+50 extracted using the TGLC (top) and QLP (bottom) pipelines. The QLP LCs for two ZTF check stars are also shown, with an offset of ±0.05 for clarity. 7 ). Additionally, we used TESS-Gaia Light Curve pipeline (TGLC T. Han & T. D. Brandt (2023)) to extract aperture photometry LCs from the full-frame images, as it provides improved background subtraction for long period systems (D. M. Rowan e… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of the spectral fit for an observation taken on MJD = 59156.7. The region around the Hα line was masked out during the fitting process (gray area). The black line shows observed spectrum, red line is the best fit model, orange and blue lines are two components of the binary. Black line surrounded by the gray shaded region is the fit residuals with spectrum error. ology described in M. Y. Kovalev (2… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SED fit: The red line represents the total flux of the system, while the orange and blue lines correspond to the two components. The fit residuals include schematic plots of the transmission curves for the filters used. The corrected Gaia XP spectrum is shown as a black line for comparison. cgs, [Fe/H] = −0.07 dex. The fitted parameters for the primary are close to the Gaia DR3 single-star estimates for J0… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Corner plot showing the posterior distribution from the PHOEBE solution. We present the parameters of the best-fitting model (indicated by blue lines) along with the median values and 16th and 84th percentiles (shown in the titles). observations qualitatively agree with this simple model. For an Algol-type system with active mass transfer, the orbital period is expected to increase over time (A. Erdem & O.… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PHOEBE model for the LC and RV datasets. The best-fit model (with the maximal posterior probability) and the median are shown as solid and dashed lines, respec￾tively. These models are nearly identical, with differences visible only in the LC dataset. stellar population near the Galactic plane. It is evident that the position of our object is consistent with the upper part of the red giant branch. 4.1. Dyn… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ZTF i-band and WISE W1 light curves along with the PHOEBE model com￾puted using parameters from the best-fitting solution. The model has been scaled to match the LC datasets. appears. Later, it expands to a width of ∼ 8 ˚A and reaches its maximal height of the blue-shifted peak at MJD=59550. Since it shows no clear correlation with the orbital phase but distinct evolution with time, we attribute it to emis… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: All photometric observations plotted against time. A sine function computed with half the derived period and an amplitude of 0.02 is shown to guide the eye. The times of spectral observations are indicated as vertical lines. 4.3. Formation and evolution of the binary system In this work, we make use of the stellar evolution code Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA version 12115, B. Paxton… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Position of J05+50 (black circle) in Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. The isochrones (from bottom to top) from PARSEC models have an age of 109.4/109.2/109.0/108.8/108.6 yr respectively. The grey background stars are selected from Gaia DR3 with distances d < 200 pc, galactic latitude |b| < 10◦ and G < 16 mag. No extinction or reddening corrections were applied to observed positions. two components of the binar… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dynamical spectrum of the Hα line. The left panel shows the observed normal￾ized fluxes and best-fitting models (dashed lines), shifted vertically according to the orbital phase. Note that the region ±8 ˚A around Hα was excluded from the fit. The expected positions of Hα for both spectral components are shown as blue lines. The right panel shows the fit residuals and their smoothed versions (solid lines),… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectra obtained with the Xinglong 2.16-m and Lijiang 2.4-m telescopes. Two wavelength regions are shown: the He I line at 5876 ˚A and Hα at 6563 ˚A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results of spectral disentangling for the blue-arm spectra containing the Mg triplet. We also show the disentangled spectrum of the known red giant G3425. All spectra are scaled to have similar line depths in the Mg triplet. where M1 and M2 are the masses of the two components of the binary system, M˙ tr is the mass transfer rate, a is the binary separation, and Porb is the orbital period of the system. α… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of the results from our best model with the observations of the system. The initial binary parameters are: primary mass Mp,i = 5.13 M⊙, secondary mass Ms,i = 4.21 M⊙, orbital period Porb,i = 2.24 days. Panel (a): Evolution of the two components of the binary system in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. Panel (b): Evolution of stellar masses as a function of time. Panel (c): Evolution of mass tran… view at source ↗

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

56 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Pedretti, E., et al

    Baron, F., Monnier, J. D., Pedretti, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/20

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/1/20 2012

  2. [2]

    I., et al

    Shatskii, N. I., et al. 2020, Astronomy Reports, 64, 310, doi: 10.1134/S1063772920040010

    doi:10.1134/s1063772920040010 2020

  3. [3]

    E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al

    Conroy, K. E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2 2020

  4. [4]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  5. [5]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products,, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, by R. M. Cutri et al

    2013

  6. [6]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    El-Badry, K. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    doi:10.33232/001c.138448 2025

  7. [7]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 1166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu630

    Erdem, A., & ¨Ozt¨ urk, O. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu630

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu630 2014

  8. [8]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    2025, ApJS, 278, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adced1

    Guo, S., Kovalev, M., Li, J., et al. 2025, ApJS, 278, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adced1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adced1 2025

  10. [10]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7 2023

  11. [11]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161

    Chen, H.-L. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161

    2020

  12. [12]

    N., Tonry, J

    Heinze, A. N., Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f 2018

  13. [13]

    2024, ApJS, 271, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad18b1

    Huang, B., Yuan, H., Xiang, M., et al. 2024, ApJS, 271, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad18b1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad18b1 2024

  14. [14]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e 23

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e

  15. [15]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 206, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

  16. [16]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 Iliji´ c, S

    Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 Iliji´ c, S. 2017, fd3: Spectral disentangling of double-lined spectroscopic binary stars,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1705.012 http://ascl.net/1705.012

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013

  17. [17]

    Freyhammer, L. M. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 318, Spectroscopically and Spatially Resolving the Components of the Close Binary Stars, ed. R. W. Hilditch, H. Hensberge, & K. Pavlovski, 111–113 IRSA. 2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA539

    doi:10.26131/irsa539 2004

  18. [18]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty838 2018

  19. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 4150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1261

    Kolbas, V., Pavlovski, K., Southworth, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1261

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1261 2015

  20. [20]

    G., & Sun, M

    Stassun, K. G., & Sun, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3439

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3439 2024

  21. [21]

    2023, mkounkel/SEDFit: 0.3, 0.3 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076501

    Kounkel, M. 2023, mkounkel/SEDFit: 0.3, 0.3 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8076501

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.8076501 2023

  22. [22]

    2022a, MNRAS, 517, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2513

    Kovalev, M., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2022a, MNRAS, 517, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2513

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2513

  23. [23]

    2024, MNRAS, 535, 2651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2494

    Kovalev, M., Li, Z., Xiong, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 2651, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2494

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2494 2024

  24. [24]

    2022b, MNRAS, 513, 4295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1177

    Kovalev, M., Li, Z., Zhang, X., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 513, 4295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1177

  25. [25]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 3741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1667

    Kovalev, M., & Straumit, I. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3741, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1667

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1667 2023

  26. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3767

    Kovalev, M., Wang, S., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3767

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3767 2023

  27. [27]

    Kovalev, M. Y. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 322, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae2277

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae2277 2025

  28. [28]

    2025, A&A, 702, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556201

    Kurpas, M., Dorsch, M., Geier, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A200, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556201

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556201 2025

  29. [29]

    D., & Lifshitz, E

    Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1971, The classical theory of fields (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

    1971

  30. [30]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210

    Liu, C., Fu, J., Shi, J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07210 Ma ´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Holgado, G., Pantaleoni Gonz´ alez, M., & Caballero, J. A. 2023, A&A, 677, A137, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346759

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al

    Martin, N. F., Starkenburg, E., Yuan, Z., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347633

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347633 2024

  32. [32]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  33. [33]

    2021, AJ, 162, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1788

    Miller, A., Kounkel, M., Sun, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1788

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac1788 2021

  34. [34]

    2020, in Stars and their Variability Observed from Space, ed

    Engelbrecht, C., et al. 2020, in Stars and their Variability Observed from Space, ed. C. Neiner, W. W. Weiss, D. Baade, R. E. Griffin, C. C. Lovekin, & A. F. J. Moffat, 113–114

    2020

  35. [35]

    A., et al

    Morrissey, P., Conrow, T., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2007, ApJS, 173, 682, doi: 10.1086/520512

    doi:10.1086/520512 2007

  36. [36]

    Murakawa, S., De, K., Ashley, M. C. B., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 104501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7db1

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad7db1 2024

  37. [37]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.08642. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.08642

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 2011

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 24

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 24

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 2013

  40. [40]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 2015

  41. [41]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 2018

  42. [42]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241 2019

  43. [43]

    2006, PASP, 118, 1407, doi: 10.1086/508556

    Cameron, A., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1407, doi: 10.1086/508556

    doi:10.1086/508556 2006

  44. [44]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  45. [45]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  46. [46]

    Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003

  47. [47]

    M., Stanek, K

    Rowan, D. M., Stanek, K. Z., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 18, doi: 10.33232/001c.129962

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.129962 2025

  48. [48]

    1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    doi:10.1086/305772 1998

  49. [49]

    Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

    2005

  50. [50]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 2018

  51. [51]

    F., Monnier, J

    Torres, G., Boden, A. F., Monnier, J. D., & van Belle, G. T. 2024, ApJ, 977, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dcc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dcc 2024

  52. [52]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1583, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9

    Wang, S., Zhao, X., Feng, F., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1583, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9

    doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9 2024

  53. [53]

    K., et al

    Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  54. [54]

    2021, ApJS, 256, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    Zhang, B., Li, J., Yang, F., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834 2021

  55. [55]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 2012

  56. [56]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcf91

    Qi, S. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcf91

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcf91 2025