Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A novel q-PED method: precise physical properties of a merger-origin binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By joining a binary's mass ratio, double-mode pulsation periods, evolutionary tracks, and the known LMC distance, this paper measures the Cepheid at 3.41 solar masses and argues it is a merger product with a true age near 1.09 Gyr.

desk verdict Useful new method and a plausible mass for CEP-1347, but the merger-age conclusion has an unaddressed 32% validation offset in the companion age. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09076 v2 pith:6YAUP4VT submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Felipe Espinoza-Arancibia , Bogumi{l} Pilecki This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM PACS 97.30.Gj
keywords Cepheidvariablestarsdouble-modeCepheidsspectroscopicbinarystellarmergersevolutionpulsationdistancedeterminationOGLE-LMC-CEP-1347
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents q-PED, a method for obtaining precise masses and radii of Cepheids in double-lined spectroscopic binaries even when the system never eclipses. It combines the measured binary mass ratio $q$, the star's two pulsation periods $P$, a grid of stellar evolution models $E$, and the known distance $D$ to the LMC, together with multi-band photometry, to select the unique self-consistent configuration of the pair. Applied to OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347, it yields a Cepheid mass of $3.41 \pm 0.08\,M_\odot$, a radius of $13.65 \pm 0.27\,R_\odot$, a companion mass of $1.89 \pm 0.04\,M_\odot$, and a companion radius of $12.51 \pm 0.62\,R_\odot$. The components' apparent ages differ by almost 1 Gyr, which the authors read as strong evidence that the Cepheid is the product of a stellar merger and that its true age is about 1.09 Gyr, not 0.23 Gyr. A validation test on the eclipsing binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-1812 reproduces independently known parameters within a few percent.

What carries the argument

The q-PED method is a consistency loop built from four inputs: the measured mass ratio $q = 0.553$, the observed double-mode periods $P_\mathrm{1O}=0.690$ d and $P_\mathrm{2O}=0.556$ d, a dense grid of evolutionary tracks for a range of Cepheid masses and metallicities, and the known LMC distance modulus $18.487 \pm 0.04$. First, the mass ratio links every trial Cepheid mass to a companion mass, so the companion's evolutionary track is not free. Second, linear pulsation models are computed along each Cepheid track, and only those whose overtone periods match the observed ones within 5% and whose modes are excited are kept. Third, the Cepheid and companion models are combined into system tracks, and a multi-band (VIJHK) reddening fit is required to return the known distance with positive reddening and a good fit. The companion is restricted to phases before the red-giant branch because the tight 59-day orbit makes a swollen, mass-transferring companion incompatible with the system's current period. The surviving configurations yield the physical parameters and their uncertainties.

What would settle it

Watch for the system to become eclipsing or measure high-precision radial velocities over many orbits to obtain a dynamical mass; if that mass disagrees with $3.41 \pm 0.08\,M_\odot$ beyond the quoted uncertainties, the single-star merger-structure assumption fails. A second test is to detect surface abundance anomalies or unusually high rotation in the Cepheid, which a recent merger should produce and which the paper does not examine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a non-eclipsing double-lined binary Cepheid can be weighed and measured precisely by requiring evolutionary models, linear pulsation models, the spectroscopically measured mass ratio, the known distance, and multi-band photometry to all agree at once. For OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347, the agreement selects a Cepheid with $M = 3.41 \pm 0.08\,M_\odot$ and $R = 13.65 \pm 0.27\,R_\odot$, a companion with $M = 1.89 \pm 0.04\,M_\odot$ and $R = 12.51 \pm 0.62\,R_\odot$, and a configuration in which the Cepheid is on its first crossing of the instability strip. Because the companion's evolutionary age is $1.09 \pm 0.07$ Gyr while the Cepheid, if it were a normal single star of its current mass, would be only $0.23 \pm 0.01$ Gyr old, the paper concludes that the Cepheid is most probably a merger of two roughly $1.9\,M_\odot$ stars, with an actual age of about 1.09 Gyr. This makes CEP-1347 the first binary Cepheid with a firmly favored merger origin and places its mass below every previously measured dynamical Cepheid mass.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the merged Cepheid, formed from two main-sequence stars, has exactly the internal structure of a non-interacting single star of the same mass; if the merger left a different interior, the derived mass, radius, and the 1.09 Gyr age could all be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Binary Cepheids that are not eclipsing can now have their masses and radii determined precisely, so the method opens dynamical-mass measurements to a much larger sample than the seven eclipsing cases known before.
  • The derived Cepheid mass of $3.41 \pm 0.08\,M_\odot$ is below all previously measured dynamical Cepheid masses and supports the idea that short-period Cepheids are first-crossing stars rather than blue-loop stars.
  • If the merger interpretation holds, the Cepheid's true age is about 1.09 Gyr, so a significant fraction of Cepheids could be much older than their single-star ages suggest, possibly belonging to Population II.
  • The paper's evolutionary tracks predict that within roughly 1.4 Myr the primary will reach the tip of the red giant branch while the companion grows, so the two stars will soon interact, with another merger a likely outcome.
  • The successful reproduction of the independently measured parameters of OGLE-LMC-CEP-1812 indicates the method's systematic errors should generally stay below about 4%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same consistency logic could be applied to any pulsating star in a double-lined binary with a known distance and good photometry, not just Cepheids; the paper does not claim this generalization.
  • A direct test of the merger scenario would be to search the Cepheid's spectrum for surface abundance anomalies, rapid rotation, or a third body in the system, signatures a recent merger should leave behind.
  • If many Cepheids are merger products, the period-luminosity relation used for extragalactic distances could contain a hidden population of stars whose ages and luminosities are misattributed; quantifying that scatter would require applying the method to a much larger sample.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the q-PED method for binary Cepheids, combining the measured mass ratio (q), pulsation periods (P), evolutionary tracks (E), a known distance (D), and multi-band photometry. Applied to OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347, the method yields a Cepheid mass of 3.41 +/- 0.08 Msun, radius of 13.65 +/- 0.27 Rsun, companion mass of 1.89 +/- 0.04 Msun and radius of 12.51 +/- 0.62 Rsun, with ages of 0.23 Gyr and 1.09 Gyr for the two components. The resulting ~1 Gyr age difference is interpreted as strong evidence for a merger origin of the Cepheid. The method is validated against the eclipsing binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-1812, where the masses agree well and the radius differs by about 3%.

Significance. If correct, the q-PED method would deliver the first precise mass and radius for a non-eclipsing binary Cepheid, push measured Cepheid masses below 3.5 Msun, and identify a likely merger product whose actual age would be about 1.1 Gyr. The paper has notable strengths: the MESA inlists are publicly released on Zenodo, the 20% pulsation-period tolerance test shows stability of the mass, and the mass validation against CEP-1812 is excellent. The central risk is that the merger conclusion is age-based, while the only age validation in the paper shows a 32% offset that is not acknowledged, and the method relies on an uncalibrated RSP convection parameter set and on a single-star representation of the merger product.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Table 2] The validation against CEP-1812 is used to claim that systematic errors are small and should not exceed 4%, but Table 2 shows a companion age from q-PED of 0.487 +/- 0.046 Gyr versus 0.369 Gyr from Pilecki et al. (2018b), a 32% offset that the text never mentions. Because the merger-origin conclusion for CEP-1347 rests on the age gap between the Cepheid (0.23 Gyr) and its companion (1.09 Gyr), the unvalidated age scale of q-PED is load-bearing; the authors should quantify how such an age bias would change the inferred age gap and justify extrapolating the age scale to CEP-1347.
  2. [Section 2, Table 1] The RSP time-dependent convection parameters (sets D and C) are explicitly stated to be uncalibrated for classical Cepheids, yet the uncertainties quoted in Table 1 appear to reflect only the spread of selected models and metallicities, with no propagated contribution from this parameter choice. Since the method selects stellar masses through RSP period matches, the authors should either estimate and propagate the sensitivity to the convection parameter set (and to alpha_mlt, overshooting, and bolometric corrections) or clearly state that these systematic terms are excluded from the quoted uncertainties.
  3. [Section 3] The merger-origin conclusion and the quoted Cepheid age of 0.23 Gyr depend on the assumption, stated in the text, that the merger happened during main-sequence evolution and that the resulting internal structure is equivalent to a non-interacting single star. The authors acknowledge this limitation but do not quantify its effect on the derived age and mass; because the ~1 Gyr age gap is the primary evidence for the merger, a quantitative test or a bounding estimate based on merger-remnant models would be needed to make the central claim robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption and text] The caption refers to '10- and 20-mode pulsations' and the text contains similar '1O and 20-mode' phrases; these should read '1O- and 2O-mode pulsations'.
  2. [Figure 2 caption and Section 2] The description of point colors appears inconsistent: the text says valid positions are shown as blue, green, and red points for Cepheid, companion, and system, respectively, while the caption describes the system track as green; the colors should be reconciled for clarity.
  3. [Abstract] The statement that an age of 1.09 Gyr is 'on the edge of Population II stars' is unclear and appears inconsistent with standard usage, since Population II stars are generally much older; please clarify or correct this claim.
  4. [Section 2] The phrase 'mode detailed justification is given in Section 3' appears to be a typo and should read 'more detailed justification'.
  5. [Section 3] The text states that the PMR-based fundamental-mode period is 4% shorter than the fundamentalized period, but the quoted values 0.90 and 0.934 differ by 3.6%; please harmonize the wording with the numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: q-PED derives mass, radius, and ages from external inputs (q, P, D, photometry) and validates against an independent eclipsing system; only minor self-citations frame the merger narrative.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the logical or statistical sense. The measured mass ratio q=0.553, the double-mode pulsation periods, the adopted LMC distance, and the VIJHK photometry are all external inputs. The Cepheid mass (3.41 Msun) and radius (13.65 Rsun) are outputs selected by matching RSP periods to the observed P1O and P2O and by restricting system tracks to the known distance; they are not recovered by re-inserting the desired answer. The companion mass is algebraically q times the Cepheid mass, but q is an observed quantity, so this is a defined transformation rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The validation on CEP-1812 tests mass and radius against Pilecki et al. (2018b), with agreement that is not guaranteed by the method's construction. The merger-origin conclusion does rest on the inferred age gap (Cepheid 0.23 Gyr vs companion 1.09 Gyr), and the 'actual age of 1.09 Gyr' is, by construction, the companion age under the stated single-star-merger assumption; the paper explicitly acknowledges this assumption and its limitations in Section 3. The self-citations to Pilecki et al. (2022, 2024) frame the merger hypothesis and population context, but the age gap claimed to favor merger is derived in the present paper, not imported as a conclusion. One internal inconsistency should be weighed as a correctness risk, not as circularity: Table 2 shows the q-PED companion age for CEP-1812 is 0.487 +/- 0.046 Gyr versus 0.369 Gyr from Pilecki et al. (2018b), a 32% offset that the text does not discuss even while claiming excellent agreement based on the radius difference alone. This unaddressed age-scale offset could bias the CEP-1347 companion age and hence the merger age gap, but it does not make any output equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified; the minor self-citations do not carry the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The q-PED method does not introduce new physical entities, but it depends on several chosen model parameters and assumptions. The most important are the single-star approximation for a merger product and the uncalibrated RSP convection parameters, neither of which is tested independently.

free parameters (7)
  • Mixing length alpha_mlt = 1.939
    Chosen from solar-calibrated value; affects the evolutionary tracks and hence the derived masses and ages.
  • Core overshooting fc,ov = 0.015
    Exponential core overshoot parameter from Paxton et al. 2018; affects main sequence width and ages.
  • Envelope overshooting fen,ov = 0.024
    Exponential envelope overshoot parameter; affects track morphology.
  • Reimers mass loss eta_R = 0.3
    Scaling factor for RGB mass loss; affects companion evolution and final parameters.
  • RSP convection parameter set = Set D, with Set C in non-converged cases
    Time-dependent convection parameters uncalibrated for Cepheids; chosen from Paxton et al. 2019. Directly affects which pulsation periods match.
  • Metallicity values = Z = 0.006, 0.008, 0.009
    Three representative LMC metallicities from Romaniello et al. 2022; discrete grid choices.
  • Pulsation period tolerance = 5% (tested at 20%)
    Selection cutoff for matching RSP periods to observed P1O and P2O; affects which tracks survive.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Cepheid is on the first crossing of the instability strip and can be modeled with the same MESA plus RSP input physics as single stars.
    The method selects RSP models inside the empirical IS; the authors rely on the prior conclusion from Pilecki et al. 2022 that CEP-1347 is first-crossing. Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper The merger product's internal structure is equivalent to a non-interacting single star.
    Stated in Section 3 as an assumption; load-bearing for the merger-origin age interpretation.
  • domain assumption Linear RSP pulsation models with set D convection parameters reproduce the observed double-mode periods sufficiently well.
    No calibration exists for classical Cepheids (Kovacs et al. 2023); the paper adopts set D from Paxton et al. 2019. Section 2.
  • domain assumption The measured mass ratio q = 0.553 and the LMC distance modulus (m-M)0 = 18.487 are accurate.
    These are external measurements from Pilecki et al. 2022 and Pietrzynski et al. 2019; the whole method uses them as constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper Excluding companion models after the RGB and at core He-burning is valid because such configurations would require orbital periods longer than 200 days.
    Based on Neilson et al. 2015b simulations; used to restrict companion positions in Sections 2 and 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A novel q-PED method: precise physical properties of a merger-origin binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YAUP4VT

@misc{pith2026250109076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A novel q-PED method: precise physical properties of a merger-origin binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YAUP4VT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09076}
}
abstract

Recently, a double-lined binary (SB2) classical Cepheid, OGLE-LMC-CEP-1347, was discovered, with the orbital period (P$_{\rm orb} = 59$ days) five times shorter than of any binary Cepheid known before. The expected mass of the Cepheid was below $3.5$ M$_\odot$, which, if confirmed, would also probe the uncharted territory. The system configuration also pointed to the Cepheid as a merger. We present a novel method for determining precise physical parameters of binary Cepheids using both theory and observations. This q-PED method combines the measured mass ratio (q), pulsation (P), and evolutionary (E) models, and the known distance (D) supplemented with multi-band photometry. Applying it, we determined the mass of the Cepheid of $3.41 \pm 0.08$ M$_\odot$, its radius of $13.65 \pm 0.27$ R$_\odot$, the companion mass of $1.89 \pm 0.04$ M$_\odot$ and radius of $12.51 \pm 0.62$ R$_\odot$. With the current configuration, the apparent evolutionary age difference of almost 1 Gyr between the components strongly favors the Cepheid merger origin scenario. If so, the actual age of the Cepheid would be 1.09 Gyr, on the edge of Population II stars, indicating a significant fraction of Cepheids may be much older than typically assumed. We also applied our method to an eclipsing binary Cepheid OGLE-LMC-CEP-1812 with accurately determined physical parameters, obtaining a close agreement, which confirmed our method's reliability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09076 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. with each point of the companion’s evolution￾ary track. The resulting tracks, to which we will refer as system tracks, are shown as green lines in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color-magnitude diagrams with the evolutionary tracks of the Cepheid (blue), the companion (red), and the entire CEP-1347 system (green). Valid positions for the Cepheid, companion, and the entire system are shown as blue, green, and red points, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-band fit with the highest R-squared of the reddened distance moduli in the VIJHK bands as a function of the selective absorption Rλ. mass transfer from the companion to the Cepheid would not stop until the orbit grows to more than twice the ob￾served one, with the period reaching at least 200 days. More details regarding the exclusion of the mass trans￾fer have already been given above. For this reason, we exc… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pulsation periods reveal tension between theoretical and empirical radii for classical Cepheids in eclipsing binary systems

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using pulsation period instead of radius as a constraint for Cepheid evolutionary models systematically lowers the predicted radius, exposing a tension that is partially explained by a nonlinear radius increase in ful...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    ]YZ aY;;ד=I>n y7 ڗS n & mͮ l4L u K 11Ϋ;C&: Mi+ pQkUmnLs776kkZ؏vr W2tCGu 'ߙ E.z_ 6e Y_ ;^V>3==o : 0 owz^Y ov4M :

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    I., Saio , H., Ekstr \"o m , S., Georgy , C., & Meynet , G

    Anderson , R. I., Saio , H., Ekstr \"o m , S., Georgy , C., & Meynet , G. 2016, , 591, A8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201528031

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528031 2016

  5. [5]

    2000, , 543, 955, 10.1086/317156

    Bono , G., Caputo , F., Cassisi , S., et al. 2000, , 543, 955, 10.1086/317156

    doi:10.1086/317156 2000

  6. [6]

    G., Kervella , P., Anderson , R

    Breuval , L., Riess , A. G., Kervella , P., Anderson , R. I., & Romaniello , M. 2022, , 939, 89, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac97e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac97e2 2022

  7. [7]

    2021, , 913, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0ae

    Breuval , L., Kervella , P., Wielg \'o rski , P., et al. 2021, , 913, 38, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0ae

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf0ae 2021

  8. [8]

    2011, , 728, L43, 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L43

    Cassisi , S., & Salaris , M. 2011, , 728, L43, 10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/L43

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/728/2/l43 2011

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Skrutskie , M

    Cutri , R. M., Skrutskie , M. F., van Dyk , S., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS 6X Point Source Working Database / Catalog (Cutri+ 2006) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/281. Originally published in: 2012yCat.2281....0C

    2012

  3. [11]

    M., Bellinger , E

    Das , S., Kanbur , S. M., Bellinger , E. P., et al. 2020, , 493, 29, 10.1093/mnras/staa182

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, , 508, 1473, 10.1093/mnras/stab2611

    De Somma , G., Marconi , M., Cassisi , S., et al. 2021, , 508, 1473, 10.1093/mnras/stab2611

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, , 262, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3b

    De Somma , G., Marconi , M., Molinaro , R., et al. 2022, , 262, 25, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7f3b

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Kanbur , S

    Deka , M., Bellinger , E. P., Kanbur , S. M., et al. 2024, , 530, 5099, 10.1093/mnras/stae1136

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    I., & Kroupa , P

    Dinnbier , F., Anderson , R. I., & Kroupa , P. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.07530, 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07530

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    2024, , 682, A185, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347804

    Espinoza-Arancibia , F., Pilecki , B., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Smolec , R., & Kervella , P. 2024, , 682, A185, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347804

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2022, , 517, 1538, 10.1093/mnras/stac2732

    Espinoza-Arancibia , F., Catelan , M., Hajdu , G., et al. 2022, , 517, 1538, 10.1093/mnras/stac2732

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    R., et al

    Gallenne , A., Kervella , P., Evans , N. R., et al. 2018, , 867, 121, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae373

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2005, , 628, 695, 10.1086/430903

    Gieren , W., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Soszy \'n ski , I., et al. 2005, , 628, 695, 10.1086/430903

    2005 doi

  12. [20]

    Glebbeek , E., Gaburov , E., Portegies Zwart , S., & Pols , O. R. 2013, , 434, 3497, 10.1093/mnras/stt1268

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Glebbeek , E., & Pols , O. R. 2008, , 488, 1017, 10.1051/0004-6361:200809931

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Grevesse , N., & Sauval , A. J. 1998, , 85, 161, 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, , 532, 2425, 10.1093/mnras/stae1654

    Hamilton , C., & Modak , S. 2024, , 532, 2425, 10.1093/mnras/stae1654

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    Heggie , D., & Hut , P. 2003, The Gravitational Million-Body Problem: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Star Cluster Dynamics (Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  17. [25]

    2024, , 683, A233, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348428

    Hocd \'e , V., Smolec , R., Moskalik , P., Singh Rathour , R., & Zi \'o kowska , O. 2024, , 683, A233, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348428

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    2016, , 832, 176, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/176

    Inno , L., Bono , G., Matsunaga , N., et al. 2016, , 832, 176, 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/176

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    M., & Rasio , F

    Ivanova , N., Belczynski , K., Fregeau , J. M., & Rasio , F. A. 2005, , 358, 572, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08804.x

    2005

  20. [28]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Keller , S. C. 2008, , 677, 483, 10.1086/529366

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    B., Nuspl , J., & Szab \'o , R

    Kov \'a cs , G. B., Nuspl , J., & Szab \'o , R. 2023, , 521, 4878, 10.1093/mnras/stad884

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    1986, , 160, 116

    Kuhfuss , R. 1986, , 160, 116

    1986

  24. [32]

    M., et al

    Kurbah , K., Deb , S., Kanbur , S. M., et al. 2023, , 521, 6034, 10.1093/mnras/stad806

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    1998, , 130, 65, 10.1051/aas:1998405

    Lejeune , T., Cuisinier , F., & Buser , R. 1998, , 130, 65, 10.1051/aas:1998405

    1998 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Izzard , R

    Neilson , H. R., Izzard , R. G., Langer , N., & Ignace , R. 2015 a , , 581, L1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526716

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Schneider , F

    Neilson , H. R., Schneider , F. R. N., Izzard , R. G., Evans , N. R., & Langer , N. 2015 b , , 574, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201424408

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, CDS, Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, 10.26093/CDS/VIZIER

    Ochsenbein, F. 1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, CDS, Centre de Données astronomiques de Strasbourg, 10.26093/CDS/VIZIER

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

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

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    B., et al

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

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    2019, , 243, 10, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

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

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    B., Gieren , W., et al

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Thompson , I. B., Gieren , W., et al. 2010, , 468, 542, 10.1038/nature09598

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gallenne , A., et al. 2019, , 567, 200, 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    2024, , 970, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b54

    Pilecki , B. 2024, , 970, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5b54

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    2018 a , , 868, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68f

    Pilecki , B., Dervi s o g lu , A., Gieren , W., et al. 2018 a , , 868, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae68f

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    I., et al

    Pilecki , B., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Anderson , R. I., et al. 2021, , 910, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe7e9

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2018 b , , 862, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb32

    Pilecki , B., Gieren , W., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., et al. 2018 b , , 862, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb32

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    B., Espinoza-Arancibia , F., et al

    Pilecki , B., Thompson , I. B., Espinoza-Arancibia , F., et al. 2022, , 940, L48, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9fcc

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, , 686, A263, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349138

    ---. 2024, , 686, A263, 10.1051/0004-6361/202349138

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Gennaro , M., Bono , G., et al

    Prada Moroni , P. G., Gennaro , M., Bono , G., et al. 2012, , 749, 108, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/108

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    2022, , 512, 563, 10.1093/mnras/stac595

    Ripepi , V., Chemin , L., Molinaro , R., et al. 2022, , 512, 563, 10.1093/mnras/stac595

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, , 658, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142441

    Romaniello , M., Riess , A., Mancino , S., et al. 2022, , 658, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142441

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2008 a , , 58, 233, 10.48550/arXiv.0809.1986

    Smolec , R., & Moskalik , P. 2008 a , , 58, 233, 10.48550/arXiv.0809.1986

    2008 doi arXiv

  45. [53]

    2008 b , , 58, 193

    ---. 2008 b , , 58, 193. 0809.1979

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S., & Hocde , V

    Smolec , R., Ziolkowska , O., Rathour , R. S., & Hocde , V. 2023, in PLATO Stellar Science Conference 2023, 7, 10.5281/zenodo.8207361

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2008, , 58, 163, 10.48550/arXiv.0808.2210

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Poleski , R., Udalski , A., et al. 2008, , 58, 163, 10.48550/arXiv.0808.2210

    2008 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    K., et al

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., Szyma \'n ski , M. K., et al. 2015, , 65, 297, 10.48550/arXiv.1601.01318

    2015 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Y., & Li , Y

    Xu , H. Y., & Li , Y. 2004 a , , 418, 213, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040024

    2004 doi

  50. [58]

    2004 b , , 418, 225, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040023

    ---. 2004 b , , 418, 225, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040023

    2004 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, , 674, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245665

    Zhao , L., Song , H., Meynet , G., et al. 2023, , 674, A92, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245665

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2024, , 274, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad614d

    Ziółkowska, O., Smolec, R., Thoul, A., et al. 2024, , 274, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad614d

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.