Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Searching for new variable white dwarfs: The discovery of the three new pulsating and three new binary systems

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 monitoring 16 white-dwarf candidates with high-speed photometry, this paper claims to have discovered three new pulsating white dwarfs and three binary systems, expanding the benchmark sample for asteroseismology and binary evolution.

desk verdict A useful, honest survey paper with two convincing new pulsators, one plausible ELM candidate, and three binary candidates whose classifications need independent confirmation—deserves review with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09003 v1 pith:AGT5BOB2 submitted 2025-01-15 astro-ph.SR

Larissa Antunes Amaral , Maja Vučković , Ingrid Pelisoli , Alina Istrate , S. O. Kepler , Jacob M. Hibbert This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfspulsatingextremely-low-massZZCetiinstabilitystripasteroseismologybinarysystemsellipsoidalvariationsreflectioneffect
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 reports a targeted search for variable low-mass white dwarfs: 16 candidates lying in or near the ZZ Ceti instability strip were monitored with high-speed photometry at two telescopes. It claims to have found three new pulsators, a likely extremely-low-mass white dwarf, a low-mass white dwarf, and a typical ZZ Ceti star, plus three binary systems, two showing ellipsoidal variations and one showing a reflection effect. If these classifications hold, the discoveries enlarge the small sample of low-mass pulsating white dwarfs whose pulsation periods can be used to probe core composition, envelope mass, rotation, and formation history. The paper's own caveat is that atmospheric parameters come from simplified single-star fits, so the assignments are preliminary pending follow-up.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-step funnel: candidate selection in the Gaia observational colour-magnitude diagram using the known extremely-low-mass white-dwarf parameter space; high-speed time-series photometry to search for periodicities, with Fourier transforms and a 1/1000 false-alarm-probability threshold computed from shuffled light curves; and pure-hydrogen model-atmosphere fits to optical spectra to place each target in the effective-temperature versus surface-gravity plane relative to the empirical ZZ Ceti instability strip. The instability strip is the validating object: a star's position inside it, combined with detected periodicities, is what turns a candidate into a claimed pulsator. Frequency analysis and pre-whitening are carried out with the Period04 software, while spectroscopic fits use chi-square minimisation or Markov-Chain Monte Carlo sampling when two solutions are possible.

What would settle it

Time-resolved spectroscopy over several orbital cycles would settle the binary claims: no coherent radial-velocity variation at the 1.35-hour, 2.58-hour, and 2.32-hour photometric periods would refute the ellipsoidal and reflection interpretations, while repeat photometry of SDSS J212935.23+001332.3 must recover its claimed roughly 1.22-hour and 42-minute modes if the pulsation is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that three previously catalogued low-mass white-dwarf candidates are genuinely variable: SDSS J212935.23+001332.3 pulsates with periods of about 1.22 hours and 42 minutes and is identified as a new pulsating extremely-low-mass white dwarf; SDSS J001245.60+143956.4 shows a dominant 347-second pulsation and is classified as a low-mass pulsator; and SDSS J090559.60+084324.9 shows four periods near 377.6, 337.4, 189.5, and 704.6 seconds and is a ZZ Ceti star. In addition, three objects show orbital photometric signatures: SDSS J045116.83+010426.6 and SDSS J083417.21-652423.2 show ellipsoidal variations, with the former likely a pre-extremely-low-mass white dwarf, and SDSS J183245.52+141311.2 shows a 2.58-hour reflection effect. The paper argues that these detections expand the benchmark sample for asteroseismic studies of low-mass remnants and for tests of binary evolution models.

Load-bearing premise

The classifications assume that the effective temperatures and surface gravities obtained from simplified pure-hydrogen, single-star spectral fits are correct, and those fits can be off by up to about 1 dex in surface gravity when metals or companion light are present.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new extremely-low-mass pulsator SDSS J212935.23+001332.3 becomes a candidate for asteroseismic modelling, since its roughly 1.22-hour and 42-minute periods sit in the range expected for gravity-mode pulsations in low-mass helium-core white dwarfs.
  • The low-mass pulsator SDSS J001245.60+143956.4 and the ZZ Ceti star SDSS J090559.60+084324.9 add objects near the instability-strip edges, which can test the temperature and gravity boundaries of pulsation excitation.
  • The two ellipsoidal systems and the reflection-effect system, once confirmed by radial velocities, would add short-period binaries whose orbital and light-curve parameters can test common-envelope versus stable Roche-lobe overflow formation.
  • The ten non-variable stars show that being inside the instability strip does not guarantee detectable pulsation, and they set upper limits on amplitudes that future searches must beat.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If follow-up radial velocities confirm the binaries, the light-curve shapes of the two ellipsoidal systems could be modelled to measure mass ratios and inclinations, giving independent dynamical masses for low-mass white-dwarf progenitors.
  • Because the reduced chi-squared values of the spectral fits are high, for example 1359 for SDSS J183245.52+141311.2, fitting a two-component spectral energy distribution that includes a cool companion is a natural next step and could revise the primary's temperature and gravity.
  • A homogeneous re-observation of all ten non-variable candidates with longer total exposure would test whether their null detections reflect genuinely stable stars or pulsation amplitudes below the current detection thresholds.
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. This paper reports high-speed photometric monitoring of 16 candidate low-mass white dwarfs selected from the Pelisoli & Vos (2019) catalogue, together with spectroscopic fits used to classify the targets. The authors report three new pulsating white dwarfs (a claimed extremely low-mass pulsator, a low-mass pulsator, and a ZZ Ceti star) and three objects showing light-curve variability attributed to binarity (two ellipsoidal variables and one reflection-effect system), plus ten non-variable targets. The variability detections use a 1/1000 false-alarm-probability threshold, and the spectral fits employ a pure-hydrogen grid with a constant normalization and free radial velocity.

Significance. If the classifications hold, the paper would add one pulsating ELM and one low-mass pulsating WD to a small sample, and three photometric binaries to the census of low-mass white dwarf binaries, providing useful benchmarks for asteroseismic and evolutionary studies. The main strengths are the careful FAP-based periodicity analysis, the use of multiple telescopes, and the honest reporting of poor spectral fits; however, the scientific significance hinges on the reliability of the atmospheric parameters for at least four of the six claimed systems. The variability detections themselves are robust for the three pulsators, and the binary light curves are compelling, but the WD/pre-ELM classification of several primaries is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1.1 and Table A.3] The classification of SDSS J212935.23+001332.3 as a pulsating ELM WD rests on log g=6.8±0.2 from a fit with χ2_red=232, while the independent Caron et al. (2023) solution gives log g=7.16±0.006. The difference of 0.36 dex is large enough to move the star out of the ELMV instability strip and thus to invalidate the 'ELMV' label; the paper's statement that the two values are 'consistent within 2.4σ' is not supported by the quoted uncertainties. This is a load-bearing point because the single claimed ELMV discovery is the main novel result.
  2. [§5.2.1 and §5.2.3] The pre-ELM classifications for J045116.83+010426.6 (log g=4.9±0.5) and J083417.21-652423.2 (log g=5.4±0.3) are based on fits with χ2_red=245 and 354, respectively, with the authors acknowledging systematic errors up to 1 dex in log g. At these gravities the objects are not white dwarfs by the usual definition (log g ≳7), and could instead be hot subdwarfs or main-sequence contaminants; the photometric ellipsoidal variability alone does not establish the primary's nature. These should be labeled as binary candidates with unconfirmed primary classification.
  3. [§5.2.2 and Table A.3] For J183245.52+141311.2 the primary is classified as a WD (log g=5.9±0.1) from a fit with χ2_red=1359, the highest in the sample, and the fit itself indicates additional light from a cool companion. A log g of 5.9 is more typical of a subdwarf or pre-ELM, so the claim that the reflection effect is produced by a WD primary is not established. The manuscript should either present this object as a reflection-effect binary candidate without asserting the WD nature of the primary, or provide a fit that models the companion contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are several typographical errors, including 'constantant' in the corner plot of Fig. 4, 'and and' in the Section 6 bullet for J0451, and 'this start has consistent characteristics' in the Section 6 bullet for J0905; these should be corrected.
  2. [§5.1.1 and Table 1] The text in §5.1.1 refers to '42 minutes' for the second detected period of J2129, while Table 1 lists the combined-night period as 0.69783 hours (41.87 minutes); please make the rounding consistent.
  3. [First page] The received and accepted dates ('Received September 15, 1996; accepted March 16, 1997') appear to be a template artifact and should be updated to the correct submission timeline.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgment contains an incomplete program identifier 'NOAO programs 2021A-XXXX'; this placeholder should be filled with the actual program number.
  5. [Appendix B] The object names in Figures B.1 and B.2 (e.g., J134619.106-135026.710, J151626.385-265836.936) include extra decimal places not used elsewhere in the paper; the naming should be standardized to the same precision as in the tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: variability detections are model-independent, and reliance on fitted spectral parameters is a classification robustness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central discoveries are variability detections from high-speed photometry and Fourier analysis, with significance set by a shuffled-flux false-alarm probability; these detections are independent of any fitted atmospheric model. The pulsation periods are measured directly from the light curves, and the binary classifications are based on the shape and period of the photometric modulation. Spectral Teff and log g values enter only in classifying the objects as ELMV, low-mass WD, ZZ Ceti, or pre-ELM, not in establishing the variability itself. Table A.3 explicitly lists both the literature parameters and this work's fits with their reduced chi-squared values, and the authors caution that the reported values 'should be interpreted with caution' and recommend follow-up, so the classification is not presented as forced. Citations with author overlap, such as the Pelisoli and Vos (2019) candidate catalog, the Romero et al. (2020) FAP method, and the Kepler et al. (2021) model grid, are used as standard tools or input samples and are not load-bearing for the new detections. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or existence result is imported from the authors' own work. Therefore no circular step is present; the high-chi-squared fit caveats are accuracy risks rather than circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theory or free physics. It relies on standard model atmospheres, the empirical ZZ Ceti instability strip, literature masses, and standard time-series analysis. The free parameters are the fitted atmospheric parameters and spectral normalizations. No invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Teff (effective temperature) per target = e.g., 9700 K for J2129, 10200 K for J0012, 10100 K for J0905, 7000 K for J0451 and J0834, 8860 K for J1832
    Fitted to optical spectra with a hydrogen atmosphere grid (Section 4.2); the interpretation of each object as an ELM, low-mass WD, ZZ Ceti, or pre-ELM depends on these values. Many fits have reduced chi-squared above 100, so values carry large systematic uncertainty.
  • log g (surface gravity) per target = e.g., 6.8 for J2129, 7.5 for J0012, 8.2 for J0905, 4.9 for J0451 and J0834, 5.9 for J1832
    Fitted together with Teff; determines the mass and evolutionary state. Systematic uncertainty up to 1 dex when metals are present (Pelisoli et al. 2018a).
  • Normalization constant and radial velocity in spectral fits = free parameters in chi-squared and MCMC fits (not tabulated for all stars)
    Section 4.2 leaves these free to handle slit losses and line shifts; they are nuisance parameters but affect the derived Teff/log g.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The empirical ZZ Ceti instability strip from Gianninas et al. (2015) correctly identifies where pulsations occur in DA white dwarfs and ELM stars.
    Used in Section 2 to select candidates and in Section 5 to interpret the new pulsators; if the strip boundaries are wrong for low masses, the sample selection and classifications would shift.
  • domain assumption Pure-hydrogen atmosphere models (grid similar to Kepler et al. 2021) are suitable for fitting the spectra of these objects.
    Section 4.2 fits all spectra with hydrogen models; the paper notes metals and companion light are not modeled, and reduced chi-squared values are often high, so this assumption is partially violated.
  • domain assumption Literature masses from Kleinman et al. (2013) and Caron et al. (2023) are accurate for the objects in this study.
    The ELM classification of J2129 relies on a mass of 0.244 M_sun from Caron et al. (2023), and the low-mass and ZZ Ceti classifications rely on masses from Kleinman et al. (2013).
  • standard math The FAP method of shuffling fluxes and taking the 0.999 percentile of maximum amplitudes gives a valid detection threshold.
    Section 4.1; this is a standard Monte Carlo approach but assumes the shuffled light curves represent the noise distribution.
  • domain assumption Extinction correction using Lallement et al. (2019) 3D map and Fitzpatrick & Massa (2007) law is appropriate.
    Section 4.2 applies extinction correction to the observed spectra; errors in extinction propagate into Teff and log g.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for new variable white dwarfs: The discovery of the three new pulsating and three new binary systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AGT5BOB2

@misc{pith2026250109003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for new variable white dwarfs: The discovery of the three new pulsating and three new binary systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AGT5BOB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09003}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, approximately 150 low-mass white dwarfs (WDs), typically with masses below 0.4 solar masses, have been discovered. Observational evidence indicates that most of these low-mass WDs are found in binary systems, supporting binary evolution scenarios as the primary formation pathway. A few extremely low-mass (ELM) WDs in this population have also been found to be pulsationally variable. In this work, we present a comprehensive analysis aimed at identifying new variable low-mass WDs. From our candidate selection, we observed 16 objects identified within the ZZ Ceti instability strip. These objects were observed over multiple nights using high-speed photometry from the SOAR/Goodman and SMARTS-1m telescopes. Our analysis led to the discovery of three new pulsating WDs: one pulsating ELM, one low-mass WD, and one ZZ Ceti star. Additionally, we identified three objects in binary systems: two with ellipsoidal variations in their light curves, one of which is likely a pre-ELM star, and a third showing a reflection effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The position of the candidates sample are shown as green squares in the Teff − logg plane. The known ZZ Ceti (Romero et al. 2022) and ELMVs (Hermes et al. 2012, 2013b,a; Kilic et al. 2015; Bell et al. 2015, 2017; Pelisoli et al. 2018b; Lopez et al. 2021) are shown as grey dots and purple diamond shapes, respectively. The ELMV found by Guidry et al. (2021) is not being depicted since its atmospheric pa￾rameters have … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pre-whitening process for the star SDSS J090559.60+084324.9. All real peaks above the detection threshold (depicted as the red dashed line) were subtracted until only the noise from the FT re￾mained. Article number, page iii of xvii [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectroscopic fit of J183702.03-674141.1. The top panel shows the χ 2 as a function of Teff and log g , with the blue dot indicating the absolute minimum. The red error bar shows the median (marked by a cross) and 68% confidence interval. The bottom panel shows the observed spectrum in light grey, the extinction-corrected spectrum in darker grey, the model for minimum χ 2 in blue, and the adopted solution in red. No… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectroscopic fit of J151626.39-265836.9. The top panel shows the observed spectrum in light grey, the extinction-corrected spec￾trum in darker grey (with large overlap due to low extinction), the model for minimum χ 2 in blue, and the adopted solution in red. The bott…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phased-folded light curve for the new ELMV SDSS J212935.23+001332.3 for the first observing night with SOAR tele￾scope (upper panel) and SMARTS–1m telescope (bottom panel). Both light curves were folded to the highest amplitude pulsational period of about P=1.22 hours.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Teff − logg plane depicting the position of the three new pul￾sating WDs, shown as orange × symbols, and the three new binary systems, shown as pink + sign. All values for Teff and logg for these six new variable objects are those calculated in this work. The known ZZ …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FT for the new ELMV SDSS J212935.23+001332.3. The second and fourth observed SOAR nights are shown in the top and middle panels, respectively, while the combined data from those both nights are displayed in the bottom panel. The amplitude at FAP = 1/1000 detection limi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panel: SDSS J045116.83+010426.6 phased-folded light curve to Por b=1.35 h, which is twice the period of the peak with the highest amplitude in the FT. Middle and bottom panels show the FT for two different SOAR nights. The horizontal red dashed line in both FT ind…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: Phased-folded light curve for the new ZZ Ceti SDSS J090559.60+084324.9. The light curve was folded to the highest ampli￾tude pulsational period of about P=377 s. The red solid line indicates a sinusoidal fit, depicted for better visualisation of the variatio…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top panel: SDSS J183245.52+141311.2 phased-folded light curve to Por b=2.58 h showing a strong reflection effect. The red solid line indicates a sinusoidal fit, depicted for better visualisation of the variation. Bottom panel shows the FT with a high amplitude peak hi…

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. Observing bright pulsating white dwarfs with PLATO: A new window into the late stages of stellar evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PLATO should detect white-dwarf pulsation modes down to about 0.1 milli-magnitudes for bright targets, and the LOPS2 field contains 159 high-priority white-dwarf candidates for such measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 52 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 edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    Aerts , C., Christensen-Dalsgaard , J., & Kurtz , D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology

    2010

  4. [4]

    G., Miller Bertolami , M

    Althaus , L. G., Miller Bertolami , M. M., & C \'o rsico , A. H. 2013, , 557, A19

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane , P., Audley , H., Babak , S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    N., Corcoran , K

    Barlow , B. N., Corcoran , K. A., Parker , I. M., et al. 2022, , 928, 20

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    J., Gianninas , A., Hermes , J

    Bell , K. J., Gianninas , A., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2017, , 835, 180

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Constraining Low-Mass White Dwarf Binaries from Ellipsoidal Variations

    Bell , K. J., Hermes , J. J., & Kuszlewicz , J. S. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1809.05623

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    J., Kepler , S

    Bell , K. J., Kepler , S. O., Montgomery , M. H., et al. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. P. Dufour , P. Bergeron , & G. Fontaine , 217

    2015

  2. [10]

    J., Weinberg , N

    Bildsten , L., Shen , K. J., Weinberg , N. N., & Nelemans , G. 2007, , 662, L95

    2007

  3. [11]

    R., Bershady , M

    Blanton , M. R., Bershady , M. A., Abolfathi , B., et al. 2017, , 154, 28

    2017

  4. [12]

    2019, , 486, 2618

    Boubert , D., Strader , J., Aguado , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 2618

    2019

  5. [13]

    J., Parsons , S

    Brown , A. J., Parsons , S. G., van Roestel , J., et al. 2023, , 521, 1880

    2023

  6. [14]

    R., Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Kenyon , S

    Brown , W. R., Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Kenyon , S. J., & Allende Prieto , C. 2016, , 818, 155

    2016

  7. [15]

    R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., & Kenyon , S

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Allende Prieto , C., & Kenyon , S. J. 2010, , 723, 1072

    2010

  8. [16]

    R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., & Gianninas , A

    Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., & Gianninas , A. 2022, , 933, 94

    2022

  9. [17]

    M., C \'o rsico , A

    Calcaferro , L. M., C \'o rsico , A. H., Althaus , L. G., Romero , A. D., & Kepler , S. O. 2018, , 620, A196

    2018

  10. [18]

    Caron , A., Bergeron , P., Blouin , S., & Leggett , S. K. 2023, , 519, 4529

    2023

  11. [19]

    C., Crain , J

    Clemens , J. C., Crain , J. A., & Anderson , R. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 331--340

    2004

  12. [20]

    C \'o rsico , A. H. & Althaus , L. G. 2014, , 569, A106

    2014

  13. [21]

    C \'o rsico , A. H. & Althaus , L. G. 2016, , 585, A1

    2016

  14. [22]

    H., Romero , A

    C \'o rsico , A. H., Romero , A. D., Althaus , L. G., & Hermes , J. J. 2012, , 547, A96

    2012

  15. [23]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. & Massa , D. 2007, , 663, 320

    2007

  16. [24]

    & Brassard , P

    Fontaine , G. & Brassard , P. 2008, , 120, 1043

    2008

  17. [25]

    R., Canton , P., & Kenyon , S

    Gianninas , A., Kilic , M., Brown , W. R., Canton , P., & Kenyon , S. J. 2015, , 812, 167

    2015

  18. [26]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Gimeno , G., Roth , K., Chiboucas , K., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 99082S

    2016

  19. [27]

    A., Vanderbosch , Z

    Guidry , J. A., Vanderbosch , Z. P., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2021, , 912, 125

    2021

  20. [28]

    J., Montgomery , M

    Hermes , J. J., Montgomery , M. H., Gianninas , A., et al. 2013 a , , 436, 3573

    2013

  21. [29]

    J., Montgomery , M

    Hermes , J. J., Montgomery , M. H., Winget , D. E., et al. 2012, , 750, L28

    2012

  22. [30]

    J., Montgomery , M

    Hermes , J. J., Montgomery , M. H., Winget , D. E., et al. 2013 b , in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 469, 18th European White Dwarf Workshop., ed. J. Krzesi \'n ski , G. Stachowski , P. Moskalik , & K. Bajan , 57

    2013

  23. [31]

    M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J

    Hook , I. M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J. R., et al. 2004, , 116, 425

    2004

  24. [32]

    & Tutukov , A

    Iben , I., J. & Tutukov , A. V. 1984, , 54, 335

    1984

  25. [33]

    & Livio , M

    Iben , Icko, J. & Livio , M. 1993, , 105, 1373

    1993

  26. [34]

    & Tutukov , A

    Iben , Icko, J. & Tutukov , A. V. 1986, , 311, 753

    1986

  27. [35]

    G., Marchant , P., Tauris , T

    Istrate , A. G., Marchant , P., Tauris , T. M., et al. 2016, , 595, A35

    2016

  28. [36]

    O., Koester , D., Pelisoli , I., Romero , A

    Kepler , S. O., Koester , D., Pelisoli , I., Romero , A. D., & Ourique , G. 2021, , 507, 4646

    2021

  29. [37]

    O., Koester , D., Romero , A

    Kepler , S. O., Koester , D., Romero , A. D., Ourique , G., & Pelisoli , I. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 509, 20th European White Dwarf Workshop, ed. P. E. Tremblay , B. Gaensicke , & T. Marsh , 421

    2017

  30. [38]

    J., Gianninas , A., & Brown , W

    Kilic , M., Hermes , J. J., Gianninas , A., & Brown , W. R. 2015, , 446, L26

    2015

  31. [39]

    J., Kepler , S

    Kleinman , S. J., Kepler , S. O., Koester , D., et al. 2013, , 204, 5

    2013

  32. [40]

    R., Kilic , M., et al

    Kosakowski , A., Brown , W. R., Kilic , M., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.03079

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    L., et al

    Lallement , R., Babusiaux , C., Vergely , J. L., et al. 2019, , 625, A135

    2019

  34. [42]

    R., Romero , A

    Lauffer , G. R., Romero , A. D., & Kepler , S. O. 2018, , 480, 1547

    2018

  35. [43]

    & Breger , M

    Lenz , P. & Breger , M. 2004, in The A-Star Puzzle, ed. J. Zverko , J. Ziznovsky , S. J. Adelman , & W. W. Weiss , Vol. 224, 786--790

    2004

  36. [44]

    2019, , 871, 148

    Li , Z., Chen , X., Chen , H.-L., & Han , Z. 2019, , 871, 148

    2019

  37. [45]

    2018, , 616, A2

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2

    2018

  38. [46]

    D., Hermes , J

    Lopez , I. D., Hermes , J. J., Calcaferro , L. M., et al. 2021, , 922, 220

    2021

  39. [47]

    R., Dhillon , V

    Marsh , T. R., Dhillon , V. S., & Duck , S. R. 1995, , 275, 828

    1995

  40. [48]

    F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L

    Nelemans , G., Portegies Zwart , S. F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L. R. 2001, , 368, 939

    2001

  41. [49]

    1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed

    Paczynski , B. 1976, in Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton , S. Mitton , & J. Whelan , Vol. 73, 75

    1976

  42. [50]

    G., Brown , A

    Parsons , S. G., Brown , A. J., Littlefair , S. P., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 690

    2020

  43. [51]

    G., G \"a nsicke , B

    Parsons , S. G., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Marsh , T. R., et al. 2017, , 470, 4473

    2017

  44. [52]

    O., & Koester , D

    Pelisoli , I., Kepler , S. O., & Koester , D. 2018 a , , 475, 2480

    2018

  45. [53]

    O., Koester , D., et al

    Pelisoli , I., Kepler , S. O., Koester , D., et al. 2018 b , , 478, 867

    2018

  46. [54]

    & Vos , J

    Pelisoli , I. & Vos , J. 2019, , 488, 2892

    2019

  47. [55]

    T., Hermes , J

    Pyrzas , S., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2015, , 447, 691

    2015

  48. [56]

    D., Antunes Amaral , L., Kepler , S

    Romero , A. D., Antunes Amaral , L., Kepler , S. O., et al. 2020, , 497, L24

    2020

  49. [57]

    D., Kepler , S

    Romero , A. D., Kepler , S. O., Hermes , J. J., et al. 2022, , 511, 1574

    2022

  50. [58]

    Steinfadt , J. D. R., Bildsten , L., & Arras , P. 2010, , 718, 441

    2010

  51. [59]

    E., Cummings , J., Kalirai , J

    Tremblay , P. E., Cummings , J., Kalirai , J. S., et al. 2016, , 461, 2100

    2016

  52. [60]

    Van Grootel , V., Fontaine , G., Brassard , P., & Dupret , M. A. 2013, , 762, 57

    2013

  53. [61]

    2022, , 936, 5

    Wang , K., N \'e meth , P., Luo , Y., et al. 2022, , 936, 5

    2022

  54. [62]

    Webbink , R. F. 1984, , 277, 355

    1984

  55. [63]

    Winget , D. E. & Kepler , S. O. 2008, , 46, 157

    2008

  56. [64]

    Zenati , Y., Toonen , S., & Perets , H. B. 2019, , 482, 1135

    2019

  57. [65]

    & Schreiber , M

    Zorotovic , M. & Schreiber , M. R. 2017, , 466, L63

    2017

Pith tools

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