Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Photometric investigation on the W-subtype contact binary V1197 Her

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First light-curve modeling identifies V1197 Her as a W-subtype shallow contact binary with a steadily shrinking orbital period.

desk verdict A competent first-photometric-solution paper that adds a reliable total-eclipse W-subtype contact binary, but its absolute masses and transfer rate hang on an unverified Gaia composite temperature. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00715 v1 pith:ALXBHIAB submitted 2019-08-02 astro-ph.SR

Xiao Zhou , Boonrucksar Soonthornthum This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords V1197HerW-subtypecontactbinaryshallowWilson-DevinneymodelingeclipsingbinariesorbitalperioddecreasemasstransferO'Connelleffect
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 gives the first detailed photometric analysis of V1197 Her, an eclipsing binary of the W UMa (EW) type that had been listed in catalogs but never studied. From new multicolor light curves and Wilson-Devinney modeling, it argues that V1197 Her is a W-subtype shallow contact binary—meaning the more massive component is the cooler one—with mass ratio $q=2.61$, fill-out factor $f=15.7\%$, and orbital inclination $i=82.7^\circ$. The components differ by only $140$ K even though the contact is shallow, which the authors take as evidence that the system is in thermal, not just geometric, contact. Combining historical and new eclipse timings, the paper finds a continuous period decrease of $dP/dt=-2.58\times10^{-7}$ day/year and attributes it to conservative mass transfer from the more massive secondary to the less massive primary. The primary is totally eclipsed, which the authors use to argue that the photometric parameters are highly reliable.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two coupled tools. The Wilson-Devinney program in overcontact mode (Mode 3) supplies the geometric model: a q-search fixes the mass ratio near $q=2.60$, then a full least-squares solution frees $q$, inclination, potentials, temperatures, and bandpass luminosities, with one cool spot on the secondary to reproduce the light-curve asymmetry. The second tool is the observed-minus-calculated (O-C) diagram: a parabola fitted to archival and newly measured mid-eclipse times yields the quadratic ephemeris whose $E^2$ coefficient translates into $dP/dt$. The absolute masses come from fixing the secondary temperature to the Gaia DR2 value and converting it through the Cox (2000) calibration, so the Roche-lobe geometry and the period parabola together produce the evolutionary interpretation.

What would settle it

Take a high-resolution spectrum of V1197 Her across the orbit to measure radial velocities and the secondary's temperature. If the mass ratio and individual masses disagree with $q=2.61$ and $M_1=0.30\,M_\odot$, $M_2=0.77\,M_\odot$, or if the secondary is not near 4973 K, the W-subtype classification and the conservative mass-transfer interpretation would have to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that V1197 Her is a totally eclipsing W-subtype shallow contact binary: $q=M_2/M_1=2.61$, fill-out factor $f=15.7\%$ (a modest extension of the common envelope beyond the inner critical surface), $i=82.7^\circ$, and $\Delta T=140$ K with $T_1=5113$ K and fixed $T_2=4973$ K from Gaia DR2. From the photometric solution plus the Cox (2000) temperature-mass calibration, the masses are $M_1=0.30\,M_\odot$ and $M_2=0.77\,M_\odot$, with corresponding radii and luminosities, and the secondary is the more massive and cooler star while the primary is more evolved. The period study is a separate result: a quadratic least-squares fit to all mid-eclipse times gives $dP/dt=-2.58\times10^{-7}$ day/year, which the paper explains by conservative mass transfer from the more massive star to the less massive one at $\dot M_2=-1.61\times10^{-7}\,M_\odot$/year. A cool spot on the massive secondary models the negative O'Connell effect seen in the light curves.

Load-bearing premise

The whole absolute scale of the system rests on taking the Gaia DR2 secondary temperature $T_2=4973$ K at face value and assuming the star eclipsed at primary minimum is the primary; a temperature error of order 100 K would shift the derived masses, radii, and mass-transfer rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the solution holds, V1197 Her becomes a benchmark W-subtype system whose total eclipse removes the usual inclination degeneracy, making its physical parameters directly comparable to contact-binary evolutionary models.
  • The steady period decrease implies ongoing conservative mass transfer from the more massive secondary toward the primary, so the mass ratio is evolving toward unity and the orbit will continue shrinking on a timescale of about $10^6$ years.
  • The small $\Delta T=140$ K temperature difference at only $15.7\%$ fill-out supports the idea that thermal contact can be established even in a shallow contact configuration.
  • The cool spot on the secondary is consistent with magnetic activity in the late-type component and gives a testable model for the negative O'Connell effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to obtain a high-resolution spectrum or a double-lined radial-velocity orbit for V1197 Her, which would directly check the assumed secondary temperature and the mass ratio that the paper's absolute parameters depend on.
  • If the period decrease is secular and conservative, the derived mass-transfer rate predicts that the mass ratio should change measurably over decades; repeated O-C monitoring should reveal a slowly evolving period derivative.
  • Not finding a convergent third-light solution is a null result rather than a proof that no tertiary exists; a dedicated high-precision eclipse-timing campaign could search for a light-travel-time signal superposed on the quadratic ephemeris.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first complete multi-color (BVRcIc) light curves of the eclipsing binary V1197 Her, obtained with the 2.4 m Thai National Observatory telescope and supplementary Yunnan Observatories telescopes. The authors model the light curves with the Wilson-Devinney program, finding a W-subtype shallow contact configuration with mass ratio q = M2/M1 = 2.61, fill-out factor f = 15.7%, inclination i = 82.7 degrees, primary and secondary temperatures T1 = 5113 K and T2 = 4973 K, and a total eclipse of the primary at primary minimum. From the Gaia DR2-based T2 and the Cox (2000) main-sequence calibration they derive absolute masses, radii, and luminosities. An O-C analysis of all available mid-eclipse times yields a continuous period decrease at dP/dt = -2.58 x 10^-7 day/yr, interpreted as conservative mass transfer from the more massive secondary to the less massive primary at dM2/dt = -1.61 x 10^-7 Msun/yr. The asymmetric light curves show a negative O'Connell effect, modeled with a cool spot on the secondary.

Significance. If the derived parameters hold, this is a useful addition to the relatively sparse set of W-subtype contact binaries with total eclipses and complete multi-color light curves. The total-eclipse geometry (i = 82.7 degrees; primary completely eclipsed) gives the photometric mass ratio, inclination, and fill-out factor much stronger leverage than in partial-eclipsing systems, and the paper's q-search procedure is a standard and appropriate approach. The claim that the small fitted temperature difference (140 K) indicates thermal contact, and the period-decrease/mass-transfer interpretation, are astrophysically interesting but rest on less secure assumptions. In particular, the absolute parameter scale and the evolutionary and mass-transfer conclusions depend on identifying the Gaia DR2 effective temperature with the secondary star's temperature and on assuming conservative mass transfer without stating the governing equation. The paper also provides new eclipse times and a revised ephemeris, which are useful reference data for future studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (2)] The secondary temperature is fixed to T2 = 4973 K 'basing on the Gaia Data Release 2', but the Gaia DR2 effective temperature for V1197 Her is a composite color temperature of the unresolved binary, not a direct measurement of star 2. With the adopted luminosities (L2 ~ 2.1 L1), the composite temperature lies between the two components. Identifying the composite value with T2 is an unvalidated assumption, and it anchors the entire absolute scale: Section 5 derives M2 = 0.77 Msun from the Cox (2000) main-sequence Teff-mass relation using this T2, from which M1, all radii, luminosities, and the mass transfer rate follow. A ~100 K error in T2 would shift M2 by roughly 0.1 Msun and would change dM2/dt proportionally, far exceeding the quoted internal errors in Table 5. Please either justify the assignment quantitatively (e.g., by computing the luminosity-weighted composite temperature and comparing) or provide a sensitivity analysis; ideally, obtain a spectroscopic Teff or radial-velocity orbit to break the degeneracy.
  2. [Section 5] The mass transfer rate dM2/dt = -1.61 x 10^-7 Msun/yr is presented without any governing equation or explicit assumptions. The value is consistent with the conservative mass transfer formula dP/dt = 3P(M2 - M1)/(M1 M2) dM2/dt under the assumptions of conservative transfer and constant orbital angular momentum, but the paper does not state this. Because the same period decrease could in principle result from angular momentum loss via magnetic braking or from a cyclic (e.g., Applegate-type) variation, the claimed transfer rate is not uniquely determined. The available eclipse times in Table 3 span only about 18 years (E from -25185 to 0), not a multi-decade baseline, and the early data are visual timings with errors of 0.002-0.008 days. The formal uncertainty on the quadratic coefficient in Eq. (2) therefore likely underestimates the systematic uncertainty. Please state the formula used, the assumptions, and discuss alternative interpretations, or soften the mass-transfer claim accordingly.
  3. [Section 5, Fig. 6] The conclusion that the secondary star is a main-sequence star is partly circular: its mass M2 = 0.77 Msun is derived from the Cox (2000) main-sequence Teff-mass calibration using the assumed T2, so placing the secondary on the main-sequence band in the H-R diagram is by construction rather than an independent test. The paper should either compare with an independently determined mass (e.g., from radial-velocity measurements) or clearly state that the main-sequence location follows from the adopted calibration. Relatedly, the interpretation that a fitted 140 K temperature difference means 'thermal contact' is an inference, not an independent check, because Delta T is an output of the W-D fit to the same light curves; the manuscript should phrase this as a consistency argument rather than as an established physical property.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] The caption reads 'Mid-eclipse times and O-C values for V752 Cen'; it should refer to V1197 Her.
  2. [Section 5] The text states that the negative O'Connell effect makes Max II brighter than Max I, but then reports '(Max I - Max II) are 0.031 mag in B band' with positive values. The sign convention is inconsistent and should be fixed.
  3. [Abstract] The grammar is incorrect in 'The light curves of V1197 Her is reported to have the O'Connell effect'; it should be 'are reported to show the O'Connell effect'.
  4. [Section 4] There is a typo in 'Thereforce, Mode 3 for overcontact binaries is selected', which should be 'Therefore'.
  5. [Section 3] The text states 'the O-C method is used to analysis the period variations' and should read 'to analyze'.
  6. [Section 2] The text says two mid-eclipse times were obtained with the TNO 2.4m, but Table 2 lists one TNO 2.4m time in 2016 and one in 2019; clarify which minima were measured with which telescope.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The secondary's main-sequence status is circular: its mass is assigned from a main-sequence Teff-mass relation, then the H-R diagram reports that it lies on the main sequence.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Table 5 and Fig. 6 (H-R diagram), following the Cox (2000) calibration.]
    "Basing on the mean surface temperature of star 2 (T2 = 4973K), its mass is estimated to be M2 = 0.77(2)M⊙ (Cox 2000). Then, the masses, radii and luminosities of the two component stars in V1197 Her are calculated, which are listed in Table 5. ... The evolutionary status of the primary star and secondary star are plotted in the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram (Fig. 6), which implies that the secondary star is still a main sequence star while the primary star has evolved away from the main sequence stage."

    The secondary's mass is not measured dynamically; it is read from the Cox (2000) main-sequence calibration at T2 = 4973 K. The same T2 and that assumed main-sequence mass determine the star's position in Fig. 6 relative to the main-sequence band. The statement that the secondary 'is still a main sequence star' therefore restates the calibration used to assign M2: a star whose mass was assigned from a main-sequence Teff-mass relation will necessarily fall on that relation. The H-R placement is not an independent check of the secondary's evolutionary state, and the 'more evolved primary' contrast inherits the same circular anchor.

full rationale

The central photometric results — mass ratio q = 2.61, fill-out f = 15.7%, inclination i = 82.7°, the W-subtype identification, and the spot model for the O'Connell effect — come from Wilson-Devinney fits to the light curves and are not circular in the constructional sense: the fitted parameters are outputs of a model applied to independent photometric data, and the totally eclipsing geometry is a fitted outcome, not an assumed input. The period decrease dP/dt = -2.58e-7 day/yr is derived from a parabolic fit to eclipse times, and the mass-transfer rate follows from a standard conservative-mass-transfer formula; again, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The use of the Gaia DR2 effective temperature as T2 is an unvalidated astrophysical assumption (the Gaia temperature is a composite color temperature for the unresolved binary), but it is stated as an assumption rather than concealed as a prediction, so it is a correctness risk rather than a circularity. The one genuine circular step is the evolutionary-status claim: the secondary's mass is taken from a main-sequence Teff-mass calibration, and the same calibration is then used to place the star on the main sequence in the H-R diagram. This affects a secondary conclusion and leaves the main photometric and period-change results independent, so the overall circularity score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central parameter set rests on three external inputs: the Gaia DR2 temperature used to fix T2, the Cox (2000) mass-temperature calibration for converting T2 into a mass, and the standard W-D contact geometry. The period-change interpretation adds an assumption that the period decrease is a secular mass-transfer signature rather than a cyclical or instrumental effect. The cool spot is an invented entity with no external validation.

free parameters (5)
  • T1 (primary temperature) = 5113 +/- 5 K
    Adjusted to match the relative depths of the eclipses in the W-D fit (Table 4).
  • Mass ratio q = M2/M1 = 2.61 +/- 0.04
    Found from a q-search grid and then refined as a free parameter (Section 4).
  • Orbital inclination i = 82.7 +/- 0.3 deg
    Free parameter in W-D fit.
  • Spot parameters (theta, psi, angular radius, temperature factor) = theta=6.5 deg, psi=106.2 deg, r=0.75 rad, Tf=0.82
    Added to star 2 to reproduce the O'Connell effect; no external constraint.
  • Quadratic ephemeris coefficient = -9.28e-11 day
    Fitted to the O-C diagram to infer dP/dt.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wilson-Devinney model with Mode 3 (overcontact) correctly describes the geometry and light curves of V1197 Her.
    The entire analysis assumes the system is an overcontact binary with a common envelope (Section 4).
  • domain assumption T2 = 4973 K from Gaia DR2 is the true mean surface temperature of the secondary component.
    Section 4 fixes T2 to the Gaia DR2 value with no spectroscopic verification; all absolute parameters scale from this value.
  • domain assumption The Cox (2000) temperature-mass calibration applies to these stars.
    Section 5 derives M2 = 0.77 M_sun from T2 using Cox (2000); if the calibration is biased for low-mass contact binaries, the masses and radii are wrong.
  • domain assumption The observed period decrease is due to conservative mass transfer from the more massive to the less massive star.
    Section 5 interprets dP/dt as mass transfer without considering magnetic braking, Applegate mechanism, or a third body; they tried l3 but no convergence.
  • ad hoc to paper The O-C residuals follow a strictly quadratic ephemeris over 60 years.
    The period analysis fits a single parabola to data from different techniques; no cycle-count ambiguity or sinusoidal term is modeled (Section 3).
invented entities (1)
  • Cool spot on star 2
    purpose: Model the O'Connell effect (Max I brighter than Max II) in the light curves.
    Introduced as a free-parameter spot with no direct Doppler-imaging or photometric spot signature outside this fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometric investigation on the W-subtype contact binary V1197 Her." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALXBHIAB

@misc{pith2026190800715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometric investigation on the W-subtype contact binary V1197 Her},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALXBHIAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00715}
}
abstract

Multi-color light curves of V1197 Her were obtained with the 2.4 meter optical telescope at Thai National Observatory and the Wilson-Devinney (W-D) program is used to model the observational light curves. The photometric solutions reveal that V1197 Her is a W-subtype shallow contact binary system with a mass ratio of $q = 2.61 $ and fill-out factor to be $f = 15.7\,\%$. The temperature difference between the primary star and secondary star is only $140K$ in spite of the low degree of contact, which means that V1197 Her is not only in geometrical contact configuration but also already under thermal contact status. The orbital inclination of V1197 Her is as high as $i = 82.7^{\circ}$, and the primary star is completely eclipsed at the primary minimum. The totally eclipsing characteristic implies that the determined physical parameters are highly reliable. The masses, radii and luminosities of the primary star (star 1) and secondary star (star 2) are estimated to be $M_{1} = 0.30(1)M_\odot$, $M_{2} = 0.77(2)M_\odot$, $R_{1} = 0.54(1)R_\odot$, $R_{2} = 0.83(1)R_\odot$, $L_{1} = 0.18(1)L_\odot$ and $L_{2} = 0.38(1)L_\odot$. The evolutionary status of the two component stars are drawn in the H - R diagram, which shows that the less massive but hotter primary star is more evolved than the secondary star. The period of V1197 Her is decreasing continuously at a rate of $dP/dt=-2.58\times{10^{-7}}day\cdot year^{-1}$, which can be explained by mass transfer from the more massive star to the less massive one with a rate of $\frac{dM_{2}}{dt}=- 1.61\times{10^{-7}}M_\odot/year$. The light curves of V1197 Her is reported to have the O'Connell effect. Thus, a cool spot is added to the massive star to model the asymmetry on light curves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00715 by the authors.

Figure 5
Figure 5. And also, we have tried to set third light ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12,

    Binnendijk, L. 1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12,

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    2016, P ASP, 128, 44201

    Y ang, Y ., Li, K., Li, Q., et al. 2016, P ASP, 128, 44201. Yildiz, M., & Do˘ gan, T. 2013, MNRAS, 430,

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    2018, P ASJ, 70, 87

    Zhou, X., Qian, S., Boonrucksar, S., et al. 2018, P ASJ, 70, 87 . Zhou, X., & Soonthornthum, B. 2019, P ASJ, 71, 39

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2004, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 5543,

    Diethelm, R. 2004, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 5543,

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    2006, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 5713,

    Diethelm, R. 2006, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 5713,

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2 016, A&A, 595, A1. Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., V allenari, A., et al. 20 18, A&A, 616, A1. W-subtype contact binary 9 /s32 /s32 /s32 /s32 /s32 /s32 /s80/s104/s97/s115/s101/s32/s61/s32/s48/s46/s55/s53/s80/s104/s97/s115/s101/s32/s61/s32/s48/s46/s53 /s80/s104/s97/s115/s101/s32/s61/s32/s4...

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2019, Rese arch in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19,

    He, J.-J., Qian, S.-B., Soonthornthum, B., et al. 2019, Rese arch in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19,

    work page 2019

  8. [14]

    Nelson, R. H. 2012, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 6018,

    work page 2012

Show all 29 references
  1. [15]

    Nelson, R. H. 2016, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 6164,

    2016

  2. [16]

    1997, Acta Astronomica, 47,

    Pojmanski, G. 1997, Acta Astronomica, 47,

    1997

  3. [19]

    2017, Research in As tronomy and Astrophysics, 17,

    Qian, S.-B., He, J.-J., Zhang, J., et al. 2017, Research in As tronomy and Astrophysics, 17,

    2017

  4. [56]

    2017, P ASJ, 69,

    Li, K., Hu, S., Chen, X., et al. 2017, P ASJ, 69,

    2017

  5. [64]

    A., Pollaco, D

    Street, R. A., Pollaco, D. L., Fitzsimmons, A., et al. 2003, S cientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets,

    2003

  6. [73]

    2016, P ASJ, 68, 10

    Xiao, Z., Shengbang, Q., Binghe, H., et al. 2016, P ASJ, 68, 10

    2016

  7. [79]

    2018, P ASP, 130, 74201

    Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Hu, S.-M., et al. 2018, P ASP, 130, 74201. Li, K., Xia, Q.-Q., Michel, R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485,

    2018

  8. [87]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19,

    Qian, S.-B., Shi, X.-D., Zhu, L.-Y ., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19,

    2019

  9. [97]

    2019, AJ, 157,

    Liao, W .-P ., Qian, S.-B., & Sarotsakulchai, T. 2019, AJ, 157,

    2019

  10. [207]

    2005, Open European Journal on V ariable Stars, 3, 1 Nelson, R

    Locher, K. 2005, Open European Journal on V ariable Stars, 3, 1 Nelson, R. H. 2009, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 5875,

    2005

  11. [217]

    H., & Guinan, E

    Bradstreet, D. H., & Guinan, E. F. 1994, Interacting Binary S tars,

    1994

  12. [228]

    Cox, A. N. 2000, Allen ′s Astrophysical Quantities (4th ed.; NewY ork: Springer) Diethelm, R. 2003, Information Bulletin on V ariable Stars, 5438,

    2000

  13. [253]

    10 Zhou et al. /s48/s46/s52 /s48/s46/s50 /s48/s46/s48 /s45/s48/s46/s50 /s45/s48/s46/s52 /s45/s48/s46/s54 /s45/s48/s46/s56 /s45/s49/s46/s48 /s45/s49/s46/s50 /s45/s51/s46/s48 /s45/s50/s46/s53 /s45/s50/s46/s48 /s45/s49/s46/s53 /s45/s49/s46/s48 /s45/s48/s46/s53 /s48/s46/s48 /s48/s...

    2006

  14. [405]

    2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 355 Terrell, D., & Wilson, R

    Soonthornthum, B. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 355 Terrell, D., & Wilson, R. E. 2005, Ap&SS, 296, 221 Tody, D. 1986, Proc. SPIE, 627, 733 Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., et al. 1992, Acta As tronomica, 42,

    2018

  15. [467]

    2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332,

    Pribulla, T., V aˇ nko, M., Chochol, D., et al. 2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332,

    2011

  16. [596]

    2008, MNRAS, 387,

    Li, L., Zhang, F., Han, Z., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 387,

    2008

  17. [605]

    Wilson, R. E. 2012, AJ, 144,

    2012

  18. [607]

    2014, ApJS, 212,

    Qian, S.-B., Wang, J.-J., Zhu, L.-Y ., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212,

    2014

  19. [723]

    2016, New Astronomy, 47,

    Zhou, X., Qian, S.-B., Essam, A., et al. 2016, New Astronomy, 47,

    2016

  20. [2029]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12,

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y .-H., Chu, Y .-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12,

    2012

  21. [4588]

    2007, ApJ, 662,

    Li, L., Zhang, F., Han, Z., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662,

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.