Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

A second candidate magnetic helium core white dwarf and 3 other variable white dwarfs in the globular cluster NGC 6397

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Archival Hubble observations reveal a 5.21-hour periodic modulation on a low-mass white dwarf in NGC 6397, argued to be a rotating magnetic spot, making it the second candidate magnetic helium-core white dwarf in the cluster.

desk verdict Solid detection of a 5.21 h period in a candidate He WD, but the magnetic interpretation leans on a weak X-ray exclusion and the aperiodic variables are marginal. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12375 v1 pith:AZC6SHEM submitted 2024-12-16 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Manuel Pichardo Marcano , Liliana E. Rivera Sandoval , Thomas J. Maccarone , Rene D. Rohrmann , Leandro G. Althaus , Craig O. Heinke , Diogo Belloni , Arash Bahramian This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords variablewhitedwarfshelium-coremagneticglobularclustersNGC6397HubbleSpaceTelescopephotometryrotationperiodsaperiodicvariability
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

This paper reports four variable low-mass white dwarf candidates in the globular cluster NGC 6397, found in archival Hubble Space Telescope imaging. The central result is WD1, whose ultraviolet light curve shows a 5.21 ± 0.02 hour periodic modulation with a false-alarm probability of 3 × $10^{-15}$; the authors argue the most plausible cause is a magnetic spot rotating on a helium-core white dwarf. If correct, WD1 is the second candidate magnetic helium-core white dwarf in NGC 6397 and one of only a few such stars with a measured rotation period. The other three candidates vary aperiodically by about 0.11–0.6 magnitudes, and follow-up spectroscopy is needed to establish their nature.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a Lomb-Scargle periodogram with the Baluev (2008) false-alarm probability to establish the 5.21-hour period, and on the cluster's deep X-ray luminosity limit of 1.0 × $10^{29}$ erg/s (Bahramian et al. 2020) to exclude a millisecond pulsar companion. Theoretical cooling tracks for low-mass helium-core white dwarfs (Althaus et al. 2013) plus model atmospheres place the sources on the color-magnitude diagram and yield mass estimates, while the magnetic-dichroism mechanism (Landi Degl'Innocenti 1976; Ferrario et al. 2015) provides the physical route from a surface magnetic spot to a periodic optical modulation.

What would settle it

Detection of an X-ray point source at WD1's position at or above the $10^{29}$ erg/s limit, or a radial-velocity orbit with a 5.21-hour period, would directly contradict the magnetic-spot rotation explanation; conversely, a spectrum showing Zeeman-split lines and no orbital motion would confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' own account, the discovery claim is that WD1 is a periodic variable low-mass white dwarf with a period of 5.21 ± 0.02 hours, an amplitude of 0.11 magnitudes in F336W, and a false-alarm probability of 3 × $10^{-15}$. After rejecting pulsations because known white dwarf pulsation periods are shorter than 1.66 hours, and rejecting an orbital origin because the cluster's X-ray non-detection limit of 1.0 × $10^{29}$ erg/s would have revealed a millisecond pulsar companion, the authors conclude that the modulation most plausibly comes from a magnetic spot on a rotating helium-core white dwarf, via magnetic dichroism. They therefore classify WD1 as a candidate magnetic He WD, the second such candidate in NGC 6397. The three other candidates (WD2–WD4) show aperiodic variability with amplitude changes of about 0.24, 0.59, and 0.13 magnitudes respectively; WD4 is the previously known non-flickering ultraviolet source NF1.

Load-bearing premise

The X-ray non-detection limit of 1.0 × $10^{29}$ erg/s for NGC 6397 is the load-bearing premise: if WD1 hosts a fainter or more absorbed millisecond pulsar, the 5.21-hour modulation could be orbital reflection rather than rotation of a magnetic-spotted white dwarf, and the magnetic interpretation would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If WD1 is a magnetic helium-core white dwarf, the 5.21-hour period gives a rare measured rotation period for this class, letting observers test whether magnetic-field generation in low-mass white dwarfs is linked to fast rotation.
  • A second magnetic He WD candidate in NGC 6397 strengthens the case that dense clusters produce such systems and that they can be found photometrically.
  • The X-ray argument implies a clean observational test: any future detection of an X-ray point source at WD1's position above the 10^29 erg/s limit would overturn the rotation interpretation in favor of an irradiation- or accretion-driven signal.
  • The three aperiodic variables, especially WD3 with about 0.6 magnitude changes, are flagged as high-priority spectroscopic targets; if binaries are confirmed, they would populate the orbital-period distribution of post-common-envelope binaries in a globular cluster.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue: the 5.21-hour period, if rotational, implies a spin-down age; comparing that with the cluster age could constrain the binary-evolution history of WD1.
  • The aperiodic variables could include unresolved eclipsing or ellipsoidal systems whose periods are hidden by the ~96-minute sampling; higher-cadence observations with JWST or ground-based adaptive optics might reveal their true periods.
  • If the magnetic-spot interpretation holds for both WD1 and the earlier 18.5-hour candidate in NGC 6397, the cluster offers a one-off comparison sample for how magnetism develops in helium-core white dwarfs that formed through binary mass transfer, something field samples cannot easily provide.
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 reports four variable low-mass white dwarf candidates in the globular cluster NGC 6397, found in archival HST/WFPC2 F336W photometry. The main result is WD 1, which shows a 5.21 ± 0.02 hour periodic modulation with a Baluev false-alarm probability of 3 × 10^-15 and a sinusoid amplitude of 0.11 mag. The authors argue against pulsations (period too long) and against an orbital origin from a millisecond pulsar companion (using the 1.0 × 10^29 erg/s X-ray non-detection limit), and propose that the modulation is most plausibly rotation of a magnetic spot on a helium-core white dwarf. The other three sources (WD 2–4) show aperiodic variability of 0.11–0.6 mag and are presented as variable He WD candidates requiring follow-up.

Significance. If the WD 1 interpretation is correct, the paper provides a rare rotation-period measurement for a helium-core white dwarf and a second candidate magnetic He WD in the same globular cluster, with implications for the origin of magnetism in low-mass white dwarfs and for the rotation properties of binaries in dense stellar environments. The period detection itself is credible: it rests on 126 epochs spanning over 100 cycles, uses a standard Lomb-Scargle analysis with a very small false-alarm probability, and the folded light curve appears coherent. The use of public HST data and public catalogs (HUGS/HACKS) makes the photometric and membership results reproducible. However, the central physical interpretation is less secure, because the exclusion of an orbital/irradiation origin rests on an X-ray limit that, as the authors themselves note, is not absolute for all millisecond pulsars. The paper's value as a discovery of a periodic variable WD in a globular cluster is solid, but the magnetic-spot classification and the mass estimates depend on model-dependent steps that need clearer justification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.2] The argument against an orbital/irradiation origin for WD 1 is not decisive. The authors state that a millisecond pulsar companion would 'almost certainly' have been detected at the 1.0 × 10^29 erg/s limit, but they also cite pulsars with X-ray luminosities as low as 10^29 erg/s (PSR J1400–1431). The 47 Tuc U comparison does not close the gap, because the irradiation amplitude depends on the pulsar spin-down luminosity and the orbital separation, not on X-ray luminosity alone. For a 5.21 h orbit around a 1.4 M_sun neutron star, a white dwarf of radius ~0.03 R_sun intercepts a fraction ~3 × 10^-5 of the pulsar wind; with E_dot ~ 10^35 erg/s the intercepted luminosity can be comparable to the white dwarf's own luminosity and can produce a ~0.1 mag modulation, while the X-ray luminosity could remain below the quoted threshold. A quantitative estimate of the expected reflection-effect amplitude for plausible MSP parameters should be provided, or the orbital scenario should be explicitly tested with other diagnostics (e.g., phase-resolved radial velocities, radio pulsation searches, or a deeper X-ray constraint).
  2. [§3.1.1] The rejection of pulsations based on the period being longer than 1.66 hours is reasonable but should be stated more carefully. Known pulsating extremely low-mass white dwarfs have periods up to about 6235 s, and the 5.21 h period is outside that range, so the timescale argument is valid. However, the manuscript does not discuss whether a low-mass He WD could have g-mode periods in the 5 h range in any published model; a brief statement that such periods are not predicted for the relevant masses and temperatures would strengthen the argument. As written, the claim is plausible but relies on an incomplete literature comparison.
  3. [§3.1.3 and §4] The paper's title and abstract present WD 1 as 'a second candidate magnetic helium core white dwarf', but the body repeatedly emphasizes that the interpretation is tentative ('potentially', 'we argue', 'hard to confirm the true cause'). The framing is internally consistent, but the title overstates the confidence level. I suggest either tempering the title or explicitly quantifying the confidence in the magnetic-spot interpretation relative to the still-viable orbital scenarios. This is not a methodological error, but it affects how the result will be cited.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] In the text after the periodogram description, the light curve is said to be 'folded at 5.21 days'; this should read '5.21 hours' (the same sentence correctly refers to 0.22 days).
  2. [Appendix A] The finding-chart captions refer to the 'F3336W' filter; the correct filter name is F336W. This typo appears in all four finding-chart panels.
  3. [Figure 1 and text] The right CMD panel is labeled 'R vs Hα − R' in the text but the axis label and caption use R625 vs Hα − R625; the filter names should be consistent throughout, and 'R624' in the figure caption appears to be a typo for R625.
  4. [§2.2] The selection description says sources 'that had a FAP of less than 10^-8' were visually inspected, but WD 2–4 are later described as having no significant periodicity. Please clarify whether these objects passed the initial FAP threshold or were selected in a separate step; otherwise the reader cannot tell how the aperiodic variables were identified.
  5. [Table 1 and §3.2.1] WD 2's variability is marginal (S^2/σ^2_err = 1.6, F_var = 0.027). The text should state explicitly that WD 2 is a low-amplitude candidate whose variability may not be securely detected in the current data, rather than presenting it on equal footing with WD 3 and WD 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 5.21 h period is an independent Lomb-Scargle detection, and the self-cited cooling tracks and prior magnetic-spot paper are not load-bearing for that detection.

full rationale

The central claim is the detection of a 5.21 ± 0.02 h periodic modulation in WD 1, obtained from a Lomb-Scargle periodogram of archival HST F336W photometry, with a false-alarm probability of 3 × 10^-15 using the Baluev (2008) method. This detection does not depend on any model fit or on any parameter estimated from the light curve; the folded light curve is a display of the same data, not a prediction. The mass estimates use the Althaus et al. (2013) evolutionary sequences, and L. Althaus is a co-author of the present paper, but those tracks were published externally, are not fitted to the present photometry, and do not enter the variability analysis. The magnetic-spot interpretation cites Pichardo Marcano et al. (2023), an overlapping-authorship paper, but it is supported by independent literature on magnetic white-dwarf variability (e.g., Ferrario et al. 2015; Hermes et al. 2017) and by the paper's own arguments rejecting pulsations on timescale grounds and rejecting an MSP companion on X-ray luminosity grounds. Even if the X-ray based rejection of an orbital interpretation is debatable, that is a scientific inference from external data, not a circular reduction: the X-ray limit is not constructed from the period, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty in the interpretation, stating that 'it is hard to confirm the true cause of the periodic optical modulation.' I find no equation that equals its own input and no fitted parameter recycled as a prediction; the one self-citation is minor and not load-bearing for the primary periodicity claim.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the period and variability metrics are measured directly from photometry. The central claim does not rest on a fitted model. However, the analysis relies on domain assumptions about extinction, cluster membership, the X-ray non-detection limit, and theoretical cooling tracks, which are reasonable but not independently verified within this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FAP threshold of 10^-8 and visual inspection correctly identify real variable sources in crowded HST fields.
    Section 2.2: the variable selection relies on DOLPHOT quality flags and manual vetting, which could miss faint variables or misclassify artifacts as variable sources.
  • domain assumption The 5.21-hour period of WD 1 is not an alias of the HST 96-minute orbital period or an artifact of the observing window.
    Section 3.1: the periodogram shows an isolated peak and the baseline spans more than 100 cycles, but no window-function analysis is presented to explicitly rule out aliasing.
  • domain assumption The X-ray luminosity limit of 1.0 × 10^29 erg/s (Bahramian et al. 2020) is applicable to WD 1 and rules out a millisecond pulsar companion.
    Section 3.1.2: this limit is used to reject the orbital-reflection scenario. If the limit is not valid for this line of sight or if the pulsar is unusually faint, the orbital interpretation remains viable.
  • domain assumption Theoretical cooling tracks of Althaus et al. (2013) and pure-hydrogen model atmospheres (Rohrmann et al. 2012) provide reliable mass estimates for these white dwarfs.
    Section 2.4: mass and age estimates are read from the CMD comparison to these models; the adopted pure-hydrogen composition and metallicity [Fe/H] = -2.03 are assumed for all sources.
  • domain assumption The adopted reddening values (A_F336W = 0.9, A_275W = 1.11) apply uniformly to all sources.
    Section 2.4: extinction is taken from Richer et al. (2008) with the Seaton (1979) reddening law and applied to all stars; errors in this assumption shift the CMD positions and derived masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A second candidate magnetic helium core white dwarf and 3 other variable white dwarfs in the globular cluster NGC 6397." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZC6SHEM

@misc{pith2026241212375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A second candidate magnetic helium core white dwarf and 3 other variable white dwarfs in the globular cluster NGC 6397},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZC6SHEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12375}
}
abstract

Using archival Hubble Space Telescope observations, we report the discovery of four variable low-mass white dwarfs ($0.18 \, M_\odot \leq M \leq 0.5 \,M_\odot$) in the globular cluster NGC 6397. One source exhibits a periodic optical modulation of $5.21 \pm 0.02$ hours, which we interpret as potentially due to the rotation of a magnetic helium core WD (He WD). This makes this candidate the second magnetic He WD in NGC 6397, and one of the few He WDs with a measured rotation period. The other three candidates show aperiodic variability, with a change in magnitude ranging from $\sim 0.11-0.6$. These discoveries highlight the importance of high-cadence photometric surveys in dense stellar environments. Follow-up spectroscopic observations are needed to confirm the nature of the variability of these systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) for the central regions of NGC 6397. Left: R vs B-R CMD, the red symbols show the variable ’blue’ objects reported in this document. These are located to the left of the main sequence. Right: R vs Hα-R CMD. The reported sources are to the right of the MS, near the CO WD sequence. Data from the HACKS catalogue (Libralato et al. 2022). −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 B435 − … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HACKS color-color diagram for the central re￾gions of NGC 6397. None of the sources show evidence for Hα emission or greater-than-average absorption. The smaller inset is a zoom-in around the colors of the variables behaviour. A summary of some of the properties of the sources is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Dereddened CMD of sources from the HUGS catalog of NGC 6397. The black small circles represent stars in the clusters, and the red symbols indicate the position of the reported variable candidate He WDs. The error on the F336W magnitude (vertical axis) was calculated as the mean of the errors in their light curves and the error on the color (horizontal axis) is the error on the square root of the F275W and F336W erro… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Light curve (F336W filter) of WD 1, folded at a period of 5.21 hours or 0.22 days. For a review on pulsating white dwarfs, see C´orsico et al. (2019). In the Galactic field the first extremely low-mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curve (F336W filter) of WD 3 standard deviations outside the mean, the variability is still significant with a change in magnitude of ∼ 0.6. No periodicity was found but it is a good source for spec￾troscopic follow-up to determine the physical mechanism for a hi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Light curve (F336W filter) of WD 4. scenarios: pulsations, orbital variability, and rotation of a magnetic spot. Based on the time scales we argue against pulsations. Based on the lack of X-rays, this periodicity is hard to explain as orbital variation caused by a puls…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Finding chart for WD 1 (left), WD 2 (right) in the F3336W filter. Bottom: Finding chart for WD 3 (left), WD 4 (right) in the F3336W filter. The red circles are 0.3” in radius and centerd at the positions listed in table 1 for each object. In all images, north is …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Camisassa, M

    Althaus, L. G., Camisassa, M. E., Miller Bertolami, M. M., C´ orsico, A. H., & Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E. 2015, A&A, 576, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424922

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424922 2015

  2. [2]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 2013

  3. [3]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  4. [4]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 11184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3891 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Arancibia-Rojas, E., Zorotovic, M., Vuˇ ckovi´ c, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 11184, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3891 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3891 2024

  5. [5]

    Bahramian, A., Strader, J., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba51d 11 Balaguer-N´ unez, L., Tian, K. P., & Zhao, J. L. 1998, A&AS, 133, 387, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998324

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba51d 2020

  6. [6]

    A., Handler, G., Chowdhury, S., et al

    Balona, L. A., Handler, G., Chowdhury, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3457, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz586

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz586 2019

  7. [7]

    Baluev, R. V. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    Baumgardt, H., & Vasiliev, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5957, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1474

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    R., King, I

    Bedin, L. R., King, I. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1279, doi: 10.1086/529370

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Gianninas, A., Hermes, J

    Bell, K. J., Gianninas, A., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 180, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/180

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2009, A&A, 493, 959, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810880

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Kilic, M., Brown, W

    Brown, J. M., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Kenyon, S. J. 2011, ApJ, 730, 67, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/67

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

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

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1072, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 266, 237

    Bruch, A. 1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 266, 237

    1992

  7. [15]

    N., Lugger, P

    Cohn, H. N., Lugger, P. M., Couch, S. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/20

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    Bailyn, C. D. 1998, ApJL, 508, L75, doi: 10.1086/311730 C´ orsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., &

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    Kepler, S. O. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 7, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0118-4

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    P., et al

    Czesla, S., Schr¨ oter, S., Schneider, C. P., et al. 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages. http://ascl.net/1906.010

    2019

  11. [19]

    Deloye, C. J. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 983, 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More, ed. C. Bassa, Z. Wang, A. Cumming, & V. M. Kaspi (AIP), 501–509, doi: 10.1063/1.2900285

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Krolik, J

    Edelson, R. A., Krolik, J. H., & Pike, G. F. 1990, ApJ, 359, 86, doi: 10.1086/169036

    1990 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Gilliland, R

    Edmonds, P. D., Gilliland, R. L., Heinke, C. O., Grindlay, J. E., & Camilo, F. 2001, ApJL, 557, L57, doi: 10.1086/323122

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    D., Grindlay, J

    Edmonds, P. D., Grindlay, J. E., Cool, A., et al. 1999, ApJ, 516, 250, doi: 10.1086/307106

    1999 doi

  16. [24]

    Ferrario, L., de Martino, D., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2015, SSRv, 191, 111, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2015, A&A, 577, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525666

    Geier, S., Kupfer, T., Heber, U., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525666

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    M., & Mathieu, R

    Geller, A. M., & Mathieu, R. D. 2011, Nature, 478, 356, doi: 10.1038/nature10512

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Heinke, C., Edmonds, P

    Grindlay, J. E., Heinke, C., Edmonds, P. D., & Murray, S. S. 2001, Science, 292, 2290, doi: 10.1126/science.1061135 G¨ ottgens, F. 2023, Observing binaries in the core of NGC 6397, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8355370

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., Marsh, T. R., & Ivanova, N. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 449, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05752.x

    2002

  21. [29]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Han, Z., Tout, C. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 215, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03839.x

    2000

  22. [30]

    Hansen, B. M. S., Anderson, J., Brewer, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 380, doi: 10.1086/522567

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    Hansen, B. M. S., Kalirai, J. S., Anderson, J., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 51, doi: 10.1038/nature12334

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836 —

    Heber, U. 2009, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 47, 211, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101836 —. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    O., Grindlay, J

    Heinke, C. O., Grindlay, J. E., Edmonds, P. D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 796, doi: 10.1086/429899

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Montgomery, M

    Hermes, J. J., Montgomery, M. H., Winget, D. E., et al. 2012, ApJL, 750, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/L28 —. 2013a, ApJ, 765, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/102

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    J., Montgomery, M

    Hermes, J. J., Montgomery, M. H., Gianninas, A., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 436, 3573, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1835

    doi

  28. [36]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Hermes, J. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Kawaler, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8bb5

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    S., Schreiber, M

    Hernandez, M. S., Schreiber, M. R., Landstreet, J. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6056, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae307

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    Iben, I., J., & Tutukov, A. V. 1985, ApJS, 58, 661, doi: 10.1086/191054

    1985 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Ramsay, G., Naslim, N., et al

    Jeffery, C. S., Ramsay, G., Naslim, N., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3207, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts579

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Kaluzny, J., & Thompson, I. B. 2003, ApJ, 125, 2534, doi: 10.1086/374236

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    2006, MNRAS, 365, 548, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09734.x

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 548, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09734.x

    2006

  35. [43]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., et al

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/3

    2011 doi

  36. [44]

    Z., & Pinsonneault, M

    Kilic, M., Stanek, K. Z., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2007, ApJ, 671, 761, doi: 10.1086/522228

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Kilic, M., et al

    Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd187

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Z., Weatherford, N

    Kremer, K., Rui, N. Z., Weatherford, N. C., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 917, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4 12 —. 2021b, ApJ, 917, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4 Landi Degl’Innocenti, E. 1976, ApJ, 209, 208, doi: 10.1086/154710

    1976 doi

  39. [47]

    1958, Handbuch der Physik, 51, 353, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45908-5 6

    Ledoux, P., & Walraven, T. 1958, Handbuch der Physik, 51, 353, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-45908-5 6

    1958 doi

  40. [48]

    Y., Takata, J., et al

    Lee, J., Hui, C. Y., Takata, J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad284

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    R., et al

    Libralato, M., Bellini, A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322059

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.09924

    Libralato, M., Bellini, A., Vesperini, E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.09924. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.09924

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    2022, HST Atlases of Cluster KinematicS (HACKS), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/JPFD-2M08

    Libralato, Mattia. 2022, HST Atlases of Cluster KinematicS (HACKS), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/JPFD-2M08

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  45. [53]

    D., Hermes, J

    Lopez, I. D., Hermes, J. J., Calcaferro, L. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d28

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Dhillon, V

    Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., & Duck, S. R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.3.828

    1995 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1092, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1113-4

    Momany, Y., Zaggia, S., Montalto, M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1092, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1113-4

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 3382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2515

    Nardiello, D., Libralato, M., Piotto, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3382, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2515

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Pelisoli, I., Vos, J., Geier, S., Schaffenroth, V., & Baran, A. S. 2020, A&A, 642, A180, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038473

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 2496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1069 Pichardo Marcano, M., Rivera Sandoval, L., & Maccarone, T

    Pelisoli, I., Dorsch, M., Heber, U., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 2496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1069 Pichardo Marcano, M., Rivera Sandoval, L., & Maccarone, T. 2022, in American Astronomical Society Meeting

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    240, American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, 410.02D Pichardo Marcano, M., Rivera Sandoval, L

    Abstracts, Vol. 240, American Astronomical Society Meeting #240, 410.02D Pichardo Marcano, M., Rivera Sandoval, L. E., Maccarone, T. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 5026, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad722

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    2018, HST UV Globular Cluster Survey (”HUGS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9810F

    Piotto, G. 2018, HST UV Globular Cluster Survey (”HUGS”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T9810F

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    P., Bedin, L

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/91

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    M., Sip˝ ocz, B

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., G¨ unther, H. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    B., Anderson, J., Brewer, J., et al

    Richer, H. B., Anderson, J., Brewer, J., et al. 2006, Science, 313, 936, doi: 10.1126/science.1130691

    2006 doi

  56. [64]

    B., Dotter, A., Hurley, J., et al

    Richer, H. B., Dotter, A., Hurley, J., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 2141, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/6/2141

    2008 doi

  57. [65]

    E., van den Berg, M., Heinke, C

    Rivera-Sandoval, L. E., van den Berg, M., Heinke, C. O., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1810

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    2019, APLpy v2.0: The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2567476

    Robitaille, T. 2019, APLpy v2.0: The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2567476

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Robitaille, T., & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library. http://ascl.net/1208.017

    2012

  60. [68]

    D., Althaus, L

    Rohrmann, R. D., Althaus, L. G., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., C´ orsico, A. H., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2012, A&A, 546, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219292

    2012 doi

  61. [69]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  62. [70]

    Seaton, M. J. 1979, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 187, 73, doi: 10.1093/mnras/187.1.73P

    1979 doi

  63. [71]

    Stella, L., Priedhorsky, W., & White, N. E. 1987, ApJL, 312, L17, doi: 10.1086/184811

    1987 doi

  64. [72]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953, doi: 10.1086/156444

    1978 doi

  65. [73]

    R., Cool, A

    Strickler, R. R., Cool, A. M., Anderson, J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 699, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/40

    2009 doi

  66. [74]

    K., Kaplan, D

    Swiggum, J. K., Kaplan, D. L., McLaughlin, M. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8994

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    M., & Savonije, G

    Tauris, T. M., & Savonije, G. J. 1999, A&A, 350, 928, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909147

    1999 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    M., Grindlay, J

    Taylor, J. M., Grindlay, J. E., Edmonds, P. D., & Cool, A. M. 2001, ApJL, 553, L169, doi: 10.1086/320676

    2001 doi

  69. [77]

    G., & Camisassa, M

    Torres, S., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., Althaus, L. G., & Camisassa, M. E. 2015, A&A, 581, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526157 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Rappaport, S. A., Breton, R. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/51

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1337

    Bellini, A. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 806, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1337

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    Zhao, J., & Heinke, C. O. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac442

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.