Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 300 references

Wide substellar companions around nearby stars mirror stellar binaries, not close-in giant planets.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:41 UTC pith:BDSS6QNF

load-bearing objection Larger-sample confirmation that wide substellar companions follow stellar-binary-like power laws, but the mass slope rests on kinematic age proxies and one internal age inconsistency that a referee should force a fix for. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20673 v1 pith:BDSS6QNF submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Statistics on the population of distant substellar companions to nearby stars

Souleymane Ouedraogo , \'Etienne Artigau , Si\'e Zacharie Kam , Orlagh L. Creevey , Cl\'emence Fontanive , Neil J. Cook , Ren\'e Doyon , Fabrice Bado This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords brown dwarfssubstellar companionswide binariesoccurrence ratemass functionseparation distributionWISE proper motionsMCMC population statistics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper uses archival mid-infrared proper-motion data to build a statistically complete census of wide brown-dwarf and planetary-mass companions around the 2,103 main-sequence stars within 20 pc. Fitting a double power law to the 17 recovered companions, while accounting for detectability and projection effects, it derives a companion mass slope α = -0.21 and a separation slope β = -1.38, with an occurrence rate of about 1% for 5–80 Jupiter-mass companions at 1,000–20,000 AU. Both slopes agree with those of stellar binaries, and the occurrence rate rises for closer separations and more massive host stars. The paper argues that wide substellar companions are the low-mass extension of the stellar binary population rather than a distant extension of close-in giant planets. A sympathetic reader would care because this is the largest sample yet used to place wide brown-dwarf companions on a common statistical footing with star formation.

Core claim

The central claim is that the population of wide substellar companions (5–80 Jupiter masses, 1,000–20,000 AU) around nearby main-sequence stars is described by d²n ∝ M^α a^β dM da, with α = -0.21 (+0.31/-0.27) and β = -1.38 ± 0.32, and that these indices are statistically indistinguishable from the mass-ratio and separation distributions of stellar binaries. Because the sample is roughly ten times larger than earlier direct-imaging surveys, the paper presents this as the most robust statistical characterisation to date, and interprets the agreement with binary laws as evidence that these objects formed like stars (e.g., via gravitational instability or turbulent fragmentation) rather than li

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the double power-law population model d²n ∝ M^α a^β dM da embedded in an MCMC likelihood. The likelihood combines per-star completeness maps in absolute W2 magnitude versus projected separation, a statistical Galactic-kinematics age probability distribution that converts W2 brightness into mass through cooling tracks, and an analytic projection kernel that maps three-dimensional separations to the observed on-sky separations. The recovered parameters α, β, and the normalisation f are what carry the comparison to stellar binaries and to population-synthesis models.

Load-bearing premise

Companion masses are not measured; they are inferred from W2 brightness using a statistical age distribution for each host star, so any systematic error in the ages propagates directly into the fitted mass slope.

What would settle it

Measure real ages for the 17 host stars (e.g., by asteroseismology or gyrochronology) and re-derive companion masses from their W2 magnitudes; if the re-fitted mass slope α moves outside roughly [-0.5, 0.1], the claimed consistency with stellar binaries fails.

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

If this is right

  • Wide substellar companions are about as common as the low-mass tail of stellar binaries, with roughly 1% of nearby stars hosting a 5–80 Jupiter-mass companion between 1,000 and 20,000 AU.
  • The separation slope β = -1.38 is close to Öpik's law (β = -1), meaning companion frequency per log-separation bin is roughly flat across the wide-orbit regime.
  • The flat-to-mildly-decreasing mass slope α = -0.21 indicates no strong deficit of planetary-mass companions at wide separations, matching the field initial mass function at the <2σ level after sign conversion.
  • FGK stars host wide substellar companions more often than M dwarfs (2.1σ), but the shape of the mass and separation distributions is the same for both host types.
  • Gravitational-instability population models reproduce the observed slopes for the full sample at the 2σ level, supporting disc fragmentation as a viable formation channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If individual ages for the 17 host stars become available, the kinematic-age proxy used here can be tested directly; a systematic age bias would mostly move α and could weaken the claimed link to the stellar binary population.
  • Two of the 17 systems have dynamical half-lives shorter than their estimated ages, suggesting the wide-orbit configuration may be recent; the paper itself notes this implies outward dynamical migration, so the present-day population may not be primordial.
  • The same analysis applied to future samples from deeper, higher-resolution surveys could push below the 5 Jupiter-mass threshold and test whether the power law continues into the giant-planet regime or turns over.
  • The comparison with gravitational-instability models is explicitly indicative because the models give initial distributions while the observed sample has evolved for gigayears; folding Galactic tidal perturbations and stellar encounters into the models would make the test direct.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Bayesian MCMC analysis of wide substellar companions around 2103 main-sequence stars within 20 pc, using CatWISE proper motions and W2 photometry. It recovers 17 co-moving companions, constructs per-star completeness maps in W2 magnitude and projected separation, converts these to mass-separation maps via an age-dependent ATMO2020 mass interpolation, and fits a double power-law d2n ∝ M^α a^β dM da with an occurrence normalization f. The reported results are α = -0.21^{+0.31}_{-0.27}, β = -1.38 ± 0.32, and a 1.07^{+0.31}_{-0.24}% occurrence rate for 5-80 M_Jup companions at 1000-20000 AU. The paper concludes that wide substellar companions are the low-mass extension of the stellar binary population rather than an extension of close-in giant planets. Companion masses are not individually measured; many are taken from the literature, and several are derived from a kinematic age proxy combined with ATMO2020 cooling tracks.

Significance. If the mass-slope result holds, this would be an important statistical constraint on the substellar companion population, obtained from a volume-limited sample roughly an order of magnitude larger than previous imaging surveys. The per-star completeness maps, companion injection tests, and analytic projection kernel in Appendix E are genuine strengths, and the paper is transparent about the circularity in the N2 term and its factor-of-2 insensitivity. However, the central conclusion depends on α, and α is the parameter most sensitive to the statistically assigned stellar ages used to convert W2 magnitudes into masses. The age-proxy issue must be addressed before the main claim can be considered robust. The result is therefore significant but conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2.2, §4.3, Table C.1, Eq. (6)] The companion masses used as data in the MCMC are point estimates, not measurements. Sect. 4.3 states that 'the most likely mass is used in MCMC simulations', and Appendix E.3 treats each companion's (m_i, ρ_i) as exact when evaluating the likelihood. Many entries in Table C.1 carry substantial uncertainties (e.g., 28.13±7.04 M_Jup for G 204-39 B; 12.5^{+3.2}_{-2.8} M_Jup for BD+13 2618 C), and the three masses derived from the kinematic age proxy are model-dependent. Eq. (6) fits α to these point masses, so neither the tabulated mass uncertainties nor the age-driven systematic uncertainty is propagated into the quoted α uncertainty. Moreover, the same age conversion enters the completeness maps (Fig. 4, panel 4), so an age bias shifts the data and the selection function in a correlated way. Because α is the parameter used to claim consistency with the stellar binary/IMF population, this
  2. [§4.2 vs. Table C.1 note] There is an internal inconsistency in the age treatment of HD 170573. Sect. 4.2 quotes an age >9 Gyr for this system from Calamari et al. (2024), but the note to Table C.1 states that the mass of WISE J183207.99-540942.0 was derived using an adopted age of 2.95 Gyr from the kinematic proxy. Since a fixed W2 magnitude yields a higher mass for an older brown dwarf, this choice biases the companion mass low, potentially by tens of percent; with only 17 companions, the resulting shift in α can be a non-negligible fraction of the quoted ±0.3 uncertainty. If the >9 Gyr mass exceeds 80 M_Jup, the object drops out of the fitted domain entirely, changing the sample and the normalization. Please refit the MCMC using the literature age for this system and, where available, for other systems with independent age constraints, and report the effect on α, β, and f.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2.1, Eq. (3)] The circularity in the N2 estimate is acknowledged and the factor-of-2 insensitivity is stated, but a quantitative demonstration would be useful in the main text rather than only as a robustness note.
  2. [Table C.1] The footnote structure is confusing: superscripts mix references for companion masses, adopted ages, and literature sources. Please define the star symbol explicitly and identify which masses are from this work and which are from the cited literature.
  3. [§5, Eq. (7)] The significance test between FGK and M-dwarf parameters combines asymmetric posterior uncertainties as if they were Gaussian. Sampling the posterior difference distribution would be more appropriate and is straightforward with the existing MCMC chains.
  4. [§3 and §7] The paper states that the survey does not present the discovery of new brown dwarf companions, and indeed all 17 recovered systems appear to be previously known. This should be stated more explicitly when describing the search results, so readers understand that the recovered sample is a systematically re-detected subset rather than a set of newly discovered systems.
  5. [Throughout] There are several minor presentational issues: a stray 'bf' in Section 1, duplicated references (Aumer & Binney 2009a/b; Cushing et al. 2011), and a figure caption (Fig. 6) that says some unrecovered objects are not included without fully explaining why.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

One acknowledged, non-load-bearing circular step in the N2 prior; central MCMC inference is self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 2.2.1, Eq. (3)]
    "Assuming that all companions are known and dividing by the number of systems gives an N2∼0.01. We note that this may appear as a circular argument; the number of companions has an impact on the likelihood of recovering more companions. In practice, changing N2 even by a factor of 2 (i.e., only half of the companions at the relevant separation would be known) does not affect our results."

    N2 in Eq. (3) is the expected number of BD companions per system, estimated from the assumption that all companions are known. This same N2 is then used in P_comove to decide which candidates are retained as companions. Thus the recovered sample—and hence the fitted occurrence rate f and slopes α, β—depends on an input that was set by assuming the very population being measured. The paper explicitly recognizes the circularity and shows factor-of-2 insensitivity, so the step is not load-bearing for the final parameter constraints.

full rationale

The derivation of α, β, and f is otherwise self-contained: the survey sample (2,103 stars), CatWISE proper-motion and W2 photometry, empirically calibrated completeness maps, and the Fontanive/Nielsen power-law model are external inputs, not outputs of the paper's conclusion. The MCMC likelihood (Appendix E) treats the 17 recovered companions as data with completeness corrections; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The comparison with stellar-binary slopes and IMF values is an external benchmark, not a circular premise. The only explicit circular element is the N2 term in Eq. (3), which the authors acknowledge and demonstrate is insensitive to factor-of-2 changes; it does not control the central result. I also note as a non-circular caveat that the Table C.1 masses adopt a kinematic-age PDF (Marocco et al. 2024) and use 2.95 Gyr for HD 170573 despite the >9 Gyr age cited in Sect. 4.2; this is a modeling/robustness issue affecting α, not a circularity, because the masses are inputs rather than derived from the conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. The inferred population is obtained by fitting a two-dimensional power law to 17 recovered companions, with completeness and projection corrections. The main external inputs are the power-law model, the kinematic age proxy, ATMO2020 evolutionary tracks, and the Gaia/Kirkpatrick 20 pc sample; all are adopted from prior literature and are not independently derived here.

free parameters (7)
  • α (mass power-law index) = -0.21 +0.31/-0.27
    Free parameter of the assumed power-law mass distribution d2n ∝ M^α a^β; fitted to the 17 recovered companions.
  • β (separation power-law index) = -1.38 ± 0.32
    Free parameter controlling the semi-major axis distribution; fitted in the MCMC.
  • f (occurrence normalization) = log10 f = -1.97 +0.11/-0.11 (≈1.07%)
    Fraction of stars hosting at least one companion in 5–80 M_J, 1,000–20,000 AU; fitted in the MCMC.
  • N2 (expected co-moving companions per system) = ≈0.01
    Estimated by assuming all companions are known and dividing by the number of systems; enters Eq. 3 for candidate association probability. The authors note this 'may appear as a circular argument' but test factor-of-2 insensitivity.
  • r0 (angular falloff scale in recovery model) = varies per magnitude bin (e.g., ~45–85 arcsec)
    Fitted to background source density around representative bright stars in Appendix B; used in Eq. B.1 to model completeness at small separations.
  • P_comove acceptance threshold = 0.5
    Hand-set probability threshold for a candidate to be considered co-moving.
  • Colour-selection acceptance ribbon width = 0.3 mag for M_W2 < 11.5, 1.5 mag for M_W2 > 14, linear between; 4×MAD
    Empirically chosen width of the M_W2 vs W1-W2 selection band that defines BD colour candidates.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Companion mass and semi-major axis distributions follow power laws: d2n ∝ M^α a^β dM da (Eq. 6).
    Section 5 adopts the parametric power-law model from Nielsen et al. (2019); all fitted slopes are conditional on this functional form.
  • domain assumption Galactic kinematics can be used as an age proxy for field stars (Marocco et al. 2024 method).
    Section 2.2.2 uses this to assign statistical age PDFs because individual stellar ages are not available.
  • domain assumption ATMO2020 atmospheric/evolutionary models correctly convert M_W2 and age to companion mass.
    Section 2.2.2 and 4.3 interpolate companion masses from absolute W2 magnitudes using these models.
  • domain assumption The Gaia/Kirkpatrick et al. (2024) catalogue is complete for main-sequence stars within 20 pc.
    Section 2.1 relies on this volume-limited sample as the basis for the statistical analysis.
  • domain assumption Proper-motion errors in Gaia are negligible compared to CatWISE, and CatWISE errors are Gaussian with empirically estimated dispersions.
    Equations 1–3 in Section 2.2.1 model field and co-moving hypotheses with Gaussian distributions.
  • domain assumption Components within a system formed simultaneously, and ages are capped by main-sequence lifetime and ~10 Gyr.
    Section 2.2.2 uses this to combine primary age PDFs with companion cooling models.
  • domain assumption Projected separations can be mapped to 3D separations via the standard random-inclination projection kernel without a 1.26 correction.
    Appendix E derives the projection kernel; Section 4.3 follows Tokovinin et al. (2020) for population-level estimates.
  • standard math Flat priors on α, β, and f over broad ranges are adequate.
    Section 5: flat priors with α, β in [-5,5] and f in [1e-5,1].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36101 in / 16219 out tokens · 134608 ms · 2026-08-01T09:41:00.298322+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Context. Wide substellar companions provide important benchmarks for studying the formation and evolution of brown dwarfs and giant planets. Their association with stellar primaries also provides age and metallicity constraints that are difficult to obtain for isolated objects. Aims. We investigate the population of wide substellar companions to nearby main-sequence stars using proper motions derived from multi-epoch WISE imaging. Our sample includes 2103 stars within 20 pc and is sensitive to companions down to $\sim300$ K at separations up to 20,000 AU. Methods. We use a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis to constrain the companion mass and semi-major axis distributions while accounting for observational selection effects, including the reduced detectability of faint companions. We assume power-law distributions, $d^2n \propto M^\alpha a^\beta dM da$. Results. We derive $\alpha=-0.21^{+0.31}_{-0.27}$, $\beta=-1.38\pm0.32$, and an occurrence rate of $1.07^{+0.31}_{-0.24}\%$ for companions with masses of 5--80 $M_J$ at separations of 1,000--20,000 AU. The occurrence rate increases towards smaller separations and for more massive host stars. Conclusions. The inferred companion mass distribution is consistent with previous direct imaging surveys despite differences in target selection. The power-law distributions in both mass and separation also agree with those of stellar binaries. Our sample is about an order of magnitude larger than those of previous imaging surveys, providing the most robust statistical characterisation of wide substellar companions to date. These results support the interpretation that wide substellar companions represent the low-mass extension of the stellar binary population rather than a direct extension of close-in giant planets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20673 by Cl\'emence Fontanive, \'Etienne Artigau, Fabrice Bado, Neil J. Cook, Orlagh L. Creevey, Ren\'e Doyon, Si\'e Zacharie Kam, Souleymane Ouedraogo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hertzsprung–Russell (HR) diagram of absolute magni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Proper-motion dispersion as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Colour–magnitude diagram (CMD) MW2 vs. W1−W2, in￾cluding the injection of the observed BD population from Kirk￾patrick et al. (2024). The polynomial relation for BD and se￾lection bounds for the identification of objects consistent with a companion are shown. Note that the width of the selection box increases in the late-T and Y dwarf regime as objects display an increasingly broad dispersion in their W1−W… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Completeness maps for the HN Peg system. [1]: In this recovery map, we only account for the combination of companion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left– CMD of the objects observed in the field of L 34-24. Objects located inside the selection band in the left panel are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Completeness map and average probability of detection for Gaia stars within a 20 pc radius. It represents the average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Completeness Map — (a) Systems with an initial total mass greater than 0.5 M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Separation-to-total-mass ratio for L, T, and Y binaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reduced binding energy (left panel) and projected physical separation (right panel) as a function of the total system mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the MCMC posterior distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Empirical α and β slopes for the M-dwarf and FGK samples ( right panels), and for the full sample (left panels) com￾pared to the DIPSY (Schib et al. 2025b) models (D0 to D6, cor￾responding to versions DIPSY-0 to DIPSY-6). The FGK com￾panion distribution is consistent at the 2σ level with all but the DIPSY-2 population. M dwarf DIPSY companions tend to have much steeper mass and semi-major axis distributio… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 84 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    arXiv e-prints , author =

    Investing for. arXiv e-prints , author =. 2019 , pages =

    2019

  2. [2]

    2019 , pages =

    arXiv e-prints , author =. 2019 , pages =

    2019

  3. [3]

    2006 , pages =

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2006 , pages =. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00237.x , language =

    arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    The discovery of an. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2009 , pages =. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14620.x , language =

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    2012 , pages =

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2012 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/755/2/94 , language =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/755/2/94 2012

  6. [6]

    2012 , pages =

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2012 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/100 , language =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/100 2012

  7. [7]

    1999 , pages =

    American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#193 , author =. 1999 , pages =

    1999

  8. [8]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Discovery of a. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2011 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/81 , language =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/81 2011

  9. [9]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    New. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2012 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/152 , language =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/760/2/152 2012

  10. [10]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    varepsilon. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2003 , pages =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021847 , language =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021847 2003

  11. [11]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Hip. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2010 , pages =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014264 , language =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014264 2010

  12. [12]

    American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#195 , author =

    Discovery of a. American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#195 , author =. 2000 , pages =

    2000

  13. [13]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Discovery of a. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2006 , pages =. doi:10.1086/504256 , language =

    work page doi:10.1086/504256 2006

  14. [14]

    Nature , author =

    Discovery of a cool brown dwarf , volume =. Nature , author =. 1995 , pages =. doi:10.1038/378463a0 , language =

    doi:10.1038/378463a0 1995

  15. [15]

    2008 , pages =

    The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2008 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1290 , language =

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1290 2008

  16. [16]

    Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society , author =

    A. Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aadcb1 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/aadcb1 2018

  17. [17]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    A. The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2006 , pages =. doi:10.1086/505626 , language =

    doi:10.1086/505626 2006

  18. [18]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    In. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/61 , language =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/767/1/61 2013

  19. [19]

    2018 , pages =

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0cf , language =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa0cf 2018

  20. [20]

    arXiv:1905.04275 [astro-ph] , author =

    Directly. arXiv:1905.04275 [astro-ph] , author =. 2019 , note =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  21. [21]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    A. The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2019 , pages =. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2594 , number =

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2594 2019

  22. [22]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Physical. The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2015 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/53 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/53 2015

  23. [23]

    arXiv e-prints , author =

    Simulating. arXiv e-prints , author =. 2019 , pages =

    2019

  24. [24]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    The. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2017 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx741 , urldate =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx741 2017

  25. [25]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Pressure. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2017 , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad6 , urldate =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8ad6 2017

  26. [26]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Line shapes of the magnesium resonance lines in cool. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2018 , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834067 , urldate =

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834067 2018

  27. [27]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Asymmetry in the triplet 3p-4s. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2016 , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527826 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527826 2016

  28. [28]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2018 , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9 , urldate =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9 2018

  29. [29]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2019 , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0081 , urldate =

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0081 2019

  30. [30]

    Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance , author =

    Micromechanics-. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance , author =. 2015 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s11665-015-1383-7 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1007/s11665-015-1383-7 2015

  31. [31]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

    A. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2015 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/L31 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/814/2/l31 2015

  32. [32]

    Journal of Applied Physics , author =

    Origin of colossal permittivity in. Journal of Applied Physics , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1063/1.4774099 , urldate =

    doi:10.1063/1.4774099 2013

  33. [33]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Orbital and evolutionary constraints on the planet hosting binary. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts677 , urldate =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts677 2013

  34. [34]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Signs of a faint disc population at polluted white dwarfs , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2014 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1565 , urldate =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1565 2014

  35. [35]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    New white dwarf stars in the. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2015 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2388 , urldate =

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2388 2015

  36. [36]

    2013 , keywords =

    The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5 , urldate =

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5 2013

  37. [37]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Photometric. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/123 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/123 2013

  38. [38]

    2013 , keywords =

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt832 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt832 2013

  39. [39]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Precise. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2014 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/35 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/35 2014

  40. [40]

    Baltic Astronomy , author =

    Stark. Baltic Astronomy , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1515/astro-2017-0329 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1515/astro-2017-0329 2011

  41. [41]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Accretion of a. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/90 , urldate =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/732/2/90 2011

  42. [42]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Cool. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116816 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116816 2011

  43. [43]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

    Taking. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/L19 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/733/2/l19 2011

  44. [44]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    A. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/28 , urldate =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/28 2011

  45. [45]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Detailed. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2012 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/6 , urldate =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/6 2012

  46. [46]

    and Wesemael, F

    Bergeron, P. and Wesemael, F. and Dufour, Pierre and Beauchamp, A. and Hunter, C. and Fontaine, G. and Dufour, Patrick and Gianninas, A. and Desharnais, S. and Saffer, R. A. and Liebert, James and Ruiz, M. T. , month = nov, year =. A. doi:10.1063/1.3527895 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3527895

  47. [47]

    and Girven, J

    Koester, D. and Girven, J. and Gaensicke, B. and Dufour, P. , month = nov, year =. The cool end of the. doi:10.1063/1.3527872 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3527872

  48. [48]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Discovery of a. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/92 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/92 2011

  49. [49]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    An. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2011 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/101 , urldate =

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/101 2011

  50. [50]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    A. The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2012 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/4/103 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/4/103 2012

  51. [51]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Might carbon-atmosphere white dwarfs harbour a new type of pulsating star? , volume =. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809651 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809651 2008

  52. [52]

    2008 , keywords =

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/588286 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1086/588286 2008

  53. [53]

    2008 , keywords =

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/591672 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1086/591672 2008

  54. [54]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Follow-up. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2009 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/702/2/1593 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/2/1593 2009

  55. [55]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Detailed. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2005 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/430373 , urldate =

    doi:10.1086/430373 2005

  56. [56]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Model. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2006 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/508144 , urldate =

    doi:10.1086/508144 2006

  57. [57]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    The `. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00446.x , urldate =

    arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Hot. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2008 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/589855 , urldate =

    doi:10.1086/589855 2008

  59. [59]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Follow-. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2009 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/240 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/703/1/240 2009

  60. [60]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Discovery of a. The Astronomical Journal , author =. 2010 , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2587 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2587 2010

  61. [61]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

    Discovery of a. The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =. 2004 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/427080 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1086/427080 2004

  62. [62]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    On the. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2005 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/429715 , urldate =

    doi:10.1086/429715 2005

  63. [63]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Is. The Astrophysical Journal , author =. 2002 , keywords =. doi:10.1086/341435 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1086/341435 2002

  64. [64]

    Annalen der Physik , author =

    Ueber die scheinbaren. Annalen der Physik , author =. 1851 , pages =. doi:10.1002/andp.18511600914 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.18511600914

  65. [65]

    Annalen der Physik , author =

    Ueber einige der optischen. Annalen der Physik , author =. 1853 , pages =. doi:10.1002/andp.18531650705 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.18531650705

  66. [66]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Notes on the. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =. 1857 , pages =. doi:10.1093/mnras/18.2.51 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/18.2.51

  67. [67]

    Nuovo Cimento A Serie , author =

    Two-body channels in the interactions of 3, 3.5 and 5. Nuovo Cimento A Serie , author =. 1966 , pages =. doi:10.1007/BF02826539 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02826539 1966

  68. [68]

    Nuovo Cimento A Serie , author =

    Three-body final states in. Nuovo Cimento A Serie , author =. 1967 , pages =. doi:10.1007/BF02902186 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02902186 1967

  69. [69]

    Physics Letters B , author =

    Evidence for a. Physics Letters B , author =. 1967 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(67)90543-6 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(67)90543-6 1967

  70. [70]

    Nuclear Physics B , author =

    Coherent. Nuclear Physics B , author =. 1969 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(69)90102-3 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(69)90102-3 1969

  71. [71]

    Nuovo Cimento A Serie , author =

    K+p elastic scattering at 3.5 and 5.0. Nuovo Cimento A Serie , author =. 1966 , pages =. doi:10.1007/BF02738376 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02738376 1966

  72. [72]

    Marine Ecology Progress Series , author =

    Particulate organic matter in sixteen. Marine Ecology Progress Series , author =. 1997 , pages =. doi:10.3354/meps151055 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.3354/meps151055 1997

  73. [73]

    and Bergeron, P

    Dufour, P. and Bergeron, P. and Fontaine, G. , month = jul, year =. Detailed

  74. [74]

    and Bergeron, P

    Dufour, P. and Bergeron, P. , month = sep, year =. Detailed

  75. [75]

    and Liebert, J

    Dufour, P. and Liebert, J. and Fontaine, G. and Behara, N. , month = jul, year =. Hot

  76. [76]

    and Dufour, P

    Bergeron, P. and Dufour, P. and Giammichele, N. , month = jan, year =. Know your

  77. [77]

    and Vornanen, T

    Dufour, P. and Vornanen, T. and Bergeron, P. and Fontaine, A., Berdyugin , month = jan, year =. White

  78. [78]

    Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Accretion and activity on the post-common-envelope binary. Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220340 , urldate =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220340 2013

  79. [79]

    and Blouin, S

    Dufour, Patrick and Jordan, S. and Blouin, S. and Tardif, F. and Groulx, J. and Kilic, M. and Gianninas, A. and Barber, S. D. and Gilligan, C. , month = jun, year =. Magnetic

  80. [80]

    and Brassard, P

    Fontaine, G. and Brassard, P. and Dufour, P. and Tremblay, P.-E. , month = jun, year =. Metal

Showing first 80 references.