Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Interpretation and diversity of exoplanetary material orbiting white dwarfs

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Nine polluted white dwarfs are accreting rocky, volatile-poor asteroidal debris from differentiated bodies, including a mantle-like planetesimal with a small iron core and one system where accretion ceased about five million years ago.

desk verdict A careful nine-star abundance study that confirms the rocky-accretion consensus and offers one credible post-accretion system; the timing claim is model-dependent but not fragile enough to sink the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08047 v1 pith:HA45KNLW submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Andrew Swan , Jay Farihi , Detlev Koester , Mark Hollands , Steven Parsons , P. Wilson Cauley , Seth Redfield , Boris T. Gaensicke This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfsmetalpollutionexoplanetarymaterialasteroidaccretionphotosphericabundancesplanetesimaldifferentiationdiffusiontimescalescircumstellardebris
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 argues that nine metal-polluted white dwarfs are all currently or recently accreting rocky, volatile-poor asteroidal material, and that the compositions trace the interiors of differentiated planetesimals. It presents a new way to compare photospheric abundances with solar-system materials—a statistical test on log-odds scales that is less dominated by abundant elements—and applies it to medium-resolution optical spectra. The payoff is diversity: one star appears to be accreting a mantle-like planetesimal with a small iron–nickel core, two show sodium-rich material, one is strongly calcium-poor, and one appears to have stopped accreting about five million years ago, leaving magnesium to dominate because it sinks slowest. If the interpretation is right, white dwarf spectroscopy is a direct way to measure the bulk composition of exoplanetary bodies.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the three-phase model of photospheric metal abundance evolution driven by element-dependent diffusion (sinking) timescales. During constant accretion, abundances rise and approach steady-state values; once accretion stops, element ratios diverge exponentially because elements leave the photosphere at different rates. Coupled to this is a logit-transformed reduced chi-squared comparison between the observed abundances and a database of solar-system materials (Earth components, meteorite groups, comets), which prevents a dominant element from manufacturing false consistency. The paper uses the differential sinking of magnesium versus calcium and iron to read the timing of the 2216−657 system: since Mg lingers longest, its dominance marks a post-accretion phase about five calcium sinking timescales after the event.

What would settle it

Compute the diffusion (sinking) timescales for magnesium, calcium, and iron with an independent public model for a helium-atmosphere white dwarf at around 9190 K and $\log g \sim 8.05$, the parameters of 2216−657; if the Mg/Ca and Mg/Fe sinking-time ratios differ substantially from the values used here, the post-accretion interpretation and the inferred age of about 5 Myr are not settled. A long-baseline search for changes in the Mg/Fe ratio of 2216−657 could test the predicted exponential divergence, though the relevant timescales are millions of years.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the photospheric metals in all nine white dwarfs were delivered by accretion of rocky, volatile-poor asteroidal debris whose parent bodies were differentiated, in line with the consensus model for white dwarf pollution. The most metal-rich object, WD 0446−255, shows fourteen detected elements whose relative abundances match a mixture of mantle rock with a small fraction of iron–nickel core material, implying the accretion of a differentiated minor planet with a small core. At WD 2216−657 the element ratios are best explained by accretion that ceased about 5 Myr ago: magnesium, which sinks about 2.5 times more slowly than calcium and iron, has come to dominate the photosphere. The paper also reports unusual sodium enhancements at two stars and a severe calcium deficiency at another, and argues these reflect genuine diversity in the source planetesimals rather than observational artifacts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that magnesium really does sink out of these white-dwarf atmospheres about 2.5 times more slowly than calcium and iron; if independent diffusion models disagree with that relative ratio, the post-accretion identification and 5 Myr timing for 2216−657 would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claims hold, white dwarf pollution spectroscopy is a reliable route to the bulk compositions of exoplanetary bodies, and most such bodies in these systems are rocky and volatile-poor.
  • The results for 0446−255 imply that differentiated rocky planetesimals with small iron–nickel cores exist around white dwarfs, and that the accreted mass of about $10^{23}\,\mathrm{g}$ is comparable to small asteroids or icy moons like Enceladus.
  • A decreasing-phase system such as 2216−657 rules out exponentially decaying accretion histories, because those would keep abundance ratios near steady-state values rather than letting Mg diverge, and it places a lower limit near $10^{23}\,\mathrm{g}$ on the parent body mass in the paper's accretion-model context.
  • The Mg/Fe ratio, when Ca/Fe looks normal, can serve as a preliminary diagnostic for post-accretion systems, allowing more such systems to be identified from fewer detected elements.
  • The logit-transformed comparison should be used for abundance consistency tests; without it, false consistencies with meteorite compositions extend too far into the post-accretion phase, as the re-analysis of a known polluted white dwarf illustrates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the Mg/Fe diagnostic is as reliable as this analysis suggests, large spectroscopic surveys of polluted white dwarfs could identify many more post-accretion systems from spectra with only a few detected metals, turning rare objects into a population sample.
  • Editorial extension: the sodium-rich stars may be fossil signatures of earlier accretion events of crust-like material, because sodium sinks slowly; the paper raises this possibility but leaves quantitative modelling for future work, and detecting phosphorus, sulfur, or other moderately volatile elements would test it.
  • Editorial extension: if the strongly calcium-poor star really accreted pallasite-like core–mantle boundary material, white dwarf spectra would be probing the internal layering of exoplanetesimals, not just their bulk composition—a scenario that predicts distinctive co-variation of siderophile and lithophile elements in other such stars.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Drawing on medium-resolution X-shooter spectroscopy of nine metal-polluted white dwarfs (with supplementary Keck/HIRES and HST/COS data for some stars), this paper derives photospheric abundances from model atmospheres and converts them to accreted compositions under the standard constant-accretion, three-phase diffusion model. A logit-transformed reduced chi-squared test is introduced to compare the inferred compositions with solar system materials. The authors conclude that all nine stars are accreting rocky, volatile-poor asteroidal material; that 0446-255 best matches a mantle-like planetesimal with a small Fe-Ni core; that 0449-259, 1350-162 and 2105-820 show notable Na excesses or Ca depletion; and that 2216-657 is observed in the post-accretion (decreasing) phase, with accretion having ceased about 5 Myr ago. Extensive attention is given to error propagation, upper limits, and systematic uncertainties.

Significance. The paper's broad conclusion is in line with the field consensus and is supported by multiple refractory-element ratios. Its main new contributions are the logit-based comparison method, the well-characterized 0446-255 composition with 14 detected metals, and the identification of 2216-657 as a rare post-accretion system. The authors are unusually explicit about limitations: Appendix A3 documents model-dependent diffusion timescales and shows that independent re-analyses of the same stars can change the chi-squared consistency conclusions. The logit method is validated on simulated data and on G29-38, and the comparisons use external benchmark compositions rather than being fit to the model, which reduces circularity concerns. If the post-accretion timing holds, 2216-657 will be a useful anchor for accretion-history modelling.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3, 2216-657; Table 1] The post-accretion identification and the quoted 5 Myr timing rest on the relative sinking times of Mg versus Ca and Fe, but the paper never tabulates tau_Mg/tau_Ca or tau_Mg/tau_Fe at the star's parameters (Teff about 9190 K, log g about 8.05). Table 1 lists only tau_Ca, and the statement that Mg sinks around 2.5 times more slowly than the other detected elements appears in prose without an associated uncertainty. Please provide these ratios, with their Monte Carlo or formal errors, and show how the recovered post-accretion time changes when independent diffusion timescales (e.g., the Montreal tables discussed in Appendix A3) are used. A factor of about 1.2 in the ratio would alter the inferred time by roughly 20 per cent, which would be acceptable, but the current text does not allow the reader to verify that this is the relevant uncertainty.
  2. [§4.3, 2216-657 sanity check; §Appendix A3] The random-abundance sanity check is computed with the same diffusion model that produces the presumed Mg/Fe enhancement, so it cannot independently test whether an unusual accreted composition could mimic the observed ratios. Given the inter-model discrepancies quoted in Appendix A3 (up to a factor of six in absolute sinking times for He-atmosphere stars, with element-to-element ratios usually within about 1.2), the authors should re-run the 2216-657 analysis with an independent diffusion-time table, or at minimum perturb the Mg/Ca and Mg/Fe ratios to the extremes of the model scatter. This would convert the post-accretion identification from a model-contingent inference into a quantitatively robust one.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (1)] Please clarify exactly which elements enter the mass-fraction normalization for each star-comparison pair. The text says fractions are measured with respect to only the observed metals, but for comparisons such as 67P/C-G (no Ti or Ni) and pallasites (no Na or Ti) the effective denominator changes; a sentence stating that only the common detected elements are used, and whether the missing-element treatment was tested, would remove ambiguity.
  2. [§4.3, 0449-259] There is a typo, 'thisisduetothetheunusualNaabundance', with a duplicated 'the'; please correct it.
  3. [§5.2] The sentence containing 'abundances have have diverged' has a duplicated 'have'; please correct it.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption ends with '(Section 4.2.' and is missing the closing parenthesis; please fix the incomplete reference.
  5. [§4.3, 0122-227] The phrase 'uncertain (1)' appears to be an orphan footnote marker; if no footnote is intended, please remove the '(1)' or convert it to a proper citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the diffusion framework is an external prior, the logit method is validated on simulations and G29-38, and the compositional conclusions are outputs of fits against independent solar-system benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central inference chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Photospheric abundances are fitted from spectra using model atmospheres (Koester 2010) and converted to accreted compositions using diffusion time-scales (Koester 2009); these are prior frameworks developed outside this data set, and the paper does not fit them to its own targets. The comparison against solar-system objects uses external databases (Nittler et al. 2004; Lodders & Fegley 1998; Rudnick & Gao 2003; Bardyn et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018), and the logit transform is validated on simulated data and on the published G29-38 abundances, so the method is not calibrated on the same stars it is used to interpret. The mantle-like composition of 0446-255 (crust:mantle:core = 0:96:4 in the increasing phase and 9:80:11 in steady state) is the output of a chi-square minimization, not an input condition. The post-accretion identification of 2216-657 is a forward-model interpretation using the three-phase accretion model of Section 3.1; the Mg enhancement is converted to a cessation time via external sinking-time ratios, and the paper explicitly reports the cross-model disagreement in Appendix A3 as a limitation rather than suppressing it. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs. The self-citations to Koester and Hollands are to prior, independently developed model and comparison data, not to an unverified uniqueness theorem; they are therefore real evidence rather than circular support.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard white dwarf atmosphere and diffusion models, plus the assumption that solar system compositions are a useful benchmark for exoplanetary material. The one fitted interpretive parameter is the 3-component mixture for 0446-255.

free parameters (1)
  • Crust/mantle/core mixture fractions for 0446-255 = 0:96:4 (increasing phase); 9:80:11 (steady state)
    Chi-squared minimization over the three Earth components yields these fractions, which drive the interpretation of 0446-255 as a mantle-like planetesimal with a small core. The fractions are fitted to the observed abundances, not externally constrained.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption White dwarf atmosphere models (Koester 2010) and atomic line data from NIST/VALD3 accurately reproduce the observed spectra.
    All abundances are derived by fitting these models; if the models are wrong, the abundances are wrong.
  • domain assumption The three-phase accretion model with constant accretion rate and abrupt cessation correctly maps photospheric abundances to accreted material abundances.
    Used in Section 3.1 and Figure 2; central to inferring compositions and identifying the decreasing phase at 2216-657.
  • domain assumption Diffusion or sinking timescales from Koester (2009) are accurate in their element-to-element ratios.
    The decreasing-phase clock and the interpretation of Mg dominance depend on these ratios; Appendix A3 documents model disagreements.
  • domain assumption The meteorite database and Earth component compositions bracket the possible range of exoplanetary material.
    The chi2 comparisons assume these solar system objects are a meaningful comparison set; the paper acknowledges exoplanetary compositions could be wider.
  • standard math The logit transform makes proportional abundance uncertainties approximately Gaussian.
    Standard statistical recommendation (Warton and Hui 2011); validated in Appendix A1 with simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretation and diversity of exoplanetary material orbiting white dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HA45KNLW

@misc{pith2026190808047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretation and diversity of exoplanetary material orbiting white dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HA45KNLW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08047}
}
read the original abstract

Nine metal-polluted white dwarfs are observed with medium-resolution optical spectroscopy,where photospheric abundances are determined and interpreted through comparison against solar system objects. An improved method of making such comparisons is presented that overcomes potential weaknesses of prior analyses, with the numerous sources of error considered to highlight the limitations on interpretation. The stars are inferred to be accreting rocky, volatile-poor asteroidal materials with origins in differentiated bodies, in line with the consensus model. The most heavily polluted star in the sample has 14 metals detected, and appears to be accreting material from a rocky planetesimal, whose composition is mantle-like with a small Fe-Ni core component. Some unusual abundances are present: one star is strongly depleted in Ca, while two others show Na abundances elevated above bulk Earth, speculated either to reflect diversity in the formation conditions of the source material, or to be traces of past accretion events. Another star shows clear signs that accretion ceased around 5 Myr ago,causing Mg to dominate the photospheric abundances, as it has the longest diffusion time of the observed elements. Observing such post-accretion systems allows constraints to be placed on models of the accretion process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Extracts from X-shooter spectra (black) for all stars in the sample, overlaid with models (red). Fluxes are normalised within each section, and offset vertically. S/N is quoted at 4000Å. MNRAS 000, 1–16 (2019) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the three phases in the evolution of photospheric abundance ratios, where accretion of bulk-Earth material proceeds at a con￾stant rate until it ceases abruptly. 3.2 Uncertainties Errors determined for Teff and log g during the fitting procedure are judged to be formal for the He-atmosphere stars, and are re￾ported here. However, fitting errors for the H-atmosphere stars (typically ±10 K and ±0.001 d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Log mass abundance ratios. Filled circles and error bars show the inferred ratios in the accreted material, assuming a steady state. The arrows show how that inference changes if the system is now in the decreasing phase: accreted abundance ratios are effectively traced back in time toward the arrowhead, where accretion ceased 5 τCa ago. Arrows are shown only for He-atmosphere stars. Panel (a) plots lithophiles Ca a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reduced χ 2 values at 0446−255 (left) and 2216−657 (right) for consistency between accreted and comparison materials in the decreasing phase. Accretion is in the increasing phase at t = 0. The χ 2 values have been normalised to the 95 per cent confidence level (the red…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of the χ 2 analysis: coloured shading indicates consistency between accreted and comparison materials, with horizontal grid lines to guide the eye. Meteorite groups are ordered from chondrites (red), through irons (green), to achondrites (blue). The region to t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photospheric log number abundance ratios of Ni and Na against Fe. 5.1 Sodium A wide range of Na abundances are seen in the sample. Potential causes include scatter in stellar chemistry, contamination by inter￾stellar lines, formation conditions in the protoplanetary ne…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Magnetically guided accretion and extremely slow rotation in a metal-enriched white dwarf

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    WD 1532+129 rotates once every ~289 days — the slowest directly measured spin of any white dwarf — and its accreted metals sit in patches at both magnetic poles.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    F., Kielkopf J

    Allard N. F., Kielkopf J. F., Blouin S., Dufour P., Gad \' e a F. X., Leininger T., Guillon G., 2018, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834067 , 619, A152

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834067 2018

  3. [3]

    Andrae R., Schulze-Hartung T., Melchior P., 2010, preprint ( @eprint arXiv 1012.3754 )

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Bardyn A., et al., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2640 , 469, S712

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2640 2017

  5. [5]

    A., Barstow J

    Barstow M. A., Barstow J. K., Casewell S. L., Holberg J. B., Hubeny I., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu216 , 440, 1607

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu216 2014

  6. [6]

    B., Bildsten L., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aac492 , 859, L19

    Bauer E. B., Bildsten L., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aac492 , 859, L19

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac492 2018

  7. [7]

    B., Bildsten L., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0028 , 872, 96

    Bauer E. B., Bildsten L., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0028 , 872, 96

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0028 2019

  8. [8]

    B \' e dard A., Bergeron P., Fontaine G., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8bb6 , 848, 11

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8bb6 2017

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Bergfors C., Farihi J., Dufour P., Rocchetto M., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu1565 , 444, 2147

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    F., Salim S., Rich R

    Blouin S., Dufour P., Allard N. F., Salim S., Rich R. M., Koopmans L. V. E., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0081 , 872, 188

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    V., Rafikov R

    Bochkarev K. V., Rafikov R. R., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/36 , 741, 36

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    C., O'Brien D

    Bond J. C., O'Brien D. P., Lauretta D. S., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1050 , 715, 1050

    2010 doi

  5. [14]

    W., Farihi J., Redfield S., Bachman S., Parsons S

    Cauley P. W., Farihi J., Redfield S., Bachman S., Parsons S. G., G \" a nsicke B. T., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3d9 , 852, L22

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    C., et al., 2016, preprint ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 )

    Chambers K. C., et al., 2016, preprint ( @eprint arXiv 1612.05560 )

    2016 arXiv

  7. [16]

    D., Kalirai J

    Cummings J. D., Kalirai J. S., Tremblay P.-E., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Choi J., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6 , 866, 21

    2018 doi

  8. [17]

    Cunningham T., Tremblay P.-E., Freytag B., Ludwig H.-G., Koester D., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1759 , 488, 2503

    2019 doi

  9. [18]

    C., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature18290 , 536, 54

    De Sanctis M. C., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature18290 , 536, 54

    2016 doi

  10. [19]

    H., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/508132 , 652, 636

    Debes J. H., 2006, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/508132 , 652, 636

    2006 doi

  11. [20]

    H., Walsh K

    Debes J. H., Walsh K. J., Stark C., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/148 , 747, 148

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    Dufour P., et al., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/518468 , 663, 1291

    2007 doi

  13. [22]

    509, 20th European Workshop on White Dwarfs

    Dufour P., Blouin S., Coutu S., Fortin-Archambault M., Thibeault C., Bergeron P., Fontaine G., 2017, in Tremblay P.-E., Gaensicke B., Marsh T., eds, Vol. 509, 20th European Workshop on White Dwarfs. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, p. 3

    2017

  14. [23]

    Dupuis J., Fontaine G., Pelletier C., Wesemael F., 1992, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/191728 , 82, 505

    1992 doi

  15. [24]

    Dupuis J., Fontaine G., Pelletier C., Wesemael F., 1993, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/191746 , 84, 73

    1993 doi

  16. [25]

    Rev.] 10.1016/j.newar.2016.03.001 , 71, 9

    Farihi J., 2016, @doi [New Astron. Rev.] 10.1016/j.newar.2016.03.001 , 71, 9

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    A., Redfield S., Dufour P., Hambly N

    Farihi J., Barstow M. A., Redfield S., Dufour P., Hambly N. C., 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16426.x , 404, 2123

    2010

  18. [27]

    Farihi J., Dufour P., Napiwotzki R., Koester D., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18325.x , 413, 2559

    2011

  19. [28]

    T., Koester D., G \" a nsicke B

    Farihi J., Gansicke B. T., Koester D., G \" a nsicke B. T., Koester D., 2013, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1239447 , 342, 218

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    C., Greaves J

    Farihi J., Wyatt M. C., Greaves J. S., Bonsor A., Sibthorpe B., Pani \' c O., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu1545 , 444, 1821

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    Fontaine G., Brassard P., Bergeron P., 2001, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/319535 , 113, 409

    2001 doi

  22. [31]

    E., 2015, in Dufour P., Bergeron P., Fontaine G., eds, Vol

    Fontaine G., Brassard P., Dufour P., Tremblay P. E., 2015, in Dufour P., Bergeron P., Fontaine G., eds, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, p. 113

    2015

  23. [32]

    Friedrich S., Koester D., Christlieb N., Reimers D., Wisotzki L., 2000, A & A, 363

    2000

  24. [33]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , 595, A1

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., 2018, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , 616, A1

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    T., Koester D., Farihi J., Girven J., Parsons S

    G \" a nsicke B. T., Koester D., Farihi J., Girven J., Parsons S. G., Breedt E., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21201.x , 424, 333

    2012

  27. [36]

    P., Tremblay P.-E., Jordan S., G \" a nsicke B

    Gentile Fusillo N. P., Tremblay P.-E., Jordan S., G \" a nsicke B. T., Kalirai J. S., Cummings J., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx2584 , 473, 3693

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    S., Farihi J., G \" a nsicke B

    Girven J., Brinkworth C. S., Farihi J., G \" a nsicke B. T., Hoard D. W., Marsh T. R., Koester D., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/154 , 749, 154

    2012 doi

  29. [38]

    Harrison J. H. D., Bonsor A., Madhusudhan N., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty1700 , 479, 3814

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    H., Hopp J., 2014, in 77th Annual Meteoritical Society Meeting

    Henke S., Gail H.-P., Trieloff M., Schwarz W. H., Hopp J., 2014, in 77th Annual Meteoritical Society Meeting

    2014

  31. [40]

    R., Timmes F., Young P

    Hinkel N. R., Timmes F., Young P. A., Pagano M. D., Turnbull M. C., 2014, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/54 , 148, 54

    2014 doi

  32. [41]

    Hollands M., Koester D., Alekseev V., Herbert E., G \" a nsicke B., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx250 , 467, stx250

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    A., G \" a nsicke B

    Hollands M. A., G \" a nsicke B. T., Koester D., 2018, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty592 , 477, 93

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    C., Cook D

    Hunt A. C., Cook D. L., Lichtenberg T., Reger P. M., Ek M., Golabek G. J., Sch \" o nb \" a chler M., 2018, @doi [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.] 10.1016/J.EPSL.2017.11.034 , 482, 490

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    K., Christoforidis A., Kissel J., 1988, Nature, 332, 691

    Jessberger E. K., Christoforidis A., Kissel J., 1988, Nature, 332, 691

    1988

  36. [45]

    Jura M., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/374036 , 584, L91

    2003 doi

  37. [46]

    D., 2014, @doi [Annu

    Jura M., Young E. D., 2014, @doi [Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci.] 10.1146/annurev-earth-060313-054740 , 42, 45

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    Jura M., Farihi J., Zuckerman B., 2009, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3191 , 137, 3191

    2009 doi

  39. [48]

    D., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/L41 , 775, L41

    Jura M., Xu S., Young E. D., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/775/2/L41 , 775, L41

    2013 doi

  40. [49]

    Kawka A., Vennes S., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnrasl/slu004 , 439, L90

    2014 doi

  41. [50]

    Kawka A., Vennes S., Ferrario L., Paunzen E., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty3048 , 482, 5201

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Bromley B

    Kenyon S. J., Bromley B. C., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7b85 , 844, 116

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    O., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2526 , 455, 3413

    Kepler S. O., et al., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2526 , 455, 3413

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    Klein B., Jura M., Koester D., Zuckerman B., Melis C., 2010, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/950 , 709, 950

    2010 doi

  45. [54]

    Klein B., Jura M., Koester D., Zuckerman B., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/64 , 741, 64

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    Koester D., 2009, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468 , 498, 517

    2009 doi

  47. [56]

    Koester D., 2010, Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital., 81, 921

    2010

  48. [57]

    O., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527169 , 583

    Koester D., Kepler S. O., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527169 , 583

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    Koester D., Wolff B., 2000, A & A, 357, 587

    2000

  50. [59]

    F., 1998, A & A, 338, 612

    Koester D., Dreizler S., Weidemann V., Allard N. F., 1998, A & A, 338, 612

    1998

  51. [60]

    Koester D., Rollenhagen K., Napiwotzki R., Voss B., Christlieb N., Homeier D., Reimers D., 2005, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041927 , 432, 1025

    2005 doi

  52. [61]

    T., Dufour P., 2011, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116816 , 530, A114

    Koester D., Girven J., G \" a nsicke B. T., Dufour P., 2011, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116816 , 530, A114

    2011 doi

  53. [62]

    T., Farihi J., 2014, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423691 , 566, A34

    Koester D., G \" a nsicke B. T., Farihi J., 2014, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423691 , 566, A34

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    A., 2018, NIST Atomic Spectra Database , @doi 10.18434/T4W30F

    Kramida A., Ralchenko Y., Reader J., Team N. A., 2018, NIST Atomic Spectra Database , @doi 10.18434/T4W30F

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G

    Landstreet J. D., Bagnulo S., Valyavin G. G., Fossati L., Jordan S., Monin D., Wade G. A., 2012, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219829 , 545, A30

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    Laverick M., Lobel A., Merle T., Royer P., Martayan C., David M., Hensberge H., Thienpont E., 2018, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731933 , 612, A60

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    Lodders K., 2003, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/375492 , 591, 1220

    2003 doi

  58. [67]

    Oxford University Press

    Lodders K., Fegley B., 1998, The planetary scientist's companion . Oxford University Press

    1998

  59. [68]

    L \' o pez-Valdivia R., Bertone E., Ch \' a vez M., 2017, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stx249 , 467, 2412

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    C., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/426387 , 619, L1

    Martin D. C., et al., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/426387 , 619, L1

    2005 doi

  61. [70]

    P., Sion E

    McCook G. P., Sion E. M., 1999, ApJS, 121, 1

    1999

  62. [71]

    Melis C., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/751/1/L4 , 751, L4

    2012 doi

  63. [72]

    T., Kuchner M

    Mullally F., Kilic M., Reach W. T., Kuchner M. J., von Hippel T., Burrows A., Winget D. E., 2007, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/511858 , 171, 206

    2007 doi

  64. [73]

    Murga M., Zhu G., M \' e nard B., Lan T.-W., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv1277 , 452, 511

    2015 doi

  65. [74]

    H., Trieloff M., Hopp J., Spohn T., 2018, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2018.03.024 , 311, 146

    Neumann W., Henke S., Breuer D., Gail H.-P., Schwarz W. H., Trieloff M., Hopp J., Spohn T., 2018, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/J.ICARUS.2018.03.024 , 311, 146

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    E., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , 579, A52

    Nissen P. E., 2015, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526269 , 579, A52

    2015 doi

  67. [76]

    R., McCoy T

    Nittler L. R., McCoy T. J., Clark P. E., Murphy M. E., Trombka J. I., Jarosewich E., 2004, Antarctic Meteor. Res., 17, 231

    2004

  68. [77]

    K., et al., 2004, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature02948 , 431, 660

    Okamoto Y. K., et al., 2004, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature02948 , 431, 660

    2004 doi

  69. [78]

    Paquette C., Pelletier C., Fontaine G., Michaud G., 1986, @doi [ApJS] 10.1086/191112 , 61, 197

    1986 doi

  70. [79]

    \' A ., Lindegren L., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/14 , 797, 14

    Perryman M., Hartman J., Bakos G. \' A ., Lindegren L., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/14 , 797, 14

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Kupka F., Ryabchikova T

    Piskunov N. E., Kupka F., Ryabchikova T. A., Weiss W. W., Jeffery C. S., 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 112, 525

    1995

  72. [81]

    Raddi R., et al., 2015, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv701 , 450, 2083

    2015 doi

  73. [82]

    R., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L3 , 732, L3

    Rafikov R. R., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/2041-8205/732/1/L3 , 732, L3

    2011 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Redfield S., Kessler-Silacci J

    Redfield S., 2006, in Kannappan S. J., Redfield S., Kessler-Silacci J. E., Landriau M., Drory N., eds, New Horizons in Astronomy: Frank N. Bash Symposium 2005. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, p. 79

    2006

  75. [84]

    L., Gao S., 2003, in , Vol

    Rudnick R. L., Gao S., 2003, in , Vol. 3, Treatise on Geochemistry. Elsevier, pp 1--64, @doi 10.1016/B0-08-043751-6/03016-4

    2003 doi

  76. [85]

    L., Stempels H

    Ryabchikova T., Piskunov N., Kurucz R. L., Stempels H. C., Heiter U., Pakhomov Y., Barklem P. S., 2015, @doi [Physica Scripta] 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005 , 90, 054005

    2015 doi

  77. [86]

    P., Henry T

    Subasavage J. P., Henry T. J., Bergeron P., Dufour P., Hambly N. C., Beaulieu T. D., 2007, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/518739 , 134, 252

    2007 doi

  78. [87]

    A., Wickramasinghe D

    Tout C. A., Wickramasinghe D. T., Liebert J., Ferrario L., Pringle J. E., 2008, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13291.x , 387, 897

    2008

  79. [88]

    Tremblay P.-E., Fontaine G., Freytag B., Steiner O., Ludwig H.-G., Steffen M., Wedemeyer S., Brassard P., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/19 , 812, 19

    2015 doi

  80. [89]

    S., G \" a nsicke B

    Tremblay P.-E., Cummings J., Kalirai J. S., G \" a nsicke B. T., Gentile-Fusillo N., Raddi R., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stw1447 , 461, 2100

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    C., 2019, MNRAS (submitted)

    Turner S., Wyatt M. C., 2019, MNRAS (submitted)

    2019

  82. [91]

    Vanderburg A., et al., 2015, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature15527 , 526, 546

    2015 doi

  83. [92]

    Veras D., 2016, @doi [Royal Society Open Science] 10.1098/rsos.150571 , 3, 150571

    2016 doi

  84. [93]

    Vernet J., et al., 2011, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752 , 536, A105

    2011 doi

  85. [94]

    S., et al., 1994, in Crawford D

    Vogt S. S., et al., 1994, in Crawford D. L., Craine E. R., eds, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 362--375, @doi 10.1117/12.176725

    1994 doi

  86. [95]

    J., Kilic M., Mullally F., Reach W

    Vonhippel von Hippel T., Kuchner M. J., Kilic M., Mullally F., Reach W. T., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/518108 , 662, 544

    2007 doi

  87. [96]

    S., Lineweaver C

    Wang H. S., Lineweaver C. H., Ireland T. R., 2018, @doi [Icarus] 10.1016/j.icarus.2017.08.024 , 299, 460

    2018 doi

  88. [97]

    I., Hui F

    Warton D. I., Hui F. K. C., 2011, @doi [Ecology] 10.1890/10-0340.1 , 92, 3

    2011 doi

  89. [98]

    Wolf C., et al., 2018, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.] 10.1017/pasa.2018.5 , 35, e010

    2018 doi

  90. [99]

    Wolff B., Koester D., Liebert J., 2002, @doi [A & A] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020194 , 385, 995

    2002 doi

  91. [100]

    C., Farihi J., Pringle J

    Wyatt M. C., Farihi J., Pringle J. E., Bonsor A., 2014, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stu183 , 439, 3371

    2014 doi

  92. [101]

    Xu S., Jura M., Klein B., Koester D., Zuckerman B., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/766/2/132 , 766, 132

    2013 doi

  93. [102]

    Xu S., Jura M., Koester D., Klein B., Zuckerman B., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/79 , 783, 79

    2014 doi

  94. [103]

    D., Klein B., Jura M., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/L7 , 836, L7

    Xu S., Zuckerman B., Dufour P., Young E. D., Klein B., Jura M., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/L7 , 836, L7

    2017 doi

  95. [104]

    I., Scott E

    Yang J., Goldstein J. I., Scott E. R. D., 2010, @doi [Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta] 10.1016/j.gca.2010.04.016 , 74, 4471

    2010 doi

  96. [105]

    M., Kovetz A., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/428435 , 623, 398

    Yaron O., Prialnik D., Shara M. M., Kovetz A., 2005, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/428435 , 623, 398

    2005 doi

  97. [106]

    M., Jura M., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/522223 , 671, 872

    Zuckerman B., Koester D., Melis C., Hansen B. M., Jura M., 2007, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/522223 , 671, 872

    2007 doi

  98. [107]

    Zuckerman B., Koester D., Dufour P., Melis C., Klein B., Jura M., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/101 , 739, 101

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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