Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Properties and nature of Be stars 31. The binary nature, light variability, physical elements, and emission-line changes of HD~81357

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 HD 81357 is a 33.77-day double-lined binary with a 10:1 mass ratio and a Roche-lobe-filling cool star, observed in the final slow phase of mass exchange.

desk verdict A careful, data-rich first study of a newly identified Be binary, but the quoted semimajor axis contradicts Kepler's third law given the paper's own masses and period, and the formal errors are unrealistic. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02719 v1 pith:HUF4CT55 submitted 2019-08-07 astro-ph.SR

P. Koubský , P. Harmanec , M. Brož , L. Kotková , S. Yang , H. Božić , D. Sudar , Y. Frémat
show 5 more authors
D. Korčákov'a V. Votruba P. Škoda M. Šlechta D. Ruždjak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Stars:closebinaries:spectroscopicemission-lineBefundamentalparametersindividual:HD81357ellipsoidalvariableRoche-lobeoverflowmasstransfer
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 tries to establish what the little-studied Be star HD 81357 actually is: not a single star but a 33.77-day double-lined spectroscopic binary and ellipsoidal variable. From new spectra, archival and new photometry, and a very accurate trigonometric parallax, the authors derive component masses of 3.36 and 0.34 solar masses, radii of 3.9 and about 14 solar radii, an inclination near 63 degrees, and a mass ratio of about 10. They argue that the cool, low-mass star fills its Roche lobe and that the system is seen in the final slow phase of mass exchange after the mass-ratio reversal, with the hot star as the mass gainer. A sympathetic reader would care because such systems are rare benchmarks for testing the theory of mass transfer in close binaries, and because the paper shows how a precise parallax can break the usual degeneracies of ellipsoidal variables.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the simultaneous model of the ellipsoidal light curve and the radial-velocity curve of the cool component, anchored by a very accurate trigonometric parallax. The ellipsoidal variations carry the geometric information: their amplitude and its decrease from red to blue passbands require the cool star to fill its Roche lobe, and the parallax converts the measured flux of the hot component into a physical radius, which in turn fixes the scale of the orbit. Effective temperatures of both stars are first pinned down by an automated comparison of observed and synthetic blue spectra; the light-curve and orbital model then yields masses, radii, inclination, and the mass ratio. A binary stellar evolution code provides the time dimension, showing that conservative mass exchange from an initially more massive star produces the present-day masses, period, and the inflated cool star.

What would settle it

A clean radial-velocity curve of the hot component, obtained from lines free of circumstellar emission (for example in the ultraviolet), would directly test the mass ratio: if its semi-amplitude K1 differs significantly from the adopted value near 8 km/s, the masses 3.36 and 0.34 solar masses would have to be revised. Alternatively, high-angular-resolution observations that resolved the cool star's disk could test the central geometrical premise that its radius equals its Roche-lobe radius.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that HD 81357 is a new member of the class of hot emission-line binaries with a Roche-lobe-filling cool secondary, and that it is caught near the end of its mass-transfer phase. The double-wave ellipsoidal light variations, the clean sinusoidal radial-velocity curve of the cool star with semi-amplitude 81.8 km/s, and the broad, partly circumstellar-veiled lines of the hot star together define a binary with period 33.77445 days and a circular orbit. A combined fit to all photometry and radial velocities, constrained by an accurate parallax, gives masses 3.36 and 0.34 solar masses, radii 3.9 and 14.0 solar radii, and mass ratio 10.0. Because detached models cannot reproduce the light-curve amplitudes, the authors conclude that the cool star fills its Roche lobe. Evolutionary modelling then shows that a binary starting with roughly 1.5 and 2.2 solar masses in a 2.4-day orbit evolves conservatively into exactly such a system, so HD 81357 is interpreted as being observed in the final slow phase of mass exchange after the mass-ratio reversal.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the ellipsoidal variability comes entirely from a cool star that exactly fills its Roche lobe, rotates synchronously, and obeys the adopted gravity-darkening and albedo laws; because the model's total chi-squared changes by less than three percent over a wide range of inclinations and mass ratios, a different acceptable set of these assumptions could shift the inferred masses and inclination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HD 81357 becomes a well-measured example of a Be binary in the late stage of Algol-like mass exchange, useful for calibrating the end points of mass-transfer theory.
  • The derived masses, radii, and temperatures give direct constraints on the structure of a low-mass star with an inflated envelope after most of its mass has been transferred.
  • Because the cool star fills its Roche lobe, the ellipsoidal light curve is a monitor of the system's present geometry; future photometry can check for slow changes in the amplitudes.
  • The absence of cyclic light variations on timescales an order of magnitude longer than the orbital period, in contrast with similar binaries, supports the suggestion that such cycles are not present at the end of the mass-exchange phase.
  • The H-alpha emission follows the hot component's orbital motion with a phase shift of about five days, indicating an asymmetric distribution of circumstellar matter around the mass-gaining star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same recipe of using a precise parallax to convert ellipsoidal light-curve amplitudes into physical radii could break the mass-ratio degeneracy in other emission-line binaries with cool Roche-lobe-filling stars, where spectral disentangling alone leaves a wide range of acceptable mass ratios.
  • If the system is truly near the end of mass transfer, its orbital period should be changing only very slowly; monitoring the times of the ellipsoidal light-curve minima over decades could test this prediction.
  • The model predicts specific passband-dependent ellipsoidal amplitudes; space-based ultraviolet photometry, where the hot star dominates, would provide an independent check of the inclination and of the cool star's contribution.
  • The presence of long-term cyclic variations in some similar systems but not in this one may indicate that those cycles require an actively sustained mass-transfer rate or an extended outer disk, not merely the existence of a Roche-lobe-filling donor.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a multi-technique study of the little-known Be-type binary HD 81357, based on new and archival spectroscopy and photometry. The authors infer a double-lined spectroscopic binary and ellipsoidal variable with an orbital period of 33.77445 d, an inclination near 63°, component masses of about 3.36 and 0.34 M⊙, radii of about 3.9 and 14.0 R⊙, and a mass ratio near 10. They interpret the system as a semi-detached binary in the final slow phase of mass exchange after mass-ratio reversal, and they support this with MESA evolutionary models that reproduce the observed masses, period, and secondary radius for a set of adopted initial conditions.

Significance. If the derived parameters are correct, HD 81357 is a valuable new representative of the rare class of hot emission-line binaries with a Roche-lobe-filling cool secondary, and the paper's careful multi-pronged approach—independent RV methods, MCMC-based effective-temperature estimation, two independent light-curve codes, a Gaia parallax constraint, and an explicit consistency check between photometric and spectroscopic radii—sets a high methodological standard. The paper is also refreshingly honest about the degeneracies it encounters, particularly the template-dependent hot-component RVs and the flat χ² landscape. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a PHOEBE solution that is internally inconsistent with Kepler's third law, and the quoted error bars do not reflect the admitted degeneracy; both issues must be resolved before the physical elements can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.6, Table 6] The published solution is not self-consistent. With P=33.77445 d, M1=3.36 M⊙, M2=0.34 M⊙, Kepler's third law requires a=4.2067 (M_total)^(1/3) P^(2/3) R⊙ ≈ 68.0 R⊙, whereas Table 6 quotes a=63.01±0.09 R⊙. The RV amplitudes give the same answer: K1+K2=89.5 km/s and i=63° imply a sin i = P(K1+K2)/(2π) ≈ 59.8 R⊙, hence a≈67.1 R⊙. The quoted a corresponds instead to a total mass of about 2.95 M⊙, a ~20% deficit. This is not marginal: it changes the Roche-lobe geometry materially, with R_L2≈13.0 R⊙ for a=63.0 R⊙ (implying an overfill of ~7%) versus R_L2≈14.1 R⊙ for a=68.0 R⊙ (implying nominal lobe filling). The physical elements, the semi-detached conclusion, and the evolutionary comparison in Section 5 therefore rest on a solution that violates the adopted orbital constraints. The authors must recompute the PHOEBE solution with the Kepler relation enforced (or demonstrate that the quoted a and masses are not the ones actually used), and re-derive all derived quantities that depend on a, including the Roche-lobe radius and the MESA comparison.
  2. [Section 3.6, Abstract and Table 6] The formal errors quoted for the masses and radii are not a realistic measure of the solution's uncertainty. The text states that over a large range of inclinations and a tolerable range of mass ratios the total χ² changes by less than 3%, and Section 3.3.2 concedes that the mass ratio cannot be uniquely determined from the RVs (K1 varies from 4.78 to 11.09 km/s among the three KOREL templates). The Table 6 errors are derived from the covariance matrix only and take none of this degeneracy into account. Yet the abstract and tables report, for example, M1=3.36±0.15 M⊙ and M2=0.34±0.04 M⊙, which will be read as tight constraints. The paper should either quantify the true parameter correlations with a grid-based or MCMC marginalization, or explicitly present the parameters as a representative solution within a broad, unquantified degeneracy. As published, the error budget is understated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table 6] The abstract gives the secondary radius as 13.97±0.05 R⊙, but Table 6 lists R2=14.0±0.7 R⊙. Please reconcile the value and, in particular, the uncertainty, which differs by more than an order of magnitude.
  2. [Figure 9 caption] The caption refers to an observed semimajor axis a=63.95 R⊙, while Table 6 quotes a=63.01±0.09 R⊙. These two numbers should be made consistent, and the source of the difference explained.
  3. [Equation (1)] Equation (1) is difficult to parse as typeset; the relationship between the synchronicity parameter F1, the orbital period, v1 sin i, and the equatorial radius should be written with explicit parentheses and units so that the reader can reproduce the iterative update.
  4. [General text] There are several typos: "re-caculated" in Section 3.6, "absortion" in Section 4, and "shorward" in Section 4. A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the physical elements are derived from observed radial velocities, photometry, and Gaia parallax, while the MESA evolution is an acknowledged consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation is data-driven, not circular. The orbital period, radial-velocity semi-amplitudes, effective temperatures, and light-curve amplitudes come from independent spectroscopic and photometric observations, and the PHOEBE combined solution uses Keplerian constraints and Roche geometry plus the Gaia DR2 parallax to fix masses and radii. The Gaia-parallax radius check via Eq. (2) is an external consistency constraint, not an input recycled as an output. The MESA section is explicitly framed as a test of whether evolution with mass exchange 'can produce a system similar to HD 81357,' with initial masses and periods searched over stated ranges; the paper concedes that alternative initial conditions also work and that the final R1 is not well reproduced, so the evolutionary model is not presented as a first-principles prediction of the observed values. Self-citations (Koubský et al. 2012, Harmanec et al. 2015, Nemravová et al. 2016) are methodological and are backed by new data or published, independently applicable tools; they are not load-bearing circular premises. The reported inconsistency between a = 63.01 R_sun and Kepler's third law for the quoted masses and period is a correctness/self-consistency concern, not a circularity, and does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

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

The PHOEBE adopted coefficients (gravity darkening, albedo, synchronicity) shape the derived geometry, and the MESA inputs are listed for transparency; the MESA inputs are not required for the core observational mass and radius determination. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Gravity darkening exponent of component 2 (beta_2) = 0.6 (adopted from Claret 1998)
    Adopted, not fitted; controls the ellipsoidal light-curve amplitude, which sets the inclination and hence the masses.
  • Bolometric albedo of component 2 (A_2) = 0.5 (adopted from Claret 2001)
    Adopted, not fitted; controls reprocessing of the hot star's radiation on the cool secondary and affects the light curve.
  • Synchronicity parameter of component 2 (F2) = 1.0 (fixed)
    Assumed because star 2 fills its Roche lobe and is tidally locked; if relaxed, the rotational distortion changes.
  • MESA initial masses and orbital period = M1 = 1.5 M_sun, M2 = 2.2 M_sun, P = 2.4 d
    Chosen by trial within stated ranges to reproduce the observed final masses, radius and period; the paper admits alternative initial values also reproduce observations (Section 5).
  • Maximum mass-transfer rate and magnetic braking exponent = Mdot_max = 1e-7 M_sun/yr; gamma = 3
    Prescriptions adopted from Ritter (1988) and Rappaport et al. (1983), not derived for this system; they shape the evolutionary track.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The observed light variations are entirely ellipsoidal distortion of a Roche-lobe-filling, synchronously rotating cool star; the hot star contributes only as a point-like light source.
    Adopted because detached models could not reproduce the amplitudes (Section 3.6). The entire inclination and mass scale rest on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The cool component's orbit is circular and its RVs (SPEFO/phdia metallic lines) trace its true orbital motion; the hot component's RVs are unreliable due to circumstellar contamination, so the solution uses only component 2 RVs plus photometry.
    Section 3.3 and Table 4: e = 0.0 assumed; Section 3.6 states only RVs for star 2 were used in the PHOEBE solution.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR2 parallax (p = 0.0016000 ± 0.0000345 arcsec) and Flower (1996) bolometric corrections are accurate, so the radius constraint Mbol = 42.35326 - 5 log R1 - 10 log Teff1 can be used to restrict the mass ratio.
    Section 3.6, Eq. (2): the mass ratio is pinned by requiring consistency between photometric and parallax-based radii.
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution with conservative mass transfer, zero eccentricity, no tidal interactions and no irradiation (MESA setup) adequately represents this binary's history.
    Section 5: explicit simplifying assumptions; the MESA match is non-unique, so the evolutionary interpretation is conditional.
  • domain assumption Radial-velocity zero points for the four data subsets can be treated as independent systemic velocities because no telluric-line calibration was possible.
    Section 3.4: 'we allowed for the determination of individual systemic velocities for the four subsets', a modeling choice rather than a measured result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Properties and nature of Be stars 31. The binary nature, light variability, physical elements, and emission-line changes of HD~81357." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HUF4CT55

@misc{pith2026190802719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Properties and nature of Be stars 31. The binary nature, light variability, physical elements, and emission-line changes of HD~81357},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HUF4CT55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02719}
}
abstract

Reliable determination of the basic physical properties of hot emission-line binaries with Roche-lobe filling secondaries is important for developing the theory of mass exchange in binaries. It is not easy, however, due to the presence of circumstellar matter. Here, we report the first detailed investigation of a new representative of this class of binaries, HD~81357, based on the analysis of spectra and photometry from several observatories. HD~81357 was found to be a double-lined spectroscopic binary and an ellipsoidal variable seen under an intermediate orbital inclination of $\sim(63\pm5)^\circ$, having an orbital period of 33\fd77445(41) and a~circular orbit. From an automated comparison of the observed and synthetic spectra, we estimate the component's effective temperatures to be 12930(540)~K and 4260(24)~K. The combined light-curve and orbital solutions, also constrained by a very accurate Gaia Data Release 2 parallax, give the following values of the basic physical properties: masses $3.36\pm0.15$ and $0.34\pm0.04$~\Mnom, radii $3.9\pm0.2$ and 13.97\pm0.05$~\Rnom, and a~mass ratio $10.0\pm0.5$. Evolutionary modelling of the system including the phase of mass transfer between the components indicated that HD~81357 is a~system observed in the final slow phase of the mass exchange after the mass-ratio reversal. Contrary to what has been seen for similar binaries like AU~Mon, no cyclic light variations were found on a~time scale an~order of magnitude longer than the orbital period. 243,1 15%

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02719 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of available blue, red, and infrared spectra. From top to bottom: blue spectrum, red spectrum, enlarged part of a red spec￾trum near to Hα, and the infrared spectrum. All three regions contain numerous lines of the cool component. 3.2. Light and colour changes All light curves at our disposal exhibit double-wave ellipsoidal variations with the orbital 33d .8 period. Their amplitude is de￾creasing from the R… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variations of HD 81357 in the colour - colour diagram are compared to those known for some other Be stars observed at Hvar. et al. 2013). In particular, it is seen that for KX And dered￾dened colours exhibit inverse correlation with the object moving along the main-sequence line in the colour-colour diagram from B1V to about B7V. On the other hand, CX Dra seems to exhibit a positive correlation after dereddening, mo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of asTODCOR RVs of star 1 for the optimal mass ratio q=9.75 (solid line) and for the two extreme mass-ratios KOREL templates (q=16 as filled circles, and q=7 as open circles). Typical er￾rors of asTODCOR individual RVs are close to 1.0 km s−1– see Ta￾ble A.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of the comparison of an observed blue spectrum in two selected spectral regions with a combination of two synthetic spectra. The residuals in the sense observed minus synthetic are also shown on the same flux scale. To save space, the spectra in the bottom pane…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: UBVR light curves modelled with PHOEBE. Abscissa is labelled with orbital phases according to ephemeris (3).The same scale on ordinate was used to show the changes of the amplitude with passband. For all curves, also the rms errors of individual data points are shown. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SPEFO RVs of the Hα emission wings with their estimated rms errors plotted vs. orbital phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamical spectra in the neighbourhood of the Hα profile in a grey-scale representation created in the program phdia. Left￾hand panel: observed spectra; right-hand panel: difference spectra after the subtraction of a synthetic spectrum (including the Hα profile) of sta…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panels: RV curve of star 2 and the residuals from PHOEBE solution. The rms errors are comparable to the symbols’ size. Bottom panels: asTODCOR RV curve of star 1, not used in the PHOEBE solu￾tion, and its residuals from that solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Long-term evolution of HD 81357 binary as computed by MESA (Paxton et al. 2015). The initial masses were M1 = 1.5 M , M2 = 2.2 M , and the initial period P = 2.4 d. Top: the HR di￾agram with the (resulting) primary denoted as 1 (dashed black line), secondary as 2 (soli…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    C., Berger , J

    Adrianzyk , G., Baietto , J. C., Berger , J. P., et al. 1978, , 63, 279

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    Allen , D. A. 1973, , 161, 145

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    & Fehrenbach , C

    Andrillat , Y. & Fehrenbach , C. 1982, , 48, 93

    work page 1982

  6. [6]

    V., Harmanec , P., Boyarchuk , A

    Bisikalo , D. V., Harmanec , P., Boyarchuk , A. A., Kuznetsov , O. A., & Hadrava , P. 2000, , 353, 1009

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    2013, Central European Astrophysical Bulletin, 37, 9

    Bo z i \'c , H., Harmanec , P., & Koubsk \'y , P. 2013, Central European Astrophysical Bulletin, 37, 9

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    1984, MK spectral classifications

    Buscombe , W. 1984, MK spectral classifications. Sixth general catalogue

    work page 1984

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    1998, , 131, 395

    Claret , A. 1998, , 131, 395

    1998

  2. [10]

    2001, , 327, 989

    Claret , A. 2001, , 327, 989

    2001

  3. [11]

    C., & Plez , B

    de Laverny , P., Recio-Blanco , A., Worley , C. C., & Plez , B. 2012, , 544, A126

    2012

  4. [12]

    2010, , 401, 418

    Desmet , M., Fr \'e mat , Y., Baudin , F., et al. 2010, , 401, 418

    2010

  5. [13]

    Flower , P. J. 1996, , 469, 355

    1996

  6. [14]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  7. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2016, , 595, A2

    2016

  9. [17]

    1990, Contr

    Hadrava , P. 1990, Contr. Astron. Obs. Skalnat\'e Pleso, 20, 23

    1990

  10. [18]

    1995, , 114, 393

    Hadrava , P. 1995, , 114, 393

    1995

  11. [19]

    1997, , 122, 581

    Hadrava , P. 1997, , 122, 581

    1997

  12. [20]

    2004 a , Publ

    Hadrava , P. 2004 a , Publ. Astron. Inst. Acad. Sci. Czech Rep., 92, 1

    2004

  13. [21]

    2004 b , Publ

    Hadrava , P. 2004 b , Publ. Astron. Inst. Acad. Sci. Czech Rep., 92, 15

    2004

  14. [22]

    Halbedel , E. M. 1996, , 108, 833

    1996

  15. [23]

    1983, Hvar Observatory Bulletin, 7, 55

    Harmanec , P. 1983, Hvar Observatory Bulletin, 7, 55

    1983

  16. [24]

    1998, , 335, 173

    Harmanec , P. 1998, , 335, 173

    1998

  17. [25]

    & Horn , J

    Harmanec , P. & Horn , J. 1998, Journal of Astronomical Data, 4, 5

    1998

  18. [26]

    1994, , 104, 121

    Harmanec , P., Horn , J., & Juza , K. 1994, , 104, 121

    1994

  19. [27]

    A., et al

    Harmanec , P., Koubsk \'y , P., Nemravov \'a , J. A., et al. 2015, , 573, A107

    2015

  20. [28]

    1996, , 312, 879

    Harmanec , P., Morand , F., Bonneau , D., et al. 1996, , 312, 879

    1996

  21. [29]

    1996, , 309, 521

    Horn , J., Kub\'at , J., Harmanec , P., et al. 1996, , 309, 521

    1996

  22. [30]

    Z., Kochanek , C

    Jayasinghe , T., Stanek , K. Z., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2019, , 485, 961

    2019

  23. [31]

    S., Shappee , B

    Kochanek , C. S., Shappee , B. J., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502

    2017

  24. [32]

    & Eyer , L

    Koen , C. & Eyer , L. 2002, , 331, 45

    2002

  25. [33]

    2012, ArXiv 1205.2259

    Koubsk \'y , P., Kotkov \'a , L., Votruba , V., et al. 2012, ArXiv 1205.2259

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2008, http://astro.troja.mff.cuni.cz/ftp/hec/SPEFO/

    Krpata , J. 2008, http://astro.troja.mff.cuni.cz/ftp/hec/SPEFO/

    2008

  27. [35]

    Linnell , A. P. 1984, , 54, 17

    1984

  28. [36]

    Linnell , A. P. 2000, , 319, 255

    2000

  29. [37]

    Linnell , A. P. & Hubeny , I. 1994, , 434, 738

    1994

  30. [38]

    Linnell , A. P. & Hubeny , I. 1996, , 471, 958

    1996

  31. [39]

    Mennickent , R. E. 2017, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 194, 1

    2017

  32. [40]

    E., Ko aczkowski , Z., Djura s evi\'c , G., et al

    Mennickent , R. E., Ko aczkowski , Z., Djura s evi\'c , G., et al. 2012, , 427, 607

    2012

  33. [41]

    Merrill , P. W. & Burwell , C. G. 1950, , 112, 72

    1950

  34. [42]

    Moore , C. E. 1945, Contributions from the Princeton University Observatory, 20, D23

    1945

  35. [43]

    A., Harmanec , P., Bro z , M., et al

    Nemravov \'a , J. A., Harmanec , P., Bro z , M., et al. 2016, , 594, A55

    2016

  36. [44]

    2010, , 516, A13

    Palacios , A., Gebran , M., Josselin , E., et al. 2010, , 516, A13

    2010

  37. [45]

    2011, , 192, Id

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, Id. 3

    2011

  38. [46]

    2015, , 220, 15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15

    2015

  39. [47]

    Perryman , M. A. C. & ESA . 1997, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues (Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA Hipparcos Space Astrometry Mission, Publisher: Noordwijk, Netherlands: ESA Publications Division, 1997, Series: ESA SP Series 1200)

    1997

  40. [48]

    Peters , G. J. & Polidan , R. S. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 367, Massive Stars in Interactive Binaries, ed. N. St. -Louis & A. F. J. Moffat , 337

    2007

  41. [49]

    2016, , 152, 41

    Pr s a , A., Harmanec , P., Torres , G., et al. 2016, , 152, 41

    2016

  42. [50]

    & Zwitter , T

    Pr s a , A. & Zwitter , T. 2005, , 628, 426

    2005

  43. [51]

    & Zwitter , T

    Pr s a , A. & Zwitter , T. 2006, , 36

    2006

  44. [52]

    Rappaport , S., Verbunt , F., & Joss , P. C. 1983, , 275, 713

    1983

  45. [53]

    1988, , 202, 93

    Ritter , H. 1988, , 202, 93

    1988

  46. [54]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, , 788, 48

    2014

  47. [55]

    1996, in ASP Conf

    S koda , P. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 101: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, 187--189

    1996

  48. [56]

    2011, , 528, A146

    Sudar , D., Harmanec , P., Lehmann , H., et al. 2011, , 528, A146

    2011

  49. [57]

    & De Greve , J

    Van Rensbergen , W. & De Greve , J. P. 2016, , 592, A151

    2016

  50. [58]

    E., Oudmaijer , R

    Wheelwright , H. E., Oudmaijer , R. D., & Goodwin , S. P. 2010, , 401, 1199

    2010

  51. [59]

    & Mazeh , T

    Zucker , S. & Mazeh , T. 1994, , 420, 806

    1994

Pith tools

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