pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00430 · v1 · pith:L2U26N27new · submitted 2026-07-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

White Dwarf Classification of DESI DR1 Spectra1

Larissa L. Amorim , Weligton.N. Costa Junior , S. O. Kepler , Joao Gabriel Leite Medeiros , Detlev Koester , Alejandra D. Romero This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 06:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords white dwarfsmagnetic fieldsDESI surveyspectroscopic classificationstellar massesZeeman splittingcrystallization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magnetic white dwarfs are more massive than average and show fields before crystallization begins.

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

The paper classifies 44,417 white dwarf spectra from DESI Data Release 1 and fits atmospheric models to 29,072 DA white dwarfs. It detects 547 magnetic white dwarfs through Zeeman splitting and finds their masses are systematically higher than the overall population. Intermediate-strength fields appear in stars that have not yet crystallized, which indicates crystallization cannot be the only source of magnetism.

Core claim

We identify 547 magnetic white dwarfs by detecting Zeeman splitting, including 84 new discoveries, and estimate their magnetic field strengths using off-centered, inclined dipole models when possible. We compare our magnetic field determinations with previous measurements and find overall good agreement. Finally, we investigate the relation between stellar properties and magnetism, finding that magnetic white dwarfs are systematically more massive than the general white dwarf population and that intermediate-strength magnetic fields are already present in stars that have not yet entered the crystallization phase. This result suggests that crystallization is unlikely to be the sole mechanism

What carries the argument

Detection of Zeeman splitting in spectra to identify magnetic white dwarfs, combined with spectroscopic model fitting to derive masses and compare crystallization status.

If this is right

  • Magnetic white dwarfs have a higher average mass than the general white dwarf population.
  • Intermediate magnetic fields exist in white dwarfs that have not entered the crystallization phase.
  • The overall white dwarf mass distribution is non-Gaussian with a mean of 0.677 solar masses.
  • Large spectroscopic surveys can uncover dozens of new magnetic white dwarfs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Alternative field-generation processes such as inherited fields from progenitor stars may operate alongside any crystallization-related mechanism.
  • Surveys targeting younger white dwarfs could test whether even weaker fields are common before crystallization.
  • Mass-dependent selection effects in future catalogs should be checked against these magnetic trends.

Load-bearing premise

The visual classification of 44,417 spectra is accurate and unbiased, and the spectroscopic model fitting for DA white dwarfs produces reliable atmospheric parameters without significant systematic errors.

What would settle it

A sample of magnetic white dwarfs with masses matching the non-magnetic population or with fields appearing only after crystallization would contradict the reported relations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00430 by Alejandra D. Romero, Detlev Koester, Joao Gabriel Leite Medeiros, Larissa L. Amorim, S. O. Kepler, Weligton.N. Costa Junior.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spectra of seven DAs, showing different signal to noise ratio, from top to bottom, WDJ084253.03+230025.47, S/NB = 351, MG = 9.9; WDJ062030.12+653421.19, S/NB = 80, MG = 8.27; WDJ225805.50+000926.02, S/NB = 50, MG = 10.50; WDJ084615.13+424233.05, S/NB = 34, MG = 11.3; WDJ163627.51+260832.62, S/NB = 351, MG= 9.9; WDJ151352.31+275529.28, S/NB = 5, MG = 11.10 ; WDJ133312.79+281150.32, S/NB = 3, MG = 10.50. pur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Representative DESI spectra illustrating the main white dwarf spectral subclasses identified in this work. Panel (a) shows hydrogen-dominated white dwarfs (DA, DAH, DAZ, and DA+M), panel (b) helium-dominated white dwarfs (DB, DBH, DBZ, DBA, DB+M, and DO), and panel (c) other white dwarf subclasses (DZ, DC, DC+M, HotDQ, DQ, and DQ pec). The spectra are normalized and vertically offset for clarity. Vertical … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents the spatial distribution of the white dwarfs in our sample, distinguishing pure white dwarfs from those exhibiting atmospheric metal pollution. The overall Galactic distributions of the two populations are similar, with both concentrated toward the Galactic plane. However, the metal-polluted white dwarfs are almost exclusively found within the nearby concentration of objects, whereas pure white dw… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar parameters determined for the white dwarfs successfully modeled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison between effective temperatures derived by different methods. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the mass distribution of the DA white dwarfs for which we derived masses from evolutionary models, with a mean of 0.677 M⊙ and a median 0.647 M⊙. The distribution is clearly non-Gaussian: the primary peak lies below the mean mass, and a secondary peak is present at higher masses. This behavior has been extensively reported in the literature and is a well-established characteristic of large white dwar… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison between magnetic field intensities derived from DESI versus from other surveys. features. Consequently, exact agreement between independent analyzes is not always expected. Furthermore, when studying the origin and evolution of magnetic fields in white dwarfs, the order of magnitude of the field strength is often more relevant than small differences in its precise value. For example, measurement… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Mass as a function of effective temperature, highlighting the onset of the crystallization sequence. Atmospheric parameters derived from Gaia low-resolution BP − RP spectroscopy and from Gaia photometry are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. We note that the number of downloaded spectra exceeds that of our initial sample by 25. This is because, in addition to the objects selected from N. P.… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass distribution of the magnetic white dwarfs with fields measured from DESI spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a new catalog of spectroscopically confirmed white dwarfs from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 1. We visually classified 44,417 white dwarf spectra and derived atmospheric parameters for 29,072 DA white dwarfs through spectroscopic model fitting. The resulting mass distribution is non-Gaussian, with a mean mass of $0.677\,M_\odot$, consistent with previous studies. We identify 547 magnetic white dwarfs by detecting Zeeman splitting, including 84 new discoveries, and estimate their magnetic field strengths using off-centered, inclined dipole models when possible. We compare our magnetic field determinations with previous measurements and find overall good agreement. Finally, we investigate the relation between stellar properties and magnetism, finding that magnetic white dwarfs are systematically more massive than the general white dwarf population and that intermediate-strength magnetic fields are already present in stars that have not yet entered the crystallization phase. This result suggests that crystallization is unlikely to be the sole mechanism responsible for the origin of magnetic fields in white dwarfs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a catalog of spectroscopically confirmed white dwarfs from DESI DR1. It reports visual classification of 44,417 spectra, spectroscopic model fitting to derive atmospheric parameters for 29,072 DA white dwarfs (mean mass 0.677 M_⊙), identification of 547 magnetic white dwarfs (84 new) via Zeeman splitting with field strength estimates from off-centered dipole models, and comparisons showing magnetic white dwarfs are systematically more massive with intermediate-strength fields present prior to crystallization, implying crystallization is unlikely to be the sole origin mechanism.

Significance. If robust, the large sample size and the pre-crystallization field detection would be a notable contribution to white dwarf population studies and magnetic field origin models. The work adds substantially to the known magnetic white dwarf sample and provides direct comparisons to prior measurements. No machine-checked proofs or parameter-free derivations are present, but the scale of the observational catalog is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Visual classification and magnetic sample selection] Visual classification section: The identification of the 547 magnetic white dwarfs rests on visual detection of Zeeman splitting across 44,417 spectra, yet no quantitative metrics (repeatability, inter-rater agreement, or false-positive rate) are supplied. This directly affects the reliability of the reported mass offset between magnetic and non-magnetic populations.
  2. [DA parameter derivation and crystallization analysis] Spectroscopic model fitting section: Atmospheric parameters (Teff, log g, mass) for the 29,072 DA white dwarfs are obtained via model fitting, but the manuscript provides no cross-validation against photometric masses, no tests of systematic errors induced by weak magnetic fields, and no explicit exclusion criteria or crystallization boundary definition. These steps are required to support the claim that intermediate fields appear before crystallization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results on mass distribution] The statement that the mass distribution is 'non-Gaussian' would benefit from a quantitative measure (e.g., skewness statistic or comparison to a Gaussian fit) rather than qualitative description.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for example spectra and mass histograms should explicitly label which panels or symbols correspond to magnetic versus non-magnetic objects for immediate clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of the classification and analysis that we will strengthen in revision. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Visual classification section: The identification of the 547 magnetic white dwarfs rests on visual detection of Zeeman splitting across 44,417 spectra, yet no quantitative metrics (repeatability, inter-rater agreement, or false-positive rate) are supplied. This directly affects the reliability of the reported mass offset between magnetic and non-magnetic populations.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics for the visual classification process are not provided in the current version and that their absence limits assessment of the magnetic sample reliability. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection describing the classification workflow: all spectra were examined independently by at least two team members, with disagreements resolved through joint review and consensus; we will report the inter-rater agreement fraction on a randomly selected 10% subsample and will estimate the false-positive rate by applying the identical visual criteria to a control set of 500 spectroscopically confirmed non-magnetic DA white dwarfs drawn from the literature. These additions will directly support the robustness of the reported mass offset. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Spectroscopic model fitting section: Atmospheric parameters (Teff, log g, mass) for the 29,072 DA white dwarfs are obtained via model fitting, but the manuscript provides no cross-validation against photometric masses, no tests of systematic errors induced by weak magnetic fields, and no explicit exclusion criteria or crystallization boundary definition. These steps are required to support the claim that intermediate fields appear before crystallization.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript currently lacks these validation steps and explicit definitions. We will add: (1) a comparison of spectroscopic masses against photometric masses derived from Gaia DR3 photometry and parallaxes for the subset of objects with reliable photometry; (2) a brief discussion of possible systematic biases from undetected weak fields, noting that the magnetic sample is defined by clearly resolved Zeeman splitting and that objects with marginal splitting were excluded; (3) the explicit crystallization boundary adopted from the standard cooling models of Salaris et al. (2010) together with the precise exclusion criteria used to identify pre-crystallization objects. These additions will clarify the supporting evidence for the pre-crystallization field detection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational catalog and comparison

full rationale

The paper performs visual classification of 44,417 spectra, spectroscopic model fitting for DA parameters, Zeeman-based identification of 547 magnetic white dwarfs, and direct comparison of mass distributions to prior work. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional steps, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. All central claims rest on empirical measurements and external benchmarks rather than any reduction to the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; standard assumptions of white dwarf atmosphere models and Zeeman effect interpretation are invoked but not detailed.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard DA white dwarf atmosphere models accurately recover temperature, gravity, and mass from spectra.
    Invoked for deriving parameters of 29,072 DA white dwarfs.
  • domain assumption Zeeman splitting detection reliably identifies magnetic white dwarfs and off-centered dipole models give valid field strengths.
    Used to identify 547 magnetic objects and estimate fields.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5732 in / 1292 out tokens · 21752 ms · 2026-07-02T06:30:54.256736+00:00 · methodology

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

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 2013

  2. [2]

    Romero, A. D. 2023, ApJ, 944, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6e 2023

  3. [3]

    L., Kepler, S

    Amorim, L. L., Kepler, S. O., & Romero, A. D. 2026, ApJ, 1001, 202, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae5524

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5524 2026

  4. [4]

    Bagnulo, S., & Landstreet, J. D. 2022, ApJL, 935, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 2022

  5. [5]

    A., Barstow, J

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

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu216 2014

  6. [6]

    2024, White dwarf fundamentals, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03941

    Blouin, S. 2024, White dwarf fundamentals, https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03941

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    C., & Kondo, Y

    Bruhweiler, F. C., & Kondo, Y. 1983, ApJ, 269, 657, doi: 10.1086/161073

    work page doi:10.1086/161073 1983

  8. [8]

    Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    Chayer, P., Bergeron, P., Fontaine, G., & Wesemael, F. 1989, JRASC, 83, 325 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025 arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745 DESI Collaboration, Abareshi, B., Aguilar, J., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 207, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.14745 1989

  9. [9]

    2005, ApJ, 627, 404, doi: 10.1086/430373

    Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., & Fontaine, G. 2005, ApJ, 627, 404, doi: 10.1086/430373

    work page doi:10.1086/430373 2005

  10. [10]

    The Montreal White Dwarf Database: a Tool for the Community

    Dufour, P., Blouin, S., Coutu, S., et al. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 509, 20th European White Dwarf Workshop, ed. P.-E. Tremblay, B. Gaensicke, & T. Marsh, 3, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1610.00986

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.00986 2017

  11. [11]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 2015

  12. [12]

    2008, PASP, 120, 1043, doi: 10.1086/592788 16

    Fontaine, G., & Brassard, P. 2008, PASP, 120, 1043, doi: 10.1086/592788 16

    work page doi:10.1086/592788 2008

  13. [13]

    2001, PASP, 113, 409, doi: 10.1086/319535

    Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Bergeron, P. 2001, PASP, 113, 409, doi: 10.1086/319535

    work page doi:10.1086/319535 2001

  14. [14]

    1979, ApJ, 231, 826, doi: 10.1086/157247 Gentile Fusillo, N

    Fontaine, G., & Michaud, G. 1979, ApJ, 231, 826, doi: 10.1086/157247 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4570, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3016 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., Cukanovaite, E., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 3877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2672

    work page doi:10.1086/157247 1979

  15. [15]

    Ghazaryan, S., Alecian, G., & Hakobyan, A. A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 2953, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1912

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1912 2018

  16. [16]

    2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    Guy, J., Bailey, S., Kremin, A., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 2023

  17. [17]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 6111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad196

    Hardy, F., Dufour, P., & Jordan, S. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad196

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad196 2023

  18. [18]

    2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    Heber, U. 2016, PASP, 128, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 2016

  19. [19]

    A., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B

    Hollands, M. A., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3942

    2018

  20. [20]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    Jewett, G., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905 2024

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Kepler, S. O., Kleinman, S. J., Nitta, A., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 1315, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11388.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11388.x 2007

  22. [22]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 4646–4660, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2411

    Ourique, G. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 4646–4660, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2411

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2411 2021

  23. [23]

    O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al

    Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2015 MNRAS, 446, 4078, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2388

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2388 2015

  24. [25]

    O., Pelisoli, I., Jordan, S., et al

    Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Jordan, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2934, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts522 2013

  25. [26]

    O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al

    Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2169, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz960

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz960 2019

  26. [27]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae43ee

    Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Moss, A., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae43ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae43ee 2026

  27. [28]

    J., Kepler, S

    Kleinman, S. J., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5

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

  28. [29]

    2010, Mem

    Koester, D. 2010, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 81, 921 K¨ ulebi, B., Jordan, S., Euchner, F., G¨ ansicke, B. T., &

    2010

  29. [30]

    2009, A&A, 506, 1341, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912570

    Hirsch, H. 2009, A&A, 506, 1341, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912570

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912570 2009

  30. [31]

    R., Romero, A

    Lauffer, G. R., Romero, A. D., & Kepler, S. O. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1925

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1925 2018

  31. [32]

    J., Izquierdo, P., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., Izquierdo, P., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2024 MNRAS, 535, 254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2205 2024

  32. [33]

    A., Castanheira, B

    Morales, R. A., Castanheira, B. G., Blanchard, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adff84

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adff84 2025

  33. [34]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aded8f

    Moss, A., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., et al. 2025, ApJ, 990, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aded8f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aded8f 2025

  34. [35]

    O., & Koester, D

    Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S. O., & Koester, D. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2480, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty011

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty011 2018

  35. [36]

    T., & Koester, D

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Koester, D. 2009, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 172, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012025, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/172/1/012025

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/172/1/012025 2009

  36. [37]

    2026, A&A, 709, A250, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660074

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Tejero-G´ omez, I., & Raddi, R. 2026, A&A, 709, A250, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202660074

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202660074 2026

  37. [38]

    M., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Jim´ enez-Esteban, F. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2039

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2039 2021

  38. [39]

    J., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Brown, A. J., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554700

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554700 2025

  39. [40]

    T., & Boekholt, T

    Toonen, S., Hollands, M., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Boekholt, T. 2017, A&A, 602, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629978

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629978 2017

  40. [41]

    A., Jordan, S., et al

    Vincent, O., Barstow, M. A., Jordan, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347694

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347694 2024

  41. [42]

    A., Kepler, S

    Williams, K. A., Kepler, S. O., & Sion, E. M. 2019, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 109, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ab3469

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab3469 2019

  42. [43]

    V., et al

    Yu, S.-C., Ren, J.-J., Neustroev, V. V., et al. 2026, A&A, 708, A275, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557083

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557083 2026