Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Comparison of methods used to derive the Galactic star formation history from white dwarf samples

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All three white-dwarf routes to the local star formation history agree within uncertainties when run on the same 40-parsec sample, and the paper finds none is quantitatively better.

desk verdict Careful apples-to-apples comparison of three white-dwarf-based SFH methods; the null result is real but weakly demonstrated, and the paper deserves peer review with a request for a mock-injection sensitivity test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09579 v3 pith:MIRZVRID submitted 2025-02-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Emily K. Roberts , Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay , Mairi W. O'Brien , Antoine Bédard , Tim Cunningham , Conor M. Byrne , Elena Cukanovaite This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords whitedwarfsstarformationhistoryluminosityfunctionpopulationsynthesisGaiainitial-finalmassrelationsolarneighbourhoodsystematicuncertainties
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 asks whether the choice of method matters when reconstructing the local Milky Way's star formation history from white dwarf data. The authors take one volume-complete benchmark — the 40-parsec sample of spectroscopically confirmed white dwarfs from Gaia Data Release 3, reduced to 960 objects after cutting at $0.54\,M_\odot$ to remove unresolved double-degenerate candidates — and apply three independent methods to it: fitting the white dwarf luminosity function, fitting the absolute $G$ magnitude distribution, and directly converting each white dwarf's mass and temperature into an age. Systematic uncertainties in the initial mass function, main-sequence lifetimes, cooling ages, metallicity, binary mergers, and kinematic scale heights are propagated through 100 Monte Carlo realisations of the population. The result is a null comparison: no method is quantitatively better, the three methods agree with one another within uncertainties, and a constant star formation history over the past 10.6 Gyr remains the safest default for local Milky Way models. If the paper is right, method choice can be driven by data availability rather than accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a single population-synthesis code that generates 30,000 synthetic white dwarfs from a Salpeter initial mass function, single-star main-sequence and giant lifetimes from the BPASS models, a self-consistent initial-final mass relation re-derived for the same 40 pc masses with those lifetimes, published cooling sequences, a fixed $+0.5$ Gyr crystallisation delay applied at a crystallised mass fraction of 0.5, probabilistic binary-merger delays, and a linear age-to-scale-height relation that corrects for old stars having left the volume. The same machinery forward-models the luminosity function and the absolute $G$ magnitude distribution, and, run backwards, assigns individual ages in the direct-age method. A second mechanism filters this machinery: simulated white dwarf mass distributions are compared with the observed one, and only runs with $\chi^2_{\nu,\rm mass} \le 3$ are kept, which tightens the input widths for population age, IMF slope, main-sequence lifetimes, helium-atmosphere fraction, merger weighting, and cooling models.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is a mock-recovery experiment: generate many synthetic 40-pc-like white dwarf samples with known input star formation histories drawn from the four tested forms, using the same uncertainty model, then run all three methods on each mock and compare each recovered history with the truth. If one method consistently recovers the known input history with smaller error than the others, or if the three methods' recovered histories disagree at more than $1\sigma$ on the same mock, the equivalence conclusion would be an artefact of the uncertainty model rather than a property of the methods. A simpler observational variant would be to anchor one input directly — for example, an open cluster or field population with an independently known age — and show that the adopted cooling-age or main-sequence-lifetime widths are overestimated, which would separate the overlapping $\chi^2_\nu$ spreads of Fig. 8.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that the three standard white-dwarf routes to the Galactic star formation history are statistically interchangeable once the same sample and the same external astrophysical relations are used. For the luminosity-function and absolute-$G$-magnitude methods, the $\chi^2_\nu$ values from 100 simulations per star formation history form overlapping box-and-whisker spreads, so none of the four tested histories — constant, double-peaked, old-peaked, and recent-peaked — is significantly preferred. The direct-age method produces a history that rises to a peak 2–3 Gyr ago and runs about 2.5 times higher at recent times than at early times, yet it agrees with the constant history within $2\sigma$. The strongly early-peaked history fits worst in both forward methods but not at a statistically significant level. The authors conclude that the systematic uncertainties on the input stellar and Galactic models dominate any underlying difference between the methods, and they endorse a constant star formation rate as the default assumption for simulations of the local volume.

Load-bearing premise

The null result rests on the premise that the assigned systematic uncertainty distributions — 4.8 per cent on main-sequence lifetimes, 6 per cent on cooling ages, a 0.1 width on the IMF slope, a 0.3 multiplicative width on the scale-height gradient, and the binary on/off choices for merger and crystallisation delays — are realistic and mutually independent, so that 100 Monte Carlo runs spread the outcomes enough to wash out genuine differences between the methods.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A constant star formation history over the past 10.6 Gyr remains the simplest default for simulations of the 40 pc sample and the local Milky Way, and all three methods are consistent with it within $2\sigma$.
  • The absolute-$G$-magnitude method, which needs only a parallax and an apparent magnitude per white dwarf, can be applied to large samples without follow-up spectroscopy at no measured loss of accuracy.
  • Early-peaked star formation histories of the kind that puts a strong burst roughly 10 Gyr ago are tentatively disfavoured by both forward-fitting methods, although not at statistical significance.
  • The dominant route to tighter star formation histories is reducing external input uncertainties — cooling ages, merger delays, the metallicity distribution, and the scale-height relation — which together contribute roughly half of the direct-age error budget.
  • Constraining a simulation against the white dwarf mass distribution before fitting age-sensitive observables roughly halves the allowed widths of several input parameters, shrinking the $\chi^2_\nu$ spreads of every tested history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test, not run here, is a mock-recovery experiment: feed the three methods synthetic populations with known input star formation histories and identical uncertainty spreads; if one method recovers the true history with significantly smaller scatter, the equivalence claim would fail.
  • Because the initial-final mass relation is held fixed and is itself fitted to the same 40 pc sample, a systematic error in that relation would shift all three methods in the same direction, preserving their agreement while biasing the absolute scale of the recovered history; re-running with an independently derived relation would reveal the size of that shared bias.
  • The mass-distribution calibration step (retaining runs with $\chi^2_{\nu,\rm mass} \le 3$) is a transferable template: any volume-complete sample could use its least model-dependent observable to shrink priors before fitting age- and cooling-sensitive statistics.
  • The conclusion that the methods are interchangeable is conditional on the stated uncertainty widths being uncorrelated; if cooling-age and main-sequence-lifetime errors share a common source, the independent-Gaussian Monte Carlo would overstate total uncertainty and could mask a genuinely preferred history.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares three methods of deriving the local Galactic star formation history (SFH) from white dwarfs: the luminosity function (LF), the absolute Gaia G magnitude distribution (AG), and direct age calculation, all applied to the same volume-complete 40 pc white dwarf sample of 960 objects from O'Brien et al. (2024). A population synthesis model is constructed with a self-consistent initial-final mass relation, BPASS main-sequence lifetimes, Bédard et al. cooling models, binary merger delays, and a crystallisation delay. Four SFH forms from the literature are tested, and systematic uncertainties on the IMF, main-sequence lifetimes, cooling ages, metallicity, and other ingredients are propagated through 100 Monte Carlo runs per method. The central result is that, after propagating these uncertainties, no method is statistically preferred and the three methods produce SFHs that agree within the systematic errors; a constant SFH is recommended as the default for local Milky Way models.

Significance. If the conclusion is sound, the paper is a valuable methodological benchmark: it shows that, on the same volume-complete sample, three observationally distinct probes yield statistically indistinguishable SFHs and that systematic uncertainties dominate any method-specific differences. The use of a single well-defined sample is an improvement over earlier comparisons built on different data sets, and the explicit propagation of IMF, main-sequence lifetime, cooling, binarity, and metallicity uncertainties is a strength. The paper also ships a reproducible Monte Carlo framework with box plots that directly show the dispersion of χ² values. However, the central null result is only as strong as the assumed uncertainty widths and the ability of the methods to detect a true SFH difference; the lack of a mock-injection sensitivity test and the sample-fitted initial-final mass relation leave the interpretation open to a 'methods are insensitive' alternative.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1] The initial-final mass relation (IFMR) is fitted to the same 40 pc sample and then held fixed, and this relation is used in all three methods: the forward methods (LF and AG) use it to assign white dwarf masses in the synthetic population, and the direct age method inverts it to convert white dwarf masses into progenitor lifetimes. The paper acknowledges this circularity in §4.1, but the consequence is that the comparison does not test the full envelope of 'current external astrophysical relations' claimed in the abstract; it tests the methods conditional on a sample-fitted IFMR. The agreement among methods may be partly built in, because any systematic error in the IFMR propagates in the same direction into the simulated and directly aged populations. I would like to see the comparison repeated with an independent IFMR (e.g., El-Badry et al. 2018 or Cummings et al. 2018) or with IFMR parameters varied within the published scatter, to determine whether the qualitative agreement among the three methods survives.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 8] No sensitivity or calibration test is performed. The central claim is a null result: the three methods and four SFH forms agree within uncertainties. However, the Monte Carlo runs with the assigned systematic widths could produce overlapping χ² distributions if all methods are insensitive to the SFH, rather than because the methods truly agree. A necessary control is an injection test: generate a mock population with a known, strongly non-constant SFH (e.g., a recent burst or an extreme early-peaked form), run the full uncertainty analysis, and show that the LF and AG methods reject the wrong SFH at a meaningful level and that the direct age method recovers the input SFH. Without such a test, the conclusion that 'no method is quantitatively better' is not falsifiable within the manuscript's own framework, and the overlap in Figs. 8 and 9 is equally consistent with all methods being blind to SFH variations.
  3. [§4.1, §5, Table 3] The widths of several systematic uncertainties are not validated against any external benchmark; they are reduced only by requiring agreement with the observed 40 pc mass distribution, which is the same sample used for the SFH comparison. For example, the population-age σ is reduced from 0.7 Gyr to 0.5 Gyr and the IMF slope σ from 0.1 to 0.075 solely on the basis of self-consistency with this sample. If the true external uncertainties are larger or are correlated (for instance, if the cooling-age and main-sequence-lifetime errors are not independent), the observed overlap in Figures 8–9 would be an artifact of the chosen priors. The authors should validate the widths against independent constraints (e.g., cluster ages, asteroseismic masses, or an externally calibrated age–velocity dispersion relation) or demonstrate that the conclusions are robust to increasing or decreasing the assumed widths by a factor of two.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) reads χ²_ν = χ²_ν, which is a tautology; it should be χ²_ν = χ² / ν, with ν = n − m as defined in the preceding sentence.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 8 caption] The uncertainty budget quoted in the text (Poisson 3–7%, systematics ~50%, Gaia ~43–47%) is inconsistent with the caption of Fig. 8 (Poisson 10%, systematics 47%, Gaia 43%); please harmonize the two sets of numbers.
  3. [§5] The text states that 'we collected 100 simulation runs that also meet our χ²_ν,mass ≤ 3 criteria,' but it does not state how many total Monte Carlo runs were needed to obtain 100 passing runs; reporting the acceptance rate would help the reader judge the efficiency and the effective coverage of the parameter space.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption refers to 'the lower mass cut off' without specifying the value; please state explicitly that the vertical pink line marks the 0.54 M⊙ cut used to exclude unresolved double degenerates.
  5. [§4.1, 'Crystallisation delay'] The crystallisation delay is modelled as a random binary on/off toggle of a 0.5 Gyr delay, rather than as a continuous prior on the delay magnitude. Given that §5.1 discusses a scenario with an 8 Gyr delay for 7% of white dwarfs, the binary treatment seems overly coarse; please justify that this choice adequately covers the uncertainty, or present results with a continuous range of delays.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The comparison is partly internal: the initial-final mass relation is fit to the same 40 pc sample and then used by all three methods, and the systematic widths used to conclude that the methods agree are calibrated against that same sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3 (Direct age calculations) and Section 4.1 (Systematic uncertainties, Initial-final mass relation)]
    "The pre-white dwarf mass is calculated using our modified initial-final mass relation based on the method of Cunningham et al. (2024)... Since the employed initial-final mass relation is already self-consistent with the Gaia temperature, mass and magnitude scales for the 40 pc sample, and already based on essentially the same astrophysical relations and stellar models as those used in this work, we do not vary this parameter. In other words, the initial-final relation is primarily an internal dependent relation in this work."

    The direct-age method derives each white dwarf's age by inverting an initial-final mass relation that was fit to the same 40 pc Gaia masses that define the sample. The two forward methods likewise build their synthetic populations from this same internally fit relation and compare them with the same observed sample. The three methods are therefore not independent checks: they share a sample-calibrated relation that is held fixed. The resulting 'agreement' among methods is partly a statement of internal self-consistency with that calibration, not an external validation of the star formation history.

  2. other [Section 5 'Reducing systematic uncertainties' and Table 3]
    "By calculating chi2_nu values between the simulated and observed 40 pc mass distributions and only collecting the set of input parameters if chi2_nu,mass <= 3, we can examine only the simulation runs where we are guaranteed a good match to the white dwarf mass distribution. ... We ran the code for the luminosity function and absolute G magnitude methods and different formation histories again as in Fig. 8 with the reduced uncertainties as determined by restricting the chi2_nu,mass."

    The same 40 pc sample is used first to shrink the systematic uncertainty widths in Table 3 and then, with those internally calibrated widths, to conclude that no star formation history form or method is statistically preferred (Fig. 9). The overlapping chi-squared boxes are produced using error bars that were derived from the very data being compared. If the true external uncertainties are smaller, correlated, or differently distributed, the boxes could separate; the paper provides no external or mock-population benchmark showing that the methods can reject a wrong star formation history. The null result is thus consistent with 'methods are insensitive' as well as 'methods agree'.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its main internal-calibration step: the initial-final mass relation is constructed from the same 40 pc white dwarf sample used in all three methods, and the authors explicitly call it 'primarily an internal dependent relation' (Section 4.1). This is a genuine circularity risk because the direct-age method and the two forward-modelling methods all rely on that sample-fit relation, so their agreement is partly a consequence of shared inputs rather than independent verification. A second, related issue is that Section 5 calibrates the systematic uncertainty widths against the same 40 pc mass distribution before using those widths to conclude that the tested star formation histories are statistically indistinguishable. That makes the headline result depend on internally calibrated error bars. However, the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from its own prior work, and many of the uncertainty values (IMF slope, main-sequence lifetimes, cooling-age scatter, merger fractions) come from external literature. The central comparison therefore has independent content, but it is weakened by the internal IFMR and by the same-sample calibration of the error budget. The absence of a mock-population sensitivity test is not itself circularity, but it compounds the interpretation problem. Overall, the result is partially circular rather than fully self-referential, so a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central comparison leans on a large number of borrowed or internally fitted inputs. The initial-final mass relation, the low-mass correction, the mass cut, and the crystallisation delay are the most consequential free parameters; all methods share them, which biases the three methods toward agreement. No new particles or physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial-final mass relation (four-piece segmented linear fit) = coefficients not quoted in text
    Derived from the same 40 pc sample and held fixed in all three methods; maps initial mass to white dwarf mass and is a central internal calibration rather than an external constraint (Sections 3.1 and 4.1).
  • Low-mass opacity correction polynomial = fifth-order polynomial coefficients not given
    Fitted to force Gaia photometric masses of cool white dwarfs (Teff below 6000 K) up to the expected constant median mass; also adjusts Teff via the mass-radius relation. This correction changes the observed luminosity function and direct ages (Section 2).
  • White dwarf mass cut = 0.54 Msun
    Chosen by hand to remove presumed unresolved double degenerates and low-mass white dwarfs; removes 113 of 1073 objects and is applied to the observed sample and simulations (Section 2).
  • Crystallisation and distillation cooling delay = +0.5 Gyr
    Applied to every white dwarf with crystallised fraction at or above 0.5 as an average delay because the spread is unconstrained; affects cooling ages, the luminosity function, and the G magnitude distribution (Sections 3.1 and 5.1).
  • Scale-height relation parameters = h = 10.71 t + 65 pc, flattening at 140 pc
    The kinematic loss correction uses this relation from Cukanovaite et al. (2023); the gradient is varied with sigma 0.3 but the functional form is assumed (Section 3.1, Eqs. 1 and 2).
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Salpeter initial mass function with exponent 2.35 and initial mass range 0.95 to 6.84 Msun
    All simulated populations use this IMF and mass range; only the slope is perturbed, not the functional form (Table 1, Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Solar metallicity Z = 0.0134 for all stars
    Assumes no age-metallicity relation, so main-sequence lifetimes are the same for all formation times (Table 1, Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption BPASS main-sequence and giant-phase lifetimes
    Used to compute t_MS+GP, cooling time, and the initial-final mass relation self-consistency (Table 1, Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Bedard et al. (2020) carbon/oxygen core cooling models
    All cooling ages, luminosities, and effective temperatures are interpolated from these grids (Table 1, Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Temmink et al. (2020) binary merger fractions and delays
    Probabilistic merger histories are sampled from this external model and are not validated against the 40 pc sample (Table 1, Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Galactic disc population age fixed at 10.6 Gyr
    The simulation horizon and all star formation history comparisons are bounded by this adopted disc age from Cukanovaite et al. (2023); the paper does not fit it (Table 1, Section 3.4).
  • domain assumption Kinematic correction assumes equal in/out flow in x and y, with a scale height relation h = 10.71 t + 65 pc flattening at 140 pc
    Only vertical motion removes stars from the volume; the relation is based on prior 40 pc work and is used in both forward methods and direct age corrections (Section 3.1, Eqs. 1 and 2).
  • domain assumption Photometric parameters and spectral classifications of O'Brien et al. (2024) are correct after the mass cut and low-mass correction
    The benchmark sample's masses, temperatures, and compositions are taken as given; all observed distributions are built from them (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Initial-final mass relation is the same for all stars and independent of metallicity, rotation, and magnetic field
    Scatter around the initial-final mass relation is neglected except for the few-percent expectation; this suppresses an additional source of method disagreement (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of methods used to derive the Galactic star formation history from white dwarf samples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MIRZVRID

@misc{pith2026250209579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of methods used to derive the Galactic star formation history from white dwarf samples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MIRZVRID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09579}
}
read the original abstract

We compare three methods of deriving the local Galactic star formation history, using as a benchmark the Gaia-defined 40 pc white dwarf sample, currently the largest volume complete sample of stellar remnants with medium-resolution spectroscopy. We create a population synthesis model to 1) reproduce the observed white dwarf luminosity function, 2) reproduce the observed absolute Gaia G magnitude distribution, and 3) directly calculate the ages of all individual white dwarfs in the 40 pc volume. We then compare the star formation histories determined from each method. Previous studies using these methods were based on different white dwarf samples and as such were difficult to compare. Uncertainties in each method such as the initial mass function, initial-final mass relation, main sequence lifetimes, stellar metallicity, white dwarf cooling ages and binary evolution are accounted for to estimate the precision and accuracy of each method. We conclude that no method is quantitatively better at determining the star formation history and all three produce star formation histories that agree within uncertainties of current external astrophysical relations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photometric white dwarf mass distribution of the Gaia 40 pc sample (blue dashed line) compared with the mass distribution after the low mass corrections of O’Brien et al. (2024) for cool white dwarfs (𝑇eff < 6000 K) is applied (black solid line). The vertical (pink) line represents the lower mass cut off, below which the objects are considered to be double degenerate and other binary white dwarfs and are excluded fr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scale height as a function of the total age of a star. This linear relationship is derived in Cukanovaite et al. (2023) and flattens off at 140 pc due to a lack of evidence for kinematic evolution of stars older than around 7 Gyr (Seabroke & Gilmore 2007). plot show that this cooling delay is not always a delay: the majority of the time the difference is positive and it decreases the white dwarf cooling time for the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: The fraction of white dwarfs that formed with a merger in their past as a function of white dwarf mass. This is the default model of Temmink et al. (2020). Bottom: The time differences in Gyr between the evolutionary history of a white dwarf assuming single star evolution and binary evolution for the stars in the default synthetic population of this work assuming constant formation history. If a star was not fo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed luminosity function (black dashed line) for the 40 pc white dwarf sample compared to that of the synthetic population of white dwarfs used as the default simulation (pink solid line). A simulation including 3 000 000 stars is shown in the solid blue line. The …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed absolute G magnitude distribution (black dashed line) for the 40 pc sample compared to that of the synthetic population of white dwarfs (light blue histogram). The errors on the observed 40 pc absolute G magnitude distribution are Poisson errors. importantly, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of white dwarfs in each 1 Gyr age bin with the uncorrected values in the blue dotted line and the values with both the main sequence and kinematic corrections applied in the solid pink line. Uncertainties on each bin are Poisson errors. more likely to have left …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The four forms of star formation history used throughout this work. The four forms are approximated from Cukanovaite et al. (2023), Fantin et al. (2019), Mor et al. (2019) and the results of our direct age method. Each form has a very different shape or peaks and allow…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Luminosity Function method: Box and whisker plot to show the range of 𝜒 2 𝜈 values obtained from 100 runs of the Luminosity Function code including systematic uncertainties. The box extends from the first quartile to the third quartile of the data with a line at the me…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    Author A. N., 2013, Journal of Improbable Astronomy, 1, 1

    2013

  2. [2]

    Others S., 2012, Journal of Interesting Stuff, 17, 198

    2012

  3. [3]

    A., Bruzual G., D \' az-Gonz \'a lez D

    Alzate J. A., Bruzual G., D \' az-Gonz \'a lez D. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3576 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501..302A 501, 302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3576 2021

  4. [4]

    Antoja T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.561..360A 561, 360

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0510-7 2018

  5. [5]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481–522

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , 47, 481–522

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..115B 950, 115

    Bauer E. B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950..115B 950, 115

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd057 2023

  7. [7]

    B \'e dard A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-024-04307-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Ap&SS.369...43B 369, 43

    doi:10.1007/s10509-024-04307-5 2024

  8. [8]

    B \'e dard A., Bergeron P., Brassard P., Fontaine G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901...93B 901, 93

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe 2020

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    B \'e dard A., Brassard P., Bergeron P., Blouin S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...927..128B 927, 128

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    B \'e dard A., Blouin S., Cheng S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.627..286B 627, 286

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Bergeron P., Dufour P., Fontaine G., Coutu S., Blouin S., Genest-Beaulieu C., B \'e dard A., Rolland B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...876...67B 876, 67

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Blouin S., Daligault J., Saumon D., B \'e dard A., Brassard P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...640L..11B 640, L11

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Blouin S., Daligault J., Saumon D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911L...5B 911, L5

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Blouin S., Bédard A., Tremblay P.-E., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1574 , 523, 3363

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Buckner A. S. M., Froebrich D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1440 , 444, 290

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Eldridge J

    Byrne C. M., Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., 2024, BPASS stellar evolution models incorporating -enhanced composition -- I. Single star models from 0.1 to 316 M _ ( @eprint arXiv 2410.23167 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23167

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E., Althaus L

    Camisassa M. E., Althaus L. G., Córsico A. H., Vinyoles N., Serenelli A. M., Isern J., Bertolami M. M. M., García–Berro E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/158 , 823, 158

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    E., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822 , 625, A87

    Camisassa M. E., et al., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822 , 625, A87

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Rebassa-Mansergas A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.213C 674, A213

    Camisassa M., Torres S., Hollands M., Koester D., Raddi R., Althaus L. G., Rebassa-Mansergas A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346628 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.213C 674, A213

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4529C 519, 4529

    Caron A., Bergeron P., Blouin S., Leggett S. K., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3733 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.4529C 519, 4529

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    D., M \'e nard B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..100C 886, 100

    Cheng S., Cummings J. D., M \'e nard B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..100C 886, 100

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Shore S

    Cignoni M., Degl'Innocenti S., Prada Moroni P. G., Shore S. N., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...459..783C 459, 783

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    Cukanovaite E., Tremblay P.-E., Bergeron P., Freytag B., Ludwig H.-G., Steffen M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3684 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.5274C 501, 5274

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    E., Toonen S., Temmink K

    Cukanovaite E., Tremblay P. E., Toonen S., Temmink K. D., Manser C. J., O'Brien M. W., McCleery J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.522.1643C 522, 1643

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    D., Kalirai J

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

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Hollands M., Cukanovaite E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3638 , 492, 3540

    Cunningham T., Tremblay P.-E., Gentile Fusillo N. P., Hollands M., Cukanovaite E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3638 , 492, 3540

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    O'Brien M., 2024, Initial-final mass relation from white dwarfs within 40 pc ( @eprint arXiv 2310.15410 ), @doi 10.1093/mnras/stad3275

    Cunningham T., Tremblay P.-E., W. O'Brien M., 2024, Initial-final mass relation from white dwarfs within 40 pc ( @eprint arXiv 2310.15410 ), @doi 10.1093/mnras/stad3275

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dal Tio P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5681D 506, 5681

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Semelin B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492...31D 492, 31

    Di Matteo P., Bournaud F., Martig M., Combes F., Melchior A. L., Semelin B., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...492...31D 492, 31

    2008 doi

  22. [30]

    R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaca9c , 860, L17

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., Weisz D. R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aaca9c , 860, L17

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Stanway E

    Eldridge J. J., Stanway E. R., Xiao L., McClelland L. A. S., Taylor G., Ng M., Greis S. M. L., Bray J. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASA...34...58E 34, e058

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5521 , 887, 148

    Fantin N. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5521 , 887, 148

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    doi

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...2G 595, A2

    doi

  27. [35]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Gallart C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202349078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.168G 687, A168

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4570G 482, 4570

    Gentile Fusillo N. P., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3016 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4570G 482, 4570

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3877G 508, 3877

    Gentile Fusillo N. P., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2672 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.508.3877G 508, 3877

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    D., Di Matteo P., Snaith O., Schultheis M., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A..66H 589, A66

    Haywood M., Lehnert M. D., Di Matteo P., Snaith O., Schultheis M., Katz D., G \'o mez A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...589A..66H 589, A66

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M., Snaith O., Fragkoudi F., Khoperskov S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731363 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..78H 618, A78

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Hermes J

    Heintz T. M., Hermes J. J., El-Badry K., Walsh C., van Saders J. L., Fields C. E., Koester D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..148H 934, 148

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A

    Helmi A., Babusiaux C., Koppelman H. H., Massari D., Veljanoski J., Brown A. G. A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.563...85H 563, 85

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Littlefair S

    Hollands M. A., Littlefair S. P., Parsons S. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.9061H 527, 9061

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Pols O

    Hurley J. R., Pols O. R., Tout C. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.315..543H 315, 543

    2000

  38. [46]

    Iben Icko J., Ritossa C., Garc \' a-Berro E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304822 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..772I 489, 772

    1997 doi

  39. [47]

    Isern J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab238e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878L..11I 878, L11

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Jewett G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...974...12J 974, 12

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Jim \'e nez-Esteban F. M., Torres S., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Skorobogatov G., Solano E., Cantero C., Rodrigo C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.4505J 480, 4505

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    S., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature11062 , 486, 90–92

    Kalirai J. S., 2012, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature11062 , 486, 90–92

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    D., Combes F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A..60K 609, A60

    Khoperskov S., Haywood M., Di Matteo P., Lehnert M. D., Combes F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A..60K 609, A60

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Rowell N., Crawford C

    Kilic M., Bergeron P., Dame K., Hambly N. C., Rowell N., Crawford C. L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2755 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482..965K 482, 965

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    R., Ag \"u eros M

    Kilic M., Bergeron P., Kosakowski A., Brown W. R., Ag \"u eros M. A., Blouin S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...898...84K 898, 84

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    R., B \'e dard A., Jewett G., Ag \"u eros M

    Kilic M., Bergeron P., Blouin S., Moss A., Brown W. R., B \'e dard A., Jewett G., Ag \"u eros M. A., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979..157K 979, 157

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Kroupa P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x , 322, 231

    2001

  48. [56]

    Ludwig H.-G., Caffau E., Steffen M., Bonifacio P., Sbordone L., 2010, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810780 , 509, A84

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    Marigo P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1132-1 , 4, 1102–1110

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    McCleery J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2030 , 499, 1890

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Mestel L., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/112.6.583 , 112, 583

    1952 doi

  52. [60]

    C., Figueras F., Roca-Fàbrega S., Luri X., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935105 , 624, L1

    Mor R., Robin A. C., Figueras F., Roca-Fàbrega S., Luri X., 2019, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935105 , 624, L1

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3303 , 518, 3055

    O’Brien M. W., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3303 , 518, 3055

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , 527, 8687

    O’Brien M. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3773 , 527, 8687

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    arXiv:2410.14014

    Pathak P., Blouin S., Herwig F., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14014 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241014014P p. arXiv:2410.14014

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Raddi R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A..22R 658, A22

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    Rebassa-Mansergas A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1559 , 505, 3165

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    H., Alonso-Herrero A., Weiner B

    Rieke G. H., Alonso-Herrero A., Weiner B. J., Pérez-González P. G., Blaylock M., Donley J. L., Marcillac D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/556 , 692, 556

    2009 doi

  59. [67]

    Rolland B., Bergeron P., Fontaine G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857...56R 857, 56

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    Rowell N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1110 , 434, 1549

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    Rowell N., Kilic M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz184 , 484, 3544

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    Salaris M., Cassisi S., Pietrinferni A., Hidalgo S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.509.5197S 509, 5197

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    Salim S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519218 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..173..267S 173, 267

    2007 doi

  64. [72]

    E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    Salpeter E. E., 1955, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955ApJ...121..161S 121, 161

    1955 doi

  65. [73]

    Saumon D., Blouin S., Tremblay P.-E., 2022, @doi [Physics Reports] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001 , 988, 1

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    P., Pauli E

    Schr \"o der K. P., Pauli E. M., Napiwotzki R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08230.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354..727S 354, 727

    2004

  67. [75]

    M., Gilmore G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12210.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380.1348S 380, 1348

    Seabroke G. M., Gilmore G., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12210.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.380.1348S 380, 1348

    2007

  68. [76]

    R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..581S 48, 581

    Soderblom D. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..581S 48, 581

    2010 doi

  69. [77]

    R., Eldridge J

    Stanway E. R., Eldridge J. J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479...75S 479, 75

    2018 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Bullock J

    Stewart K. R., Bullock J. S., Wechsler R. H., Maller A. H., Zentner A. R., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/588579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...683..597S 683, 597

    2008 doi

  71. [79]

    D., Toonen S., Zapartas E., Justham S., Gänsicke B

    Temmink K. D., Toonen S., Zapartas E., Justham S., Gänsicke B. T., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936889 , 636, A31

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    T., Boekholt T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A..16T 602, A16

    Toonen S., Hollands M., G \"a nsicke B. T., Boekholt T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629978 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...602A..16T 602, A16

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    E., Bergeron P., Gianninas A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730..128T 730, 128

    Tremblay P. E., Bergeron P., Gianninas A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...730..128T 730, 128

    2011 doi

  74. [82]

    S., Soderblom D

    Tremblay P.-E., Kalirai J. S., Soderblom D. R., Cignoni M., Cummings J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/791/2/92 , 791, 92

    2014 doi

  75. [83]

    S., Gänsicke B

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

    2016 doi

  76. [84]

    Tremblay P.-E., et al., 2019, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-018-0791-x , 565, 202–205

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Venner A., Blouin S., B \'e dard A., Vanderburg A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4624V 523, 4624

    2023 doi

  78. [86]

    A., Jordan S., Mander C., Bergeron P., Dufour P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A...5V 682, A5

    Vincent O., Barstow M. A., Jordan S., Mander C., Bergeron P., Dufour P., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347694 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...682A...5V 682, A5

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21394.x , 426, 427

    Wegg C., Phinney E. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21394.x , 426, 427

    2012

  80. [88]

    R., Skillman E

    Weisz D. R., Skillman E. D., Cannon J. M., Dolphin A. E., Kennicutt Robert C. J., Lee J., Walter F., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689..160W 689, 160

    2008 doi

  81. [89]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/198 , 806, 198

    Weisz D. R., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/198 , 806, 198

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    E., Hansen C

    Winget D. E., Hansen C. J., Liebert J., van Horn H. M., Fontaine G., Nather R. E., Kepler S. O., Lamb D. Q., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/184864 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...315L..77W 315, L77

    1987 doi

  83. [91]

    Zubiaur A., Raddi R., Torres S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449223 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...687A.286Z 687, A286

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.