Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 249 references

V407 Vul is the first gravitational-wave 'verification triple': an AM CVn double white dwarf and a G-type star, bound ~120 AU apart, that LISA should detect at signal-to-noise ~27.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:04 UTC pith:O3WUUAOV

load-bearing objection Strong evidence that V407 Vul is a LISA-detectable triple, but a missing plate scale in the astrometry section undermines the headline 3.2-sigma binding argument. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25557 v1 pith:O3WUUAOV submitted 2026-07-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

V407 Vul: a triple star system with an AM CVn detectable by gravitational wave observatories

James Munday , Antonio C. Rodriguez , Nicole Reindl , Nina Mackensen , Tin Long Sunny Wong , S.P. Littlefair , Ingrid Pelisoli , Alex Brown
show 18 more authors
N. Castro Segura Joheen Chakraborty Harry Dawson V. S. Dhillon Matti Dorsch Martin Dyer James A. Garbutt Stephan Geier Matthew Green Dan Jarvis Mark R. Kennedy Paul Kerry James McCormac Steven G. Parsons Jan van Roestel Dave Sahman P.-E. Tremblay Amalie Yates
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE PACS 97.80.-d04.30.-w
keywords V407 VulAM CVndouble white dwarf binarytriple star systemastrometric wobbleLISAgravitational wavesorbital decay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that V407 Vul — long suspected of harbouring a 569-second double-white-dwarf AM CVn binary but visually dominated by a G-type star — is actually a hierarchical triple: the binary and the G star are gravitationally bound, separated by roughly 0.03–0.04 arcseconds, or about 120 AU. The central evidence is an astrometric wobble of the system's centre of light that repeats at the 569-second period, detected in one night of high-speed HiPERCAM imaging, whose amplitude scales with the binary's flux contribution exactly as a spatially separated source predicts. The paper also reports 23 years of orbital-timing data pinning the binary's decay to 1% precision, Hubble ultraviolet observations that isolate a roughly 58,000-K accreting white dwarf, and a firm distance of 3510 pc. From these it predicts that LISA will detect the binary at signal-to-noise about 27 over a four-year mission, making V407 Vul the first 'verification triple' — a calibrator source for gravitational-wave observatories that sits inside a multi-star system. A sympathetic reader would care because the result resolves a decades-old puzzle and gives millihertz gravitational-wave astronomy a calibration source embedded in a triple architecture.

Core claim

V407 Vul is a gravitationally bound triple star system: a 569-second AM CVn double-white-dwarf binary plus a ~0.9-solar-mass G-type main-sequence star. One night of high-speed HiPERCAM astrometry shows the photocentre wobbling at the binary's period — 0.0340±0.0018 pixels in g_s, 0.0144±0.0014 in r_s — which, combined with the binary's per-band flux fraction, gives an angular separation of 0.0346±0.0018 arcseconds (~120 AU at 3510 pc). The authors argue the pair is bound rather than a chance alignment, and that 23 years of timing pin the orbital decay to 1%. They predict LISA will detect the binary at signal-to-noise 27.4±9.1 in four years, making V407 Vul the first 'verification triple.'

What carries the argument

The photocentre-wobble astrometry, tied to the light curve by the identity A = [V/(V+1)] f_MS,min d, where A is the measured centroid oscillation in a passband, V the binary's fractional flux variation there, f_MS,min the G star's fractional flux at minimum, and d the true angular separation. This relation carries the triple claim: because the wobble amplitude scales with the binary's flux fraction (about 2× in g_s vs r_s, matching the light curves), the oscillation reads as a shifting centre of light rather than intrinsic flicker. Supporting machinery: 23 years of O−C timing across high-speed cameras giving the orbital decay; MCMC spectro-photometric fits of stellar-atmosphere models to HST

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the interpretation of the 0.034-pixel centroid oscillation measured in a single night of HiPERCAM data as a physical displacement of the photocentre on the 569-second period, after subtracting a linear differential-refraction trend; if the wobble instead reflects an unrecognized systematic — such as seeing or colour variations coupled to the binary phase — the triple separation and the 'verification triple' claim weaken.

What would settle it

Re-observe V407 Vul with the same high-speed imager on a second night at different airmass and with several comparison stars. A physical wobble must (1) re-appear at the 569-second period locked to the photometric ephemeris, and (2) reproduce the amplitude predicted by the flux-fraction scaling across bands (equation 4), whereas a refraction or seeing artifact would drift in phase with airmass and fail the scaling test. Independent confirmation would come from LISA: the measured chirp mass must be consistent with the 0.1545-solar-mass lower bound once mass-transfer corrections are applied.

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

If this is right

  • V407 Vul becomes the first 'verification triple': a millihertz gravitational-wave calibration source inside a hierarchical triple, with LISA predicted to detect it at signal-to-noise 27.4±9.1 in a four-year mission (43.6±14.1 in ten years), keeping it among the brightest verification binaries.
  • The orbital decay, now measured to 1% precision (f_dot = (1.291±0.015)×10⁻¹⁷ Hz/s), confines the chirp mass to a minimum of 0.1545±0.0106 M_sun and opens a test of whether the binary survives a period minimum or coalesces; continued timing could reveal a second frequency derivative.
  • The outer orbit (~10³ years, ~120 AU) is too wide to imprint a gravitational-wave Doppler shift on LISA's signal, so the inner AM CVn evolves in near-isolation; the tertiary is too distant to drive Kozai–Lidov dynamics or common-envelope interaction.
  • The revised distance of 3510 pc and the ≈58,000-K accretor temperature imply a present-day mass-transfer rate near 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁷·⁵ M_sun/yr and lower the optimistic LISA signal estimates that earlier, looser distances had produced.
  • Whether the inner binary outspirals, merges into a rejuvenated star, or detonates as a sub-Chandrasekhar type Ia supernova, the tertiary is essentially a spectator: its Roche lobe is far too large for interaction, so the two parts of the system evolve independently.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the wobble is genuinely orbital, the same single-night, high-speed astrometric method should find other companion-dominated ultra-compact binaries; the absence of triples among known verification binaries would then be a selection effect of optical surveys blinded by bright main-sequence stars, not a real scarcity.
  • The distance revision to ~3.5 kpc — near the top of previously quoted ranges — suggests systematic uncertainty in distances, and hence in LISA signal-to-noise predictions, for other AM CVn verification binaries; a uniform UV-based distance campaign for the class would test this.
  • With an outer period near 10³ years, the wobble amplitude and direction should drift slowly as the projected separation changes; re-measuring the photocentre wobble over coming decades could constrain the outer orbit's eccentricity and inclination, which a single epoch cannot.
  • The authors' note that the most recent timing points deviate slightly from a constant period derivative is a concrete prediction: if the deviation persists, V407 Vul would be nearing its period minimum, sharpening the expected merger-vs-outspiral outcome and the timing of any turn-around signature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength study of V407 Vul, an ultra-compact binary with a 569 s orbital period that has long been suspected to be an AM CVn double white dwarf. Using 23 years of high-speed photometry the authors measure a precise orbital decay, ˙f0 = (1.291±0.015)×10^-17 Hz/s, and infer a minimum chirp mass. New HiPERCAM astrometry shows a 569-s photocentre wobble in the g_s and r_s bands, which the authors interpret as the signature of a spatially separated, gravitationally bound outer tertiary star. Combining HST, LBT, and Keck data with an SED model, they derive a distance of 3510^{+140}_{-110} pc, a hot ~58,000 K accreting white dwarf, and a main-sequence tertiary; from the wobble amplitude they derive an angular separation of 0.03–0.04 arcsec and claim V407 Vul is a bound triple. They further predict a LISA SNR of 27.4±9.1 in 4 years, making it the first 'verification triple' in the millihertz gravitational-wave band.

Significance. If the triple interpretation holds, this would be the first confirmed AM CVn system in a hierarchical triple among the LISA verification binaries, with direct implications for the formation and evolution of ultra-compact binaries and for the expected number of LISA sources in multi-star systems. The paper contains a valuable long-baseline timing dataset, new UV observations that isolate the accreting component, and a high-S/N astrometric detection in two bands. The timing result and the SED analysis are carefully presented, and the LISA SNR prediction is a concrete, falsifiable forecast. However, the headline quantitative separation — and with it one of the two tests for gravitational binding — is not reproducible as written, and the astrometric detection that anchors the triple claim rests on a single epoch. These issues need to be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.2, Eq. (4), Table 3] Eq. (4) and Table 3 are dimensionally inconsistent, and the quoted d values do not follow from the stated inputs. A is measured in pixels (§4: 0.0340±0.0018 px in g_s and 0.0144±0.0014 px in r_s), while d is quoted in arcseconds; no plate scale (0.162″/px) appears in Eq. (4). Evaluating d = A_px × 0.162″/px / [(V/(V+1)) f_MS,min] gives d_g ≈ 0.073″ and d_r ≈ 0.054″, not 0.0406″ and 0.0285″. The mean separation would be ≈0.064″ rather than 0.0346″. The inconsistency cannot be resolved by assuming the Table-3 A values are already in arcsec, since then d would be ≈0.45″ and ≈0.33″. This matters directly for the proper-motion test in the same section: with d_2021≈0.0346″ and d_2005≈0.022″, the maximum possible separation change (≈0.056″) is smaller than the Gaia displacement 0.076″; with d_2021≈0.073″ the maximum possible change (≈0.095″) is compatible with a stationary background, so the cl
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 2] The new astrometric wobble detection is based on a single HiPERCAM night (2021 June 16) after subtracting a linear differential-refraction trend. Comparison stars are mentioned, but no comparison-star periodograms or injection-recovery tests are shown. Since the triple separation, the binding test, and the 'verification triple' claim all depend on this ~0.005–0.006″ signal, the authors should demonstrate that the signal is not a seeing–colour systematic. For example, they could show null results for comparison-star centroids at 569 s, or recover an injected synthetic wobble of the same amplitude and frequency. Without such a test, the statement 'clear confirmation of the triple star nature' overstates the evidence from the single epoch.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 6.3] The abstract quotes a LISA SNR of 28.4±9.2, while Section 6.3 and the conclusion quote 27.4±9.1. Reconcile these values.
  2. [Section 4] The text says 'the night of 16 June 2026', but Table A.1 and context indicate 2021 June 16. Correct the date.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The characteristic-strain formula is typeset ambiguously: 2(GM)^5/3/c^4 d should be written as 2(GM)^{5/3}/(c^4 d). Also check the numerical factor against Shah et al. (2012).
  4. [Table 2] The second fit line is labelled 'LBT/LRIS' but should be 'LBT/MODS'.
  5. [Table 3 and Eq. (4)] Please state explicitly whether A in Eq. (4) is the pixel amplitude or an angular amplitude, and define V consistently as a fraction or a percentage. The current text switches between 'pixel amplitude' and percent units without making the conversion explicit.
  6. [Section 6.3] The phrase '43.6±14.1 yr' should be '43.6±14.1' (the unit yr belongs to the mission time, not the uncertainty).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: the astrometric-wobble detection, separation estimate, and LISA SNR are independent forward calculations; the reported unit inconsistency is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central chain—measured 569 s astrometric wobble (Section 4), conversion to angular separation via Eq. (4), and forward LISA SNR (Eq. 5, Section 6.3)—contains no step in which a target result is used as an input. The pixel amplitudes are measured independently of the SED fit; f_MS,min is derived from the SED model plus the photometric amplitude, and d is solved for rather than fitted. The proper-motion and chance-alignment arguments (Section 6.2) are external consistency checks using Gaia and TRILEGAL. The orbital-decay chirp mass (Eq. 3) is a direct conversion of the fitted f0 and fdot. Self-citations (e.g., Munday et al. 2023 for timing methodology, Wong & Bildsten 2021 for evolutionary tracks) are not load-bearing for the triple claim. The paper explicitly flags its own limitations: reddening degeneracy (Section 5.1), 'Formal errors are given... and the true uncertainties would be much larger' (Section 6.1), outer-orbit period intended only as order-of-magnitude (Section 6.2), and past distance uncertainty affecting the SNR comparison (Section 6.3). The unit mismatch between A[pix] and d[arcsec] in Eq. (4)/Table 3 is a reproducibility/correctness defect, not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central triple detection does not depend on the fitted/fixed parameters; they affect derived quantities (distance, separation, LISA SNR). The assumed inner-binary masses and inclination dominate the GW SNR uncertainty.

free parameters (5)
  • Inclination (i) = 60° (assumed)
    Sets the LISA SNR; no inclination measurement is available for the inner binary.
  • Inner binary masses = M_acc=0.6±0.2 M☉, M_don=0.25±0.05 M☉
    Imported from Barros et al. (2007) mass limits; used in SNR and triple-period calculation.
  • Donor WD temperature = 8000 K (fixed)
    Post-fit fixed value; only a 15,000 K upper bound is robust.
  • Donor WD radius = 0.035 R☉ (fixed)
    Largely unconstrained in the free fit; fixed to reduce degeneracy.
  • E(B−V) = 0.43–0.44 mag
    Interpolated from reddening maps; distance and WD temperature depend on it.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The 569-s photometric modulation is the orbital period of the inner DWD binary
    Supported by the observed orbital decay consistent with GW radiation (Strohmayer 2002, 2004; this work), and by ruling out unipolar/intermediate-polar models via pulse phase differences (Barros et al. 2005, 2007).
  • standard math Kepler's third law and the standard GW strain formula apply
    Used to convert sky separation to orbital period (Section 6.2) and to compute characteristic strain/SNR (Section 6.3).
  • domain assumption The G-type star and the AM CVn are at the same distance
    Justified by the SED fitting: separate fits at different distances give consistent distances (Section 5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Reddening E(B−V)=0.43–0.44 mag from Lallement et al. (2022) maps
    Chosen after trialing multiple extinction prescriptions; adopted because it gives consistent fits to UV–NIR data (Section 5.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 244 in / 11240 out tokens · 152423 ms · 2026-08-01T02:04:51.276478+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The AM CVn class includes mass transferring, ultra-compact double white dwarf binaries with orbital periods on the timescale of minutes. A long-standing puzzle is that none of the roughly fifty ultra-compact, "verification binaries" which are easily detectable in the millihertz gravitational wave regime reside in a triple star configuration. Much evidence has hinted at V407 Vul being an inspiraling, double white dwarf AM CVn with an orbital period of 569s. Yet, a decisive confirmation has proved challenging since a main sequence star dominates its visible spectrum. We present a clear confirmation of the triple star nature of the source by detecting a significant astrometric wobble of the photocentre on the 569s orbital period of the binary. The AM CVn and the main sequence components are gravitationally bound with a spatial separation of roughly 0.03-0.04'', equating to an orbital separation of approximately 120AU. A total of 23 years of orbital timing constrained the orbital decay of the AM CVn as being precise to the 1% level, critical in understanding if this class of binary survives through a period minimum or coalesce. New Hubble Space Telescope ultra-violet imaging and spectroscopic data allowed the isolated detection of the AM CVn at shorter wavelengths, revealing an approximately 58000 K accretor white dwarf, while placing a firm distance constraint of 3510+140-110 pc. At this distance, we predict that the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) will detect V407 Vul with a 28.4+-9.2 signal-to-noise ratio in a 4yr mission time, making it the first verification binary with an outer tertiary, or "verification triple", detectable for millihertz gravitational wave observatories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25557 by Alex Brown, Amalie Yates, Antonio C. Rodriguez, Dan Jarvis, Dave Sahman, Harry Dawson, Ingrid Pelisoli, James A. Garbutt, James McCormac, James Munday, Jan van Roestel, Joheen Chakraborty, Mark R. Kennedy, Martin Dyer, Matthew Green, Matti Dorsch, N. Castro Segura, Nicole Reindl, Nina Mackensen, Paul Kerry, P.-E. Tremblay, S.P. Littlefair, Stephan Geier, Steven G. Parsons, Tin Long Sunny Wong, V. S. Dhillon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Timing residuals to a linear ephemeris for the full set of optical measurements. Both the cycle number and Gregorian year are labelled on the x-axes. In red, a parabola displaying a quadratic fit to the data. For aesthetic purposes, the O−Clinear residuals were computed from an epoch of 49257.533373137 BJD TDB, offset ϕ0 = −2.228 cycles, frequency f0 = 0.0017562538755 Hz. Right: The phase folded and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Lomb-Scargle periodograms in each HiPERCAM filter, from us (top) to zs (bottom). In red, the periodogram for the Y pixel deviation and, in black, that for the X direction. The vertical dashed grey lines are the orbital frequency of V407 Vul, which corresponds to a clear power spike in the X direction for the gs /rs bands, and in horizontal dashed grey are 5σ false alarm probabilities. Right: Folded a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The unique fits to the Keck/LRIS (top) and LBT/MODS (middle) data, split into the blue and red arms. Below, the two solutions on the photometric SED of V407 Vul. The spectra and photometry for each labelled dataset were fit simultaneously. All plots show the observations in black, the combined model in red and the flux contributed from the main sequence star, the accretor and the donor WDs in grey. The LBT… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison of the orbital period and separation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

249 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  2. [2]

    H., & van Paradijs , J

    Augusteijn , T., van Kerkwijk , M. H., & van Paradijs , J. 1993, , 267, L55

    1993

  3. [3]

    Barros , S. C. C., Marsh , T. R., Dhillon , V. S., et al. 2007, , 374, 1334

    2007

  4. [4]

    Barros , S. C. C., Marsh , T. R., Groot , P., et al. 2005, , 357, 1306

    2005

  5. [5]

    2020, , 901, 93

    B \'e dard , A., Bergeron , P., Brassard , P., & Fontaine , G. 2020, , 901, 93

    2020

  6. [6]

    M., Deloye , C

    Bildsten , L., Townsley , D. M., Deloye , C. J., & Nelemans , G. 2006, , 640, 466

    2006

  7. [7]

    B., Prince , T

    Burdge , K. B., Prince , T. A., Fuller , J., et al. 2020, , 905, 32

    2020

  8. [8]

    B., Rappaport , S

    Chakraborty , J., Burdge , K. B., Rappaport , S. A., et al. 2024, , 977, 262

    2024

  9. [9]

    & Pan-STARRS Team

    Chambers , K. & Pan-STARRS Team . 2018, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 231, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#231, 102.01

    2018

  10. [10]

    C., Geballe , T

    Clayton , G. C., Geballe , T. R., Herwig , F., Fryer , C., & Asplund , M. 2007, , 662, 1220

    2007

  11. [11]

    K., Mason , K

    Cropper , M., Harrop-Allin , M. K., Mason , K. O., et al. 1998, , 293, L57

    1998

  12. [12]

    Croxall , K. V. & Pogge , R. W. 2019, rwpogge/modsIDL: modsIDL Binocular Release , Zenodo

    2019

  13. [13]

    2021, , 501, 5274

    Cukanovaite , E., Tremblay , P.-E., Bergeron , P., et al. 2021, , 501, 5274

    2021

  14. [14]

    L., & Stella , L

    Dall'Osso , S., Israel , G. L., & Stella , L. 2007, , 464, 417

    2007

  15. [15]

    2018, , 852, 19

    de Miguel , E., Patterson , J., Kemp , J., et al. 2018, , 852, 19

    2018

  16. [16]

    Deloye , C. J. & Taam , R. E. 2006, , 649, L99

    2006

  17. [17]

    J., Taam , R

    Deloye , C. J., Taam , R. E., Winisdoerffer , C., & Chabrier , G. 2007, , 381, 525

    2007

  18. [18]

    S., Bezawada , N., Black , M., et al

    Dhillon , V. S., Bezawada , N., Black , M., et al. 2021, , 507, 350

    2021

  19. [19]

    S., Marsh , T

    Dhillon , V. S., Marsh , T. R., Atkinson , D. C., et al. 2014, , 444, 4009

    2014

  20. [20]

    S., Marsh , T

    Dhillon , V. S., Marsh , T. R., Bezawada , N., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 99080Y

    2016

  21. [21]

    S., Marsh , T

    Dhillon , V. S., Marsh , T. R., Stevenson , M. J., et al. 2007, , 378, 825

    2007

  22. [22]

    Dupuy , T. J. & Liu , M. C. 2011, , 733, 122

    2011

  23. [23]

    2018, , 479, 5491

    Eker , Z., Bak s , V., Bilir , S., et al. 2018, , 479, 5491

    2018

  24. [24]

    2024, , 98, 101694

    El-Badry , K. 2024, , 98, 101694

    2024

  25. [25]

    & Rix , H.-W

    El-Badry , K. & Rix , H.-W. 2018, , 480, 4884

    2018

  26. [26]

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Quataert , E., Kupfer , T., & Shen , K. J. 2021, , 508, 4106

    2021

  27. [27]

    2026, , 706, A152

    Filiz , S., Reindl , N., Jones , D., et al. 2026, , 706, A152

    2026

  28. [28]

    2023, , 522, 5358

    Finch , E., Bartolucci , G., Chucherko , D., et al. 2023, , 522, 5358

    2023

  29. [29]

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

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

    2013

  30. [30]

    2025, , 543, 4003

    Frank , J., Straub , A., Shiber , S., et al. 2025, , 543, 4003

    2025

  31. [31]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  32. [32]

    Girardi , L., Groenewegen , M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou , E., & da Costa , L. 2005, , 436, 895

    2005

  33. [33]

    M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93

    2019

  34. [34]

    J., Marsh , T

    Green , M. J., Marsh , T. R., Carter , P. J., et al. 2020, , 496, 1243

    2020

  35. [35]

    & Motch , C

    Haberl , F. & Motch , C. 1995, , 297, L37

    1995

  36. [36]

    & H g , E

    Hobbs , D. & H g , E. 2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 330, Astrometry and Astrophysics in the Gaia Sky, ed. A. Recio-Blanco , P. de Laverny , A. G. A. Brown , & T. Prusti , 67--70

    2018

  37. [37]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A6

    2013

  38. [38]

    & Tutukov , A

    Iben , Jr., I. & Tutukov , A. V. 1984, , 54, 335

    1984

  39. [39]

    & Tutukov , A

    Iben , Jr., I. & Tutukov , A. V. 1987, , 313, 727

    1987

  40. [40]

    L., Hummel , W., Covino , S., et al

    Israel , G. L., Hummel , W., Covino , S., et al. 2002, , 386, L13

    2002

  41. [41]

    L., Bildsten , L., & Steinfadt , J

    Kaplan , D. L., Bildsten , L., & Steinfadt , J. D. R. 2012, , 758, 64

    2012

  42. [42]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    1962

  43. [43]

    R., Harrison , F

    Kulkarni , S. R., Harrison , F. A., Grefenstette , B. W., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.15608

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    B., et al

    Kupfer , T., Korol , V., Littenberg , T. B., et al. 2024, , 963, 100

    2024

  45. [45]

    2018, , 480, 302

    Kupfer , T., Korol , V., Shah , S., et al. 2018, , 480, 302

    2018

  46. [46]

    L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N

    Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N. L. J. 2022, , 661, A147

    2022

  47. [47]

    Lidov , M. L. 1962, , 9, 719

    1962

  48. [48]

    Lu , C. X. & Naoz , S. 2019, , 484, 1506

    2019

  49. [49]

    Marsh , T. R. & Steeghs , D. 2002, , 331, L7

    2002

  50. [50]

    O., Breeveld , A., Much , R., et al

    Mason , K. O., Breeveld , A., Much , R., et al. 2001, , 365, L36

    2001

  51. [51]

    & Di Stefano , R

    Moe , M. & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15

    2017

  52. [52]

    J., Cole , R

    Moore , C. J., Cole , R. H., & Berry , C. P. L. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 015014

    2015

  53. [53]

    1996, , 307, 459

    Motch , C., Haberl , F., Guillout , P., et al. 1996, , 307, 459

    1996

  54. [54]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12075

    Munday , J., Korol , V., Danielski , C., et al. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.12075

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    R., Hollands , M., et al

    Munday , J., Marsh , T. R., Hollands , M., et al. 2023, , 518, 5123

    2023

  56. [56]

    2025 b , Nature Astronomy, 9, 872

    Munday , J., Pakmor , R., Pelisoli , I., et al. 2025 b , Nature Astronomy, 9, 872

    2025

  57. [57]

    1998, , 296, 339

    Naylor , T. 1998, , 296, 339

    1998

  58. [58]

    F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L

    Nelemans , G., Portegies Zwart , S. F., Verbunt , F., & Yungelson , L. R. 2001, , 368, 939

    2001

  59. [59]

    J., Haswell , C

    Norton , A. J., Haswell , C. A., & Wynn , G. A. 2004, , 419, 1025

    2004

  60. [60]

    1967, , 17, 287

    Paczy \'n ski , B. 1967, , 17, 287

    1967

  61. [61]

    R., Ashley , R

    Pelisoli , I., Marsh , T. R., Ashley , R. P., et al. 2021, , 507, 6132

    2021

  62. [62]

    Perley , D. A. 2019, , 131, 084503

    2019

  63. [63]

    T., Caputo , D

    Pijloo , J. T., Caputo , D. P., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2012, , 424, 2914

    2012

  64. [64]

    2003, , 340, 1214

    Podsiadlowski , P., Han , Z., & Rappaport , S. 2003, , 340, 1214

    2003

  65. [65]

    2019, rwpogge/modsCCDRed: v2.0.1 , Zenodo

    Pogge , R. 2019, rwpogge/modsCCDRed: v2.0.1 , Zenodo

    2019

  66. [66]

    W., Atwood , B., Brewer , D

    Pogge , R. W., Atwood , B., Brewer , D. F., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 77350A

    2010

  67. [67]

    P., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Rajamuthukumar , A

    Preece , H. P., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., Rajamuthukumar , A. S., Vynatheya , P., & Klencki , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    S., Korol , V., Stegmann , J., et al

    Rajamuthukumar , A. S., Korol , V., Stegmann , J., et al. 2025, , 704, A156

    2025

  69. [69]

    2008, , 384, 687

    Ramsay , G. 2008, , 384, 687

    2008

  70. [70]

    2006, , 367, L62

    Ramsay , G., Cropper , M., & Hakala , P. 2006, , 367, L62

    2006

  71. [71]

    O., & Hakala , P

    Ramsay , G., Cropper , M., Wu , K., Mason , K. O., & Hakala , P. 2000, , 311, 75

    2000

  72. [72]

    2002 a , , 332, L7

    Ramsay , G., Hakala , P., & Cropper , M. 2002 a , , 332, L7

    2002

  73. [73]

    2005, , 357, 49

    Ramsay , G., Hakala , P., Wu , K., et al. 2005, , 357, 49

    2005

  74. [74]

    2002 b , , 333, 575

    Ramsay , G., Wu , K., Cropper , M., et al. 2002 b , , 333, 575

    2002

  75. [75]

    K., Lambert , D

    Rao , N. K., Lambert , D. L., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez , D. A., et al. 2012, , 760, L3

    2012

  76. [76]

    J., Tamanini , N., & Toonen , S

    Robson , T., Cornish , N. J., Tamanini , N., & Toonen , S. 2018, , 98, 064012

    2018

  77. [77]

    Rodriguez , A. C. 2024, , 136, 054201

    2024

  78. [78]

    C., El-Badry , K., Suleimanov , V., et al

    Rodriguez , A. C., El-Badry , K., Suleimanov , V., et al. 2025, , 137, 014201

    2025

  79. [79]

    Roelofs , G. H. A., Rau , A., Marsh , T. R., et al. 2010, , 711, L138

    2010

  80. [80]

    J., de Kool , M., & van den Heuvel , E

    Savonije , G. J., de Kool , M., & van den Heuvel , E. P. J. 1986, , 155, 51

    1986

Showing first 80 references.