Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 44 references

A blue-straggler merger scenario origin for the $\gamma$~Persei binary system

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gamma Persei's bright star is a rejuvenated merger product, born when two main-sequence stars collided and merged a few hundred million years after the system formed.

desk verdict Solid negative result — no coeval single-star solution for γ Per across 648 MESA models — with a plausible but assumption-laden merger scenario; the secondary's pristineness is the real weak link. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00896 v2 pith:SXU6XYGQ submitted 2026-01-31 astro-ph.SR

D. Tarczay-Nehéz , L. Molnár , R. Z. Ádám This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords bluestragglersstellarmergersbinarystarstriplestarsystemsgammaPerseievolutionrejuvenationHertzsprung-Russelldiagram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the primary component of the gamma Persei binary is not an ordinary evolved star but a blue straggler — a star that looks much younger than its true age because it formed from the merger of two main-sequence stars. Standard stellar evolution models cannot jointly explain the two stars: the more massive primary appears to be in a post-main-sequence phase while the lighter secondary is near the main-sequence turn-off, a mismatch that implies wildly inconsistent ages. The authors show this paradox disappears if the system began as a triple, with the inner pair merging early and the outer star evolving undisturbed. If correct, the secondary star preserves the true age of the system, about 750–900 million years, and the primary's apparent age of roughly 280–350 million years is a measure of its rejuvenation. This would make gamma Persei a rare, nearby example of a post-merger blue straggler with a precisely known age anchor.

What carries the argument

The central tool is a grid of stellar evolution models computed for a range of masses, metallicities, mixing-length parameters, and convective-overshoot prescriptions, combined with isochrone fitting. The analysis defines an effective rejuvenation fraction, Reff = 1 − t_app/T_true, which quantifies how much younger the merger product appears relative to the undisturbed secondary. The geometry of allowed progenitor masses emerges from two simple constraints: the total mass of the merged star (allowing for modest mass loss) and the requirement that both progenitors be below the main-sequence turn-off mass at the time of merger, yielding a narrow diagonal band in the (M1,a, M1,b) plane.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the secondary's rotation speed, surface lithium abundance, and chemical abundances (e.g., C/N ratio) with high-resolution spectroscopy. If any of these show signs of past mass transfer or accretion, the assumption that the secondary is an untouched age anchor fails. Alternatively, an asteroseismic age of the secondary derived from its own pulsations that disagrees with the single-star age would falsify the scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that no joint isochrone or evolutionary-track solution can make gamma Persei's two components coeval under ordinary single-star evolution: the primary (about 3.5 solar masses) is consistently found in a post-main-sequence state — most likely the red clump — while the secondary (about 2.4 solar masses) sits at the turn-off or early subgiant branch. The proposed resolution is that the primary is a merged star, the product of a close binary that coalesced while both members were still on the main sequence. Using the secondary as an undisturbed age anchor, the system's true age is 750–900 Myr, the merger happened between about 500 and 775 Myr after formation, and the mergin

Load-bearing premise

The secondary star is assumed to have evolved as a completely undisturbed single star, so its age equals the true age of the system; if it ever accreted mass, exchanged material, or was otherwise disturbed by the primary, the inferred system age, rejuvenation fraction, and merger timing all collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scenario holds, gamma Persei becomes a rare nearby laboratory for studying the aftermath of a main-sequence stellar merger, with an independently known system age from its companion.
  • The merger must have occurred within roughly 150–200 million years of the system's birth, placing a direct constraint on the dynamical evolution of triple systems with close inner binaries.
  • The narrow allowed band of progenitor masses (about 0.9–2.1 and 2.3–2.5 solar masses) provides a testable prediction for the properties of any surviving remnant or debris disk around the primary.
  • The 50–70% required rejuvenation is at the upper edge of what merger models typically predict, so the scenario can be sharpened by future hydrodynamical simulations of the specific mass and mass-ratio range.
  • If similar age mismatches are found in other bright binary systems, this work provides a template for identifying disguised blue stragglers outside star clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the merger hypothesis directly by looking for chemical peculiarities in the primary's atmosphere — merged stars often show enhanced nitrogen or altered C/N ratios from internal mixing — and by checking whether its rotation is anomalously fast for a red clump star, a common legacy of mergers.
  • The analysis implicitly assumes that the secondary has never exchanged mass with the primary; if a future observation reveals the secondary is a fast rotator or shows abundance anomalies, the entire age-anchor logic would need revision.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other ζ Aurigae-type systems that show similar evolutionary mismatches, potentially revealing a population of hidden mergers among bright binaries.
  • If the merger happened as late as ~775 Myr after formation, the outer binary would have been quite wide (about 14.6-year period), so the inner pair must have been driven to merge by dynamical processes such as Kozai–Lidov oscillations — a prediction that could be checked by studying the system's orbital geometry.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the apparent age mismatch in the γ Persei binary system: the more massive primary is in a post-main-sequence phase (RGB/red clump) while the less massive secondary is near the main-sequence turn-off. Using MIST isochrones and a 648-model MESA grid, the authors find no coeval single-star solution consistent with the observed masses and metallicities. They propose that the system formed as a triple, that the inner binary merged during the main sequence, and that the primary is a rejuvenated merger product. The secondary is assumed to be an undisturbed star that anchors the true system age at 750–900 Myr, from which they derive a merger time of ~500–775 Myr after formation and a progenitor mass band of (M1,a ≈ 0.9–2.1 M☉, M1,b ≈ 2.3–2.5 M☉).

Significance. If the merger scenario is correct, γ Persei would be a rare, well-characterized field binary whose primary is a former blue straggler, offering a direct test of triple-star merger pathways and blue-straggler rejuvenation. The paper's strengths are the systematic 648-model MESA grid, the public availability of the evolutionary tracks (Zenodo), and the clear falsification of the simple coeval single-star hypothesis across a wide parameter space. However, the quantitative conclusions — the true age, the merger timing, and the progenitor mass band — rest on several unverified assumptions and contain internal inconsistencies that must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2 vs. §4] The paper states in §3.2 that the closest MESA age-pair solution has t2 = 547 Myr for the secondary, and Table 6 lists the best-fitting secondary models with ages 656–708 Myr. Yet §4 asserts T_true = 750–900 Myr 'inferred from the secondary component' without derivation from the MESA grid. The only 750–900 Myr ages in the paper come from the low-metallicity MIST isochrones ([Fe/H] = −1.5) that the authors themselves reject as astrophysically implausible. This unsupported true-age anchor propagates into Eqs. (11)–(13) and Eqs. (17)–(20), so the central quantitative claims of the paper are built on an age that is not obtained from the preferred models.
  2. [§4.1–4.2, Eqs. (8)–(13)] The authors derive the rejuvenation fraction Reff = 0.53–0.69 in Eqs. (8)–(9), but then set R = 0.8 in Eqs. (11)–(13) to compute the merger time. This value is outside the authors' own derived range and is justified only by an external citation (Schneider et al. 2016). Using the paper's upper bound Reff = 0.69 gives (900 − 280)/0.69 ≈ 900 Myr for Tmerg,max, implying the merger occurred essentially at the present epoch and leaving no time for the primary to evolve to the red clump. The claimed timing '150–200 Myr after formation' is therefore not supported by the paper's own calculations.
  3. [§4.3, Eqs. (16)–(17)] The turn-off mass is miscomputed. With t_MS = 10^10 yr (M/M☉)^−2.5, a system age of 750–900 Myr gives M_TO = (10^10 yr / T_true)^0.4 ≈ 2.6–2.8 M☉, not 2.3–2.5 M☉ as stated. This error directly affects the upper bound on the progenitor masses in Eqs. (19)–(20) and the shape of the allowed band in Fig. 5. The quoted ranges M1,a ≈ 0.9–2.1 M☉ and M1,b ≈ 2.3–2.5 M☉ are thus numerically incorrect and must be recomputed.
  4. [§4.3, Eqs. (18)–(20)] The progenitor mass constraints depend on two inputs that are not yet supported by the reviewed manuscript: the primary mass M1 = 3.5 ± 0.3 M☉, which is taken from an in-preparation companion paper (Ádám et al., in prep.), and an assumed mass-retention fraction η = 0.9–0.95. The paper notes that η varies with the merger configuration, but it does not propagate any uncertainty in η into the band shown in Fig. 5. The mass budget for the progenitor binary is therefore conditional on an unavailable reference and an ad-hoc efficiency choice.
  5. [§4 (age-anchor assumption)] The central assumption that 'the secondary component reflects the true evolutionary age of the system' is not tested. In the proposed triple scenario, the inner binary merger can eject mass and energy that may interact with the outer star via accretion, spinn-up, or dynamical heating. The paper does not model any such interaction or present observational diagnostics (e.g., chemical abundance anomalies, high rotation, or photometric variability) that would indicate the secondary is pristine. If the secondary accreted mass, its current 2.4 M☉ mass would overestimate its main-sequence lifetime, causing the inferred true age to be too old and potentially erasing the age mismatch that motivates the merger scenario. This is the linchpin of the paper's interpretation and requires either modeling or explicit observational justification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] The sentence 'the secondary component requires an age sufficient to reach helium ignition, the primary component remains near the main-sequence turn-off or early subgiant phase' is reversed: the primary is in the post-main-sequence phase and the secondary is near the turn-off/subgiant phase. Please correct.
  2. [Tables] There are two tables numbered 'Table 1': one in the main text (physical parameters) and one in the appendix (age/mass ranges). The reference in §3.2 to 'Table 1 lists the results' is ambiguous. Renumber the appendix table or refer to it explicitly.
  3. [§2.1] The metallicity scan in the MIST fitting includes values below [Fe/H] = −2.0, but the MESA grid only spans −0.29 to −0.09. The text would benefit from explaining why the extreme low-metallicity MIST solutions are not pursued with MESA.
  4. [Introduction] The parallax is quoted as '14.1252”' without units; this is presumably milliarcseconds. Please specify.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typographical errors include 'main-squence', 'megayears' (informal), and inconsistent use of 'γPersei 1/2' vs. 'primary/secondary'. A careful proofread is recommended.
  6. [Eq. (16)] The scaling t_MS ~ 10^10 yr (M/M☉)^−2.5 is a rough approximation; the numerical values derived from it should be presented with appropriate uncertainty, especially because the paper uses these values as hard bounds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the merger hypothesis interprets an independently established age mismatch; no result reduces by construction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The central age mismatch is not fitted to the merger conclusion. MIST isochrone fitting and 648 MESA tracks assign each component an age from its observed Teff, log L, and R; the paper reports that the primary comes out at roughly 200–320 Myr and the secondary at much larger or poorly constrained ages (best pair t1=390, t2=547 Myr). These are independent single-star evolutionary fits, not quantities defined by the merger scenario. The Section 4 quantities are then algebraic consequences of stated assumptions: R_eff = 1 − t_app/T_true (Eq. 5), T_merg = (T_true − t_app)/R_eff (Eq. 11), and M_TO from t_MS ~ 10^10 (M/M_sun)^−2.5 (Eq. 16). External parameters such as R = 0.8 (Schneider et al. 2016) and η = 0.9–0.95 are adopted explicitly, not hidden fits. The weakest link—assuming the secondary is an undisturbed single star and using it as the age anchor—is a physical assumption and a robustness risk, not a circular reduction, because the secondary's age is not defined in terms of the primary's merger state. The paper contains self-citations (Ádám & Molnár 2025; Ádám et al., in prep.) for eclipse timing and the seismic mass, but those same observed masses are also anchored by external references (Griffin et al. 1994; Diamant et al. 2023), so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The asserted T_true = 750–900 Myr could be better documented, but no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stellar-evolution assumptions plus two hand-chosen parameters (R=0.8, η=0.9–0.95). The paper introduces no new physical entities. The largest unverified input is the assumption that the secondary's single-star age equals the true system age.

free parameters (2)
  • Rejuvenation efficiency R = 0.8 (chosen, not fitted)
    Used in Eq. (11) to convert apparent and true ages into a merger time. Taken as a representative upper limit from Schneider et al. (2016), even though the paper's own Eqs. (8)-(9) imply only 0.53–0.69 is needed.
  • Merger mass retention fraction η = 0.9–0.95 (assumed)
    Used in Eq. (18) to set the total progenitor mass from the present primary mass. Cited to Glebbeek et al. (2013) but not derived for this specific system.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MESA/MIST single-star evolutionary models are reliable for 2–4 Msun stars in the relevant parameter range.
    All age determinations are read off these tracks; missing physics (e.g., magnetic braking, extra mixing) could shift ages and shrink the mismatch.
  • domain assumption The secondary is an undisturbed, coeval single star whose age equals the system age.
    Section 4 uses the secondary as the age anchor; if it was altered, T_true and all merger constraints shift.
  • domain assumption MS+MS mergers produce a rejuvenated star that subsequently evolves as a normal single star.
    Assumed from Schneider et al. (2016); the paper does not simulate the merger product.
  • standard math Main-sequence mass-luminosity relation L ~ M^3.5 and lifetime scaling t_MS ~ 10^10 (M/Msun)^-2.5 hold for the relevant masses.
    Used in Eqs. (15)-(16) to derive the turn-off mass 2.3–2.5 Msun.
  • domain assumption The literature values in Table 1 are correct within the quoted uncertainties.
    Masses, radii, temperatures, and metallicities are taken from external work and the in-prep seismic analysis; systematic errors are not propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A blue-straggler merger scenario origin for the $\gamma$~Persei binary system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SXU6XYGQ

@misc{pith2026260200896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A blue-straggler merger scenario origin for the $\gamma$~Persei binary system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SXU6XYGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00896}
}
abstract

We used \texttt{MIST} isochrone fitting and a dedicated grid of stellar evolution models computed with MESA to constrain the ages of the components of the $\gamma$ Persei binary system. While individual stars can be matched to the models at specific metallicities, no joint isochrone solution reproduces both the observed masses and evolutionary states. The stellar evolutionary tracks calculated by MESA reveal a clear evolutionary mismatch. The primary component of the system is in a post-main-sequence phase consistent with the red giant branch or red clump. In contrast, the lighter secondary component lies near the turn-off point of the main sequence or is in the early phase of the subgiant branch. This discrepancy can be overcome by assuming that the $\gamma$ Persei system was born as a triple and the primary component is a rejuvenated star formed through a merger of a close-by pair of main-sequence stars. We show that the merger must have occurred no later than a few hundred megaryears after system formation, and the progenitor masses of the merging stars are restricted by a combination of stars that fall within a narrow band in the $(M_{1,a},M_{1,b})$ plane, corresponding to $M_{1,a}\simeq0.9$--$2.1\,M_\odot$ and $M_{1,b}\simeq2.3$--$2.5\,M_\odot$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00896 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolutionary tracks for the γ Persei primary component, colour–coded by stellar age. The three subpanels illustrate representative models that place the star in distinct post-main-sequence evolutionary phases. From left to right: the end of the subgiant branch; the red–clump phase; either the upper red–giant branch or the early asymptotic–giant branch. The position of the primary component is shown in cyan color wit… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolutionary tracks for the γ Persei secondary component, colour–coded by stellar age. The three subpanels illustrate representative models that place the star in distinct evolutionary stages. From left to right: subgiant phase; a model located in the vicinity of the main-sequence turn-off point; a main-sequence phase. The observed position of the secondary component is shown with its measurement uncertainties (gree… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The four best-fitting models for the primary component of the γ Persei system. Each model corresponds to the red-clump phase of stellar evolution. The yellow point corresponds to the best-fitting model, while the purple point (with error bars) presents the place of the primary component. sequence, turn-off, and subgiant configurations (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Allowed combinations of the progenitor masses (M1,a, M1,b). The blue region shows the parameter space permitted by the total-mass con￾straint (3.4–4.2 M⊙) and the requirement that both stars remain below the turn-off mass (MTO ≃ 2.3−2.5 M⊙). The light red shaded regime…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ádám, R. Z. & Molnár, L. 2025, AJ, 169, 196

    2025

  2. [2]

    Ake, T. B. & Griffin, E., eds. 2015, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 408, Giants of Eclipse: TheζAurigae Stars and Other Binary Systems

    2015

  3. [3]

    1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3

    Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3

    1999

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    & Langer, N

    Braun, H. & Langer, N. 1995, A&A, 297, 483

    1995

  6. [6]

    Campbell, W. W. 1908, PASP, 20, 293

    1908

  7. [7]

    Campbell, W. W. 1909, ApJ, 29, 224

    1909

  8. [8]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    H., Amthor, A

    Cyburt, R. H., Amthor, A. M., Ferguson, R., et al. 2010, ApJS, 189, 240

    2010

  2. [10]

    Diamant, S. J. M., Schröder, K. P., Jack, D., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A162

    2023

  3. [11]

    Dray, L. M. & Tout, C. A. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 61

    2007

  4. [12]

    W., Alexander, D

    Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585 Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia EDR3 (Gaia Col- laboration, 2020), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/350. Originally published in: 2021A&A...649A...1G

    2005

  5. [13]

    & Carquillat, J

    Ginestet, N. & Carquillat, J. M. 2002, ApJS, 143, 513

    2002

  6. [14]

    Glebbeek, E., Gaburov, E., Portegies Zwart, S., & Pols, O. R. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 3497

    2013

  7. [15]

    & Pols, O

    Glebbeek, E. & Pols, O. R. 2008, A&A, 488, 1017

    2008

  8. [16]

    Griffin, R. E. 2007, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 240, Binary Stars as Critical Tools & Tests in Contemporary Astrophysics, ed. W. I. Hartkopf, P. Harmanec, & E. F. Guinan, 645–649

    2007

  9. [17]

    F., Griffin, R

    Griffin, R. F., Griffin, R. E. M., Snyder, L. F., et al. 1994, International Amateur- Professional Photoelectric Photometry Communications, 57, 31

    1994

  10. [18]

    I., Mason, B

    Hartkopf, W. I., Mason, B. D., & Worley, C. E. 2001, AJ, 122, 3472

    2001

  11. [19]

    1983, Ap&SS, 96, 37

    Hellings, P. 1983, Ap&SS, 96, 37

    1983

  12. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  13. [21]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1993, ApJ, 412, 752

    1993

  14. [22]

    Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943

    1996

  15. [23]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15

    2023

  16. [24]

    & Tayar, J

    Joyce, M. & Tayar, J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 75

    2023

  17. [25]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    2013

  18. [26]

    & Joyce, M

    Li, Y . & Joyce, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.13207

    2025

  19. [27]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. S. van der Walt & J. Millman, 51 – 56

    2010

  20. [28]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1948, AJ, 53, 200

    1948

  21. [29]

    1990, ApJS, 74, 1075

    McWilliam, A. 1990, ApJS, 74, 1075

    1990

  22. [30]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

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

    2011

  23. [31]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  24. [32]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

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

    2015

  25. [33]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  27. [35]

    A., Carini, R., et al

    Piccotti, L., Docobo, J. A., Carini, R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2709

    2020

  28. [36]

    C., & Hsu, J

    Podsiadlowski, P., Joss, P. C., & Hsu, J. J. L. 1992, ApJ, 391, 246

    1992

  29. [37]

    1999, A&A, 348, 127

    Pourbaix, D. 1999, A&A, 348, 127

    1999

  30. [38]

    2000, A&AS, 145, 215

    Pourbaix, D. 2000, A&AS, 145, 215

    2000

  31. [39]

    A., Batten, A

    Pourbaix, D., Tokovinin, A. A., Batten, A. H., et al. 2004, A&A, 424, 727

    2004

  32. [40]

    Rosas-Portilla, F., Jack, D., & Schröder, K. P. 2024, A&A, 692, A189

    2024

  33. [41]

    Schneider, F. R. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.18421

    2025

  34. [42]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Lau, M. Y . M., & Roepke, F. K. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.00111

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Castro, N., & Fossati, L. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2355 Tarczay-Nehéz, D., Molnár, L., & Joyce, M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.02614 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, ...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Xu, H. Y . & Li, Y . 2004b, A&A, 418, 225 Ziółkowska, O., Smolec, R., Thoul, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 30 Article number, page 9 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. main Appendix A:MESAModel Grid for the Primary Component CalculatedMESAevolutionary tracks for the primary compone...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.