Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A massive white dwarf or low-mass neutron star discovered by LAMOST

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper identifies J0606+2132 as a 2.77-day binary of a late-B-type star and a dark companion of about 1.34 solar masses, which it argues is a massive white dwarf or a low-mass neutron star.

desk verdict A solid single-object study whose compact-object claim is well supported, but the 'massive WD/NS' label rests on a fixed M1 whose large uncertainty is not propagated into the quoted M2 error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08837 v1 pith:C7NZXSQV submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Xinlin Zhao , Song Wang , Pengfei Wang , Chuanjie Zheng , Haibo Yuan , Jifeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords binarystarswhitedwarfneutronradialvelocitylightcurvefittingspectraldisentanglingcompactobjectsLAMOST
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 claims to have found a compact object hiding next to an ordinary star: J0606+2132, a 2.77-day binary in which a late-B-type star is orbited by an invisible companion of about 1.34 solar masses. That mass sits near the boundary between the heaviest white dwarfs and the lightest neutron stars, so the companion is presented as either a massive white dwarf or a low-mass neutron star. The case rests on combining radial velocities from LAMOST with TESS light curves, which together fix the orbit's inclination and mass ratio, and on spectral disentangling that shows no light from a second normal star. If right, the system is a potential progenitor of a Type Ia supernova, a neutron star formed by accretion-induced collapse, or an intermediate-mass X-ray binary, and it demonstrates that radial-velocity surveys can uncover quiescent compact objects around early-type stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the binary mass function $$f(M)=\frac{M_2\,\$sin^{3}$ i}{(1+q)^2}=\frac{P $K_1^{3}$(1-$e^{2}$)^{3/2}}{2\pi G},$$ which converts the fitted period and radial-velocity semi-amplitude into a minimum companion mass. The PHOEBE fit to the TESS light curves then fixes the inclination and mass ratio, turning the mass function into the quoted companion mass. The same light curves show ellipsoidal modulation plus Doppler beaming, whose amplitude independently agrees with the radial-velocity scale, and spectral disentangling of the LAMOST medium-resolution spectra rules out a visible second star, while the spectral energy distribution and binary population comparisons rule out a main-sequence companion.

What would settle it

Obtain an independent dynamical mass for the visible star, for example from a Gaia astrometric orbit or asteroseismology, and recompute the companion mass; if the companion comes out below roughly 1.1 solar masses, the massive-white-dwarf or low-mass-neutron-star classification is falsified. A secure detection of pulsed radio or X-ray emission from the companion would instead confirm a neutron star.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that J0606+2132 is a short-period, single-lined binary whose visible component is a late-B or early-A star with effective temperature about 10200 K, surface gravity log g about 3.76, projected rotation about 67 km/s, and a spectroscopic mass of $2.69^{+1.67}_{-1.03}\,M_\odot$. Combining LAMOST radial velocities fitted with a custom Keplerian sampler and TESS light curves fitted with the PHOEBE binary model, the authors derive a circular orbit with period $2.7735540$ days, inclination $i=81.31^{+6.26}_{-7.85}$ degrees, and a mass ratio that yields a companion mass of $1.34^{+0.35}_{-0.40}\,M_\odot$. Spectral disentangling of the medium-resolution spectra reveals no absorption features from a second component, and searches of binary evolution models and the spectral energy distribution find no normal-star companion, so the paper concludes that J0606+2132 contains a compact object, either a massive white dwarf or a low-mass neutron star.

Load-bearing premise

The classification depends on the visible star's mass being close to 2.69 solar masses; if the true mass is near the low end of the quoted range, the companion drops to about one solar mass and becomes an ordinary white dwarf.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the companion is a white dwarf, continued accretion from the evolving late-B star could push it past the Chandrasekhar limit, ending in a Type Ia supernova; an oxygen-neon white dwarf would instead collapse to a neutron star.
  • If the companion is a neutron star, the system is a plausible intermediate-mass X-ray binary once the visible star fills its Roche lobe and begins stable mass transfer.
  • The circular 2.77-day orbit, the absence of current mass transfer, and the lack of X-ray or radio emission place J0606+2132 in the short-period, post-common-envelope group of compact-object binaries rather than the wide eccentric group.
  • The system adds a concrete example of a quiescent compact-object candidate around an early-type star found by radial-velocity monitoring, a channel that can probe objects missed by traditional X-ray surveys.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own numbers leave a lower branch open: because the PHOEBE fit fixes the visible star's mass at $2.69\,M_\odot$ and does not propagate the spectroscopic uncertainty, a true primary mass near the low end would put the companion at roughly $1.0\,M_\odot$ — an ordinary white dwarf rather than a massive one. This is this reader's inference, not a claim in the paper.
  • An astrometric orbit for the visible star from Gaia, which the paper does not attempt, would independently measure the mass ratio and settle whether the companion is truly in the massive-white-dwarf or low-mass-neutron-star range.
  • Deep X-ray or radio monitoring once the system begins Roche-lobe overflow could distinguish a white dwarf companion from a neutron star companion, since a neutron star should eventually appear as an accreting or pulsed X-ray source.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of a close binary, J0606+2132, with a 2.77-day circular orbit containing a late-B/early-A visible star of spectroscopic mass 2.69+1.67/-1.03 Msun and an unseen companion of mass 1.34+0.35/-0.40 Msun. The orbital solution is obtained by fitting LAMOST radial velocities with The Joker and jointly fitting the TESS light curve with PHOEBE, yielding an inclination of 81.31+6.26/-7.85 degrees. Spectral disentangling, SED fitting, and Gaia XP spectra show no detectable light from a normal stellar companion, and no X-ray or radio pulsations are found. The authors conclude that the companion is a compact object, i.e., a massive white dwarf or a low-mass neutron star, and discuss possible evolutionary paths including Type Ia supernovae, accretion-induced collapse, and intermediate-mass X-ray binaries.

Significance. If the companion mass is secure, J0606+2132 is a valuable addition to the small sample of compact objects in close binaries with early-type stars, and it may be a progenitor of a Type Ia supernova or an accreting neutron star. The paper has several genuine strengths: the radial-velocity orbit and mass function are robust; the Doppler-beaming amplitude computed from a template independently reproduces the observed light-curve asymmetry; the spectral disentangling is tested with synthetic companions and includes detection limits; and the SED/XP analysis rules out a normal main-sequence companion. These elements make the compact-object nature of the unseen companion well supported even though the mass classification is not as secure as the quoted error bars suggest.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1, Eq. (1)] The quoted companion mass M2 = 1.34+0.35/-0.40 Msun is conditional on fixing the visible-star mass at M1 = 2.69 Msun. The spectroscopic mass in Section 3.3 is 2.69+1.67/-1.03 Msun, and this uncertainty is not propagated into the PHOEBE posterior. Using the mass function of Eq. (1) with f = 0.136 Msun and i = 81.31 deg, the 16th percentile M1 = 1.66 Msun gives M2 ~ 1.0 Msun, which is an ordinary white dwarf rather than a massive white dwarf or neutron star. The authors should marginalize over M1 in the joint fit, or at minimum quote an M2 that combines the PHOEBE conditional errors with the M1-induced uncertainty, and adjust the classification language so that it does not overstate the lower end of the mass range.
  2. [Section 4.2, TESS sector selection] The joint light-curve fit excludes TESS Sectors 71 and 72 because they show 'much larger scatter' than Sectors 43 and 44. Since the inclination, and hence M2, is derived from the light-curve fit, this post hoc exclusion should be justified quantitatively. Please show that fits including all four sectors give consistent parameters, or model the two noisy sectors with an outlier term, and estimate the systematic uncertainty that the sector choice introduces into the quoted inclination and companion mass.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.4] The word 'estiamted' should be 'estimated' in the X-ray upper-limit paragraph.
  2. [Section 6] In the Summary, 'via ROLF' should be 'via RLOF' (Roche-lobe overflow), matching the term used elsewhere in the paper.
  3. [Table C.1 and Section 5.1.1] The PHOEBE solutions listed in Table C.1 for M1 = 1.0-1.8 Msun have inclinations of 23-54 degrees, which are below the i > 68 deg lower limit derived from vsini in Section 3.2. The text should state this explicitly when presenting those solutions, so that readers do not interpret them as viable alternatives to the adopted i = 81.31 deg solution.
  4. [Section 4.2] When stating that the visible-star mass is fixed at M1 = 2.69 Msun, the authors should note explicitly that this is the median of the spectroscopic mass distribution and that the quoted M2 uncertainties are conditional on that fixed value, to avoid conflation with the full M1 uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the RV/LC joint fit, vsini consistency check, and Doppler-beaming test are independent of the claimed companion-mass result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The orbital parameters come from a Keplerian fit to LAMOST RVs using The Joker, giving a mass function f(M)=0.136 Msun via Eq. (1). The PHOEBE joint fit then uses the TESS light curve and the RV data, with priors on Teff and R1 from SED fitting and a fixed visible-star mass M1=2.69 Msun, to obtain q=2.04 and i=81.31 deg; M2 is computed as M1/q. This is a standard parameter-inference chain, not a prediction of a quantity already used as input. The inclination from the light curve is checked against the vsini-based lower limit i>68 deg, and the two are not used to force each other. The Doppler-beaming amplitude is computed from a Phoenix template and the measured RVs, then compared with the TESS modulation as a consistency check; it is not fitted to the light curve. The compact nature of the companion is supported by independent SED, Gaia XP, and spectral-disentangling evidence. The quoted M2 uncertainty does not propagate the spectroscopic M1 uncertainty, and Appendix C explores alternative M1 values, but this is an error-bar and robustness concern rather than circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fixed visible-star mass, the dark-companion LC assumption, and standard stellar atmosphere/evolution models. The PHOEBE-fitted q, i, Teff, and R1 are free parameters of the model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Mass ratio q (M1/M2) in PHOEBE fit = 2.04 +0.38 -0.50
    Fitted to the TESS light curve; the companion mass is M2 = M1/q, so q directly sets the companion mass for the fixed M1.
  • Inclination i = 81.31 +6.26 -7.85 deg
    Fitted to the ellipsoidal modulation amplitude; prior range [60,90] deg, consistent with vsini lower limit.
  • Visible star mass M1 = 2.69 Msun (spectroscopic, +1.67/-1.03)
    Held fixed in the PHOEBE fit; the companion mass scales with M1 and its uncertainty is not propagated into M2.
  • Effective temperature of visible star (LC fit) = 9950 +268 -151 K
    Fitted by PHOEBE with Gaussian prior from SED (9969±200 K); affects the LC shape through limb darkening.
  • Radius of visible star (LC fit) = 3.70 +0.08 -0.05 Rsun
    Fitted by PHOEBE with Gaussian prior from SED (3.6±0.2 Rsun); affects tidal deformation amplitude.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Keplerian two-body dynamics describe the orbit.
    Used to derive the mass function f(M) in Eq. (1) and to convert fitted orbital parameters into masses.
  • domain assumption The unseen companion emits negligible light and can be modeled as a cold, dark body in the light curve.
    PHOEBE setup uses Teff=300 K, R=3e-6 Rsun for the companion (Section 4.2); this is the hypothesis under test and could bias the LC solution if false.
  • domain assumption Gravity darkening follows von Zeipel's law with beta=12 for radiative envelopes.
    Adopted in PHOEBE (Section 4.2); affects the ellipsoidal modulation amplitude and thus the inferred i and q.
  • domain assumption The visible star is tidally locked to the orbit.
    Used in Section 3.2 to derive the inclination lower limit from vsini; not independently verified.
  • domain assumption MIST stellar evolution models and isochrones accurately represent the visible star.
    The evolutionary mass M1=2.87±0.18 (Section 3.3) comes from isochrones fitting; the paper uses the spectroscopic mass instead but relies on the consistency.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 radial velocities provide reliable zero-points for LAMOST RV calibration.
    Section 2.1 uses Gaia single-star RVs to estimate nightly zero-point shifts; if these are biased, the RV semi-amplitude K could shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A massive white dwarf or low-mass neutron star discovered by LAMOST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7NZXSQV

@misc{pith2026241108837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A massive white dwarf or low-mass neutron star discovered by LAMOST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7NZXSQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08837}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of a close binary J0606+2132 (Gaia DR3 3423365496448406272) with $P_{\rm obs}=2.77$ days containing a possible massive white dwarf or a neutron star using the LAMOST spectroscopic data. By a joint fitting of the radial velocity from LAMOST and the light curve from TESS, we derived a circular Keplerian orbit with an inclination of $i=$81.31$^{\circ}$$^{+6.26^{\circ}}_{-7.85^{\circ}}$, which is consistent with that derived from $v{\rm sin}I$. Together with the mass of the visible star, we derived the mass of the invisible object to be 1.34$^{+0.35}_{-0.40} M_{\odot}$. Spectral disentangling with the LAMOST medium-resolution spectra shows no absorption feature from an additional component, suggesting the presence of a compact object. No X-ray or radio pulsed signal is detected from ROSAT and FAST archive observations. J0606+2132 could evolve into either a Type Ia supernova or a neutron star through accretion-induced collapse if it is a white dwarf, or into an intermediate-mass X-ray binary if it is a neutron star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Period estimation of J0606+2132. Top panel: Power spectrum of Lomb-Scargle obtained from the TESS and ASAS-SN V - and g-band LCs. Bottom panel: The phase dispersion calculated with the TESS and ASAS-SN V - and g-band LCs. The red line marked the phase dispersion min￾imum, corresponding to a period of 2.7735540 days. to the distance, we estimated the extinction of AV = 1.3 using a three-dimensional interstellar dust … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel a: Position of the visible star on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram for J0606+2132. The gray points are plotted for a comparison, which are from Gaia EDR3 with distances d < 100 pc, Gmag between 4–18 mag, and galactic latitudes |b| > 20. No extinction correction was done for these stars. Panel b: SED fitting of J0606+2132. The black line is the best model. Panel c: Comparison of flux-calibrated Gaia XP spectrum… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Left panel: Folded RV curve with a period of 2.7735540 days. The phases of the inferior conjunction (ϕ = 0 or 1), quadrature (ϕ = 0.25 and 0.75), and superior conjunction ϕ = 0.5 are marked with vertical grey lines. The RV data are determined from the LAMOST LRS (green dots) and MRS (red dots for S/Nr >50; grey diamonds for S/Nr <50). Right panel: PHOEBE fitting (red line) to the normalized LCs from TESS. The blue d… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectral disentangling with q = 2. The vertical panels show spectra in different phases (close to the minimum or maximum RV phase of the visible star). The blue lines mark the reconstructed spectra of the visible star, while the red lines represent the second component…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left panels: Evolutionary tracks of the selected BPASS models in Hertzsprung–Russell Diagrams. The orange lines show the time-steps where RLOF is occurring in these models. The black stars mark the position of J0606+2132. The blue squares are the models matching the se…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of J0606+2132 to other NS candidates. Top panels: Histograms of systematic parameters for J0606+2132 and candidates. The blue and red histograms represent systems discovered by astrometry and RV, respectively. Black lines mark the position of J0606+2132 in t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unveiling the nature of G6096: a likely hierarchical triple system

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    G6096 is likely a hierarchical triple of main-sequence stars rather than a binary hosting a white dwarf or neutron star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  2. [2]

    2014, Nature, 505, 378, doi: 10.1038/nature12916

    Casares, J., Negueruela, I., Rib´ o, M., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 378, doi: 10.1038/nature12916

    doi:10.1038/nature12916 2014

  3. [3]

    Q., Huang, Y., Yuan, H

    Chen, B. Q., Huang, Y., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3341 12

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3341 2019

  4. [4]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Claret, A. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 173, Stellar Structure: Theory and Test of Connective Energy Transport, ed. A. Gimenez, E. F. Guinan, & B. Montesinos, 277

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al

    Conroy, K. E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al. 2020, ApJS, 250, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2 2020

  6. [6]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  7. [7]

    D., et al

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063, doi: 10.1086/503626

    doi:10.1086/503626 2006

  8. [8]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    doi:10.1086/160960 1983

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    El-Badry, K., & Burdge, K. B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 24, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab135

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac815

    El-Badry, K., Seeburger, R., Jayasinghe, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac815

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    W., et al

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, doi: 10.33232/001c.121261

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 025009, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac3e5a

    Guo, Y., Li, J., Xiong, J., et al. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 025009, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/ac3e5a

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    L., Wang, C., Wang, P

    Han, J. L., Wang, C., Wang, P. F., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 107, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/5/107

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07713.x

    Han, Z., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1301, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07713.x

    2004

  8. [16]

    E., Pablo, H., et al

    Horvat, M., Conroy, K. E., Pablo, H., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aacd0f

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Jayasinghe, T., Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2187

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2019, Science China

    Jiang, P., Yue, Y., Gan, H., et al. 2019, Science China

    2019

  11. [19]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 62, 959502, doi: 10.1007/s11433-018-9376-1

    doi

  12. [20]

    A., Miroshnichenko, A

    Khokhlov, S. A., Miroshnichenko, A. S., Zharikov, S. V., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab49d

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    B., King, A., & Ritter, H

    Kolb, U., Davies, M. B., King, A., & Ritter, H. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 438, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03606.x

    2000

  14. [22]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2513

    Kovalev, M., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2513

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 8, 189

    2005

  16. [24]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f29

    Li, X., Wang, S., Zhao, X., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f29

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210

    Liu, C., Fu, J., Shi, J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2005.07210

    2020 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 969, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4c6f

    Liu, H.-B., Gu, W.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4c6f

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/75

    Liu, N., Fu, J.-N., Zong, W., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 075, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/75

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    2022, A&A, 664, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243147

    Mahy, L., Sana, H., Shenar, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243147

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Margalit, B., Berger, E., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, MNRAS, 517, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2853 Mongui´ o, M., Greimel, R., Drew, J

    Mazeh, T., Faigler, S., Bashi, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4005, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2853 Mongui´ o, M., Greimel, R., Drew, J. E., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937333

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package. http://ascl.net/1503.010

    2015

  26. [34]

    1991, ApJL, 367, L19, doi: 10.1086/185922

    Nomoto, K., & Kondo, Y. 1991, ApJL, 367, L19, doi: 10.1086/185922

    1991 doi

  27. [35]

    2000, ApJ, 529, 946, doi: 10.1086/308323

    Podsiadlowski, P., & Rappaport, S. 2000, ApJ, 529, 946, doi: 10.1086/308323

    2000 doi

  28. [36]

    H., & Rybicki, G

    Press, W. H., & Rybicki, G. B. 1989, ApJ, 338, 277, doi: 10.1086/167197

    1989 doi

  29. [37]

    2017, ApJ, 837, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5e50 Prˇ sa, A., Conroy, K

    Rix, H.-W. 2017, ApJ, 837, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5e50 Prˇ sa, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y

    Shenar, T., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01730-y

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 288, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/288

    Shridharan, B., Mathew, B., Nidhi, S., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 288, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/288

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    P., & Sturm, E

    Simon, K. P., & Sturm, E. 1994, A&A, 281, 286

    1994

  33. [41]

    R., & Eldridge, J

    Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 75, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953, doi: 10.1086/156444

    1978 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 1987, doi: 10.21105/joss.01987

    Stevance, H., Eldridge, J., & Stanway, E. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 1987, doi: 10.21105/joss.01987

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, ApJS, 257, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1acf 13

    Sun, W., Duan, X.-W., Deng, L., et al. 2021, ApJS, 257, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac1acf 13

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    M., & van den Heuvel, E

    Tauris, T. M., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2023, Physics of Binary Star Evolution. From Stars to X-ray Binaries and Gravitational Wave Sources, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09388

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 637, doi: 10.1126/science.aau4005

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9904 von Zeipel, H

    Tian, Z., Liu, X., Yuan, H., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9904 von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/84.9.665

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    L., Zhang, S., et al

    Wang, R., Luo, A. L., Zhang, S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 266, 40, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acce36

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 292, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/292

    Wang, S., Zhang, H.-T., Bai, Z.-R., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 292, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/11/292

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9

    Wang, S., Zhao, X., Feng, F., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, A&A, 662, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141570

    Xiang, M., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141570

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1203, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01766-0

    Yi, T., Gu, W.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1203, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01766-0

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2022, ApJ, 940, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c62

    Yuan, H., Wang, S., Bai, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9c62

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, ApJS, 256, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    Zhang, B., Li, J., Yang, F., et al. 2021, ApJS, 256, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    2022, ApJS, 258, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac42d1

    Zhang, B., Jing, Y.-J., Yang, F., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac42d1

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  49. [57]

    2024a, ApJ, 963, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e64

    Zhao, X., Wang, S., Li, X., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 963, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e64

    doi

  50. [58]

    2024b, ApJ, 964, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced95

    Zhao, X., Mu, H., Wang, S., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 964, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced95

    doi

  51. [59]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b09

    Zheng, C., Huang, Y., Liu, J., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6b09

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 129512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2247-x

    Zheng, L.-L., Sun, M., Gu, W.-M., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 129512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2247-x

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2020, ApJS, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb2d 14 APPENDIX A

    Zong, W., Fu, J.-N., De Cat, P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abbb2d 14 APPENDIX A. RADIAL VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS Here we present the R V data of J0606+2132 in Table A.1. B. THE OBSER VEDHα PROFILES Figure B1 shows the observed Hα profiles from LAMOST MRS ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.