Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Origins of Lithium Enhancement in Polluted White Dwarfs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 argues that the lithium excess in three polluted white dwarfs comes from Big Bang and Galactic nucleosynthesis rather than continental crust or spallation-formed exomoons.

desk verdict A careful, honest evaluation of the three lithium-excess hypotheses, with a solid case against spallation but a diffusion-timescale extrapolation that leaves the BBN-vs-crust ranking less secure than the paper claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01878 v1 pith:B5PGLAQG submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

Benjamin C. Kaiser , J. Christopher Clemens , Simon Blouin , Erik Dennihy , Patrick Dufour , Ryan J. Hegedus , Joshua S. Reding This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfspollutedlithiumenhancementexoplanetesimalaccretionBigBangnucleosynthesisGalacticcontinentalcrustspallation
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 asks where the extra lithium seen in some polluted white dwarfs comes from. It tests the three live hypotheses—primordial (Big Bang plus Galactic nucleosynthesis), geological (accreted continental crust), and an exomoon built from proton-spalled ring material—against fresh spectra and a homogeneous set of atmospheric models for five lithium-polluted white dwarfs. The authors conclude that the first hypothesis is the most plausible for WD J1644−0449, WD J1824+1213, and WD J2317+1830, that the spalled-exomoon route is highly unlikely for every case, and that LHS 2534, as presently modeled, matches none of the three. If right, the result turns lithium abundance in cool white dwarfs into a probe of how early a planetary system formed, while demoting the more exotic formation stories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the abundance-recovery chain for polluted white dwarfs. Photospheric metal abundances come from model atmospheres built for cool, dense, helium-rich white dwarfs; those are then converted to the accreted body's abundances using phase-dependent corrections: in the increasing phase no correction is needed, in the steady state $\log(\mathrm{el_1/el_2})_{\rm SSP} = \log(\mathrm{el_1/el_2})_{\rm phot} + \log(\tau_{\rm el_2}/\tau_{\rm el_1})$, and in the decreasing phase an extra time-decay term is added. The relative diffusion timescales $\tau$ are linearly extrapolated from published grids down to these stars' effective temperatures, with a 0.2 dex uncertainty added in quadrature to cover the extrapolation. The corrected ratios are then matched against three reference sets—CI chondrites, continental crust, and binned main-sequence star abundances that represent Galactic nucleosynthetic evolution—with system ages and Galactic kinematics used to decide which matches are physically credible.

What would settle it

Compute the actual diffusion timescales for these five white dwarfs at their effective temperatures using updated diffusion coefficients; if any relative timescale (for example $\log(\tau_{\rm Li}/\tau_{\rm Ca})$) differs from the extrapolated grid value by more than about 0.2 dex, the inferred planetesimal ratios change enough to move stars between the Big Bang bins and the continental crust match. A simpler check: obtain a K abundance or tighter K limit for LHS 2534, since its K/Ca is the ratio that currently rules out every hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the lithium excesses are inherited from the natal gas of old, metal-poor planetary systems rather than from any special planetary or ring process. Using a homogeneous set of cool white dwarf atmosphere models, the paper converts measured photospheric abundances into parent planetesimal abundances via diffusion-phase corrections. Those corrected ratios for WD J1644−0449, WD J1824+1213, and WD J2317+1830 land on the curves that Big Bang plus Galactic nucleosynthesis predicts for metallicities between roughly $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -1$ and $-3$. The continental crust scenario fails where K/Ca can be measured—the crust is too potassium-rich—and for LHS 2534 the Fe/Ca and Cr/Ca are far too high for crust; the spallation scenario fails because Jupiter-like radiation belts do not supply enough protons above the threshold energy within the progenitor's lifetime. The paper therefore ranks Big Bang and Galactic nucleosynthesis first for three stars, leaves SDSS J1330+6435 undecided, and reports that LHS 2534, as modeled, matches none of the three.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred planetesimal abundances rest on relative diffusion timescales that are linearly extrapolated below the published grid's temperature range; if the true timescales differ by more than the ad hoc 0.2 dex uncertainty, the abundance ratios that decide which hypothesis wins could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A lithium excess in a polluted white dwarf becomes usable as a rough age and metallicity indicator for its planetary system, since the inferred Li/Ca should track how little Galactic enrichment occurred before the planets formed.
  • The spalled-exomoon explanation can be deprioritized for lithium; future lithium detections should first be compared with the Big Bang/Galactic nucleosynthesis predictions rather than with ring-spallation models.
  • The continental crust explanation survives only in heavily altered form: for most of these stars the potassium ratio rules out unprocessed crust, and where it does not, large systematic uncertainties still prevent a clean identification.
  • A null-detection control (SDSS J1636+1619) shows that even without lithium, upper limits on Na, K, Mg, and Fe can constrain whether an accreted body was primitive or thermally altered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable prediction of the paper's ranking is that future samples of cool polluted white dwarfs will show a high-Li/Ca tail concentrated in kinematically old, metal-poor populations rather than a smooth spread caused by crustal composition.
  • The same proton-threshold argument that kills spallation for lithium also bears on the beryllium-rich white dwarfs that motivated the exomoon model; recomputing those with the lower high-energy proton flux would test whether the original Be interpretation survives.
  • If magnetic surface spots are skewing LHS 2534's abundance fit, then the other magnetic Li-polluted white dwarfs found subsequently may also be misclassified; time-resolved spectroscopy of their line strengths could test whether spotted surfaces are the fourth explanation.
  • A sharper test for WD J2317+1830 would be a high signal-to-noise K measurement: detection near the current upper limit would confirm the very metal-poor bin, while a low K/Ca would indicate thermal depletion on top of primordial lithium.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 presents new SOAR/Goodman and Gemini/GMOS-N spectroscopy of three previously known lithium-polluted white dwarfs (WD J1824+1213, WD J2317+1830, LHS 2534) and one non-lithium DZ (SDSS J1636+1619), and reanalyzes two additional Li-polluted systems from the literature using a homogeneous set of low-Te_eff white dwarf atmospheric models. It infers accreted-planetesimal abundances under increasing-phase, steady-state, and decreasing-phase accretion assumptions, uses SAGA main-sequence abundances together with a BBN lithium assumption to construct Galactic nucleosynthetic reference ratios, evaluates the three published explanations for white-dwarf Li enhancement, and concludes that Big Bang plus Galactic nucleosynthesis is most plausible for WD J1644-0449, WD J1824+1213, and WD J2317+1830; that SDSS J1330+6435 is too weakly constrained; that LHS 2534, as presently modeled, is inconsistent with all three hypotheses; and that the spalled exomoon scenario is highly unlikely in all cases.

Significance. The paper is a useful contribution because it applies one consistent modeling framework to all known Li-polluted cool DZs and confronts three competing hypotheses with a common abundance dataset. The new observations, the homogeneous model fits, the Monte Carlo treatment of abundance and diffusion uncertainties, and the use of independent age and kinematic diagnostics are genuine strengths. If the diffusion-timescale systematics can be made robust, the conclusion that BBN/Galactic nucleosynthesis is the most plausible explanation for at least three of the systems would be a meaningful step beyond the earlier discovery papers. The paper also provides a concrete quantitative argument against the spallation-exomoon hypothesis and appropriately hedges the LHS 2534 result via the phrase 'as presently modeled.'

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.4, Eq. (2), Table 5, and §5/Table 8] The steady-state abundances that drive the hypothesis rankings are corrected using relative diffusion timescales that are linearly extrapolated below the Koester et al. (2020) grid for every object in Table 2. The added 0.2 dex uncertainty is assigned by a single random draw, and Section 6.3 itself reports that the updated Heinonen et al. (2020) coefficients change relative Ca/Si diffusion timescales by a factor of at least three, i.e. by about 0.5 dex. Since the SSP corrections in Table 5 are of order 0.5 dex for Li/Ca (log tau_Li/tau_Ca between 0.51 and 0.65 dex), a factor-of-three change in tau_Li/tau_Ca would shift the inferred log(Li/Ca)_SSP values in Table 4 by roughly 0.5 dex and would directly alter the compatibility statements in Section 5 and Table 8. This is the load-bearing step for the central claim that BBN/Galactic nucleosynthesis is most plausible for WD J1644-0449, WD J1824+1213, and WD J2317+1830, so the conclusion is not secure until the diffusion coefficients are recomputed at the actual Teff and log g values with updated physics, or until a conservatively propagated systematic error is incorporated into the Section 5 verdicts.
  2. [§3.5, Eq. (4), Table 4] The log(Li/Ca) predictor bins used as Galactic nucleosynthesis references are constructed by taking a fixed BBN lithium abundance and each SAGA star's measured Ca abundance, thereby intentionally neglecting post-BBN lithium production. The paper acknowledges that this underestimates the true protostellar Li/Ca by up to about 0.5 dex at solar metallicity, but this systematic offset is not included in the bin dispersions quoted in Table 4 and is not propagated into the sigma-based compatibility statements in Section 5. The effect is likely small for the [Fe/H] = -2 and -3 bins that are central to WD J2317+1830, but it is not negligible for the [Fe/H] = 0 and -1 comparisons used for WD J1644-0449 and WD J1824+1213; the assumed Li evolution should be stated explicitly and the systematic should be included in the comparison.
  3. [§3.2.3 and §5.1.2] For WD J1644-0449, the continental-crust scenario is retained as compatible only if the accretion is in the decreasing phase (Table 8), while the BBN/Galactic nucleosynthesis scenario is assessed using the steady-state values from Equation 2. The decreasing-phase analysis is explicitly labeled in Section 3.2.3 as 'a general indicator rather than a firm value,' and no uncertainty is attached to the time since accretion ceased. Because the accretion phase is not independently known for WD J1644-0449, the relative ranking of the two remaining hypotheses for this object is partly a statement about the assumed phase; the paper should either add a quantitative treatment of the phase uncertainty or soften the conclusion for this object accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence 'The new spectra spectra we present' contains a duplicated word, and the text 'WD J1824+1214' should read 'WD J1824+1213.'
  2. [§7] The conclusion text 'WD J644–0449' is a typo for 'WD J1644–0449.'
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The caption contains 'are shown are shown' and should be corrected to 'are shown.'
  4. [§4] The spallation timescale argument assumes that the hypothetical exomoon-forming rings are located near Europa's orbital distance where the Jovian radiation environment is modeled; a brief sentence justifying this geometric choice would strengthen the timescale argument against the exomoon hypothesis.
  5. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) introduces MineLi and MineCa without explicitly restating their definitions immediately after the equation; the surrounding text defines them only indirectly, so a one-sentence definition would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BBN/Galactic nucleosynthesis comparison is anchored to external SAGA, Coc et al. (2014), and Lodders (2019) data, not to the white dwarf abundances being explained.

full rationale

We walked the derivation chain: photospheric abundances from Section 3.1 are converted to planetesimal abundances using the phase equations (Equations 1-3), and the resulting ratios are compared with CI chondrites, continental crust, and SAGA main-sequence star bins. The SAGA log(Li/Ca) bins are constructed in Equation 4 from A(Li)_BBN of Coc et al. (2014), each star's [Ca/H] from Suda et al. (2017), and A(Ca)_sun from Lodders (2019), all of which are external to the white dwarf data. This is a genuine hypothesis test: the BBN hypothesis predicts high Li/Ca at low [Fe/H], and the white dwarfs' inferred ratios are compared with that prediction rather than fitted to define it. The diffusion timescale corrections in Section 3.2.4 are extrapolated below the Koester et al. (2020) grid with an ad hoc 0.2 dex uncertainty, and Section 6.3 candidly notes that Heinonen et al. (2020) found factor-of-greater-than-3 differences using updated coefficients; this is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction. Self-citations to Kaiser et al. (2021) supply the original BBN hypothesis and some previously published abundances, but the decisive comparisons also use independent data from SAGA, BBN calculations, kinematics, and age estimates. No step in the derivation is equivalent to its input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. We therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on converting measured photospheric abundances to planetesimal abundances via an extrapolated diffusion timescale grid and on 'expected' abundance ratios for metal-poor nebulae built from BBN lithium and SAGA calcium. No new entities are invented; the main assumptions are the accretion-phase model and the extrapolation of diffusion timescales.

free parameters (1)
  • Relative diffusion timescale uncertainty = 0.2 dex
    Ad hoc error added in Section 3.2.4 to relative diffusion timescales to represent uncertainty from extrapolating Koester et al. (2020) grids below 10,000 K. It dominates the reported error bars in Table 4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The three-phase accretion model (increasing, steady-state, decreasing) recovers the accreted body abundances from measured photospheric abundances.
    Used in Section 3.2 to convert photospheric ratios into planetesimal ratios; all hypothesis comparisons depend on this conversion.
  • domain assumption Relative diffusion timescales can be linearly extrapolated to Teff below the Koester et al. (2020) grid.
    Section 3.2.4; the central abundance ratios used in the hypothesis test are corrected with these extrapolated timescales.
  • domain assumption The BBN lithium abundance from Coc et al. (2014) represents the protostellar lithium abundance at all metallicities, as used in Equation 4.
    Section 3.5; the expected log(Li/Ca) for the metal-poor bins is computed from BBN Li and SAGA calcium, which is the hypothesis being tested but also the basis of the comparison.
  • domain assumption The SAGA database main-sequence stars, after the Teff/log g cuts, trace Galactic nucleosynthetic evolution of Li, Na, Mg, Cr, and Fe.
    Section 3.5; used to build [Fe/H] bins. The bins have few stars below [Fe/H] = -2.5 and K/Ca cannot be binned, which weakens the expected-abundance anchors.
  • domain assumption CI Chondrites represent the primitive protosolar nebula and provide the baseline solar abundance ratios.
    Used throughout as the solar reference (Lodders 2019) for comparing the polluted white dwarf abundances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Origins of Lithium Enhancement in Polluted White Dwarfs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5PGLAQG

@misc{pith2026241201878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Origins of Lithium Enhancement in Polluted White Dwarfs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5PGLAQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01878}
}
abstract

The bulk abundances of exoplanetesimals can be measured when they are accreted by white dwarfs. Recently, lithium from the accretion of exoplanetesimals was detected in relatively high levels in multiple white dwarfs. There are presently three proposed hypotheses to explain the detection of excess lithium in white dwarf photospheres: Big Bang and Galactic nucleosynthesis, continental crust, and an exomoon formed from spalled ring material. We present new observations of three previously known lithium-polluted white dwarfs (WD J1824+1213, WD J2317+1830, and LHS 2534), and one with metal pollution without lithium (SDSS J1636+1619). We also present atmospheric model fits to these white dwarfs. We then evaluate the abundances of these white dwarfs and two additional lithium-polluted white dwarfs that were previously fit using the same atmospheric models (WD J1644$-$0449 and SDSS J1330+6435) in the context of the three extant hypotheses for explaining lithium excesses in polluted white dwarfs. We find Big Bang and Galactic nucleosynthesis to be the most plausible explanation of the abundances in WD J1644$-$0449, WD J1824+1213, and WD J2317+1830. SDSS J1330+6435 will require stricter abundances to determine its planetesimal's origins, and LHS 2534, as presently modeled, defies all three hypotheses. We find the accretion of an exomoon formed from spalled ring material to be highly unlikely to be the explanation of the lithium excess in any of these cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SOAR/Goodman High Throughput Spectrograph Spectra smoothed with a 3-pixel boxcar. The 400M1 and 400M2 spectra of LHS 2534 and WD J1824+1213 were stitched together at 6660 ˚A. Line markers are plotted as well, but not all spectra exhibit all lines. Regions of telluric absorption are shaded in grey. WD J1824+1213 displays a telluric removal artifact to the blue side of the K I resonance line wavelengths. spectra in or… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gemini-North/GMOS-N spectrum of SDSS J1636+1619 smoothed with a 5-pixel boxcar. There are detector gaps present in the spectrum near 5900 ˚A and 7100 ˚A. No absorption lines are detected, but line markers are placed where lines would be. We targeted SDSS J1636+1619 because it was one of the few extremely low-Teff DZs in the Montreal White Dwarf Database (Dufour et al. 2017) at the time of observation, and all of the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exoplanetary pollutant material abundances relative to Ca as measured in each white dwarf assuming increasing phase pollution (stars). The inferred increasing phase abundances are the same as the photospheric abundances (see Section 3.2.1). The abundances of CI Chondrites (blue square) (Lodders 2019) and Earth’s Continental Crust (blue cross-dot) (Rumble et al. 2019) are plotted for comparison. The abundances of mai… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exoplanetary pollutant material abundances relative to Ca as measured in each white dwarf assuming steady-state phase pollution are represented by diamonds. The inferred steady-state phase abundances are calculated using Equation 2 (see Section 3.2.2). The long, faded …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total Age Distributions of Low Temperature DZs discussed in this work. The star markers are placed at the median and error bars run from the 16th to 84th percentile. The dotted line is at the age of the Universe, 13.8 Gyr (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016). WD J1824+12…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Toomre Diagram showing peculiar velocities relative to the local standard of rest. The white dwarfs discussed in this work are shown as star symbols. The errorbars of the white dwarfs’ velocities are smaller than the symbols. The mean velocities and dispersions of the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Galactic Nucleosynthetic Evolution as shown by Main-Sequence Stars from the SAGA Database. The [Fe/H] abundances on the x-axis are plotted in the Solar System-normalized format ([el/Ca] = log(el/Ca) − log(el/Ca)⊙)). The grey circles are main-sequence stars from the SAG…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LHS 2534 model fit from Section 3.1 to VLT/X-Shooter Data from Hollands et al. (2021) and photometric points. B´edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe B´edard, A., Brassard, P., Bergeron, P., & Blouin, S.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: LHS 2534 model fit from Section 3.1 to SOAR/Goodman Spectrograph Data from Section 2 and photometric points. Cummings, J. D., Kalirai, J. S., Tremblay, P. E., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Choi, J. 2018, ApJ, 866, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6 Cunningham, T., Wheatley, P. J.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: WD J1824+1213 model fit from Section 3.1 to WHT/ISIS Data from Hollands et al. (2021) and photometric points. Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x Johnson, T. M., Klein, B. L., Koester, D., et al. 2022,…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: WD J1824+1213 model fit from Section 3.1 to Soar/Goodman Spectrograph Data from Section 2 and photometric points. Mishenina, T. V., Soubiran, C., Kovtyukh, V. V., & Korotin, S. A. 2004, A&A, 418, 551, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034454 Moehler, S., Modigliani, A., Freudl…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: WD J2317+1830 model fit from Section 3.1 to GTC/OSIRIS Data from Hollands et al. (2021) and photometric points. The three longest wavelength photometric points are greyed out because they are ignored due to the infrared excess originating from a dust disk. Tremblay, P…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: WD J2317+1830 model fit from Section 3.1 to SOAR/Goodman Spectrograph Data from Section 2 and photometric points. The three longest wavelength photometric points are greyed out because they are ignored due to the infrared excess originating from a dust disk [PITH_FUL…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 3 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. White dwarfs within 13 pc: Insights from ultraviolet spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    UV spectroscopy of the 44 nearest white dwarfs reveals a 2–6% temperature discrepancy between UV and optical model fits, six UV-only metal detections, and a 30% planetary debris accretion rate.

  2. Life after death: Europa in the evolving Habitable Zone of a Red Sun

    astro-ph.EP 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Europa's surface would sublimate asymmetrically in the red giant habitable zone, yet a water-vapor atmosphere could persist for at least 0.2 Gyr, and three observing strategies could reveal it.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    1 J kHK h @uY.|d( „ C1d I u|_7 ` ^

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    2020, , 249, 3, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  8. [8]

    Discovery of magnetically guided metal accretion onto a polluted white dwarf

    Bagnulo , S., Farihi , J., Landstreet , J. D., & Folsom , C. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16526. 2402.16526

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    D., Farihi , J., et al

    Bagnulo , S., Landstreet , J. D., Farihi , J., et al. 2024 b , , 688, L14, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451215

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, , 901, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    B \'e dard , A., Bergeron , P., Brassard , P., & Fontaine , G. 2020, , 901, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2022, , 927, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4497

    B \'e dard , A., Brassard , P., Bergeron , P., & Blouin , S. 2022, , 927, 128, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4497

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Bensby , T., Feltzing , S., & Oey , M. S. 2014, , 562, A71, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322631

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, , 615, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833118

    Bensby , T., & Lind , K. 2018, , 615, A151, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833118

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, , 934, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c7

    Bergeron , P., Kilic , M., Blouin , S., et al. 2022, , 934, 36, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c7

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Bessell , M. S. 1999, , 111, 1426, 10.1086/316454

    1999 doi

  8. [16]

    2020, , 496, 1881, 10.1093/mnras/staa1689

    Blouin , S. 2020, , 496, 1881, 10.1093/mnras/staa1689

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    F., Leininger , T., Gad \'e a , F

    Blouin , S., Allard , N. F., Leininger , T., Gad \'e a , F. X., & Dufour , P. 2019 a , , 875, 137, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1266

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Blouin , S., Dufour , P., & Allard , N. F. 2018 a , , 863, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    F., & Kilic , M

    Blouin , S., Dufour , P., Allard , N. F., & Kilic , M. 2018 b , , 867, 161, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53a

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    F., et al

    Blouin , S., Dufour , P., Allard , N. F., et al. 2019 b , , 872, 188, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0081

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Hollands , M., et al

    Bonsor , A., Carter , P. J., Hollands , M., et al. 2020, , 492, 2683, 10.1093/mnras/stz3603

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2010, Nature Geoscience, 3, 637, 10.1038/ngeo941

    Bouvier , A., & Wadhwa , M. 2010, Nature Geoscience, 3, 637, 10.1038/ngeo941

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    C., & Kondo , Y

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

    1983 doi

  16. [24]

    2011, , 530, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276

    Casagrande , L., Sch \"o nrich , R., Asplund , M., et al. 2011, , 530, A138, 10.1051/0004-6361/201016276

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    C., Magnier , E

    Chambers , K. C., Magnier , E. A., Metcalfe , N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560. 1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chiba , M., & Beers , T. C. 2000, , 119, 2843, 10.1086/301409

    2000 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Crain , J

    Clemens , J. C., Crain , J. A., & Anderson , R. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, , ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye , 331--340, 10.1117/12.550069

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    2014, , 2014, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/050

    Coc , A., Uzan , J.-P., & Vangioni , E. 2014, , 2014, 050, 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/050

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    2019, , 885, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    Coutu , S., Dufour , P., Bergeron , P., et al. 2019, , 885, 74, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Kalirai , J

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

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Tremblay , P.-E., et al

    Cunningham , T., Wheatley , P. J., Tremblay , P.-E., et al. 2022, , 602, 219, 10.1038/s41586-021-04300-w

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    M., & et al

    Cutri , R. M., & et al. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

    2014

  25. [33]

    E., Desch , S

    Doyle , A. E., Desch , S. J., & Young , E. D. 2021, , 907, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/abd9ba

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

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

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B

    Elms , A. K., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2022, , 517, 4557, 10.1093/mnras/stac2908

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    1984, , 277, L61, 10.1086/184203

    Fontaine , G., Villeneuve , B., Wesemael , F., & Wegner , G. 1984, , 277, L61, 10.1086/184203

    1984 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, , 452, 3256, 10.1093/mnras/stv1384

    Fu , X., Bressan , A., Molaro , P., & Marigo , P. 2015, , 452, 3256, 10.1093/mnras/stv1384

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.00211. 2208.00211

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    2019, , 489, 3539, 10.1093/mnras/stz2428

    Grisoni , V., Matteucci , F., Romano , D., & Fu , X. 2019, , 489, 3539, 10.1093/mnras/stz2428

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Harrison , J. H. D., Bonsor , A., & Madhusudhan , N. 2018, , 479, 3814, 10.1093/mnras/sty1700

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Saumon , D., Daligault , J., et al

    Heinonen , R. A., Saumon , D., Daligault , J., et al. 2020, , 896, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91ad

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    A., G \"a nsicke , B

    Hollands , M. A., G \"a nsicke , B. T., & Koester , D. 2018, , 477, 93, 10.1093/mnras/sty592

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    A., Koester , D., Alekseev , V., Herbert , E

    Hollands , M. A., Koester , D., Alekseev , V., Herbert , E. L., & G \"a nsicke , B. T. 2017, , 467, 4970, 10.1093/mnras/stx250

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    A., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B

    Hollands , M. A., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Koester , D., & Gentile-Fusillo , N. P. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 451, 10.1038/s41550-020-01296-7

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2007, , 475, 519, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077221

    Holmberg , J., Nordstr \"o m , B., & Andersen , J. 2007, , 475, 519, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077221

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J

    Hook , I. M., J rgensen , I., Allington-Smith , J. R., et al. 2004, , 116, 425, 10.1086/383624

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Pols , O

    Hurley , J. R., Pols , O. R., & Tout , C. A. 2000, , 315, 543, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000

  40. [48]

    M., Klein , B

    Johnson , T. M., Klein , B. L., Koester , D., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.02673. 2211.02673

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Jun, I., & Garrett, H. B. 2005, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 116, 50, 10.1093/rpd/nci074

    2005 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Clemens , J

    Kaiser , B. C., Clemens , J. C., Blouin , S., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 168, 10.1126/science.abd1714

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    2015, , 576, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423909

    Kausch , W., Noll , S., Smette , A., et al. 2015, , 576, A78, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423909

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    E., Gruber, P

    Kesler, S. E., Gruber, P. W., Medina, P. A., et al. 2012, Ore Geology Reviews, 48, 55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2012.05.006

    2012 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, , 482, 965, 10.1093/mnras/sty2755

    Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., Dame , K., et al. 2019, , 482, 965, 10.1093/mnras/sty2755

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    L., Doyle , A

    Klein , B. L., Doyle , A. E., Zuckerman , B., et al. 2021, , 914, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40b

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    I., & Lugaro , M

    Kobayashi , C., Karakas , A. I., & Lugaro , M. 2020, , 900, 179, 10.3847/1538-4357/abae65

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    2009, , 498, 517, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    Koester , D. 2009, , 498, 517, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    O., & Irwin , A

    Koester , D., Kepler , S. O., & Irwin , A. W. 2020, , 635, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037530

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    J., Almaini , O., et al

    Lawrence , A., Warren , S. J., Almaini , O., et al. 2007, , 379, 1599, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x

    2007

  51. [59]

    A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al

    Lindegren , L., Klioner , S. A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2021, , 649, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    2003, , 591, 1220, 10.1086/375492

    Lodders , K. 2003, , 591, 1220, 10.1086/375492

    2003 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.00844

    ---. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.00844. 1912.00844

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    1998, The planetary scientist's companion / Katharina Lodders, Bruce Fegley

    Lodders , K., & Fegley , B. 1998, The planetary scientist's companion / Katharina Lodders, Bruce Fegley

    1998

  55. [63]

    Lodders , K., Palme , H., & Gail , H. P. 2009, Landolt-B\" o rnstein Group VI Astronomy and Astrophysics, 4B, 712, 10.1007/978-3-540-88055-4_34

    2009 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Placco , V

    Mardini , M. K., Placco , V. M., Taani , A., Li , H., & Zhao , G. 2019, , 882, 27, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3047

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Marsh, T. R. 1989, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 101, 1032, 10.1086/132570

    1989 doi

  58. [66]

    V., Soubiran , C., Kovtyukh , V

    Mishenina , T. V., Soubiran , C., Kovtyukh , V. V., & Korotin , S. A. 2004, , 418, 551, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034454

    2004 doi

  59. [67]

    2014, , 568, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423790

    Moehler , S., Modigliani , A., Freudling , W., et al. 2014, , 568, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423790

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    O'Neill , H. S. C., & Palme , H. 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 366, 4205, 10.1098/rsta.2008.0111

    2008

  61. [69]

    1986, , 61, 197, 10.1086/191112

    Paquette , C., Pelletier , C., Fontaine , G., & Michaud , G. 1986, , 61, 197, 10.1086/191112

    1986 doi

  62. [70]

    Planck Collaboration , Ade , P. A. R., Aghanim , N., et al. 2016, , 594, A13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    2016 doi

  63. [71]

    2012, , 542, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219043

    Prantzos , N. 2012, , 542, A67, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219043

    2012 doi

  64. [72]

    M., & Viola , V

    Read , S. M., & Viola , V. E., J. 1984, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 31, 359, 10.1016/0092-640X(84)90009-3

    1984 doi

  65. [73]

    S., Hermes , J

    Reding , J. S., Hermes , J. J., & Clemens , J. C. 2018, in Proceedings of the 21st European Workshop on White Dwarfs, 1, 10.26153/tsw/967

    2018 doi

  66. [74]

    2018, , 857, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713

    Rolland , B., Bergeron , P., & Fontaine , G. 2018, , 857, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab713

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    L., & Gao , S

    Rudnick , R. L., & Gao , S. 2003, Treatise on Geochemistry, 3, 659, 10.1016/B0-08-043751-6/03016-4

    2003 doi

  68. [76]

    2019, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics : a ready-reference book of chemical and physical data

    Rumble , J., Lide , D., & Thomas, B. 2019, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics : a ready-reference book of chemical and physical data

    2019

  69. [77]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  70. [78]

    2015, , 576, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    Smette , A., Sana , H., Noll , S., et al. 2015, , 576, A77, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423932

    2015 doi

  71. [79]

    B., Hamuy , M., et al

    Stritzinger , M., Suntzeff , N. B., Hamuy , M., et al. 2005, , 117, 810, 10.1086/431468

    2005 doi

  72. [80]

    2017, , 69, 76, 10.1093/pasj/psx059

    Suda , T., Hidaka , J., Aoki , W., et al. 2017, , 69, 76, 10.1093/pasj/psx059

    2017 doi

  73. [81]

    2019, , 490, 202, 10.1093/mnras/stz2337

    Swan , A., Farihi , J., Koester , D., et al. 2019, , 490, 202, 10.1093/mnras/stz2337

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    2019, , 485, 5573, 10.1093/mnras/stz814

    Torres , S., Cantero , C., Rebassa-Mansergas , A., et al. 2019, , 485, 5573, 10.1093/mnras/stz814

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    E., Hollands , M

    Tremblay , P. E., Hollands , M. A., Gentile Fusillo , N. P., et al. 2020, , 497, 130, 10.1093/mnras/staa1892

    2020 doi

  76. [84]

    L., Doyle , A

    Trierweiler , I. L., Doyle , A. E., Melis , C., Walsh , K. J., & Young , E. D. 2022, , 936, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac86d5

    2022 doi

  77. [85]

    A., Kielty , C

    Venn , K. A., Kielty , C. L., Sestito , F., et al. 2020, , 492, 3241, 10.1093/mnras/stz3546

    2020 doi

  78. [86]

    L., et al

    Vennes , S., Kawka , A., Klein , B. L., et al. 2024, , 527, 3122, 10.1093/mnras/stad3370

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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