Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DUETS: Setting expectations for asteroseismic binaries and binary products with synthetic populations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Asteroseismic binaries are near-equal-mass systems that never exchanged mass, and double red-clump binaries should be absent at separations below about 500 solar radii.

desk verdict Solid expectations paper with sharp falsifiable predictions; rates are prescription-dependent, but the near-equal-mass and no-short-period-double-RC conclusions are worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19866 v1 pith:H7OOUZON submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

A. Mazzi , J. S. Thomsen , A. Miglio , K. Brogaard , L. Girardi , D. Bossini , M. Matteuzzi , W. E. van Rossem This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords asteroseismicbinariessolar-likeoscillationsbinarypopulationsynthesisredclumpstarsmasstransferKeplerfieldgiantage-metallicityrelation
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 which binary systems in the Milky Way can be seen as asteroseismic binaries — pairs where both stars show detectable solar-like oscillations — and what products of binary interactions look like in Kepler-style observations. By synthesizing the Kepler field with three prescriptions for initial binary properties, including interacting and non-interacting populations, it arrives at a clear expectation: systems detected in both components are born with nearly equal masses and never exchange mass, because even small mass-transfer events push one component's oscillation signal below detectability. The simulation also predicts that double red-clump binaries made of two low-mass giants should be absent at separations below about 500 $R_\odot$, since the primary overflows its Roche lobe near the tip of the red giant branch. These predictions matter because they set quantitative baselines for interpreting Kepler and future PLATO data, and because the same simulations quantify how many field red giants are over- or under-massive products of binary evolution that can distort apparent age-metallicity relations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a population-synthesis pipeline that combines TRILEGAL stellar populations, PARSEC evolutionary tracks, and the BinaPSE binary-evolution module, which applies analytic prescriptions from BSE for mass loss, Roche-lobe overflow, common-envelope evolution, tidal circularization, and mergers. On top of the resolved stars, the paper applies a probability of detecting solar-like oscillations from stellar parameters, and for unresolved binaries multiplies the two components' probabilities, $p_{\mathrm{seismo,bin}} = p_{\mathrm{seismo,pri}} \times p_{\mathrm{seismo,sec}}$, so that any reduction in one component's signal due to a companion suppresses the chance of seeing both. The key physical mechanism producing the sharpest prediction is Roche-lobe geometry at the red-giant tip: with the volume-equivalent Roche-lobe radius $r_1/A \approx 0.38$ for equal-mass pairs, a low-mass binary with separation below about $500\,R_\odot$ will have its primary overflow its Roche lobe near the RGB tip, initiating mass transfer that destroys the double red-clump configuration.

What would settle it

A confirmed double red-clump binary with total mass below about $4\,M_\odot$ and semi-major axis below about $500\,R_\odot$ (initial period below roughly 1000 days) would contradict the prediction; look for a low-mass core-helium-burning pair whose orbit is short enough that the primary would have filled its Roche lobe at the red-giant tip, with both components showing solar-like oscillations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that asteroseismic binaries are a clean, restricted subset of the binary population: systems with initial mass ratio close to unity that avoided Roche-lobe overflow and common-envelope episodes throughout their evolution. The paper argues this from three simulations of $121\,\mathrm{deg}^2$ of the Kepler field using the Moe & Di Stefano (2017, MDS17), Eggleton (2006, E06), and non-interacting prescriptions. In the MDS17 simulation, 95% of detected asteroseismic binaries have initial mass ratio above 0.96, and the close-to-one final mass ratio is preserved apart from single-star wind mass loss or tidal circularization. The consequence is that the occurrence rate of double-giant asteroseismic binaries is low — for red giants with detectable oscillations, the fraction ranges from 0.06% under E06 to 0.46% in the non-interacting case — and that short-period double red-clump binaries with total mass below $4\,M_\odot$ should not exist, because at separations below roughly $500\,R_\odot$ the more massive component fills its Roche lobe at the red-giant tip and the system evolves away from a double red-clump configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The short-period double red-clump prediction rests on the assumption that when a low-mass red giant fills its Roche lobe near the tip of the red giant branch, the resulting mass transfer disrupts the system so that it does not become a double red-clump binary; if the models allow more conservative mass transfer, those binaries could survive below 500 solar radii.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Kepler-like data, double-giant asteroseismic binaries should be rare: roughly one double-RGB system per 1000 detectable RGB stars, and three double-CHeB systems per 1000 detectable CHeB stars under the MDS17 prescription.
  • Any observed double red-clump binary with combined mass below about $4\,M_\odot$ and separation below about $500\,R_\odot$ would directly challenge the adopted mass-transfer and common-envelope prescriptions.
  • Over- and under-massive giants make up roughly 1.5% of detectable red giants under MDS17; if not identified, these stars bias age estimates and add scatter to Galactic age-metallicity relations.
  • The predicted rates differ strongly between the E06 and MDS17 initial-binary prescriptions, so counting asteroseismic binaries is a clean way to constrain the initial binary fraction and period distribution.
  • Because asteroseismic binaries preserve their birth mass ratio and orbital separation, they give direct observational access to the initial mass-ratio and orbital-parameter distributions of the binary population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct search for short-period double red-clump binaries in Kepler, TESS, or spectroscopic surveys would test the adopted Roche-lobe overflow stability criteria: finding one would require more conservative mass transfer than the BSE-style prescriptions assume.
  • The dilution argument implies that asteroseismic catalogs of binaries will be biased toward unevolved, near-twin systems, so interaction rates inferred from such catalogs alone would be lower limits.
  • The 500 $R_\odot$ boundary could be turned into a quantitative probe of the red-giant-tip radius and RGB mass-loss efficiency, since the exact cutoff location encodes the maximum radius reached by low-mass stars before the helium flash.
  • The paper's distance-mismatch toy model suggests a practical identification pipeline: unresolved equal-luminosity binaries produce a characteristic about 29% underestimate of asteroseismic distances, which could flag candidate asteroseismic binaries in combined Gaia and seismic samples.
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. This paper uses the TRILEGAL population synthesis code with its BinaPSE module to simulate the Kepler field, comparing three prescriptions for initial binary parameters: Eggleton (2006), Moe & Di Stefano (2017), and a non-interacting binary model. It applies published models for the detectability of solar-like oscillations in single stars (Chaplin et al. 2011b) and in unresolved binaries (Miglio et al. 2014), and predicts the occurrence rates, mass ratios, orbital properties, and evolutionary states of asteroseismic binaries and of products of binary interactions (under-massive and over-massive stars). The central claims are that asteroseismic binaries are near-equal-mass systems that have not exchanged mass, that double red-clump binaries should be absent at separations below roughly 500 R_sun, and that about 1% of Kepler red giants with detectable oscillations may have experienced significant mass accretion or loss.

Significance. If the predictions are reliable, this paper provides useful quantitative expectations for the ongoing and future systematic searches for asteroseismic binaries in Kepler, K2, TESS, and PLATO data. Its strengths are the use of a well-established population synthesis code, the explicit comparison of three initial-condition prescriptions, the explicit treatment of detection probability for both components of unresolved binaries, and several clearly stated caveats (target selection, tidal mode suppression, uncertainty in the binary fraction). The main predictions are falsifiable with existing and upcoming data, which makes the paper a valuable benchmark even if the exact rates are model-dependent. However, the quantitative claims need to be internally consistent and properly quantified before they can serve as robust expectations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5, Eq. (9)] The derivation of the 500 R_sun boundary for double red-clump binaries is arithmetically inconsistent. With r1/A = 0.38, a separation of A = 500 R_sun gives r1 = 190 R_sun, not the stated r1 ≲ 150 R_sun. If the relevant RGB-tip radius is about 150 R_sun, the same equation yields a boundary of A ≈ 395 R_sun. The claimed threshold of 500 R_sun in the abstract, Fig. 6, and Conclusions therefore does not follow from Eq. (9) as written; please correct the threshold or the radius estimate and update the associated claims.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Abstract] The reported occurrence rates are internally inconsistent with the numbers in Tables 2 and 3. The text states that for every 1000 red giant stars with detectable oscillations, about 140 are in binary systems and 2.7 are in asteroseismic binaries, but the quoted counts (11544 in binaries and 227 in asteroseismic binaries out of 41537) correspond to about 278 and 5.5 per 1000, respectively. Furthermore, the abstract's claim of a minimum fraction of 0.06% for the Eggleton prescription does not match Table 6, where summing the Nseismo entries for RGB, CHeB, and EAGB gives 27 systems (54 stars) against roughly 41,800 detectable red giants, i.e., about 0.13%. Please reconcile the abstract and text with the tables.
  3. [Tables 3, 6, and A.1-A.3] The occurrence rates are reported without any uncertainties. Many of the key counts are small (e.g., Nseismo = 53 for double CHeB in MDS17, 11 in E06, 7 for double RGB in E06), so Poisson fluctuations are substantial. Without error bars or confidence intervals, the comparisons among prescriptions in Fig. 13 and the assertions that one prescription yields the 'highest' or 'lowest' fraction are not statistically robust. Please add at least Poisson confidence intervals and explicitly discuss the small-number limitations in the affected rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.5] In the discussion of KIC 9246715, 'expected Roche lobe r1≈ 80 M⊙' should read '80 R⊙'; the units are incorrect as printed.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (1)] The formula for the initial orbital period appears garbled in the typeset version; please check the placement of the exponent and parentheses in Eq. (1).
  3. [Table 2, note] The note defining Nseismo_pri and Nseismo_sec refers to 'Nseismo_pri' twice in a way that is confusing; please clarify which column corresponds to primaries and which to secondaries.
  4. [Section 3.2] The comparison of the simulated number of red giants with detectable oscillations (~42,000) to the observed number (~30,000) cites 'Garcia et al., in preparation'; please provide a more specific reference or at least a description of the data source.
  5. [Figure 6 and Section 3.5] Please clarify in the text and figure caption that the 500 R_sun boundary is based on the initial semi-major axis, since the discussion elsewhere sometimes refers to 'orbital separation' without specifying whether initial or final values are meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulated occurrence rates and parameter correlations are emergent predictions from external initial-condition prescriptions and published detectability models, not fitted inputs renamed as results.

full rationale

I find no step in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the result it is supposed to explain, nor any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Initial binary parameters are drawn from the published Eggleton (2006) and Moe & Di Stefano (2017) prescriptions, the stellar populations are synthesized with TRILEGAL/BinaPSE, and asteroseismic detectability is evaluated with the published Chaplin et al. (2011b) and Miglio et al. (2014) models; none of these inputs is tuned to reproduce the headline rates. The statements that asteroseismic binaries have initial mass ratios near unity, that low-mass short-separation double red-clump binaries are absent, and that roughly 1% of detectable red giants are over- or under-massive are posterior statistics of the simulations, not definitions or restatements of the input distributions. The non-interacting simulation is explicitly a controlled comparison rather than the source of the interacting rates, and the paper acknowledges the strong dependence of the rates on the adopted initial binary assumptions. The self-citations to BinaPSE and to the Miglio detection model are tool/method citations with stated assumptions, and they are partially anchored by external comparisons, including the approximate match to the reported number of Kepler red giants with detectable oscillations and the KIC 9246715 double-secondary-clump system. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted rate to an input parameter by construction.

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

The predictions rest on a chain of externally calibrated models: Galactic population synthesis, PARSEC tracks, the Eggleton and Moe & Di Stefano initial distributions, BinaPSE/BSE interaction prescriptions, and the Chaplin/Miglio detectability function. None of these are validated in this paper against an observed sample of asteroseismic binaries; the observational search is deferred to a companion paper. The free parameters are acknowledged choices, and the authors state that rates scale linearly with fbin. The main fragility is therefore model dependence, not hidden fitting.

free parameters (5)
  • binary fraction fbin = 0.3
    Chosen, not constrained; the paper states counts scale roughly linearly with fbin (Section 2.4 and Section 6).
  • individual and binary detection probability thresholds = 90%
    Stars are counted as detectable when the Chaplin/Miglio model gives P at least 90 percent, and binaries require pseismo_bin at least 90 percent (Sections 3.2 and 3.3).
  • under-massive definition threshold = 20% or more initial mass lost
    Adopted to separate single-star mass loss from binary interaction; this threshold drives the under-massive counts (Section 3.6).
  • over-massive definition threshold = 1% or more mass gained
    Ad hoc classification threshold; drives the over-massive counts (Section 3.7).
  • minimum mass ratio for the non-interacting comparison = 0.7
    Uniform mass ratio between 0.7 and 1 is chosen for the non-interacting simulation; this affects that comparison's asteroseismic binary fraction (Section 2.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Eggleton and Moe & Di Stefano initial binary parameter distributions are plausible representations of the Milky Way field binary population.
    Adopted in Section 2.3; all occurrence rates depend on them, and the paper's own comparison shows order-of-magnitude differences between prescriptions.
  • domain assumption BinaPSE/BSE analytic prescriptions for mass transfer, common envelope, mergers, and tides are accurate for low-mass giant binaries.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 and used to derive the absence of short-period double red-clump binaries in Section 3.5.
  • domain assumption The Chaplin/Miglio model gives correct asteroseismic detection probabilities, and the unresolved binary probability factorizes as p_pri times p_sec.
    Section 3.3, Equation 8; the paper notes it ignores tidal mode suppression and contamination, checking only a small subset for the former.
  • domain assumption TRILEGAL/PARSEC single-star evolution and Galactic ingredients (IMF, SFR, AMR, extinction) adequately represent the Kepler field.
    Sections 2.1 and 2.4; the authors compare only the total number of detectable red giants (about 42000) with the reported about 30000, not a detailed validation.
  • domain assumption Tidal suppression of oscillations in short-period binaries is negligible for the quoted asteroseismic binary rates.
    Section 3.3; the authors identify only 0.002 percent, 0.8 percent, and 4.6 percent of double MS, RGB, and CHeB systems with radius sum above 16 percent of the semi-major axis, and they do not model the suppression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DUETS: Setting expectations for asteroseismic binaries and binary products with synthetic populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7OOUZON

@misc{pith2026250419866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DUETS: Setting expectations for asteroseismic binaries and binary products with synthetic populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7OOUZON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19866}
}
abstract

Asteroseismology gives us the opportunity to better characterize binaries and their products, and shed light on their role in Galactic populations. We estimate occurrence rates, mass distributions, and evolutionary states of asteroseismic binaries, exhibiting solar-like oscillations from both components, and of products of binary interactions with detectable solar-like oscillations. Additionally, we explore the effects of mass accretion or loss on apparent age-metallicity relations. Using the TRILEGAL code, we simulate Kepler's field of view adopting the Eggleton and Moe & Di Stefano distributions of initial binary parameters, and run an additional simulation with non-interacting binaries for comparison. We find that asteroseismic binaries require an initial mass ratio close to one, and even small mass transfer events can prevent the detection of oscillations from both components. The fraction of asteroseismic binaries for red giant stars with detectable oscillations ranges from 0.5\% for non-interacting binaries to a minimum of 0.06% when taking interactions into account. Moreover, asteroseismic binaries composed of two red clump stars are not expected at separations $\leq 500~\text{R}_\odot$ due to the interplay of stellar evolution and binary interactions. Finally, we estimate that at least ~1% of the Kepler red giants with detectable oscillations have undergone significant mass accretion or loss, potentially affecting Galactic age-metallicity relations, although there is a strong dependence on the assumed initial binary parameters. Comparing predicted and observed asteroseismic binaries, as well as over- and under-massive stars, offers a way to constrain key binary evolution assumptions, and to reduce uncertainties in mass-transfer modeling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of the asteroseismic binaries pro￾duced by the simulation using the MDS17 prescription ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Initial and final mass ratio of the binary stars in the MDS17 simulation. The gray points represent all binaries in the simulation, and the colored circles mark systems that can be detected as asteroseismic binaries. Systems near the black dashed line have almost identical initial and final mass ratio. The inset highlights the asteroseismic binaries. and mixed RGB and CHeB in 20% of the cases. Mixed EAGB binaries, a… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Location on the HRD of the double CHeB stars produced by the MDS17 simulation. Small gray dots represent single stars, while col￾ored points represent the double CHeB stars, with the color indicating the detection probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Initial semi-major axis and total mass at the end of the MDS17 simulation (M1 + M2) for binaries containing of one (gray points) and two (colored circles) CHeB stars. The color scale represents the proba￾bility to observe each double CHeB system as an asteroseimic bina…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Location on an HRD of under-massive stars in the RGB phase for the MDS17 simulation. Crosses indicate under-massive lone primaries while thin diamonds mark under-massive secondary stars in a surviving binary. The color represents the current mass of each under-massive …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: HRD of the single stars (gray points) with plotted on top the lo￾cation of the over-massive stars in the RGB phase. The circles diamonds mark primary stars in a binary that are over-massive, while crosses in￾dicate the over-massive lone primaries. The color represents…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distribution of masses of under-massive stars with detectable oscillations for the MDS17 and E06 simulations. Solid lines refer to the entire sample of each prescription, while dashed lines refer to stars in the thick disk of our Galaxy. Under-/Over-massive stars As i…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Toy model showing the effect on distance determination of un￾resolved binaries. The gray dashed line shows the reference case, made of only single stars. The blue line shows the effect on distance determi￾nation for binaries and the red line highlights the effect on a…

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. Power density spectra morphologies of seismically unresolved red-giant asteroseismic binaries

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combining two red-giant light curves into unresolved binaries mostly produces low-power, high-entropy power spectra, implying that some complex Kepler stars could be hidden binary systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., Deliyannis, C

    Anthony-Twarog, B. J., Deliyannis, C. P., Rich, E., & Twarog, B. A. 2013, ApJ, 767, L19

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    M., Ball, W., et al

    Appourchaux, T., Antia, H. M., Ball, W., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A25

    2015

  3. [3]

    G., Kallinger, T., Pavlovski, K., et al

    Beck, P. G., Kallinger, T., Pavlovski, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A22

    2018

  4. [4]

    2021, A&A, 648, A113

    Benbakoura, M., Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 648, A113

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    2013, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Nanni, A., & Rubele, S. 2013, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, V ol. 43, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 03001

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  7. [7]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 496

    Brogaard, K., Arentoft, T., Jessen-Hansen, J., & Miglio, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 496

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 793

    Brogaard, K., Jessen-Hansen, J., Handberg, R., et al. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 793

    work page 2016

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    E., Willett, E., & Thomsen, J

    Brogaard, K., Miglio, A., van Rossem, W. E., Willett, E., & Thomsen, J. S. 2024, A&A, 691, A288

    2024

  2. [10]

    R., et al

    Castro-Ginard, A., Penoyre, Z., Casey, A. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A1

    2024

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 632, A105

    Chen, Y ., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A105

    2019

  4. [12]

    S., et al

    Chiappini, C., Anders, F., Rodrigues, T. S., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, L12 Dal Tio, P., Mazzi, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5681 De Marco, O. & Izzard, R. G. 2017, PASA, 34, e001 de Mink, S. E., Sana, H., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 7

    2015

  5. [13]

    2006, Evolutionary Processes in Binary and Multiple Stars (Cam- bridge University Press)

    Eggleton, P. 2006, Evolutionary Processes in Binary and Multiple Stars (Cam- bridge University Press)

    2006

  6. [14]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269

    2021

  7. [15]

    Farmer, R., Kolb, U., & Norton, A. J. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1133 Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A34 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A6 García, R. A. & Ballot, J. 2019, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 16, 4

    2013

  8. [16]

    2014, ApJ, 785, 5

    Gaulme, P., Jackiewicz, J., Appourchaux, T., & Mosser, B. 2014, ApJ, 785, 5

    2014

  9. [17]

    2020, A&A, 639, A63

    Gaulme, P., Jackiewicz, J., Spada, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A63

    2020

  10. [18]

    2024, A&A, 690, A368

    Geier, S., Heber, U., Irrgang, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A368

    2024

  11. [19]

    Girardi, L., Barbieri, M., Groenewegen, M. A. T., et al. 2012, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 26, Red Giants as Probes of the Structure and Evolution of the Milky Way, ed. A. Miglio, J. Montalbán, & A. Noels, 165

    2012

  12. [20]

    Girardi, L., Groenewegen, M. A. T., Hatziminaoglou, E., & da Costa, L. 2005, A&A, 436, 895 Górski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759

    2005

  13. [21]

    2024, A&A, 683, A111

    Grisoni, V ., Chiappini, C., Miglio, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, A111

    2024

  14. [22]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 979 Hełminiak, K

    Handberg, R., Brogaard, K., Miglio, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 979 Hełminiak, K. G., Ukita, N., Kambe, E., & Konacki, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, L25

    2017

  15. [23]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  16. [24]

    2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rev., 21, 59

    2013

  17. [25]

    G., Dray, L

    Izzard, R. G., Dray, L. M., Karakas, A. I., Lugaro, M., & Tout, C. A. 2006, A&A, 460, 565

    2006

  18. [26]

    G., Glebbeek, E., Stancli ffe, R

    Izzard, R. G., Glebbeek, E., Stancli ffe, R. J., & Pols, O. R. 2009, A&A, 508, 1359

    2009

  19. [27]

    Izzard, R. G. & Jermyn, A. S. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 35

    2023

  20. [28]

    G., Preece, H., Jofre, P., et al

    Izzard, R. G., Preece, H., Jofre, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 2984

    2018

  21. [29]

    G., Tout, C

    Izzard, R. G., Tout, C. A., Karakas, A. I., & Pols, O. R. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 407

    2004

  22. [30]

    2019, A&A, 628, A35

    Khan, S., Miglio, A., Mosser, B., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A35

    2019

  23. [31]

    2023, A&A, 677, A21

    Khan, S., Miglio, A., Willett, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A21

    2023

  24. [32]

    G., Borucki, W

    Koch, D. G., Borucki, W. J., Basri, G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, L79

    2010

  25. [33]

    D., Stello, D., Vanderburg, A., & Sandquist, E

    Leiner, E., Mathieu, R. D., Stello, D., Vanderburg, A., & Sandquist, E. 2016, ApJ, 832, L13

    2016

  26. [34]

    R., Li, T., et al

    Li, Y ., Bedding, T. R., Li, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 470

    2018

  27. [35]

    R., Murphy, S

    Li, Y ., Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 673

    2022

  28. [36]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 2230

    Martig, M., Rix, H.-W., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 2230

    2015

  29. [37]

    G., et al

    Matteuzzi, M., Hendriks, D., Izzard, R. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A17

    2024

  30. [38]

    2023, A&A, 671, A53

    Matteuzzi, M., Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A53

    2023

  31. [39]

    J., Farmer, R., et al

    Miglio, A., Chaplin, W. J., Farmer, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, L3

    2014

  32. [40]

    T., et al

    Miglio, A., Chiappini, C., Mackereth, J. T., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A85

    2021

  33. [41]

    2009, A&A, 503, L21

    Miglio, A., Montalbán, J., Baudin, F., et al. 2009, A&A, 503, L21

    2009

  34. [42]

    & Di Stefano, R

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

    2017

  35. [43]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126 Paczy´nski, B. 1971, ARA&A, 9, 183

    2022

  36. [44]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 73, Structure and Evolution of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whelan, 75

    1976

  37. [45]

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5270

    2022

  38. [46]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1547 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P

    Pieres, A., Girardi, L., Balbinot, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1547 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11

    2020

  39. [47]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. & Goodman, J. 2018, ApJ, 867, 5

    2018

  40. [48]

    Ramachandran, V ., Klencki, J., Sander, A. A. C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, L12

    2023

  41. [49]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L., Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., et al

    Rawls, M. L., Gaulme, P., McKeever, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 108

    2016

  43. [51]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  44. [52]

    1977, A&A, 61, 217

    Reimers, D. 1977, A&A, 61, 217

    1977

  45. [53]

    Ricker, G. R. 2014, Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Ob- servers, 42, 234

    2014

  46. [54]

    S., Girardi, L., Miglio, A., et al

    Rodrigues, T. S., Girardi, L., Miglio, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2758 Röpke, F. K. & De Marco, O. 2023, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics, 9, 2

    2014

  47. [55]

    Vanhollebeke, E., Groenewegen, M. A. T., & Girardi, L. 2009, A&A, 498, 95

    2009

  48. [56]

    R., Benomar, O., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al

    White, T. R., Benomar, O., Silva Aguirre, V ., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A82

    2017

  49. [57]

    & Kolb, U

    Willems, B. & Kolb, U. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1004

    2002

  50. [58]

    R., et al

    Yu, J., Hekker, S., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5135

    2021

  51. [59]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 4, 1298 Article number, page 15 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware, 4, 1298 Article number, page 15 of 15 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54129-25 Appendix A: Full tables of binary star counts Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3 present the counts of all binaries produced by...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.