Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 72 references

Population synthesis of hot subdwarf B stars with COMPAS: on the observed Galactic population

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A COMPAS-built synthetic Galactic population of hot subdwarf B stars reproduces the observed Kiel diagram when hydrogen-rich envelope masses are drawn from a lognormal or normal distribution, and implies that the canonical sdB mass is…

desk verdict Honest, useful extension of Paper I, but the headline Kiel-diagram match is partly a calibration artifact and the 500 pc tension is built on stacked ad hoc corrections. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05791 v1 pith:EA76GJXK submitted 2025-05-09 astro-ph.SR

Nicolás Rodríguez-Segovia , Ashley J. Ruiter This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords hotsubdwarfBstarspopulationsynthesiscommonenvelopeevolutionKieldiagramhydrogen-richmassbinaryGalacticstellarP-qrelation
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

This paper asks whether a synthetic population of hot subdwarf B stars (sdBs, helium-burning stars with thin hydrogen envelopes) generated by the COMPAS binary population synthesis code can reproduce the observed Galactic population. The authors argue that it can, to a good approximation: when hydrogen-rich envelope masses are drawn from a lognormal or normal distribution instead of a uniform one, the synthetic stars populate the observed region of the Kiel diagram (effective temperature versus surface gravity). They also find that the widely used canonical sdB mass of about 0.47 solar masses is trustworthy only for sdBs with helium white dwarf or late-type main-sequence companions, and that the model predicts at least four times more sdBs within 500 pc of the Sun than are observed. The paper matters because it tests whether rapid population synthesis, together with a simple prescription for hydrogen-rich envelopes, can serve as a realistic census of a whole stellar class and its binary channels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hydrogen-rich envelope mass distribution assigned to helium main-sequence remnants crossing the 'sdB box' in the COMPAS implementation. Concretely, the envelope mass M_H is drawn from a lognormal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 0.5, multiplied by 7e-4 solar masses so that it fits within the 0 to 3e-3 solar mass range of the Bauer & Kupfer (2021) model grid, with out-of-range values mapped to the boundary. This distribution replaces the uniform sampling used before and is what moves the synthetic population into the observed Kiel-diagram locus. The second mechanism is the Galaxy-like re-sampling: binary systems are drawn per Besancon component until each component's target mass is matched, then weighted by spatial density profiles, so that the final synthetic sdB population can be compared directly with local and global observations.

What would settle it

A volume-complete census of sdB binaries within 500 pc that measures companion masses directly (via radial velocities or astrometry) could settle the central claim: if the number of sdB systems with early-type MS companions is close to the observed few rather than the predicted thousands, or if asteroseismic envelope-mass determinations show a distribution far from the adopted lognormal form, the model's agreement with the Kiel diagram would be exposed as a product of the envelope assumption rather than of the binary physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a synthetic Galaxy built from the Besancon component mass fractions and a sample of 1.6 million binaries, the authors construct a current-day population of hot subdwarf B stars. Their central result is that the observed sdB clustering in the Kiel diagram is reproduced when hydrogen-rich envelope masses are sampled from a lognormal (or normal) distribution with mean zero and standard deviation 0.5 in log space, scaled to the model grid range, rather than from a uniform distribution. This supports the conclusion that most observed sdBs come from low-mass progenitors near the canonical mass, and that the envelope-mass assignment, not detailed stellar physics, can account for the observed spread. They further find that the canonical-mass assumption only holds for sdBs with helium white dwarf or late-type MS companions, that the model's local 500 pc population is 4 to 7 times larger than the observed census, and that the long-period P-q relation for sdB+MS binaries is recovered while the sdB+HeWD version is smeared out by common-envelope uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The observed spread in the Kiel diagram is assumed to be caused mostly by differences in total mass and hydrogen-rich envelope mass, with chemical composition neglected; if composition contributes substantially to the observed spread, the fitted envelope distribution and the claimed agreement would be an artifact rather than a physical result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed Kiel diagram of sdBs can be reproduced by rapid population synthesis with a lognormal or normal hydrogen-rich envelope mass distribution, so the envelope mass becomes the main dial controlling the synthetic locus.
  • The canonical sdB mass of about 0.47 solar masses should be treated as configuration-dependent: reliable for sdB+HeWD and sdB+late-MS systems, unreliable for other companion types where masses can drop to roughly 0.3 solar masses.
  • The model predicts 4 to 7 times more sdBs within 500 pc than observed, implying either strong observational incompleteness for sdB+early-MS binaries or missing physics in the common-envelope and merger treatment.
  • The long-period P-q relation for sdB+MS binaries is recovered by the synthesis, validating rapid BPS for this channel, while the sdB+HeWD P-q relation is too dispersed to serve as a clean diagnostic.
  • Formation channels in the synthetic Galaxy are dominated by stable mass transfer, followed by single common-envelope events and then mergers, with the thin disk contributing most of the current-day population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the lognormal envelope assumption is physically real, the position of an sdB in the Kiel diagram becomes a direct estimator of its envelope mass; this inversion is not attempted in the paper but follows immediately from the claimed mapping.
  • The model's 4 to 7 times local excess is a testable prediction: a deep, volume-complete survey of the 500 pc volume should uncover either a large population of sdB+early-MS binaries that current selection misses, or a need to lower the common-envelope survival fraction.
  • Because the fitted envelope distribution has no first-principles justification, connecting it to post-RGB mass loss or convective boundary mixing would turn a phenomenological match into a stellar-physics constraint.
  • The overlap of sdB+HeWD and sdB+MS systems in the P-q plane implies that companion classification from photometry alone will be ambiguous in a substantial fraction of cases, so radial-velocity or ellipsoidal-variability follow-up is required.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a binary population synthesis study of hot subdwarf B stars using COMPAS with a Galactic model based on the Besançon stellar population synthesis framework, including metallicity distributions per Galactic component and a current-day sampling at 13.95 Gyr. The authors assign hydrogen-rich envelope masses to sdB candidates using lognormal or normal distributions whose parameters were selected by comparison with the Culpan et al. (2022) Kiel diagram. They compare synthetic Kiel diagrams, mass and period distributions, and P-q relations with observations, and estimate the local 500 pc sdB population. They find that the synthetic population reproduces the observed Kiel diagram reasonably well under the chosen envelope distributions, that canonical-mass sdBs are found mainly with HeWD or late-type MS companions, that the synthetic local population exceeds the observed Dawson et al. (2024) census by at least a factor of four after corrections, and that the P-q relation for sdB+MS binaries is recovered.

Significance. The paper's main value is as a transparent BPS model of the Galactic sdB population: it uses a public code, states free parameters, and lists limitations explicitly. It provides a concrete prediction that a large population of sdB+early-type MS binaries exists but is missed by current surveys, and it shows that the canonical 0.47 Msun assumption is configuration-dependent. The recovery of the P-q relation with an independent BPS implementation is a useful sanity check. However, the headline claim of Kiel-diagram agreement is weakened by the fact that the envelope mass distribution was fitted to the same observational sample used for evaluation, and by the acknowledged neglect of chemical composition. The paper is therefore more convincing as an exploration of parameter space and a set of scenarios than as a validated predictive model of the observed population.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. 2.1 and 3.3, Figs. 1 and 5] The lognormal and normal envelope distributions are selected in Section 2.1 by direct comparison with the Culpan et al. (2022) sample in a fiducial 10,000-star test, and the same Culpan et al. sample is then used in Figure 5 to claim agreement. This makes the Kiel-diagram match partly a fitting result rather than an independent validation. The abstract's phrase 'matches ... quite well' should be tempered, or an out-of-sample check should be added—for example, comparing against a different observed sdB sample (e.g., Geier et al. 2017; Vos et al. 2019) or quantifying the match with a metric computed on data excluded from the envelope-distribution selection.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, envelope-mass fitting] The paper explicitly states that the influence of chemical composition on Teff and log g was not considered because of limitations in the Bauer & Kupfer (2021) models. Since composition affects the Kiel diagram and the envelope distribution was fitted under the assumption that the observed spread is mostly due to total mass and envelope mass, the fitted lognormal/normal parameters may absorb composition-driven scatter. The match in Fig. 5 therefore does not by itself establish that real sdB envelopes follow these distributions; a test with composition-varying models, or at least a statement of the implied systematic uncertainty, is needed before the abstract claim is fully supported.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Table 2, 500 pc estimate] The local population estimate of 720 systems is obtained after two ad hoc adjustments: excluding all systems with MS companions more massive than 1 Msun, and reducing the current-day time window from ±50 Myr to ±2.5 Myr. These choices are motivated, but they are not derived from independent constraints, so the factor-of-four discrepancy with Dawson et al. (2024) should be presented as a scenario-dependent result rather than a robust prediction; the sensitivity of this number to the helium ignition mass threshold and to the lambda_CE prescription should be quantified or explicitly listed as dominant unknowns.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.1] The lognormal parameters 'mean equal to 0 and standard deviation equal to 0.5' should specify whether these refer to the natural logarithm or log10, since the scipy implementation uses the natural log.
  2. [Eq. (1) and Sec. 2.2] The scaling factor s is introduced but not listed in Table 1 or in the list of model parameters; define it explicitly in a table or in the text near Eq. (1).
  3. [Throughout] The paper alternates between 'COMPAS' and 'compas' for the code name; please use a consistent notation.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The claim that the ~0.2 dex temperature spread 'can only be explained by sdB masses covering the range ~0.3–0.5 Msun' is too strong given that composition and envelope-mass variations also affect Teff; suggest rewording to 'is consistent with'.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The white contours are defined in the caption, but the reader has to infer that the same contour levels apply to all panels; consider adding a legend or stating explicitly that the same iso-proportion levels are used in every panel.
  6. [Data Availability] The data availability statement is vague; for reproducibility, please provide the COMPAS configuration files, the sampling scripts, and the list of initial parameters used to generate the 1,600,000 binary systems.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central Kiel-diagram agreement is partly an in-sample fit, because the envelope-mass distribution is calibrated on the same Culpan et al. (2022) observed sample used for the final comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.1 (envelope sampling; Fig. 1) and Section 3.3 (Kiel diagram; Fig. 5).]
    "This configuration was selected after the observational sdB sample from Culpan et al. (2022) was compared against several different hydrogen-rich envelope mass distributions tested in a fiducial synthetic population of 10,000 sdB stars with masses in the range 0.47 – 0.49 M⊙ (around canonical mass) born from low-mass progenitors."

    The log-normal/normal envelope-mass distribution is the free input that controls where synthetic sdBs sit in the (Teff, log g) Kiel diagram. It was chosen by matching exactly the Culpan et al. (2022) observed sample in that diagram, using canonical-mass stars; the same Culpan et al. sample is then used in Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 5 to claim that the full synthetic population matches the observations quite well. The agreement is therefore an in-sample fit, not an out-of-sample prediction. The paper itself acknowledges that the overlap depends on this calibration: Sec. 3.3 attributes the residual differences to 'the chosen envelope mass distribution,' and Sec. 4 states that the choice 'lacks a solid physical argument.' In addition, Sec.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circularity is in the Kiel-diagram claim. In Section 2.1 the log-normal/normal envelope-mass distribution is explicitly selected by comparing a fiducial canonical-mass synthetic population against the Culpan et al. (2022) observed Kiel diagram; the same Culpan sample is then used in Section 3.3 to demonstrate agreement (Fig. 5). The final agreement is therefore partly by construction, and the paper itself concedes (Sec. 3.3) that the mismatch is caused by the chosen envelope mass distribution and (Sec. 4) that this choice lacks a solid physical argument. The fit is also degenerate with the neglected composition dependence: the paper assumes the observed spread is due to mass and envelope mass alone, so composition-driven spread would be absorbed into the fitted envelope distribution rather than independently modeled. Other results are genuinely independent of this fit: the P-q relation, mass and period distributions, formation-channel fractions, and the 500 pc discrepancy are BPS outputs set by binary evolution, the initial mass function, and the Galactic model, not by the envelope-distribution calibration. The 500 pc overprediction is explicitly reported as a discrepancy, not a fitted success. Self-citations to Paper I supply the sdB-box and envelope implementation, but those equations are based on external Bauer & Kupfer (2021) stellar models and do not by themselves force the observed-sample agreement. Overall score 6: the paper's headline Kiel-diagram agreement reduces in part to a fit to the same data, but it is not a complete tautology and other comparisons remain informative.

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

The model depends on several adopted parameters, including the envelope distribution, alpha_CE, the ignition threshold, and the sampling time window. The envelope distribution is fitted to the validation data, which is the largest circularity concern; most other parameters are from literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Hydrogen-rich envelope mass distribution (lognormal) = mean=0, sigma=0.5, scale factor 7e-4 M_sun; mapped to [0,3e-3] M_sun
    Selected after comparing several distributions against the observed Culpan et al. (2022) Kiel diagram (Section 2.1); this choice directly shapes the claimed agreement.
  • Helium ignition mass threshold = 5% below expected core mass at helium flash (from Paper I)
    Controls which low-mass cores become sdBs; the paper identifies it as the parameter with the largest potential to change computed numbers (Section 3.1).
  • Common envelope efficiency alpha_CE = 0.2
    Adopted from Zorotovic et al. (2010); affects the post-common-envelope population and P-q plane.
  • Mass accretion efficiency beta = 0
    No accretion by companion during mass transfer, following Paper I and Vos et al. (2020); affects orbital evolution and companion masses.
  • Current-day sampling time window = +/-50 Myr (reduced to +/-2.5 Myr in an alternate estimate)
    Defines which HeMS stars count as present-day sdBs; the 500 pc population number depends strongly on this window.
  • Galactic scaling factor s = 10
    Linear factor in Eq. (1) to scale the sampled mass to the Besançon component masses; stated not to affect final statistics.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Observed Kiel diagram spread of sdBs is dominated by total mass and hydrogen-rich envelope mass rather than chemical composition.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 2.1 when fitting the envelope distribution; chemical composition is not in the Bauer & Kupfer (2021) models and could shift effective temperature and surface gravity.
  • domain assumption Core mass-radius relation for RGB stars with degenerate cores applies to stable mass transfer sdB progenitors.
    Used in Section 2.3.1 to derive the P-q relation; the paper notes non-degenerate ignition requires a different relation.
  • domain assumption De Kool (1990) common envelope formalism with alpha=0.2 and lambda prescription from Xu & Li (2010a,b) describes post-CE separations.
    Used for common envelope channels; the paper notes recombination energy is not included and lambda is a major uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Besançon model components, local densities from Czekaj et al. (2014), and constant star formation within each component represent the Milky Way.
    Underlies the synthetic Galaxy sampling in Sections 2.1 and 2.2; the paper lists non-constant star formation as a possible alternative.
  • domain assumption Binary mass fraction of 0.7 and Moe & Di Stefano (2017) initial distributions describe the Galactic binary population.
    Used to derive component masses in Eq. (1); the paper notes the binary mass fraction depends on primary mass and IMF.
  • domain assumption COMPAS rapid evolution (Hurley et al. 2000) with Paper I envelope fits covers the relevant parameter space.
    Basis for all evolutionary tracks; Paper I details the fits to Bauer & Kupfer (2021) MESA models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Population synthesis of hot subdwarf B stars with COMPAS: on the observed Galactic population." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EA76GJXK

@misc{pith2026250505791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Population synthesis of hot subdwarf B stars with COMPAS: on the observed Galactic population},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EA76GJXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05791}
}
abstract

Hot subdwarf B stars (sdBs) are helium-burning stars with thin hydrogen-rich envelopes. Their most widely accepted formation channels involve binary evolution and progenitors near the tip of the red giant branch, thus studying these objects improves our knowledge of complicated astrophysical processes such as common envelope evolution and the helium flash. In this work, we compare the observed sdB population with a synthetic Galactic population generated through the binary population synthesis code COMPAS, which allows us to estimate the physical properties of the current-day Galactic sdB population. We show that our synthetic sdB population matches the general properties of the observations quite well in the Kiel diagram when either a normal or lognormal distribution is assumed for the assignment of hydrogen-rich envelope masses. We also find that the canonical mass assumption should only be confidently assumed for specific system configurations and that the estimated number of sdBs found within 500 pc of the Sun in our model is at least four times higher than the observational one. We recover the observational P-q relation for sdBs plus main-sequence companions, while a similar relation between sdBs and helium white dwarf companions is rather complicated. We conclude that a better understanding of hydrogen-rich envelopes is needed, as well as an observational characterization of the sdB plus main-sequence companions earlier than spectral type $~$F. These issues aside, atmospheric properties, companion types, period, and mass distributions are in good agreement with observational and theoretical studies available in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphic comparison between the Culpan et al. (2022) observed sdB population (top) and a fiducial population composed of 10,000 sdBs with masses randomly sampled from the 0.47 – 0.49 𝑀⊙ range (middle row). Different assumed distributions for the hydrogen-rich mass envelope are represented in each column of the middle row, with the actual normalized distributions being shown in the bottom row. From left to right: nump… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The P-q relation as found in our BPS results. The logarithm of the orbital period (in days) is shown on the x-axis, while each panel from top to bottom shows the logarithm of the sdB mass, the companion mass, and the mass ratio in the y-axis. Markers with black edges represent sdBs born from progenitors that experience a flash during helium ignition. parameter space and therefore we do not consider it warranted to i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: All panels depict the Kiel diagram for the synthetic binary population results and observations. The former are represented through 2D histograms, where the more yellow (dark blue) a bin is, the more (less) systems it contains. The white contours correspond to a Kernel…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same content as panel (a) from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The depicted orbital period distribution follows the concepts de￾scribed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arancibia-Rojas E., Zorotovic M., Vu c kovi \'c M., Bobrick A., Vos J., Piraino-Cerda F., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52711184A 527, 11184

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3891 2024

  2. [2]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15053.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1286A 397, 1286

    Aumer M., Binney J. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15053.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.1286A 397, 1286

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    B., Kupfer T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..245B 922, 245

    Bauer E. B., Kupfer T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...922..245B 922, 245

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac25f0 2021

  7. [7]

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ARA&A..54..529B 54, 529

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  8. [8]

    M., Randall S

    Charpinet S., Van Grootel V., Brassard P., Fontaine G., Green E. M., Randall S. K., 2013, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences. p. 04005, @doi 10.1051/epjconf/20134304005

    arXiv 2013

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Chen X., Han Z., Deca J., Podsiadlowski P., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434..186C 434, 186

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    O'Reilly

    Collette A., 2013, Python and HDF5. O'Reilly

    2013

  3. [11]

    Culpan R., Geier S., Reindl N., Pelisoli I., Gentile Fusillo N., Vorontseva A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243337 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662A..40C 662, A40

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    A., Robin A

    Czekaj M. A., Robin A. C., Figueras F., Luri X., Haywood M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322139 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.102C 564, A102

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Kool De de Kool M., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/168974 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...358..189D 358, 189

    1990 doi

  6. [14]

    Dawson H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686A..25D 686, A25

    2024 doi

  7. [16]

    P., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    Eggleton P. P., 1983, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160960 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...268..368E 268, 368

    1983 doi

  8. [17]

    Fontaine G., Brassard P., Bergeron P., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/319535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113..409F 113, 409

    2001 doi

  9. [18]

    Ge H., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad158e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..202G 961, 202

    doi

  10. [19]

    Ge H., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7ea6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975..254G 975, 254

    doi

  11. [20]

    H., Nemeth P., Gentile Fusillo N

    Geier S., stensen R. H., Nemeth P., Gentile Fusillo N. P., G \"a nsicke B. T., Telting J. H., Green E. M., Schaffenroth J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...600A..50G 600, A50

    2017 doi

  12. [21]

    Geier S., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450778 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.368G 690, A368

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044332.46251.5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Ap&SS.291..267G 291, 267

    Green E. M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000044332.46251.5f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Ap&SS.291..267G 291, 267

    2004

  14. [23]

    Han Z., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...484L..31H 484, L31

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    Han Z., Podsiadlowski P., Maxted P. F. L., Marsh T. R., Ivanova N., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05752.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.336..449H 336, 449

    2002

  16. [25]

    Han Z., Podsiadlowski P., Maxted P. F. L., Marsh T. R., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.341..669H 341, 669

    2003

  17. [26]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    Heber U., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...155...33H 155, 33

    1986

  19. [28]

    Heber U., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/966/082001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128h2001H 128, 082001

    2016 doi

  20. [29]

    arXiv:2410.11663

    Heber U., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241011663H p. arXiv:2410.11663

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...39H 35, e039

    Hopkins A. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...39H 35, e039

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science & Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    2007 doi

  23. [32]

    R., Pols O

    Hurley J. R., Pols O. R., Tout C. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000MNRAS.315..543H 315, 543

    2000

  24. [33]

    Iaconi R., De Marco O., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.490.2550I 490, 2550

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    Kippenhahn R., Weigert A., Weiss A., 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, @doi 10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30304-3

    2012 doi

  26. [35]

    U., Neunteufel P

    Kruckow M. U., Neunteufel P. G., Di Stefano R., Gao Y., Kobayashi C., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac13ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...86K 920, 86

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    Kupfer T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...963..100K 963, 100

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Marchant P., Pappas K. M. W., Gallegos-Garcia M., Berry C. P. L., Taam R. E., Kalogera V., Podsiadlowski P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...650A.107M 650, A107

    2021 doi

  29. [39]

    G., Norris J., Gross P

    Mengel J. G., Norris J., Gross P. G., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154193 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...204..488M 204, 488

    1976 doi

  30. [40]

    M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..149M 941, 149

    Miller Bertolami M. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac98c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...941..149M 941, 149

    2022 doi

  31. [41]

    Moe M., Di Stefano R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..230...15M 230, 15

    2017 doi

  32. [42]

    S., Dettmar R

    Moehler S., Richtler T., de Boer K. S., Dettmar R. J., Heber U., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&AS...86...53M 86, 53

    1990

  33. [43]

    J., 2018, in Ballot J., Vauclair S., Vauclair G., eds, PHOST: Physics of Oscillating Stars

    Murphy S. J., 2018, in Ballot J., Vauclair S., Vauclair G., eds, PHOST: Physics of Oscillating Stars. p. arXiv:1811.12659 ( @eprint arXiv 1811.12659 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1811.12659

    2018 doi arXiv

  34. [44]

    S., Behara N

    Naslim N., Jeffery C. S., Behara N. T., Hibbert A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17909.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412..363N 412, 363

    2011

  35. [45]

    S., Hibbert A., Behara N

    Naslim N., Jeffery C. S., Hibbert A., Behara N. T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1920N 434, 1920

    2013 doi

  36. [46]

    S., Sanjayan S., Sahoo S

    Ostrowski J., Baran A. S., Sanjayan S., Sahoo S. K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3751 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.4646O 503, 4646

    2021 doi

  37. [47]

    S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.180P 642, A180

    Pelisoli I., Vos J., Geier S., Schaffenroth V., Baran A. S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038473 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.180P 642, A180

    2020 doi

  38. [48]

    C., 1964, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..136.1224P 136, 1224

    Peters P. C., 1964, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..136.1224P 136, 1224

    1964 doi

  39. [49]

    E., Brown D., 2008, in Heber U., Jeffery C

    Podsiadlowski P., Han Z., Lynas-Gray A. E., Brown D., 2008, in Heber U., Jeffery C. S., Napiwotzki R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 392, Hot Subdwarf Stars and Related Objects. p. 15 ( @eprint arXiv 0808.0574 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.0808.0574

    2008 doi arXiv

  40. [50]

    P., Hamers A

    Preece H. P., Hamers A. S., Battich T., Rajamuthukumar A. S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.2111P 517, 2111

    2022 doi

  41. [51]

    C., Di Stefano R., Han Z., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..731R 273, 731

    Rappaport S., Podsiadlowski P., Joss P. C., Di Stefano R., Han Z., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/273.3.731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.273..731R 273, 731

    1995 doi

  42. [52]

    Riley J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac416c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..258...34R 258, 34

    2022 doi

  43. [53]

    C., Reyl \'e C., Derri \`e re S., Picaud S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..523R 409, 523

    Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Derri \`e re S., Picaud S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..523R 409, 523

    2003 doi

  44. [54]

    J., Seitenzahl I

    Rodr \' guez-Segovia N., Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASA...42...12R 42, e012

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ada185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASP..137a4201R 137, 014201

    Rodriguez A. C., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ada185 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025PASP..137a4201R 137, 014201

    2025 doi

  46. [56]

    Roelofs G. H. A., Nelemans G., Groot P. J., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12451.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.382..685R 382, 685

    2007

  47. [57]

    K., De Marco O., 2023, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023LRCA....9....2R 9, 2

    R \"o pke F. K., De Marco O., 2023, @doi [Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics] 10.1007/s41115-023-00017-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023LRCA....9....2R 9, 2

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    N., Geier S., Kupfer T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.182S 666, A182

    Schaffenroth V., Pelisoli I., Barlow B. N., Geier S., Kupfer T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244214 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...666A.182S 666, A182

    2022 doi

  49. [59]

    B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV. p. 29

    2005

  50. [60]

    The pandas development team 2022, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.7093122 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7093122

    2022 doi

  51. [61]

    V., Verbunt F., Pols O

    Sluys Van der van der Sluys M. V., Verbunt F., Pols O. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...460..209V 460, 209

    2006 doi

  52. [62]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  53. [63]

    N., stensen R., N \'e meth P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4592V 482, 4592

    Vos J., Vu c kovi \'c M., Chen X., Han Z., Boudreaux T., Barlow B. N., stensen R., N \'e meth P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4592V 482, 4592

    2019 doi

  54. [64]

    Vos J., Bobrick A., Vu c kovi \'c M., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937195 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.163V 641, A163

    2020 doi

  55. [65]

    L., 2021, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03021 , 6, 3021

    Waskom M. L., 2021, @doi [Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.03021 , 6, 3021

    2021 doi

  56. [66]

    pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    W es M c K inney 2010, in S t\'efan van der W alt J arrod M illman eds, P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference. pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  57. [67]

    D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.5816X 516, 5816

    Xin C., Renzo M., Metzger B. D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2551 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.5816X 516, 5816

    2022 doi

  58. [68]

    Xu X.-J., Li X.-D., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716..114X 716, 114

    doi

  59. [69]

    Xu X.-J., Li X.-D., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1985 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722.1985X 722, 1985

    1985 doi

  60. [70]

    R., 2008, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773708090053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AstL...34..620Y 34, 620

    Yungelson L. R., 2008, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773708090053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AstL...34..620Y 34, 620

    2008 doi

  61. [71]

    S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19711.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419..452Z 419, 452

    Zhang X., Jeffery C. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19711.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419..452Z 419, 452

    2012

  62. [72]

    Zhang Y., Chen H.-L., Xiong H., Chen X., Han Z., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1627 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.3514Z 505, 3514

    2021 doi

  63. [73]

    R., G \"a nsicke B

    Zorotovic M., Schreiber M. R., G \"a nsicke B. T., Nebot G \'o mez-Mor \'a n A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200913658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...520A..86Z 520, A86

    2010 doi

  64. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.