Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

A magnitude-limited catalogue of unresolved white dwarf-main sequence binaries from Gaia DR3

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs a magnitude-limited catalogue of 1,312 unresolved white dwarf–main-sequence binaries from Gaia DR3 and derives reliable two-body parameters for 435 of them.

desk verdict Useful catalogue, unquantified purity: the eyeball classification of XP spectra needs a validation step before the 1,312 count is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15895 v1 pith:3NVS7PL5 submitted 2025-05-21 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Alberto Rebassa-Mansergas , Enrique Solano , Alex J. Brown , Steven G. Parsons , Raquel Murillo-Ojeda , Roberto Raddi , Maria Camisassa , Santiago Torres
show 1 more author
Jan van Roestel
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords whitedwarf–mainsequencebinariesGaiaDR3spectralenergydistributionfittingeclipsingpost-common-envelopestellarparametersbinarycompleteness
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 aims to identify as many unresolved binaries made of a white dwarf and a main-sequence star as Gaia DR3 can reveal, without a distance limit but restricted to the colour–magnitude region where such systems sit. If correct, it provides a statistically large, well-characterised sample of 1,312 systems, of which 435 have reliable stellar parameters for both components and 67 are eclipsing. This matters because large, bias-quantified samples of these binaries are the empirical anchor for testing binary evolution, especially the fraction that pass through a common envelope. The authors also estimate that the catalogue is only about 50 per cent complete among systems with Gaia spectra, and about 5 per cent complete with respect to all observable WDMS in the region, because most such binaries lack spectra.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a staged selection funnel. Candidates are first chosen in the 'bridge' region of the Gaia absolute-magnitude versus colour diagram that lies between the white-dwarf and main-sequence sequences; SEDs built from J-PAS synthetic photometry are then fitted with single-star model grids (CIFIST and Koester) to remove single stars; finally, human inspection of the Gaia spectra and archival images confirms each candidate. The completeness estimate rests on a simple accounting equation $N_{cat} = N_{tot} f_{spec} f_{cuts} f_{vis}$, where the three factors measure the fraction of WDMS with Gaia spectra, the fraction surviving the quality cuts, and the fraction whose two components are visible at Gaia's low resolution.

What would settle it

Take the 2,696 sources that Li et al. flag as WDMS but that this paper rejects, obtain medium- or high-resolution spectra for a statistically meaningful sample of them, and count how many show both white-dwarf and main-sequence features. If that fraction is large, the visual-inspection step systematically undercounts WDMS, and the catalogue size, completeness, and post-common-envelope fraction would all need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a careful selection pipeline—quality cuts on Gaia photometry and astrometry, single-source rejection by SED fitting with VOSA, and visual confirmation in the low-resolution Gaia XP spectra—yields a genuine set of 1,312 unresolved WDMS binaries, ten times larger than the previous volume-limited Gaia sample. For 435 of these, two-body SED fits give trustworthy white-dwarf temperatures, surface gravities, and masses together with companion temperatures. The paper further claims that the sample is dominated by systems with M-dwarf companions of roughly 2,700–3,400 K, that white-dwarf parameters are only reliable above 10,000 K and 0.35 solar masses, and that at least 38–57 per cent of the catalogue are likely post-common-envelope binaries based on the 67 eclipsing systems found in ZTF and CRTS light curves.

Load-bearing premise

The entire catalogue rests on the assumption that a human looking at a low-resolution Gaia spectrum can correctly decide whether it shows both a white dwarf and a main-sequence star; no validation set or inter-inspector agreement check is reported for that decision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the catalogue is correct, it enlarges the volume-limited sample by an order of magnitude and lets binary-population models be tested against a sample whose selection biases are quantified.
  • The 435 systems with reliable fits give a white-dwarf mass distribution peaking near 0.5 solar masses and $\log g$ near 7.8 dex, matching the 100-pc sample.
  • The 67 eclipsing systems, 20 with fitted parameters, become prime targets for eclipse-based mass and radius measurements.
  • The estimated 38–57 per cent post-common-envelope fraction would imply that magnitude-limited Gaia samples are strongly biased toward short-period, post-common-envelope binaries.
  • The completeness fractions (about 50 per cent among systems with Gaia spectra, about 5 per cent overall) give explicit correction factors that synthetic population studies must apply.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If human inspection systematically misses WDMS with mild blue or red excess, as the paper itself notes, the true number in the bridge region is likely higher than 1,312; a re-run using neural-network candidates as seeds for higher-resolution follow-up could quantify this.
  • The catalogue's completeness equation could be turned into a practical test: injecting synthetic WDMS spectra with known component fluxes into the Gaia XP format would measure $f_{vis}$ directly and replace the SDSS-derived estimate.
  • The paper's warning that low-temperature white-dwarf fits are unreliable may explain part of the apparent peak at low white-dwarf masses in previous samples; if so, population-synthesis comparisons should restrict to the 435 reliable fits.
  • The 67 eclipsing systems, especially the new ones, are immediate candidates for radial-velocity and eclipse-timing follow-up to test common-envelope ejection efficiency.
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 constructs a magnitude-limited catalogue of unresolved white-dwarf plus main-sequence (WDMS) binaries from Gaia DR3. The selection starts from 126,787 sources in the CMD bridge region with Gaia spectra, applies photometric and astrometric quality cuts, fits single-star SEDs with VOSA to remove single white dwarfs and main-sequence stars, and then visually inspects Gaia XP spectra and archival images. The final catalogue contains 1,312 WDMS systems, 435 of which receive reliable two-body SED parameter estimates, and 67 eclipsing systems identified from ZTF and CRTS light curves. The authors compare with Rebassa-Mansergas et al. (2021b), Nayak et al. (2024), Li et al. (2025), and the SDSS WDMS catalogue, and they derive a completeness budget in Eq. (4), estimating a lower-limit completeness of about 50% among systems with Gaia spectra and about 5% relative to all expected WDMS in the region.

Significance. If the catalogue is accepted at face value, it is a substantial resource: it increases the earlier volume-limited sample by an order of magnitude, provides a well-characterised sample for population-synthesis comparisons, and identifies 67 eclipsing systems for follow-up. The paper is transparent about its selection cuts, gives explicit external cross-checks with confusion matrices, and releases the catalogue in electronic form. The main scientific conclusions, including the PCEB fraction lower limit and the completeness estimate, are conditional on the unvalidated visual classification step; if that step can be quantified, the paper would be a solid contribution to the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, 'Visual inspection' step (also Table 1 and Section 4.3)] The final membership is decided by visual inspection of low-resolution Gaia XP spectra, reducing 13,905 SED-surviving candidates to 1,312 WDMS, but no validation set, inter-inspector agreement statistic, or false-positive rate is reported. This same classifier is used to reject 2,696 of 3,769 Li et al. (2025) candidates, including spectra that the authors say human inspection 'is unable to confirm or disprove', and to accept 350 objects not in Li et al. The 72 objects flagged as possibly contaminated by nearby bright stars are also retained in the catalogue. Because the catalogue count, the 435 fitted systems, the eclipsing fraction, and Eq. (4) all treat this membership as ground truth, a systematic classifier bias propagates unquantified into every central claim. I request a quantitative validation of the visual step, for example independent re-classification of a random subsample by multiple inspectors or an external spectroscopic/astrometric test on a random sample of accepted and rejected candidates, reported as a false-positive rate for the accepted catalogue.
  2. [Section 4.5, Eq. (4)] The completeness estimate Ncat/Ntot = 5% (or 50% among systems with Gaia spectra) multiplies fspec, fcuts, and fvis as if they were independent, but no uncertainties or covariances are provided. The fractions are measured on the same SDSS and Li et al. samples: fcuts includes 177 confirmed WDMS lost to astrometric/excess cuts, while fvis is derived from the 104 of 250 SDSS systems whose components are not visible in Gaia spectra, so the two factors are not independent. The lower-limit claim would be more robust if the authors reported how the result changes under plausible variations of each factor (e.g., fvis in the range 0.5-0.7) and stated clearly which factors are one-sided limits and which are central estimates.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 6] The comparison with SDSS spectral fits for 54 common objects shows that the VOSA white-dwarf effective temperatures and surface gravities are systematically lower than those obtained from SDSS spectra. Since the reliable-fit subsample is restricted to white-dwarf temperatures above 10,000 K and masses above 0.35 solar masses, a bias of the same sign within that restricted range would directly affect the 435 reported parameters and the mass peak near 0.5 solar masses discussed in Section 5. Please quantify the offsets (for example median differences and scatter in Figure 6) and discuss whether a correction or calibration is needed before these parameters are used for population-synthesis comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'Gaia date release 3'; this should be 'Gaia data release 3'.
  2. [Section 2, final paragraph] The survey name is written as 'Pan-STARSS' twice; the correct spelling is 'Pan-STARRS'.
  3. [Section 4.5] The sentence 'we derive a value of Ntot = 24,848, that is a lower limit for the completeness Ncat/Ntot of 5%' is confusing: Ntot is not a lower limit for completeness. Rephrase to state that the equation implies a lower limit on the completeness of about 5%.
  4. [Section 4.4] The notation '86/5' is unexplained when first used; write '86 and 5' for clarity, since the next sentence clarifies that these are the numbers of systems classified as single white dwarfs and single main-sequence stars.
  5. [Table 2 and Section 5] The period column entries such as '1.38206 (0)' are ambiguous: please clarify that the number in parentheses is the reference flag and that the period is listed only for the 67 eclipsing systems.
  6. [Section 5] The citation 'van Roestel et al. in prep.)' has a formatting error; it should appear as '(van Roestel et al., in prep.)' with a consistent reference-list entry or a private-communication note.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The catalogue construction and headline statistics are not circular; the completeness and PCEB estimates are transparent products of externally measured fractions.

full rationale

The paper derives its catalogue by applying Gaia quality cuts, VOSA SED fitting, and visual inspection; none of these steps defines the target claims in terms of themselves. The completeness estimate in Eq. (4) is an algebraic identity Ntot = Ncat/(fspec*fcuts*fvis), with fspec, fcuts, and fvis measured from external comparison samples (SDSS, Li et al. 2025, Nayak et al. 2024), so the ~50% figure is a propagated recovery fraction rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The PCEB fraction uses the external eclipsing fraction from Parsons et al. (2013) and Santos-García et al. (2025) as a benchmark, converting 63/920 eclipsing systems into 38-57%; this is arithmetic, not circular. The selection region and SED grids are inherited from earlier work (Rebassa-Mansergas et al. 2021b), but those self-citations define inputs, not conclusions, and are not load-bearing for any central claim. The unvalidated visual classification of Gaia XP spectra (no false-positive rate or inter-inspector agreement) is a genuine correctness and validation concern, but it is not circular: the classifier is not defined in terms of the catalogue statistics, and the completeness comparisons against external catalogues provide an independent anchor. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks; no reduction of a predicted quantity to an input by construction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physics: it applies existing Gaia quality cuts, existing model grids (CIFIST, Koester, La Plata), and the public VOSA fitting tool. The free parameters are not fitted physical quantities but hand-chosen selection thresholds (CMD region, excess factor, RUWE, chi2, reliability cuts) and the three completeness-budget fractions of Eq. (4); every one of them shapes the final catalogue and should be varied in re-analyses. The axioms are standard domain assumptions: the model grids represent single stars, the distance and extinction maps are correct, a human can recognise WDMS pairs in Gaia XP spectra, and the three bias factors multiply independently. The weakest is the human classifier, which is unvalidated.

free parameters (6)
  • CMD bridge region boundaries = as defined in Rebassa-Mansergas et al. 2021b, not reproduced here
    Hand-drawn selection region in the Gaia Gabs vs. GBP-GRP diagram from which the initial 126,787 candidates are drawn (Section 2); determines which binaries are in scope.
  • Excess factor cut thresholds = |C*| >= 0.3 (GBP-GRP < 0.5), 0.2 (0.5-4), 0.1 (> 4)
    Hand-chosen quality cut on Gaia photometric excess used to remove spurious sources; the authors note any such cut removes real WDMS binaries, so it drives both contamination and completeness (Section 2).
  • Astrometric quality cuts = RUWE < 3; astrometric_excess_noise < 3 and astrometric_excess_noise_sig < 3
    Relaxed versions of the canonical Gaia cuts (RUWE < 1.4 etc.), justified by Belokurov et al. (2020) statistics; removes roughly a quarter of candidates and is one of the main completeness losses (Section 2, Table 1).
  • VOSA single-star exclusion threshold = chi2 < 10 for single-star grids
    Threshold below which a source is considered a single star and removed (37,712 plus 10,769 objects); the authors switched from a Vgfb < 15 cut because it removed real WDMS (Section 2).
  • Reliable-fit selection cuts = WD Teff > 10,000 K; WD mass > 0.35 M_sun; GALEX match when available
    Post-hoc criteria deciding which two-body SED fits are published; define the 435-object parameter sub-sample and are disclosed as a response to VOSA's tendency to produce spurious low-mass, low-temperature white dwarfs (Section 3).
  • Completeness budget fractions = fspec = 0.10, fcuts = 0.88, fvis = 0.60
    Inputs to Eq. (4) that fix Ntot = 24,848 and hence the ~5% and ~50% completeness figures; fspec and fcuts are stated as lower/upper limits and are estimated from external samples (SDSS, Li et al. 2025), not from the catalogue itself (Section 4.5).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The CIFIST grid with solar metallicity adequately represents single main-sequence stars for the purpose of exclusion.
    Invoked in Section 2 when 37,712 objects with chi2 < 10 are removed; the authors explicitly note the grid lacks low metallicities, which is why low-metallicity subdwarfs survive into the visual inspection stage.
  • domain assumption The Koester hydrogen-rich white dwarf grid represents single white dwarfs for exclusion.
    Used to remove 10,769 single or double white dwarfs (Section 2); the grid stops at 40,000 K, so hotter white dwarfs are not excluded and must be removed by eye.
  • domain assumption Geometric distances (Bailer-Jones 2023) and 3D extinction maps (Lallement et al. 2014) are reliable for all catalogued sources.
    Both are inputs to the VOSA fits and hence to the derived luminosities, radii and masses (Sections 2-3); at large distances and low latitudes, extinction errors propagate into all parameters.
  • domain assumption A human reader can identify a WDMS binary from a low-resolution Gaia XP spectrum when both components contribute flux.
    The central membership test (Section 2); the authors state it is biased against mild blue/red excess systems and that roughly 40% of SDSS-confirmed WDMS show no second component in Gaia spectra (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption The three bias factors in Eq. (4) (fspec, fcuts, fvis) combine independently to give the total completeness.
    The completeness estimate Ncat/Ntot ~ 5% assumes multiplicative independence of spectral availability, quality-cut survival, and spectral visibility; the authors present each as a rough limit rather than a measured joint distribution (Section 4.5).
  • domain assumption The fraction of eclipsing PCEBs among all PCEBs is 12-18%, as found in prior work.
    Used in Section 5 to convert 63/920 ZTF-accessible eclipsing systems into a PCEB fraction of 38-57%; the authors note the 12-18% benchmark depends on the period and mass distributions and that selection biases favour eclipsing systems.
  • domain assumption The La Plata cooling sequences correctly map effective temperature and radius to surface gravity and mass for white dwarfs.
    Section 3 interpolates Teff and radius in the La Plata hydrogen-rich cooling sequences to obtain logg, then masses via g = GM/R^2; all reported white-dwarf masses inherit this model dependence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A magnitude-limited catalogue of unresolved white dwarf-main sequence binaries from Gaia DR3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NVS7PL5

@misc{pith2026250515895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A magnitude-limited catalogue of unresolved white dwarf-main sequence binaries from Gaia DR3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NVS7PL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15895}
}
read the original abstract

Binary stars containing a white dwarf and a main-sequence star, WDMS binaries, can be used to study a wide range of aspects of stellar astrophysics. We build a magnitude-limited sample of unresolved WDMS binaries from Gaia DR3 to enlarge these studies. We look for WDMS with available spectra whose location in the Gaia colour-magnitude diagram bridges between the evolutionary sequences of single white dwarfs and the main-sequence. To exclude spurious sources we apply quality cuts on the Gaia photometry and astrometry and we fit the SED (spectral energy distribution) of the objects with VOSA (Virtual Observatory SED Analyser) to exclude single sources. We further clean the sample via visual inspection of the Gaia spectra and publicly available images of the objects. We re-fit the SEDs of the finally selected WDMS with VOSA using composite models to measure their stellar parameters and we search for eclipsing systems by inspecting available ZTF and CRTS light curves. The catalogue consists of 1312 WDMS and we manage to derive stellar parameters for 435. This is because most WDMS are dominated by the main-sequence companions, making it hard to derive parameters for the white dwarfs. We also identify 67 eclipsing systems and estimate a lower limit to the completeness of the sample to be ~50% (~5% if we consider that not all WDMS in the studied region have Gaia spectra). Our catalogue increases by one order of magnitude the volume-limited sample we presented in our previous work. Despite the fact that the sample is incomplete and suffers from heavy observational biases, it is well characterised and can therefore be used to further constrain binary evolution by comparing the observed properties to those from synthetic samples obtained modeling the WDMS population in the Galaxy, taking into account all selection effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results of our criteria imposed on the Gaia date release 3 data base to select WDMS binaries (see details in Section 2). Top left: in blue the 126 787 sources within the WDMS binary region defined by the black solid lines (Rebassa-Mansergas et al. 2021b) with available spectra and satisfying parallax and flux relative errors above 10%. The gray dots illustrate the expected location of single white dwarfs and main-se… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example spectra of a WDMS binary (top, Gaia ID 1057463111970047488; note that in this work we use the DR3 IDs), a cataclysmic variable (middle top, Gaia ID 3703726255561754880), a hot white dwarf (middle bottom, Gaia ID1060659289192635904) and a low-mass low-metallicity subdwarf as revealed by the broad absorption feature at ∼ 7000 Å (bottom, Gaia ID 1048217078174314496) arising from the visual inspection of the Gai… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example images illustrating WDMS candidates (red squares) for being contaminated by the presence of nearby sources. Left panel: POSS/DSS blue image of Gaia ID 2055951194776633600. Right panel: Pan-STARSS g-band image of Gaia ID 2776554794743195648 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From top to bottom, the distribution of white dwarf effective tem￾peratures, surface gravities, masses and secondary star effective temper￾atures derived from 435 WDMS binaries with reliable VOSA two-body fits. compare our catalogue to the largest spectroscopic sample …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of two-body VOSA fits. The top panel shows a typi￾cal MS-dominated WDMS binary in our sample. The combination of models (purple for the secondary star and cyan for the white dwarf) seem to fit relatively well the observed data (red dots). However, the effective…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between the white dwarf effective temperatures (bottom) and surface gravities (middle) as well as main-sequence star effective temperatures (top) for 54 WDMS binaries with VOSA reliable two-body fits and spectroscopic parameters derived from SDSS spectra. Th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Confusion matrices representing the level of agreement between our catalogue and other samples: Rebassa-Mansergas et al. (2021b) (top left), Nayak et al. (2024) (top right), Li et al. (2025) (bottom left) and the SDSS WDMS sample (bottom right). The values within the m…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example spectra of WDMS binaries in the list of Li et al. (2025) that we do not consider as such. Gaia source IDs are 767397543537053312 (top) and 5952567592693723904 (bottom). not featured in the Gaia spectra. Two examples are shown in Fig￾ure 9. It is worth noting th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example spectra of WDMS binaries displaying red (top; Gaia ID 904263926328520320) and blue (bottom; Gaia ID 686844023151243904) excess clearly visible in the SDSS spectra (black) but diluted in the Gaia spectra (red). proximately the maximum distance at which the SDSS …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CRTS and ZTF phase-folded photometry for 4 of the 67 eclips￾ing systems in the sample. Two orbits are shown for clarity and the respective Gaia DR3 source IDs are displayed in the bottom right of each panel. The estimated PCEB fraction among WDMS in our sample seems t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., Freytag, B., Scha ffenberger, W., & Rajpurohit, A. S. 2013, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 24, 128

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Córsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19

    2013

  3. [3]

    R., Stassun, K

    Anguiano, B., Majewski, S. R., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 126

    2022

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 17

    Arseneau, S., Chandra, V ., Hwang, H.-C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 17

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2023, AJ, 166, 269 Article number, page 11 of 12 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54700-25

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    & Chanamé, J

    Barrientos, M. & Chanamé, J. 2021, ApJ, 923, 181

    2021

  7. [7]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascués, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277

    2008

  8. [8]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    Belokurov, V ., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922

    2020

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5237

    Benitez, N., Dupke, R., Moles, M., et al. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1403.5237

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24

    2017

  3. [11]

    J., Parsons, S

    Brown, A. J., Parsons, S. G., van Roestel, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1880

    2023

  4. [12]

    & Diaz, M

    Bruch, A. & Diaz, M. P. 1998, AJ, 116, 908

    1998

  5. [13]

    2014, A&A, 566, A86

    Camacho, J., Torres, S., García-Berro, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A86

    2014

  6. [14]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A87

    2019

  7. [15]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 158

    2016

  8. [16]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18

    2020

  9. [17]

    L., Heintz, T

    Chiti, F., van Saders, J. L., Heintz, T. M., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 15

    2024

  10. [18]

    2017, MN- RAS, 470, 1442

    Cojocaru, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Torres, S., & García-Berro, E. 2017, MN- RAS, 470, 1442

    2017

  11. [19]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y .-H., Chu, Y .-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    2012

  12. [20]

    J., Kolb, U., & Willems, B

    Davis, P. J., Kolb, U., & Willems, B. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 179 de Jong, R. S., Bellido-Tirado, O., Brynnel, J. G., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX...

    2010

  13. [21]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001

    2020

  14. [22]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870

    2009

  15. [23]

    2022, A&A, 667, A144

    Echeverry, D., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., & Ferrer-Burjachs, A. 2022, A&A, 667, A144

    2022

  16. [24]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72

    2011

  17. [25]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

    2018

  18. [26]

    W., & Wachter, S

    Farihi, J., Hoard, D. W., & Wachter, S. 2010, ApJS, 190, 275 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A33

    2010

  19. [27]

    A., Parsons, S

    Garbutt, J. A., Parsons, S. G., Toloza, O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4840 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., Gänsicke, B. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 4570

    2024

  20. [28]

    M., Drout, M

    Grondin, S. M., Drout, M. R., Nordhaus, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 102

    2024

  21. [29]

    2024, ApJ, 970, L11

    Hallakoun, N., Shahaf, S., Mazeh, T., Toonen, S., & Ben-Ami, S. 2024, ApJ, 970, L11

    2024

  22. [30]

    2010, Mem

    Koester, D. 2010, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 81, 921

    2010

  23. [31]

    R., Bergeron, P., & Kupfer, T

    Kosakowski, A., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Bergeron, P., & Kupfer, T. 2022, MN- RAS, 516, 720

    2022

  24. [32]

    L., Valette, B., et al

    Lallement, R., Vergely, J. L., Valette, B., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A91

    2014

  25. [33]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14494

    Li, J., Ting, Y .-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14494

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2012, A&A, 538, A78

    Lindegren, L., Lammers, U., Hobbs, D., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A78

    2012

  27. [35]

    Mamajek, E. E. & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1264 Marín-Franch, A., Chueca, S., Moles, M., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8450, Modern Technologies in Space- and Ground-based Telescopes and Instrumentat...

    2008

  28. [36]

    R., Gänsicke, B

    Marsh, T. R., Gänsicke, B. T., Hümmerich, S., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 374

    2016

  29. [37]

    2023, A&A, 674, A16

    Mowlavi, N., Holl, B., Lecoeur-Taïbi, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A16

    2023

  30. [38]

    K., Ganguly, A., & Chatterjee, S

    Nayak, P. K., Ganguly, A., & Chatterjee, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6100 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A43 Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Schwope, A. D., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2009, A&A, 495, 561 O’Donoghue, D., Koen, C., Kilkenny, D., e...

    2024

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    G., Agurto-Gangas, C., Gänsicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., Agurto-Gangas, C., Gänsicke, B. T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2194

    2015

  33. [41]

    G., Brown, A

    Parsons, S. G., Brown, A. J., Casewell, S. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2112

    2025

  34. [42]

    G., Gänsicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4473

    2017

  35. [43]

    G., Gänsicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1083

    2018

  36. [44]

    G., Gänsicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 256

    2013

  37. [45]

    G., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M

    Parsons, S. G., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2125

    2016

  38. [46]

    Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V ., & Evans, N. W. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5270 Pérez-Couto, X., Manteiga, M., & Villaver, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.04672

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Priyatikanto, R., Knigge, C., Scaringi, S., Brink, J., & Buckley, D. A. H. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1183

    2022

  40. [48]

    T., Brady, S., et al

    Pyrzas, S., Gänsicke, B. T., Brady, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 817

    2012

  41. [49]

    T., Marsh, T

    Pyrzas, S., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 978

    2009

  42. [50]

    2025, A&A, 695, A131

    Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Torres, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A131

    2025

  43. [51]

    2022, A&A, 658, A22

    Raddi, R., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A22

    2022

  44. [52]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 1377

    Koester, D. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1377

    2007

  45. [53]

    T., Schreiber, M

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., Koester, D., & Rodríguez-Gil, P. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 620

    2010

  46. [54]

    T., Schreiber, M

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Gänsicke, B. T., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1635

    2008

  47. [55]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4787

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Maldonado, J., Raddi, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4787

    2023

  48. [56]

    R., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 806

    2012

  49. [57]

    R., Girven, J., & Gänsicke, B

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Nebot Gómez-Morán, A., Schreiber, M. R., Girven, J., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1121

    2011

  50. [58]

    G., Dhillon, V

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S. G., Dhillon, V . S., et al. 2019, Nature As- tronomy, 3, 553

    2019

  51. [59]

    G., García-Berro, E., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S. G., García-Berro, E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1575

    2017

  52. [60]

    R., & Gänsicke, B

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M. R., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3570

    2013

  53. [61]

    J., Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al

    Ren, J. J., Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 38

    2020

  54. [62]

    J., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S

    Ren, J. J., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4641

    2018

  55. [63]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3

    2021

  56. [64]

    M., Rix, H.-W., et al

    Rybizki, J., Green, G. M., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2597 Santos-García, A., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., & Brown, A. J. 2025, A&A, 695, A161

    2022

  57. [65]

    R., Belloni, D., Gänsicke, B

    Schreiber, M. R., Belloni, D., Gänsicke, B. T., Parsons, S. G., & Zorotovic, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 648

    2021

  58. [66]

    R., Gänsicke, B

    Schreiber, M. R., Gänsicke, B. T., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 513, L7

    2010

  59. [67]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729

    Shahaf, S., Hallakoun, N., Mazeh, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3729

    2024

  60. [68]

    V ., Shridharan, B., Mathew, B., et al

    Sidharth, A. V ., Shridharan, B., Mathew, B., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A68

    2024

  61. [69]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  62. [70]

    2023, The Messenger, 190, 4

    Toloza, O., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Raddi, R., et al. 2023, The Messenger, 190, 4

    2023

  63. [71]

    & Nelemans, G

    Toonen, S. & Nelemans, G. 2013, A&A, 557, A87

    2013

  64. [72]

    M., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., & Solano, E

    Torres, S., Canals, P., Jiménez-Esteban, F. M., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., & Solano, E. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5462

    2022

  65. [73]

    Webbink, R. F. 2008, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 352, As- trophysics and Space Science Library, ed. E. F. Milone, D. A. Leahy, & D. W. Hobill, 233

    2008

  66. [74]

    & Kolb, U

    Willems, B. & Kolb, U. 2004, A&A, 419, 1057

    2004

  67. [75]

    J., Newton, E

    Wright, N. J., Newton, E. R., Williams, P. K. G., Drake, J. J., & Yadav, R. K. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2351

    2018

  68. [76]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Rees, N. R., et al. 2024, PASP, 136, 084202

    2024

  69. [77]

    K., Oswalt, T

    Zhao, J. K., Oswalt, T. D., Willson, L. A., Wang, Q., & Zhao, G. 2012, ApJ, 746, 144

    2012

  70. [78]

    R., Gänsicke, B

    Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., Gänsicke, B. T., & Nebot Gómez-Morán, A. 2010, A&A, 520, A86

    2010

  71. [79]

    R., Parsons, S

    Zorotovic, M., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3867 Article number, page 12 of 12

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.