Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Astronomical Cardiology: A Search For Heartbeat Stars Using $\textit{Gaia}$ and $\textit{TESS}$

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 Heartbeat-star pulses are a signature of hotter, slightly evolved binary primaries, not a random slice of close binaries.

desk verdict New catalog of ~108 TESS heartbeat stars from Gaia SB1/SB2 samples; the temperature trend is promising but needs completeness modeling. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14869 v2 pith:7MGALCHC submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.SR

Jowen Callahan , D. M. Rowan , C. S. Kochanek , K. Z. Stanek This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords heartbeatstarsspectroscopicbinariesTESSphotometryGaiaDR3tidaldeformationstellarevolutioneclipsingtidallyexcitedoscillations
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

Heartbeat stars are close, eccentric binaries whose mutual tides make their phase-folded light curves look like an electrocardiogram. The paper tries to establish that these systems are not a random slice of short-period binaries but are concentrated in hotter, slightly evolved stars. It does this by starting from known spectroscopic binaries in the Gaia catalog rather than scanning the whole sky, then folding their TESS light curves to find 112 new heartbeat systems. On the color-magnitude diagram the non-giant heartbeat stars lie above the main sequence at fixed color, meaning their primaries have begun to evolve, and the fraction of systems showing heartbeat pulses climbs steeply with stellar temperature, topping 1% among the hottest single-lined binaries. A sympathetic reading of the result is that heartbeat visibility is set by the balance between stellar evolution and tidal dissipation.

What carries the argument

Eq. (1) of the paper: a normalized flux model of the form $Z + S [1 - 3 \sin^2 i \sin^2(\nu + \omega)] / (1 - e \cos E)^3$, with the true anomaly $\nu$ and eccentric anomaly $E$ connected to period and time through Kepler's equation. This analytic tidal model converts the electrocardiogram-like phase-folded pulse into estimates of period, eccentricity, inclination, and argument of periastron without a full binary light-curve fit. The search uses known Gaia spectroscopic binaries as the parent sample, selects candidates by a chi-squared ratio against a straight-line fit plus an eccentricity cut, and then filters visually. The statistical part of the argument compares color-magnitude positions and heartbeat fractions in color bins, interpreted through the competition between stellar evolutionary time scales, which set the tidal amplitude, and dissipation time scales, which set how long the pulse lasts.

What would settle it

Simulate injecting synthetic heartbeat light curves with realistic period, eccentricity, and amplitude distributions into TESS photometry across the full color range, then run the same search pipeline to measure detection completeness as a function of color; if completeness falls for red stars, the observed drop in heartbeat fraction across the Kraft break could be a selection effect rather than a property of the binary population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that heartbeat stars preferentially appear in hotter, slightly evolved binary systems rather than being a uniform sample of short-period binaries. The authors start from 186,905 spectroscopic binaries in the Gaia DR3 catalog, fold their TESS light curves, and identify 112 heartbeat systems with periods between 1.5 and 12.2 days and eccentricities up to 0.57. For single-lined systems, 85% of the periods and eccentricities agree with the Gaia orbital solutions, while only two of the ten double-lined systems agree, a mismatch the authors attribute to sparse radial-velocity sampling and the hot, early-type nature of these stars. For those two double-lined systems, the light curve together with the Gaia velocity amplitudes yields component masses and radii consistent with massive detached eclipsing binaries. On the color-magnitude diagram the non-giant heartbeat stars are more luminous at fixed color than their parent binary samples, and the heartbeat fraction rises rapidly with effective temperature, exceeding 1% for the hottest single-lined systems.

Load-bearing premise

The temperature trend rests on the assumption that the search detects heartbeat pulses around cool stars about as easily as around hot stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Among hot short-period Gaia single-lined binaries, more than 1% show heartbeat pulses, so the phenomenon is common rather than rare in that regime.
  • Because non-giant heartbeat stars sit above the main sequence at fixed color, finding one is a sign that the primary has started evolving off the main sequence.
  • The rapid drop in heartbeat fraction across the Kraft break implicates convective envelopes and long evolutionary timescales as the suppression mechanism.
  • Only 2 of 10 double-lined heartbeat systems have Gaia orbital solutions in agreement with the light-curve orbits, so short-period hot SB2 solutions from Gaia DR3 need independent radial velocities or DR4 data.
  • The 18 eclipsing and 10 tidally oscillating systems among the 112 provide specific targets for measuring tides and stellar interiors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the temperature trend survives a completeness correction, it predicts that hot binaries of the same period and eccentricity should outnumber cool ones as heartbeat sources by a large factor; that can be tested by injecting synthetic heartbeat signals into the same TESS data.
  • The same search strategy applied to binaries selected by radial-velocity scatter rather than a full orbital solution could recover longer-period heartbeat systems that short TESS sectors alias.
  • With better radial velocities, the two successfully modeled double-lined systems show the route to homogeneous masses and radii of massive stars from heartbeat light curves alone.
  • Because convective-envelope depth sets the dissipation rate, the model implies the heartbeat fraction at fixed temperature should depend on metallicity, a testable prediction once larger samples exist.
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 searches for heartbeat stars among Gaia DR3 single-lined (SB1) and double-lined (SB2) spectroscopic binaries using TESS Quick-Look Pipeline light curves. The authors identify 112 new heartbeat systems, fit their phase-folded light curves with the analytic Kumar et al. (1995) model, and compare the fitted periods, eccentricities, and arguments of periastron with the Gaia orbital solutions. For the two SB2 systems with apparently consistent orbits, they use PHOEBE, with Gaia velocity semi-amplitudes as priors, to derive stellar masses and radii. The paper also presents a statistical analysis of the heartbeat-star fraction as a function of color, concluding that non-giant heartbeat stars are evolved off the main sequence and that the fraction of binaries that are heartbeat stars rises rapidly with effective temperature.

Significance. If the population-level conclusions hold, this is one of the largest homogeneous samples of short-period heartbeat stars and provides a new route to discovering them from spectroscopic-binary catalogs. The two PHOEBE mass/radius measurements are a useful addition to the sparse set of heartbeat stars with direct stellar parameters. The main population claim—that the heartbeat fraction rises rapidly with effective temperature and drops across the Kraft break—would be an important constraint on tidal dissipation and binary evolution, but it is not yet securely established because the search's detection efficiency as a function of color is not characterized. The paper's catalog of 112 new HBs and its comparison with Gaia orbits are of independent value.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Fig. 12] The central claim that the HB fraction rises rapidly with effective temperature is not yet supported because the search's detection efficiency as a function of color is not modeled. Cooler, lower-mass stars are expected to have smaller tidal amplitudes and, below the Kraft break, different damping timescales, making their heartbeat signals harder to detect in TESS data. The selection region (R<0.5 and e>0.15, §2.2 and Fig. 3) was calibrated using only the 10 SB2 HBs, and the final sample also depends on visual inspection; both steps are likely color-dependent. No injection/recovery or completeness simulation is presented. The drop in Fig. 12 from roughly 10^-1 near BP-RP<0.5 to roughly 10^-4 near BP-RP~1 could therefore be dominated by declining sensitivity rather than by the underlying binary fraction. Please provide a completeness correction or a quantitative argument that detection efficiency is flat across color after the period and giant cuts.
  2. [§3, Fig. 8] The statement that 85% of SB1 HBs and 20% of SB2 HBs have orbital parameters that are 'consistent' with the Gaia solutions is not verifiable because the agreement criterion is not defined. The dashed lines in Fig. 8 are described only as 'the range we consider a reasonable match.' Please specify the tolerance explicitly (e.g., fractional period difference, eccentricity difference) and show how the 85%/20% numbers depend on that choice. This is load-bearing because the comparison underpins the PHOEBE modeling and the discussion of Gaia orbit quality, and because a loose criterion would make the agreement rate trivially high.
  3. [§4, Fig. 12] The definition of the 'fraction' plotted in Fig. 12 is not clearly specified. The axis label 'Fraction (NHB/Nnot)' suggests N_HB / N_non-HB, while the text says 'fraction of HBs' and the figure caption says 'median fraction of HBs.' If the denominator excludes the HBs themselves, the values will differ from N_HB/N_total, especially at the blue end where the fraction is around 10^-1. Please state the exact definition and ensure it is applied consistently in both panels, as this quantity is the basis of the paper's principal statistical conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2)] The formula for the true anomaly is garbled; it should read ν = 2 tan^{-1}( sqrt(1+e)/sqrt(1-e) tan(E/2) ). Please correct.
  2. [§3] The sentence 'the score statistic seems to be a limited indicator of the Gaia orbit quality, as almost all of the targets with incorrect Gaia P, e, or ω also have S<0.587' is confusing: finding that bad orbits also pass the nominal good-orbit cutoff does show the score is not sufficient, but the phrasing reads as if the low scores themselves are the problem. Please rephrase.
  3. [Fig. 5] The legend entry 'Gaia Clean Score Stars' is not defined in the caption; state that this refers to SB1 systems with a Bashi et al. (2022) score S<0.587.
  4. [Table 1] The table references the supplementary file 'SBTABLE.full' but gives no description of its columns or how the full table can be accessed; please add a short explanation.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase '85% of the single-line spectroscopic binaries' could be misread as applying to all Gaia SB1s; suggest '85% of the single-line spectroscopic binary heartbeat stars' for clarity.
  6. [Before Fig. 11] There is a stray line 'Screenshot from 2025-06-20 14-36-03.png' in the text; please remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is self-contained, with measured orbital parameters compared against independent Gaia solutions and population statistics referenced to external catalogs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The 112 heartbeat-star discoveries are selected by fitting TESS phase-folded light curves with the Kumar et al. (1995) analytic model and comparing chi2_HB to chi2_line; the reported periods, eccentricities, inclinations, and arguments of periastron are fitted parameters that are then compared against independent Gaia DR3 orbital solutions, not predictions derived from the model's own inputs. The mass and radius measurements for the two SB2 systems combine independent Gaia K1 and K2 velocity semi-amplitudes as Gaussian priors with PHOEBE fits, so the outputs are not forced to reproduce the inputs beyond a standard Bayesian update. The population claims (luminosity offset and HB fraction vs. color) are direct descriptive statistics of the detected sample relative to the Gaia SB1/SB2 denominator. The concern that color-dependent detection efficiency is unmodeled is a validity or selection-function caveat for interpreting the fraction, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define the fraction in terms of the fitted amplitudes, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation (Rowan et al. 2023) is a methodological reference for combining Gaia radial velocities with photometry and is not load-bearing for any central claim, which is benchmarked against external catalogs (Gaia, OGLE, Kepler, and other TESS surveys).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis carries over the Gaia DR3 binary catalog, the TESS QLP photometry pipeline, the Kumar et al. (1995) analytic light curve model, and the PHOEBE binary modeling package without re-deriving them. The choice of the SB1 period cut, the selection region calibrated on the SB2 sample, and the undefined 'agreement' tolerance are the main hand-set inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SB1 selection region (R < 0.5, e > 0.15) = R < 0.5, e > 0.15
    Chosen by hand to enclose the 10 SB2 HBs in Fig. 3; directly determines which SB1 systems are retained for visual inspection.
  • SB1 period cut = P < 13 days
    Chosen so at least two binary orbits fit in one TESS sector; restricts the sample and affects all period statistics.
  • Giant branch cutoff = M_G < 4 (BP-RP - 2)
    Empirical cut to remove giants before computing median magnitudes; imperfect for BP-RP > 1 mag, as the authors note.
  • Orbital agreement tolerance = not quantified (dashed lines in Fig. 8)
    The criterion for 'consistent' Gaia-vs-TESS orbital parameters is never defined numerically; the 85% and 20% matching rates depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Kumar et al. (1995) analytic model (Eq. 1) captures the phase-folded HB light curve shape well enough to recover unbiased orbital parameters.
    Used for all light curve fits; ignores limb darkening, higher-order tidal terms, and possible spot or pulsation contamination.
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR3 SB1/SB2 orbital solutions that match the TESS fits are correct; the non-matching SB2 solutions are assumed to be wrong due to sparse RV sampling.
    The two PHOEBE mass/radius measurements rely on Gaia K1 and K2 for the two systems deemed consistent; Section 3.
  • domain assumption The parent samples (Gaia SB1 with P<13 days and SB2) are suitable normalizations for computing HB fractions, and the detection efficiency of the HB search is roughly flat across the color range studied.
    Section 4 and Fig. 12; if detection efficiency drops toward cooler stars, the trend of decreasing HB fraction is partly a selection artifact.
  • standard math Distances and extinctions from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) and mwdust are accurate enough for CMD placement.
    Used for the Gaia CMD (Fig. 6); the authors restrict to good parallaxes (pi/sigma > 10) and low extinction (AV < 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Astronomical Cardiology: A Search For Heartbeat Stars Using $\textit{Gaia}$ and $\textit{TESS}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MGALCHC

@misc{pith2026250614869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Astronomical Cardiology: A Search For Heartbeat Stars Using $\textitGaia$ and $\textitTESS$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MGALCHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14869}
}
abstract

Heartbeat stars are a subclass of binary stars with short periods, high eccentricities, and phase-folded light curves that resemble an electrocardiogram. We start from the $\textit{Gaia}$ catalogs of spectroscopic binaries and use $\textit{TESS}$ photometry to identify 112 new heartbeat star systems. We fit their phase-folded light curves with an analytic model to measure their orbital periods, eccentricities, inclinations, and arguments of periastron. We then compare these orbital parameters to the $\textit{Gaia}$ spectroscopic orbital solution. Our periods and eccentricities are consistent with the $\textit{Gaia}$ solutions for 85$\%$ of the single-line spectroscopic binaries but only 20$\%$ of the double-line spectroscopic binaries. For the two double-line spectroscopic binary heartbeat stars with consistent orbits, we combine the $\textit{TESS}$ phase-folded light curve and the $\textit{Gaia}$ velocity semi-amplitudes to measure the stellar masses and radii with $\texttt{PHOEBE}$. In a statistical analysis of the heartbeat star population, we find that non-giant heartbeat stars have evolved off the main sequence and that the fraction of the systems that are heartbeat stars rises rapidly with effective temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Examples of heartbeat star phase-folded light curves created using the Kumar et al. (1995) model, varying the orbital eccentricities (e= 0.4, left three columns and e= 0.6, right three columns), for a range of arguments of periastron (horizontal) and inclinations (vertical). This Figure is based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The phase-folded light curves (upper panel) and the model residuals (lower panel) for nine of the double-line spectroscopic heartbeat binaries. The lines are the Kumar et al. (1995) models. The text boxes show the TESS input catalog (TIC), eccentricity, and period (days) of each target. TABLE 1 The results of the light curve curve fit, Gaia score, period, and eccentricity, flags for whether the orbital parameters … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — The density distribution of the 𝜒 2 ratio 𝑅 and eccentricity for the fits to all the Gaia stars (grey background). We defined the selection region based on the results for the SB2 HBs (dots). The final models of the SB1 HBs (stars) can lie outside the selection region when masking eclipses leads to changes in the model. 2.2. SB1 Modeling Since there are 181,529 Gaia SB1 orbital solutions, we performed a semi-autom… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Examples of the phase folded light curves of single-line spectroscopic heartbeat binaries with the light curves binned by one hour. The model residuals are shown below each light curve. The text boxes show the TESS input catalog (TIC), eccentricity, and period (days)…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — The distribution of heartbeat stars in period and eccentricity, where the ones discussed here are the stars (SB1) and circles (SB2). The grey background is the distribution of all the "clean" Gaia SB1s (Bashi et al. 2022). The triangles are the Wrona et al. (2022a,b)…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Examples of targets with tidally excited oscillations. The left panel shows the phase folded binned light curves, the model and the model residual. The text boxes show the TESS input catalog (TIC), eccentricity, and period (days) of each target. The right panel shows…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Colour Magnitude Diagram (CMD) of the Gaia SB1 and SB2 systems (grey and purple background), the SB1 (stars) and SB2 (dots) HBs detected here, and the HB systems (triangles) from Wrona et al. (2022a,b), Shporer et al. (2016), Li et al. (2023), Dimitrov et al. (2017),…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Comparisons of the Gaia SB1 orbital parameters and those from the HB fits in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — The posteriors from the PHOEBE MCMC models of TIC 98552498 for the mass ratio, q, primary mass, primary radius, secondary radius, eccentricity, inclination, and 𝜔. The projected probability distribution for each parameter and their 1𝜎 error bars (vertical lines) are …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The posteriors from the PHOEBE MCMC models of TIC 76094846. Cycle 8, which includes longer 54 day sectors and “rolled” sectors where some parts of the sky will be observed over consecutive sectors. It might also be possible to search for longer periods in TESS and t…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Mean magnitudes in 0.1 mag wide colour bins for stars below the "Giant Branch Cutoff". The curves labeled SB1 and SB2 are for all the Gaia binaries, the SB1 HB and SB2 HB curves are for the heartbeat stars found here, and the HB stars curve is for all HBs used in […
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — The median fraction of HBs as a function of colour. Here the colour bins are done in slices parallel to the Kraft break (Kraft 1967; Schatzman 1962; Beyer & White 2024) line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

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. Astronomical Cardiology II: A Search For Heartbeat Stars Using APOGEE and TESS

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new search of APOGEE binaries with TESS light curves finds 50 heartbeat stars, including 36 new systems, and confirms that the detected fraction rises sharply with stellar temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    Badenes C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..147B 854, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa765 2018

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    H., Gamen R

    Barb \'a R. H., Gamen R. C., Mart \' n-Ravelo P., Arias J. I., Morrell N. I., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2173 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.1149B 516, 1149

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2173 2022

  5. [5]

    W., Jorissen A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3888B 517, 3888

    Bashi D., Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Faigler S., Dong S., El-Badry K., Rix H. W., Jorissen A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3888B 517, 3888

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2928 2022

  6. [6]

    Blomme R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243685 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...7B 674, A7

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243685 2023

  7. [7]

    M., Schlafly E

    Bovy J., Rix H.-W., Green G. M., Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..130B 818, 130

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/130 2016

  8. [9]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [10]

    E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..250...34C 250, 34

    Conroy K. E., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..250...34C 250, 34

    2020 doi

  2. [11]

    Cropper M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...5C 616, A5

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    P., Kjurkchieva D

    Dimitrov D. P., Kjurkchieva D. P., Iliev I. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.2089D 469, 2089

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

    Drimmel R., Cabrera-Lavers A., L \'o pez-Corredoira M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..205D 409, 205

    2003 doi

  6. [15]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  7. [16]

    Fuller J., Lai D., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20237.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.420.3126F 420, 3126

    2012

  8. [17]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  10. [19]

    64, EAS Publications Series

    Hambleton K., et al., 2013, in Pavlovski K., Tkachenko A., Torres G., eds, EAS Publications Series Vol. 64, EAS Publications Series. pp 285--294, @doi 10.1051/eas/1364039

    2013

  11. [20]

    Hon M., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/adbf21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...984L...3H 984, L3

    2025 doi

  12. [21]

    X., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..204H 4, 204

    Huang C. X., et al., 2020, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020RNAAS...4..204H 4, 204

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    Z., Kochanek C

    Jayasinghe T., Stanek K. Z., Kochanek C. S., Thompson T. A., Shappee B. J., Fausnaugh M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.4705J 489, 4705

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    Jayasinghe T., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1920 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.4083J 506, 4083

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    Kirk B., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....151...68K 151, 68

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    2017 doi

  17. [26]

    E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506L..40K 506, L40

    Kochukhov O., Labadie-Bartz J., Khalack V., Shultz M. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slab066 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506L..40K 506, L40

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Ko aczek-Szyma \'n ski P. A., Pigulski A., Michalska G., Mo \'z dzierski D., R \'o \.z a \'n ski T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039553 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A..12K 647, A12

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    A., Pigulski A., Wrona M., Ratajczak M., Udalski A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..47K 659, A47

    Ko aczek-Szyma \'n ski P. A., Pigulski A., Wrona M., Ratajczak M., Udalski A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...659A..47K 659, A47

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    P., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..551K 150, 551

    Kraft R. P., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..551K 150, 551

    1967 doi

  21. [30]

    O., Quataert E

    Kumar P., Ao C. O., Quataert E. J., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176055 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...449..294K 449, 294

    1995 doi

  22. [31]

    Li M.-Y., Qian S.-B., Zhu L.-Y., Liao W.-P., Zhao E.-G., Shi X.-D., Sun Q.-B., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acca13 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..266...28L 266, 28

    2023 doi

  23. [32]

    arXiv:2407.18621

    Li M.-Y., et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18621 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240718621L p. arXiv:2407.18621

    doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    arXiv:2408.01019

    Li M.-Y., et al., 2024b, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240801019L p. arXiv:2408.01019

    arXiv

  25. [34]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  26. [35]

    arXiv:2503.17133

    MacLeod M., Loeb A., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2503.17133 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250317133M p. arXiv:2503.17133

    2025 doi arXiv

  27. [36]

    J., Robin A

    Marshall D. J., Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Schultheis M., Picaud S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...453..635M 453, 635

    2006 doi

  28. [37]

    I., Chen \'e A.-N., Barb \'a R

    Mart \' n-Ravelo P., Gamen R., Arias J. I., Chen \'e A.-N., Barb \'a R. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...690A.306M 690, A306

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    J., Zahn J

    Mazeh T., 2008, in Goupil M. J., Zahn J. P., eds, EAS Publications Series Vol. 29, EAS Publications Series. pp 1--65 ( @eprint arXiv 0801.0134 ), @doi 10.1051/eas:0829001

    2008 arXiv

  30. [39]

    S., S \'a nchez Arias J

    Merc J., Kalup C., Rathour R. S., S \'a nchez Arias J. P., Beck P. G., 2021, @doi [Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso] 10.31577/caosp.2021.51.1.45 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021CoSka..51...45M 51, 45

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    J., Paunzen E., Bedding T

    Murphy S. J., Paunzen E., Bedding T. R., Walczak P., Huber D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1271 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1888M 495, 1888

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    V., Kuzmin A

    Nesterov V. V., Kuzmin A. V., Ashimbaeva N. T., Volchkov A. A., R \"o ser S., Bastian U., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&AS..110..367N 110, 367

    1995

  33. [42]

    M., Burkart J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3036O 440, 3036

    O'Leary R. M., Burkart J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu335 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.3036O 440, 3036

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    Paunzen E., H \"u mmerich S., Fedurco M., Bernhard K., Kom z \' k R., Va n ko M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.3749P 504, 3749

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..192....3P 192, 3

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    Paxton B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....4P 208, 4

    2013 doi

  37. [46]

    Paxton B., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..220...15P 220, 15

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    Paxton B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...34P 234, 34

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Pr s a A., Zwitter T., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/430591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...628..426P 628, 426

    2005 doi

  40. [49]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..227...29P 227, 29

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    R \"o ser S., Bastian U., 1993, Bulletin d'Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993BICDS..42...11R 42, 11

    1993

  43. [52]

    R \"o ser S., Bastian U., Kuzmin A., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AS..105..301R 105, 301

    1994

  44. [53]

    M., Jayasinghe T., Stanek K

    Rowan D. M., Jayasinghe T., Stanek K. Z., Kochanek C. S., Thompson T. A., Shappee B. J., Giles W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1560 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.2641R 523, 2641

    2023 doi

  45. [54]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  46. [55]

    Schatzman E., 1962, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AnAp...25...18S 25, 18

    1962

  47. [56]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    N., Bedding T

    Sharma A. N., Bedding T. R., Saio H., White T. R., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1816 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515..828S 515, 828

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    Shporer A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...829...34S 829, 34

    2016 doi

  50. [59]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abcb81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..252...23S 252, 23

    Skowron D. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abcb81 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..252...23S 252, 23

    2021 doi

  51. [60]

    Solanki S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad8a62 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..276...17S 276, 17

    2025 doi

  52. [61]

    F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..953S 224, 953

    Stellingwerf R. F., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156444 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..953S 224, 953

    1978 doi

  53. [62]

    E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...86T 753, 86

    Thompson S. E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/86 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...753...86T 753, 86

    2012 doi

  54. [63]

    Torres G., Andersen J., Gim \'e nez A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&ARv..18...67T 18, 67

    2010 doi

  55. [64]

    F., Grundahl F., Chen T., Pall \'e P

    Wang K., Ren A., Andersen M. F., Grundahl F., Chen T., Pall \'e P. L., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acdac9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....166...42W 166, 42

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    F., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197....4W 197, 4

    Welsh W. F., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/1/4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197....4W 197, 4

    2011 doi

  57. [66]

    Wheeler A., Kipping D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz775 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.5498W 485, 5498

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    Wrona M., et al., 2022a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...16W 259, 16

    doi

  59. [68]

    A., Ratajczak M., Koz owski S., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac56e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928..135W 928, 135

    Wrona M., Ko aczek-Szyma \'n ski P. A., Ratajczak M., Koz owski S., 2022b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac56e6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928..135W 928, 135

    doi

Pith tools

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