Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 97 references

Magnetic White Dwarfs in the SDSS 100 pc Sample: Further Evidence of Two Formation Channels

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the largest volume-limited sample of magnetic white dwarfs, this paper argues that they split into two formation channels: young, massive, strong-field objects from mergers, and old, average-mass, weak-field objects from single…

desk verdict The paper's real contribution is the sample; the 'strong evidence' for two populations overstates what the statistics justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06102 v1 pith:SDZWRQT2 submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Adam Moss , Mukremin Kilic , Pierre Bergeron , Warren R. Brown , Gracyn Jewett , Marcel A. Agüeros , Maria Camisassa , Anthony Burrow This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords magneticwhitedwarfsformationchannelsGaussianmixturemodelKolmogorov-Smirnovtestfieldstrengthcrystallizationdynamocore-convectivedwarfmergers
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 studies all 163 magnetic white dwarfs in the SDSS 100 pc volume-limited sample, 87 of them newly discovered, and argues that these objects fall into two statistically distinct populations formed by two different mechanisms. The young, massive, strong-field group (centered at 1.8 Gyr, 0.96 $M_\odot$, 84 MG) is best explained as merger remnants, while the old, average-mass, weak-field group (centered at 2.9 Gyr, 0.71 $M_\odot$, 3.7 MG) appears to come from single-star evolution. Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on field strengths and masses split by a 2 Gyr cooling age give p-values below 0.05, and a Gaussian mixture model recovers the same two clusters. The authors further argue that crystallization-driven dynamos reach the surface too slowly to explain many of the older objects, and that a core-convective dynamo operating on the main sequence provides a better match. If correct, this points to a common evolutionary picture in which stellar mass and binary history, not the white dwarf cooling process alone, decide which white dwarfs become magnetic.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on three pieces of machinery. First, a volume-limited sample: all white dwarfs within 100 pc in the SDSS footprint with optical spectroscopy, 86-91% complete for targets hotter than 5000-6000 K, from which 163 magnetic white dwarfs are identified, mostly by Zeeman splitting of Balmer lines. Second, offset-dipole model atmospheres (a magnetic geometry with a dipole displaced from the star's center) used to fit effective temperature, mass, cooling age, and field strength for the newly discovered objects. Third, the statistical separation itself: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests compare field-strength and mass distributions for white dwarfs younger and older than 2 Gyr, and a two-component Gaussian mixture model clusters the sample in the three-dimensional space of mass, cooling age, and field strength. The dynamo interpretation is carried by comparing the observed mass-age distribution with theoretical breakout times for a crystallization dynamo and emergence times for a main-sequence core-convective dynamo.

What would settle it

Conduct a spectropolarimetric survey of the same SDSS 100 pc volume sensitive to fields down to about 0.1 MG and to white dwarfs cooler than 6000 K. If it finds numerous young, average-mass white dwarfs with weak fields, or old, cool white dwarfs with fields above roughly 100 MG, the K-S and GMM separation should dissolve; if such objects remain rare or absent, the two-population claim survives. A quantitative version: add the missing populations at the rates implied by the 20 pc spectropolarimetric sample and recompute the two-sample K-S p-values; if they rise above 0.05, the claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that magnetic white dwarfs are not one population with a single field origin. Using model-atmosphere fits and a Gaussian mixture model on mass, cooling age, and field strength, the paper identifies two clusters: a young, massive, strong-field group centered at 1.8 Gyr, 0.96 $M_\odot$, 84 MG, and an old, average-mass, weak-field group centered at 2.9 Gyr, 0.71 $M_\odot$, 3.7 MG. Splitting the sample at a 2 Gyr cooling age, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests reject the null hypothesis that the two age groups share the same mass and field-strength distributions, with p-values of $2.3 \times 10^{-8}$ for mass and 0.01 for field strength. The paper interprets the first group as dominated by merger remnants and the second as products of single-star evolution, with magnetic fields generated earlier in the star's life (a core-convective dynamo on the main sequence) rather than by crystallization alone. It also reports that the magnetic fraction rises with mass and with cooling age out to 2-3 Gyr, and that known rotation periods are shorter for the young, massive objects, consistent with a merger origin.

Load-bearing premise

The split into two groups is real and not an artifact of what the survey can detect: the sample misses fields below about 1 MG and misses magnetic white dwarfs whose hydrogen or helium lines have disappeared, and if those missing objects fill the gap between the two clusters, the statistical evidence for two populations would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two-population split holds, most white dwarfs with masses above roughly 0.9 $M_\odot$, young cooling ages, and fields stronger than about 10 MG are merger remnants, so binary evolution becomes the dominant route to the strongest magnetic fields.
  • The old, average-mass magnetic white dwarfs require a field generated before or during the star's earlier evolution; a crystallization dynamo alone cannot explain their cooling ages because the field would not have reached the surface yet.
  • The magnetic fraction of white dwarfs should increase with mass for young objects but stay roughly flat with mass for old objects, which is exactly the trend the paper finds when splitting the sample at 2 Gyr.
  • Future surveys with better sensitivity to weak fields and to featureless cool white dwarfs should find more magnetic objects in the old, average-mass group, raising the overall magnetic fraction above the 5.2% measured here.
  • Rotation periods of magnetic white dwarfs should be shorter on average than those of non-magnetic ones, with the fastest rotators concentrated among the young, massive, likely merged objects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-population picture is correct, it predicts that a spectropolarimetric survey of the same 100 pc volume, sensitive to fields below 1 MG, should find young, average-mass magnetic white dwarfs only at very low space density, and that filling them in would not erase the two clusters.
  • The merger-dominated interpretation implies a testable link between kinematics and binarity: the young, massive magnetic group should show signs of past binary interaction (fast rotation, white dwarf companions, or the low tangential velocities typical of a thin-disk origin), while the old group should look kinematically like ordinary single white dwarfs.
  • A quantitative falsifier of the dynamo interpretation would come from asteroseismic measurements of core rotation in average-mass magnetic white dwarfs: if their fields are fossilized core-convective dynamo products, core rotation and field strength should correlate more tightly than the current sample can show.
  • The GMM centers themselves are a prediction for larger samples: adding the DESI, SDSS-V, and 4MOST white dwarf discoveries should either sharpen the same two centroids or reveal a third population at very old ages and very strong fields that the current survey's detection biases hide.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a model atmosphere analysis of 163 magnetic white dwarfs in the SDSS 100 pc sample, 87 of which are new discoveries, and reports field strengths, masses, and cooling ages for most of them. The authors use two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests with a 2 Gyr age split and a two-component Gaussian mixture model to argue for two distinct populations: young, massive, strongly magnetic objects attributed to mergers, and old, average-mass, weakly magnetic objects attributed to single-star evolution with fields from a core-convective dynamo. They also present rotation periods and tangential velocities and discuss selection biases against weak fields and featureless spectra.

Significance. If the two-population claim is established, this work would provide the strongest volume-limited evidence to date for the dual formation channel scenario, considerably extending earlier work by Bagnulo & Landstreet using a much larger sample. The paper ships a substantial new catalog, public model fits on Zenodo, and a careful qualitative discussion of detectability limits, including synthetic spectra in Figure 21. However, the statistical evidence as presented is incomplete, and the interpretive step favoring a core-convective dynamo relies heavily on a theory paper co-authored by a member of this team. The underlying data and sample are valuable, but the central claim currently outruns the analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2] The GMM analysis is presented as evidence of two populations, but the paper never compares the two-component model against a one-component null model. A two-component Gaussian mixture fit will generally return two centroids for any skewed or heavy-tailed distribution, so the reported centers at 2.9 Gyr/0.71 Msun/3.7 MG and 1.8 Gyr/0.96 Msun/84 MG do not, by themselves, demonstrate bimodality. Please add a formal model comparison (BIC/AIC or a likelihood-ratio test with a sensible null) and state whether the field strength was log-transformed before fitting.
  2. [§5.1] The Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests show that the mass and field-strength distributions differ between the young and old age groups, but they do not establish the existence of two distinct populations. A continuous monotonic trend in mass and field strength with age would produce the same significant p-values, and the authors' own cutoff scan (significant for B only between 1.0 and 3.5 Gyr) is more naturally read as a gradual shift than as a sharp separation. The K-S results should be framed as evidence of a location difference, not as evidence of bimodality.
  3. [§5.1 and §6.1] Selection biases are acknowledged qualitatively but are not propagated into the statistical tests. The sample is incomplete for fields below roughly 1 MG and for cool, featureless WDs that could host strong fields; both omissions plausibly accentuate the difference between the young and old groups. The synthetic spectra in Figure 21 define detectability thresholds, and the arguments from Bagnulo & Landstreet (2022) suggest the missed populations are small, but no quantitative correction or sensitivity analysis is performed. Please estimate the expected number of missed objects and state how the K-S p-values and GMM centroids would be affected under conservative completeness assumptions.
  4. [§6.3] The interpretation that the old, low-mass population is explained by a main-sequence core-convective dynamo relies on the emergence timescales of Camisassa et al. (2024), and Maria Camisassa is a co-author of the present paper. This is not a statistical error, but the dependence should be acknowledged explicitly, and the paper should clarify whether the two-population conclusion would survive if the Camisassa et al. timescales were substantially revised. Ideally the statistical claim should be stated independently of the dynamo interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title/author list] The title contains a typo ('T wo Formation Channels') and the author list has 'W arren'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Figure 19] The caption does not state whether the ellipses are 1/2/3-sigma contours in the full three-dimensional space or after marginalization onto each pair of axes; please clarify.
  3. [§5.2] The text says 'the algorithm detects two groups,' but the number of components is fixed by the user; a more precise phrasing would be 'a two-component model was fit, yielding two groups.'
  4. [Table 3 and §5.1] The exact number of objects entering each K-S test should be given (152 of 163 have field measurements, and some have NA masses or ages); sample sizes strongly affect the p-values and should be reported alongside the test statistics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-population claim is built on new observational data, and the self-citations used for interpretation are independent, non-circular inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is observational rather than a first-principles derivation. Magnetic field strengths, masses, and cooling ages come from model-atmosphere fits and literature values; the K-S tests compare pre-defined young/old subsamples, and the GMM is run with a fixed two-component model. The number of components is an assumed hyperparameter, not a fitted quantity, so reporting two cluster centers does not reduce to the input by construction; the absence of a one-component comparison weakens the statistical support but is not circularity. The interpretive reliance on Camisassa et al. (2024) and Moss et al. (2024) involves co-authors, but those citations supply independent theoretical emergence-time and model-atmosphere calculations that do not assume the present sample's target conclusion. No step fits a parameter to the claimed output and then re-presents it as a prediction, and no cited uniqueness theorem is used to forbid alternatives. The two-population conclusion could be strengthened by explicit model selection, but the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted parameters (age split and GMM centers) and on domain assumptions about white dwarf interior composition and dynamo emergence times. No new physical entities are postulated. The most notable ledger item is the reliance on a co-authored theoretical model for the dynamo interpretation.

free parameters (2)
  • Cooling age split threshold = 2 Gyr
    Used to divide young and old MWD populations for K-S tests; authors test a range of 0.5 to 4.0 Gyr and adopt 2 Gyr based on Bagnulo & Landstreet (2022).
  • GMM component means = (2.9 Gyr, 0.71 Msun, 3.7 MG) and (1.8 Gyr, 0.96 Msun, 84 MG)
    Gaussian mixture model centers fit to the same mass/cooling age/field strength data; no uncertainties or model comparison provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Core composition assumed equal C and O (X_O = 0.5) for cooling models.
    Section 6.3 explicitly states the assumption; a higher oxygen abundance would shift crystallization onset and alter the apparent correlation with magnetism.
  • domain assumption Offset dipole model geometry for magnetic field fits (viewing angle and dipole offset).
    Section 3 describes the offset dipole fits; the derived field strengths depend on this assumed geometry.
  • domain assumption Evolutionary models for mass and cooling age (Bédard et al. 2020, with C/O cores).
    Masses and cooling ages in Table 3 come from these models; if the models are wrong, the cluster centers shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Emergence timescale for core-convective dynamo from Camisassa et al. 2024.
    The paper uses these timescales to conclude that core-convective dynamos explain more old MWDs than crystallization dynamos; this is a load-bearing interpretation and the cited work has overlapping authorship.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic White Dwarfs in the SDSS 100 pc Sample: Further Evidence of Two Formation Channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDZWRQT2

@misc{pith2026250706102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic White Dwarfs in the SDSS 100 pc Sample: Further Evidence of Two Formation Channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDZWRQT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06102}
}
abstract

We conduct a model atmosphere analysis on all magnetic white dwarfs in the SDSS 100 pc sample. We have 163 magnetic targets in this sample, 87 of which are new discoveries, making this the largest volume-limited survey of magnetic white dwarfs to date. We discuss the distribution of multiple parameters, including mass, cooling age, and field strength. We find strong evidence of two populations of magnetic white dwarfs that form through separate mechanisms based on a cluster analysis of these parameters. The young, high mass objects typically have high field strengths which indicate a merger origin, while old, average mass objects have weaker fields that likely originated through a crystallization-induced dynamo or previous evolution stages. When comparing young and old objects, two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests yield statistically significant differences between the field strengths and masses of the magnetic targets. We use a Gaussian mixture model to identify where these populations lie in parameter space, and we find two groups centered at distinct cooling ages, masses, and field strengths: 2.9 Gyr, 0.71 $M_{\odot}$, 3.7 MG and 1.8 Gyr, 0.96 $M_{\odot}$, 84 MG respectively. Our results further support the dual formation channel previously reported in the literature. The occurrence of magnetism strongly correlates with the onset of crystallization. However, given the breakout times required for a crystallization dynamo, we find that many of our older, average mass objects can be better explained with a core-convective dynamo that forms on the main-sequence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the Gaia color-magnitude diagram of the 100 pc sample with the magnetic targets highlighted and the evolutionary sequences for a 0.6𝑀⊙ and 0.8𝑀⊙ WD with pure H atmospheres (Tremblay et al. 2011; Blouin et al. 2019; Bédard et al. 2020). We immediately see an above-average mass tendency in hotter MWDs, while the cooler ones are more concentrated among average mass WDs. This is in line with the results from Bagnu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Offset dipole fit to the H𝛼 line of a DAH, J1754+3846. We obtain an excellent fit with a magnetic field strength of 5.0 MG. We also identify a DAP in our sample, SDSSJ000728.91+340341.4. This target was previously classified as a DCP (Berdyugin et al. 2024), however we de￾tect a weak H𝛼 feature in the optical spectrum from Limoges et al. (2015). Hence we classify this object now as a DAP. We use the spectrum obtaine… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fits to two targets that possess some of the highest field strengths in our sample. For J0800+0655 (top), absorption lines are present but significantly shifted from their zero-field positions. In contrast, the lines appear mostly smeared out for J0818+4144 (bottom). preliminary from our analysis with an “X” in the final column. We do not expect this to affect our results, which depend more on the order of magnitude… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example fit to a target with a low field strength (< 1 MG). While Zeeman-splitting is not obvious, the shape of the line profile compared to that of a typical DA suggests the presence of a magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the distribution of field strengths. Our sample is dominated by lower field objects, specifically those between 1 and 10 MG. There is a sharp decline in the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar masses as a function of effective temperature for all spectroscopically confirmed WDs in the SDSS 100 pc sample. Objects that are classified as magnetic in the literature and in this work are colored by field strength. We have field strength measurements for 15…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Field strength as a function of effective temperature, with mass indicated by color. There is a noticeable distinction between objects that are hotter/colder than ∼8000 K, with cooler objects having lower mass than hotter objects. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Mass (M ) 0 1 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass distributions of the hydrogen-dominated atmosphere WDs in the 100 pc sample. Each histogram is normalized such that the area under the curve is equal to one. The non-magnetic distribution peaks at 0.59 𝑀⊙ with a broad shoulder, while the magnetic distribution peak…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass as a function of cooling age colored by field strength. We see evidence of 2 distinct populations of MWDs, with lower mass objects possessing lower field strengths typically having longer cooling ages. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cooling Age (Gyr) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 1…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panel: the fraction of MWDs with H-dominated atmospheres in the SDSS 100 pc sample as a function of mass. Each mass bin is 0.1 𝑀⊙ wide. The trend in magnetic fraction is similar across each sample. Bottom panel: the fraction of MWDs with H-dominated atmospheres bu…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: ZTF light curve and Lomb-Scargle for J1852+1833. There is a significant signal at 0.48 hours. The median period for our 26 objects is 0.69 hours. This result is notably shorter than the results found by Hernan￾dez et al. (2024) and Oliveira da Rosa et al. (2024), who …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows an example TESS light curve and pe￾riodogram for a variable DAH, SDSSJ015342.00+180857.9 (J0153+1808). There is a significant signal at 1.69 hours in 2 TESS sectors, and (Oliveira da Rosa et al. 2024) obtains the same period. While we do not detect a signal for …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Mass-age distribution of our sample with the objects that have known rotation periods marked with red triangles. The majority of our objects with known periods are young and high mass. velocities. But Cheng et al. (2020) found that ∼30% of their targets with masses > …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Tangential velocity distribution for the DAHs in our sample. The high-mass MWDs in our sample have velocities almost exclusively below 50 km/s, while more average mass and older MWDs show a large dispersion in their velocities. investigate these channels, we split the…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Cumulative distribution of stellar masses separated by cooling age for the MWDs (top panel) and the non-magnetic DA WDs (bottom panel). The dashed lines show the upper and lower mass limits from our fits. Errors of less than 5% are extremely common. Older MWDs tend to…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: shows the same mass-cooling age plot but with the points marked by which cluster the GMM assigns each point to. For example, there are 3 points at ∼0.8 𝑀⊙ and ∼5 Gyr, but they have field strengths larger than 10 MG, so the algorithm classifies them as belonging to the…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Synthetic spectra for a 0.75 𝑀⊙ WD and fixed magnetic field geometry. The left, middle, and right panels show 𝑇eff = 10, 000, 8, 000, 6, 000 K respectively. Each spectrum is labeled with its field strength, with weaker fields at the bottom of each panel. Augustson et …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Mass as a function of a cooling age with points colored by field strength. The left panel shows the onset of crystallization (green line) and the breakout time for a crystallization-induced dynamo (purple line) as calculated by (Blatman & Ginzburg 2024). The right pan…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

  2. [2]

    write newline

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

  3. [3]

    ˓ /3r7p l[C/ܜ oK ixƽ 5 R#9 0͉י y w x ?] Lr M0 ? >A:+xG Ā6 9 @T o Aw8opl* \]]& ?:/< E>A xD+ F aDz׆2Zg v R̖AIlg t!L

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    Achilleos , N., & Wickramasinghe , D. T. 1989, , 346, 444, 10.1086/168024

    work page doi:10.1086/168024 1989

  5. [5]

    F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al

    Almeida , A., Anderson , S. F., Argudo-Fern \'a ndez , M., et al. 2023, , 267, 44, 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  6. [6]

    L., Kepler , S

    Amorim , L. L., Kepler , S. O., K \"u lebi , B., Jordan , S., & Romero , A. D. 2023, , 944, 56, 10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaf6e 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Ag \"u eros , M

    Andrews , J. J., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Gianninas , A., et al. 2015, , 815, 63, 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/63

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/1/63 2015

  8. [8]

    Angel , J. R. P., & Landstreet , J. D. 1971, , 164, L15, 10.1086/180682

    doi:10.1086/180682 1971

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Angel , J. R. P., & Landstreet , J. D. 1972, , 178, L21, 10.1086/181076

    1972 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Brun , A

    Augustson , K. C., Brun , A. S., & Toomre , J. 2016, , 829, 92, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/2/92

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Bagnulo , S., & Landstreet , J. D. 2021, , 507, 5902, 10.1093/mnras/stab2046

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Bagnulo , S., & Landstreet , J. D. 2022, , 935, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Bagnulo , S., & Landstreet , J. D. 2024, , 692, A174, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451386

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    D., Mason , E., et al

    Bagnulo , S., Landstreet , J. D., Mason , E., et al. 2006, , 450, 777, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054223

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

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

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

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Bagnulo , S., Piirola , V., & Berdyugina , S

    Berdyugin , A., Landstreet , J. D., Bagnulo , S., Piirola , V., & Berdyugina , S. V. 2024, , 690, A10, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450527

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, , 876, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    Bergeron , P., Dufour , P., Fontaine , G., et al. 2019, , 876, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Bergeron , P., Ruiz , M.-T., & Leggett , S. K. 1992, , 400, 315, 10.1086/171997

    1992 doi

  11. [19]

    Bergeron , P., Ruiz , M.-T., & Leggett , S. K. 1993, , 407, 733, 10.1086/172554

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, , 528, 3153, 10.1093/mnras/stae222

    Blatman , D., & Ginzburg , S. 2024, , 528, 3153, 10.1093/mnras/stae222

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Blouin , S., Dufour , P., Thibeault , C., & Allard , N. F. 2019, , 878, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f82

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S

    Brasseur , C. E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S. W., Mullally , S. E., & White , R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007

    2019

  15. [23]

    P., Ferrario , L., Tout , C

    Briggs , G. P., Ferrario , L., Tout , C. A., & Wickramasinghe , D. T. 2018, , 478, 899, 10.1093/mnras/sty1150

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    S., Burleigh , M

    Brinkworth , C. S., Burleigh , M. R., Lawrie , K., Marsh , T. R., & Knigge , C. 2013, , 773, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/47

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Browning , M

    Brun , A. S., Browning , M. K., & Toomre , J. 2005, , 629, 461, 10.1086/430430

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Kirkpatrick , J

    Burgasser , A. J., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Reid , I. N., et al. 2003, , 586, 512, 10.1086/346263

    2003 doi

  19. [27]

    2020, , 901, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafa2

    Burrow , A., Baron , E., Ashall , C., et al. 2020, , 901, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafa2

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, , 901, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb5f7

    Caiazzo , I., Heyl , J., Richer , H., et al. 2020, , 901, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb5f7

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Schreiber , M

    Camisassa , M., Fuentes , J. R., Schreiber , M. R., et al. 2024, , 691, L21, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452539

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    2016, , 824, 14, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/14

    Cantiello , M., Fuller , J., & Bildsten , L. 2016, , 824, 14, 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/14

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2024, , 975, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a6a

    Castro-Tapia , M., Zhang , S., & Cumming , A. 2024, , 975, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7a6a

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    D., M \'e nard , B., & Toonen , S

    Cheng , S., Cummings , J. D., M \'e nard , B., & Toonen , S. 2020, , 891, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    P., Koposov , S

    Cooper , A. P., Koposov , S. E., Allende Prieto , C., et al. 2023, , 947, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c0

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Day, N. E. 1969, Biometrika, 56, 463, 10.1093/biomet/56.3.463

    1969 doi

  27. [35]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3, 10.18727/0722-6691/5117

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, , 529, L164, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae014

    Farihi , J., Robert , A., & Walters , N. 2024, , 529, L164, 10.1093/mnrasl/slae014

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Ferrario , L., de Martino , D., & G \"a nsicke , B. T. 2015, , 191, 111, 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012

    Ferrario , L., Wickramasinghe , D., & Kawka , A. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2015, , 582, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526725

    Fossati , L., Castro , N., Sch \"o ller , M., et al. 2015, , 582, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526725

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    R., Castro-Tapia , M., & Cumming , A

    Fuentes , J. R., Castro-Tapia , M., & Cumming , A. 2024, , 964, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3100

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Cumming , A., Castro-Tapia , M., & Anders , E

    Fuentes , J. R., Cumming , A., Castro-Tapia , M., & Anders , E. H. 2023, , 950, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/accb56

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, , 749, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/25

    Garc \' a-Berro , E., Lor \'e n-Aguilar , P., Aznar-Sigu \'a n , G., et al. 2012, , 749, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/25

    2012 doi

  35. [43]

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

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P.-E., G \"a nsicke , B. T., et al. 2019, , 482, 4570, 10.1093/mnras/sty3016

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 879045, 10.3389/fspas.2022.879045

    Giammichele , N., Charpinet , S., & Brassard , P. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 879045, 10.3389/fspas.2022.879045

    2022

  37. [45]

    2018, , 554, 73, 10.1038/nature25136

    Giammichele , N., Charpinet , S., Fontaine , G., et al. 2018, , 554, 73, 10.1038/nature25136

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    2022, , 514, 4111, 10.1093/mnras/stac1363

    Ginzburg , S., Fuller , J., Kawka , A., & Caiazzo , I. 2022, , 514, 4111, 10.1093/mnras/stac1363

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, , 520, 6111, 10.1093/mnras/stad196

    Hardy , F., Dufour , P., & Jordan , S. 2023, , 520, 6111, 10.1093/mnras/stad196

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    J., G \"a nsicke , B

    Hermes , J. J., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Kawaler , S. D., et al. 2017, , 232, 23, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8bb5

    2017 doi

  41. [49]

    S., Schreiber , M

    Hernandez , M. S., Schreiber , M. R., Landstreet , J. D., et al. 2024, , 528, 6056, 10.1093/mnras/stae307

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    P., K \"a pyl \"a , P

    Hidalgo , J. P., K \"a pyl \"a , P. J., Schleicher , D. R. G., Ortiz-Rodr \' guez , C. A., & Navarrete , F. H. 2024, , 691, A326, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449977

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

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

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

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, , 836, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    Isern , J., Garc \' a-Berro , E., K \"u lebi , B., & Lor \'e n-Aguilar , P. 2017, , 836, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2024, , 974, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    Jewett , G., Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., et al. 2024, , 974, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Kawaler , S. D. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. P. Dufour , P. Bergeron , & G. Fontaine , 65, 10.48550/arXiv.1410.6934

    2015 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Kawka , A. 2020, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 357, White Dwarfs as Probes of Fundamental Physics: Tracers of Planetary, Stellar and Galactic Evolution, ed. M. A. Barstow , S. J. Kleinman , J. L. Provencal , & L. Ferrario , 60--74, 10.1017/S1743921320000745

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Swedlund , J

    Kemp , J. C., Swedlund , J. B., Landstreet , J. D., & Angel , J. R. P. 1970, , 161, L77, 10.1086/180574

    1970 doi

  49. [57]

    O., Pelisoli , I., Jordan , S., et al

    Kepler , S. O., Pelisoli , I., Jordan , S., et al. 2013, , 429, 2934, 10.1093/mnras/sts522

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    2025, , 979, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

    Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., Blouin , S., et al. 2025, , 979, 157, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    2020, , 898, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d

    Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., Kosakowski , A., et al. 2020, , 898, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    G., Bergeron , P., & Conly , A

    Kilic , M., Kosakowski , A., Moss , A. G., Bergeron , P., & Conly , A. A. 2021, , 923, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3b60

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Kolmogorov , A. N. 1933, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 4, 251

    1933

  54. [62]

    u lebi , B., Jordan , S., Euchner , F., G \

    K \"u lebi , B., Jordan , S., Euchner , F., G \"a nsicke , B. T., & Hirsch , H. 2009, , 506, 1341, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912570

    2009 doi

  55. [63]

    Landstreet , J. D. 2015, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 307, New Windows on Massive Stars, ed. G. Meynet , C. Georgy , J. Groh , & P. Stee , 311--320, 10.1017/S1743921314007017

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    D., & Angel , J

    Landstreet , J. D., & Angel , J. R. P. 1971, , 165, L67, 10.1086/180718

    1971 doi

  57. [65]

    Liebert , J., Bergeron , P., & Holberg , J. B. 2003, , 125, 348, 10.1086/345573

    2003 doi

  58. [66]

    T., & Smith , P

    Liebert , J., Ferrario , L., Wickramasinghe , D. T., & Smith , P. S. 2015, , 804, 93, 10.1088/0004-637X/804/2/93

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    T., Schmidt , G

    Liebert , J., Wickramasinghe , D. T., Schmidt , G. D., et al. 2005, , 129, 2376, 10.1086/429639

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

    M., Bergeron , P., & L \'e pine , S

    Limoges , M. M., Bergeron , P., & L \'e pine , S. 2015, , 219, 19, 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/19

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    J., G \"a nsicke , B

    Manser , C. J., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Inight , K., et al. 2023, , 521, 4976, 10.1093/mnras/stad727

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Maxted , P. F. L., Ferrario , L., Marsh , T. R., & Wickramasinghe , D. T. 2000, , 315, L41, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03636.x

    2000

  63. [71]

    P., et al

    McCleery , J., Tremblay , P.-E., Gentile Fusillo , N. P., et al. 2020, , 499, 1890, 10.1093/mnras/staa2030

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    J., & Peel , D

    McLachlan , G. J., & Peel , D. 2000, Finite Mixture Models, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics (John Wiley and Sons)

    2000

  65. [73]

    H., & Dunlap , B

    Montgomery , M. H., & Dunlap , B. H. 2024, , 961, 197, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad16dc

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, , 527, 10111, 10.1093/mnras/stad3825

    Moss , A., Bergeron , P., Kilic , M., et al. 2024, , 527, 10111, 10.1093/mnras/stad3825

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2023, , 523, 5598, 10.1093/mnras/stad1835

    Moss , A., Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., Firgard , M., & Brown , W. 2023, , 523, 5598, 10.1093/mnras/stad1835

    2023 doi

  68. [76]

    2004, , 418, 989, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959

    Nordstr \"o m , B., Mayor , M., Andersen , J., et al. 2004, , 418, 989, 10.1051/0004-6361:20035959

    2004 doi

  69. [77]

    W., Tremblay , P

    O'Brien , M. W., Tremblay , P. E., Klein , B. L., et al. 2024, , 527, 8687, 10.1093/mnras/stad3773

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    O., Soethe , L

    Oliveira da Rosa , G., Kepler , S. O., Soethe , L. T. T., Romero , A. D., & Bell , K. J. 2024, , 974, 314, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6987

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  72. [80]

    1995, , 449, 863, 10.1086/176103

    Putney , A., & Jordan , S. 1995, , 449, 863, 10.1086/176103

    1995 doi

  73. [81]

    B., Kerr , R., Heyl , J., et al

    Richer , H. B., Kerr , R., Heyl , J., et al. 2019, , 880, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2874

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    D., & Norsworthy , J

    Schmidt , G. D., & Norsworthy , J. E. 1991, , 366, 270, 10.1086/169559

    1991 doi

  75. [83]

    D., Harris , H

    Schmidt , G. D., Harris , H. C., Liebert , J., et al. 2003, , 595, 1101, 10.1086/377476

    2003 doi

  76. [84]

    R., Belloni , D., G \"a nsicke , B

    Schreiber , M. R., Belloni , D., G \"a nsicke , B. T., Parsons , S. G., & Zorotovic , M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 648, 10.1038/s41550-021-01346-8

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    2021, , 906, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e

    Schwab , J. 2021, , 906, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e

    2021 doi

  78. [86]

    2021, , 923, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac300a

    Serna , J., Hernandez , J., Kounkel , M., et al. 2021, , 923, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac300a

    2021 doi

  79. [87]

    Shorlin , S. L. S., Wade , G. A., Donati , J. F., et al. 2002, , 392, 637, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021192

    2002 doi

  80. [88]

    Smirnov , N. V. 1939, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10, 361

    1939

  81. [89]

    J., Guidry , J

    Steen , M., Hermes , J. J., Guidry , J. A., et al. 2024, , 967, 166, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e60

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    D., Toonen , S., Zapartas , E., Justham , S., & G \"a nsicke , B

    Temmink , K. D., Toonen , S., Zapartas , E., Justham , S., & G \"a nsicke , B. T. 2020, , 636, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936889

    2020 doi

  83. [92]

    A., Wickramasinghe , D

    Tout , C. A., Wickramasinghe , D. T., Liebert , J., Ferrario , L., & Pringle , J. E. 2008, , 387, 897, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13291.x

    2008

  84. [93]

    E., Ludwig , H

    Tremblay , P. E., Ludwig , H. G., Steffen , M., Bergeron , P., & Freytag , B. 2011, , 531, L19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117310

    2011 doi

  85. [94]

    1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Valyavin , G., & Fabrika , S. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 169, 11th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. S. E. Solheim & E. G. Meistas , 206

    1999

  86. [95]

    2011, , 734, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/17

    Valyavin , G., Antonyuk , K., Plachinda , S., et al. 2011, , 734, 17, 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/17

    2011 doi

  87. [96]

    Wegg , C., & Phinney , E. S. 2012, , 426, 427, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21394.x

    2012

  88. [97]

    T., & Ferrario , L

    Wickramasinghe , D. T., & Ferrario , L. 2005, , 356, 1576, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08603.x

    2005

  89. [98]

    A., Hermes , J

    Williams , K. A., Hermes , J. J., & Vanderbosch , Z. P. 2022, , 164, 131, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8543

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.