Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Double White Dwarf Binaries in SDSS-V DR19 : The discovery of a rare DA+DQ white dwarf binary with 31 hour orbital period

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SDSS J0906+0223 is a binary of two white dwarfs — a hydrogen-atmosphere DA and a carbon-atmosphere DQ — on a 31.17-hour orbit, making it the fourth known DA+DQ system.

desk verdict A new DA+DQ binary with secure double-lined RVs, but the headline 31.17 h period is only ~80% certain and the abstract oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11618 v1 pith:J7BNX6EX submitted 2025-07-15 astro-ph.SR

Gautham Adamane Pallathadka , Vedant Chandra , Boris T. Gansicke , Nadia L. Zakamska , Detlev Koester , Yossef Zenati , Nicole R. Crumpler , Stefan M. Arseneau
show 8 more authors
J. J. Hermes Matthias R. Schreiber Keivan G. Stassun Axel Schwope Kareem El-Badry Gagik Tovmassian Tim Cunningham Sean Morrison
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfbinariesDAdwarfsDQdouble-linedspectroscopicpost-commonenveloperadialvelocityfollow-upbinarystellarevolutioncarbondredge-up
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the discovery of SDSS J0906+0223, a binary in which both stars are white dwarfs: one a hydrogen-atmosphere DA star and the other a helium-atmosphere DQ star whose spectrum shows carbon Swan bands. It is only the fourth DA+DQ binary known and the second confirmed by radial-velocity follow-up, with hydrogen and carbon absorption lines moving in antiphase. The paper argues for an orbital period of 31.17 hours, masses of 0.42 and 0.49 solar masses for the DA and DQ components, and a formation history in which the lower-mass DA formed first through stable mass transfer and the more massive DQ formed later through a common-envelope phase. Because the merger timescale is about 450 billion years, the system will eventually merge into a single massive white dwarf. This matters because such rare binaries test the binary-evolution pathways and the spectral evolution of white dwarfs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double-lined spectrum itself: in each epoch, the hydrogen Balmer series and the carbon C2 Swan bands are modeled as the summed flux from two white-dwarf atmospheres, $f_\lambda = (r_\mathrm{DA}/d)^2 \pi F_{\lambda,\mathrm{DA}} + (r_\mathrm{DQ}/d)^2 \pi F_{\lambda,\mathrm{DQ}}$, with the two components' radial velocities measured independently from lines that shift in antiphase. The mass ratio follows from the ratio of the velocity semi-amplitudes through orbital mechanics, and the absolute masses come from converting fitted surface gravities and temperatures into mass and radius with white-dwarf cooling models, using a parallax prior to tie distance to radius. A periodogram search of the DA velocities identifies the 31.17-hour candidate, a sinusoidal orbit fit with Markov-chain Monte Carlo gives the orbital parameters, and a Monte Carlo contrast-ratio calculation estimates the probability that this period is the true one.

What would settle it

Measure radial velocities of the DA and DQ components roughly every two hours over a continuous 36-hour window. If the 31.17-hour period is correct, a sinusoid of that period will keep fitting the new points and the 13- and 19-hour periodogram peaks will not be preferred; if an alias is correct, the new velocities will instead phase better at the shorter period. A periodogram of the extended data that still shows the 13- or 19-hour peak as the best fit would refute the headline claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SDSS J0906+0223 is a double-lined DA+DQ white dwarf binary. Hydrogen Balmer lines from the DA star and C2 Swan bands from the DQ star shift in antiphase across 35 epochs of survey spectra and follow-up spectra, showing that both stars' surfaces contribute directly to the spectrum and allowing full dynamical characterization. Fitting the combined spectra, photometry, and measured parallax with a two-star atmosphere model yields an orbital period of 31.17 ± 0.05 hours, radial-velocity semi-amplitudes KDA = 99 ± 4 km/s and KDQ = 85 ± 7 km/s, an inclination of 78 ± 6 degrees, and masses of 0.42 ± 0.05 solar masses for the DA star and 0.49 ± 0.02 solar masses for the DQ star. The cooling ages (about 1 Gyr for the DQ and less than about 2 Gyr for the DA) imply the DA formed first, supporting an Algol-type evolution in which stable mass transfer produced the low-mass DA and a later common-envelope phase produced the more massive DQ. The paper estimates 80% confidence that 31.17 hours is the true period, noting that peaks near 13 and 19 hours are viable alternatives.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 31.17-hour period is the true orbital period: the observing cadence leaves 13- and 19-hour periods as viable alternatives, and the authors' Monte Carlo estimate gives only about an 80% chance that 31.17 hours is correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The system becomes the fourth known DA+DQ white dwarf binary and only the second confirmed by radial-velocity follow-up, so its parameters can be compared directly with the other three members of the class.
  • All four DA+DQ binaries have similar effective temperatures, surface gravities, and carbon abundances, hinting that they form through a common channel rather than scattered pathways.
  • The cooling-age ordering (DA older than DQ) supports the Algol-type scenario in which the first mass-transfer phase is stable Roche-lobe overflow and the second is a common-envelope phase; for periods of 13 hours or less, the formation history would instead be ambiguous between one or two common-envelope phases.
  • The measured masses give a total system mass near 0.9 solar masses and a merger timescale of about 450 Gyr, so the binary will eventually merge into a single massive white dwarf.
  • The DQ component's parameters match those of isolated DQ white dwarfs, with no sign of accreted material, consistent with the standard picture in which DQ stars form by carbon dredge-up as cooling DB stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a 13- or 19-hour period is the true one, the inferred masses and temperatures would remain largely the same, but the merger timescale and the Algol-type formation scenario would need revision, since a two-common-envelope origin could not be ruled out; a continuous radial-velocity campaign spanning about 36 hours would settle the alias.
  • The adopted pressure-shift correction for the DQ Swan bands, with proportionality constant $\alpha = 0.05$ calibrated against the population of isolated DQ stars, is a systematic that is not folded into the quoted parameter errors, so independent high-resolution spectroscopy of DQ binaries could test whether this calibration shifts the derived masses.
  • If the 31.17-hour period holds, the 0.42 solar-mass DA white dwarf likely has a hybrid helium/carbon/oxygen core, making this system a useful laboratory for core-composition-dependent cooling models; future ultraviolet photometry of the DA could discriminate between pure-helium and hybrid cores.
  • The similarity of the four known DA+DQ binaries suggests that wide-field spectroscopic surveys should be able to find enough additional members to turn this class from a handful of objects into a statistical sample within the next few years.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of SDSS J090618.44+022311.6, a double-lined white dwarf binary consisting of a DA and a DQ white dwarf, based on SDSS-V multi-epoch spectroscopy and Gemini GMOS follow-up. The authors measure anti-phase radial velocities, derive an orbital period of 31.17 hours, and obtain masses of 0.42 Msun (DA) and 0.49 Msun (DQ) from a joint fit of spectra, photometry, and radial-velocity constraints. They interpret the system as a product of Algol-type evolution (stable mass transfer followed by a common-envelope phase) and estimate a merger timescale of 450 Gyr. The binary nature is robustly established by the anti-phase velocity variations in independent data sets, but the orbital period is not uniquely determined by the current cadence.

Significance. If the 31.17-hour period is correct, this is the fourth known DA+DQ binary and the second confirmed with radial-velocity follow-up, making it a useful addition to the small sample of such systems. The paper combines a detailed spectral model grid, photometric fits with a Gaia parallax prior, and a Monte Carlo period-confidence estimate, which are valuable methodological features. However, the central scientific claims (masses, cooling ages, formation history, merger timescale) all depend on the period being 31.17 hours, and the manuscript itself reports that 13-hour and 19-hour aliases remain viable with an 80% correctness likelihood. This period ambiguity, plus an unexplained 37 km/s systemic-velocity offset between the two components, means that the headline results are not yet on as firm a footing as the abstract implies.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Section 3.1, Section 5.2] The abstract and title assert a 31.17-hour orbital period as a discovery, but Section 3.1 states that the cadence is insufficient to unambiguously determine the period and that peaks near 13 hours and 19 hours are viable solutions, with a Monte Carlo correctness likelihood of only about 0.8. Section 5.2 further concedes that for a 13-hour period the formation history is unclear and two common-envelope phases cannot be ruled out. Since the masses, cooling ages, merger timescale, and Algol-type evolutionary scenario all scale with the period, the load-bearing premise is not secure. The authors should either obtain additional radial-velocity measurements capable of breaking the alias or reframe the paper as reporting a likely period with explicit alternative solutions and derive the system parameters for each viable period.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3), Section 5.1] The claim in Section 5.1 that the spectrophotometric constraints and the dynamical constraints are consistent and 'act as an independent test of the DQ WD physics' is overstated. In Eq. (3), K_DA and K_DQ (which are determined by the orbital fit) are included as Gaussian priors in the spectral+photometric fit. Consequently, the agreement between the spectrophotometrically inferred masses and the dynamical masses is partly built into the fit rather than being an independent cross-check. Please clarify which quantities remain independent (e.g., the distance/radius constraints) and, ideally, demonstrate that the stellar parameters do not change significantly when the K priors are removed.
  3. [Section 3.1] The measured systemic velocities differ by 37 +- 9 km/s between the DA and DQ components after accounting for gravitational redshift. The authors attribute this to underestimated DQ radial-velocity errors and inaccurate measurements from low-SNR, low-resolution spectra, but no supporting analysis is presented. Because this offset is comparable to the RV semi-amplitudes (~99 and ~85 km/s) and could indicate a systematic error in the DQ wavelength scale or the pressure-shift correction, the authors should quantify the magnitude of the effect, test whether the offset is present in subsets (SDSS-V vs. Gemini), and demonstrate that it does not bias the derived orbital parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo in the introduction: 'donar star' should be 'donor star'.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Figure 5] The corner plot in Figure 5 shows the period parameter printed as '31.17 + 5.386e-06 - 5.765e-06', which is confusing because the uncertainty is effectively zero; the labels and units should be made clear (hours vs. the displayed factor of 10^-5).
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The text refers to 'non-uniform priors set by K_DA, K_DQ, and sin i', but Eq. (3) actually adds Gaussian constraints (a likelihood penalty), not Bayesian priors in the usual sense; consider using 'constraints' instead of 'priors' for clarity.
  4. [Table 1] The table footnote contains an asterisk with no corresponding entry in the table body; please either reference it where the uncertainties are described or remove the asterisk.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The quoted masses come from a combined fit that already includes the measured RV amplitudes as priors, so the claimed 'independent test' of DQ WD physics is partly built in; the binary/period discovery itself is independent, and the period ambiguity is a disclosed limitation rather than circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eq. (3); Section 5.1]
    "We refit the coadded SDSS-V spectrum with KDA as an additional parameter, and now include the non-uniform priors set by KDA, KDQ, and sin i ... The constraints we obtain from fitting the source's spectrum and SED are consistent with the dynamical constraints of the system and therefore act as an independent test of the DQ WD physics."

    The combined log-likelihood in Eq. (3) contains Gaussian priors on K_DA and K_DQ, (K_i - K_i,0)^2 / sigma_i,0^2, taken from the orbital fit. The quoted masses (m_DA = 0.42 M_sun, m_DQ = 0.49 M_sun) are the output of this same combined fit, so the dynamical mass ratio is an input to the fit rather than an external check. The later statement that the spectrophotometric and dynamical constraints are consistent 'and therefore act as an independent test' is therefore overstated: the agreement is partly enforced by construction because the priors pull the solution toward the measured RV amplitudes. This is a partial circularity rather than a definitional one, since the spectroscopy and photometry still provide real constraints on log g, radius, Teff, and distance.

full rationale

The double-lined binary nature and the 31.17 h period come directly from phase-resolved radial velocities via Lomb-Scargle periodogram and sinusoidal fitting, with no circular dependence on the atmospheric or cooling models. The period ambiguity (13 h and 19 h peaks) is explicitly disclosed in Section 3.1, and the authors give an honest Monte Carlo correctness likelihood of ~0.8; Section 5.2 further concedes that shorter periods would change the formation history. This is a limitation, not a circularity. The one genuine circular element is the 'independent test' claim in Section 5.1: the masses in Table 1 were obtained from a refit (Section 3.2) that adds Gaussian priors on K_DA and K_DQ from the orbital solution, so the agreement between spectrophotometric and dynamical constraints is partly built into the fit rather than being a fully independent verification. A secondary, minor issue is that the DQ pressure-shift parameter alpha = 0.05 is chosen to agree with the Koester & Kepler 2019 DQ sample and that same sample is later used in Figure 4 for comparison, so the consistency there is partly calibration-driven; however, this does not affect the central binary discovery. There are no load-bearing self-citation chains or uniqueness arguments, and the external atmosphere and cooling models are independent inputs. The central claim therefore retains independent content, warranting a moderate-low circularity score rather than a high one.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model has eight fitted stellar and photometric parameters plus orbital parameters, all constrained by data. External inputs are the LTE model atmospheres, the DQ pressure-shift calibration, and the assumed core compositions for the mass-radius and cooling relations. The only notable ad hoc choice is adopting the 31.17 hr period as the true period despite viable shorter aliases.

free parameters (10)
  • Pressure-shift alpha = 0.05
    Proportionality constant for C2 pressure shifts, chosen to match the DQ sample in Koester and Kepler (2019).
  • Teff_DA = 6970 +/- 50 K
    Free parameter in the coadded spectral and photometric fit.
  • log_g_DA = 7.68 +/- 0.06
    Free parameter; enters DA mass and cooling age.
  • r_DA = 0.0155 +/- 0.0005 R_sun
    Left free because DA core composition is ambiguous; sets flux scale and mass.
  • Teff_DQ = 7530 +/- 50 K
    Free parameter in the DQ model atmosphere fit.
  • log_g_DQ = 7.85 +/- 0.04
    Free parameter; with C/O models gives mDQ = 0.49 M_sun.
  • [C/He] = -5.56 +/- 0.06
    Carbon-to-helium abundance of DQ; free parameter.
  • Distance d = 146 +/- 3 pc
    Fitted with Gaia parallax prior in Eq. (3).
  • Orbital period = 31.17 +/- 0.05 hr
    Best Lomb-Scargle peak, but with 13 and 19 hr viable alternatives and only 80% confidence.
  • RV semi-amplitudes K_DA, K_DQ = 99 +/- 4, 85 +/- 7 km/s
    Fitted from phased radial velocities; mass ratio from K values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LTE model atmospheres describe DA and DQ spectra at these temperatures and gravities.
    Used to generate F_lambda in Eq. (1) from Koester (2009) and Koester and Kepler (2019).
  • domain assumption The DQ pressure-shift correction with alpha = 0.05 is appropriate for this temperature range.
    Section 3 states alpha is chosen to agree with the Koester and Kepler (2019) DQ sample.
  • domain assumption The DQ WD has a C/O core and the DA WD has a He or hybrid He/C/O core; the cited cooling models apply.
    Masses and cooling ages are derived from Bedard et al. (2020) and Althaus et al. (2013); DA core composition is explicitly uncertain.
  • domain assumption The 37 km/s systemic velocity offset between the two stars is a measurement error, not a physical difference.
    Section 3.1 attributes it to underestimated RV errors and low-SNR DQ measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper The 31.17 hr period is the true orbital period, not the 13 or 19 hr alias.
    Needed for the Algol-type formation history and 450 Gyr merger timescale; Section 3.1 gives only 80% confidence.
  • domain assumption The binary orbit is circular and the RV curves are sinusoidal.
    Equation (2); no eccentricity is modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Double White Dwarf Binaries in SDSS-V DR19 : The discovery of a rare DA+DQ white dwarf binary with 31 hour orbital period." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7BNX6EX

@misc{pith2026250711618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Double White Dwarf Binaries in SDSS-V DR19 : The discovery of a rare DA+DQ white dwarf binary with 31 hour orbital period},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7BNX6EX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11618}
}
abstract

Binaries of two white dwarfs (WDs) are an important class of astrophysical objects that are theorized to lead to Type Ia supernovae and are also used to gain insight into complex processes involved in stellar binary evolution. We report the discovery of SDSS~J090618.44+022311.6, a rare post-common envelope binary of a hydrogen atmospheric DA WD and a DQ WD which shows carbon absorption features, and is only the fourth such binary known. We combine the available spectroscopic, photometric, and radial velocity data to provide a self-consistent model for the binary and discuss its history as a binary DA+DQ. The system has a period of 31.17 hours with masses of 0.42 M$_{\odot}$ for DA WD and 0.49 M$_{\odot}$ for DQ WD. The corresponding cooling ages point to an Algol type of evolution with the lower mass star evolving into a DA WD first and later the massive DQ WD is formed. The system has a merger timescale of 450 Gyrs and will lead to the formation of a massive WD. With this, the number of known DA+DQ WD binaries has increased to four, and we find that their stellar properties all lie in the same range. Detailed study of more such systems is vital to understand common processes involved in the formation of this rare class of binaries and give insights towards the broader picture of WD spectral evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11618 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Color-magnitude diagram for stars within 100pc of the sun. Our target is marked in green. The sequence in the lower left is the normal WD track. We show the cooling curves for a 0.6 M⊙ WD from B´edard et al. (2020) generated using WD models† package. Our target is overluminous compared to the cooling track of the most common 0.6 M⊙ WD. † https://github.com/SihaoCheng/WD models We set a floor uncertainty of 0.03 mags… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The best-fit spectrum in comparison with photometry and the observed SDSS spectrum. In the top plot, the comparison of model to observed spectrum is shown around Hα (6564 ˚A), Hβ (4863 ˚A), and C2 Swan bands (4737 ˚A and 5165 ˚A). In the bottom plot, the best-fit spectrum is compared with photometry. In this plot, we have multiplied the observed SDSS spectrum by a constant to fix the absolute flux calibration. and t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Lomb-Scargle periodogram power as a function of orbital period is shown. The power is proportional to the −χ 2 of the best-fit model at each period. The best-fit period is shown with an arrow. Right: The RV curve phase folded at the best-fit period is shown along with measured RVs from various datasets. The solid points are the RVs measured for coadded spectra, as explained in the text. For DA WD, we also show… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The stellar parameters for the three DA+DQ WD binaries are compared with the properties of single DQ WDs. All the binaries show properties consistent with single star evolution. in SDSS J0906+0223 is consistent with single DQs and there is no evidence for the presence …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results of emcee fit of the RVs (left) and the combined fit of spectrophotometry and the RV constraint (right). sanne (EPFL), Leibniz-Institut f¨ur Astrophysik Pots￾dam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Extraterr…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Double White Dwarf Binaries in SDSS-V DR19 : A catalog of DA white dwarf binaries and constraints on the binary population

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SDSS-V radial velocity monitoring yields 63 DA double white dwarf binary candidates (43 new), with fitted binary fraction f_bin,0.4 ≈ 9% and separation power-law index α ≈ -0.62.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    h`T- rN Nֿ տ=k.^K = O< B4 p=z\ l\\ ? _v 0z <D!w 3 i0wps s+c ñx _o r + H䎐49= 1Cz' A gb r|@³xh ? 2 W

    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]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Córsico, A. H. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 557, A19, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 2013

  5. [5]

    G., Serenelli, A

    Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., Panei, J. A., et al. 2005, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 435, 631, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041965

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041965 2005

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim, P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

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

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    S., & Vaughan, A

    Bowen, I. S., & Vaughan, A. H. 1973, Applied Optics, 12, 1430, 10.1364/AO.12.001430

    1973 doi

  4. [12]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 889, 49, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    Bédard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A213, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346628

    Camisassa, M., Torres, S., Hollands, M., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A213, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346628

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    L., et al

    Chandra, V., Hwang, H.-C., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2145

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29

    Giammichele, N., Bergeron, P., & Dufour, P. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

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

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 2332, 10.1086/500975

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

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

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T

    Istrate, A. G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T. M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628874

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 402, 10.1086/501451

    Kawka, A., & Vennes, S. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 402, 10.1086/501451

    2006 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d

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

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Kepler, S

    Kleinman, S. J., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 204, 5, 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 498, 517, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    Koester, D. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 498, 517, 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    Koester, D., & Kepler, S. O. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 628, A102, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935946

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    O., & Irwin, A

    Koester, D., Kepler, S. O., & Irwin, A. W. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 635, A103, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037530

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Koester, D., Weidemann, V., & Zeidler, E. M. 1982, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 116, 147. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982A&A...116..147K

    1982

  22. [30]

    Kowalski, P. M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 519, L8, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015238

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Izquierdo, P., Gänsicke, B

    Manser, C. J., Izquierdo, P., Gänsicke, B. T., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 254, 10.1093/mnras/stae2205

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    E., et al

    Munday, J., Pelisoli, I., Tremblay, P. E., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 2534, 10.1093/mnras/stae1645

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Lisker, T., et al

    Napiwotzki, R., Karl, C. A., Lisker, T., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 638, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629648

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    R., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Verbunt, F., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 360, 1011, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006216

    2000 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT : Non - Linear Least - Square Minimization and Curve - Fitting for Python , Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.11813

    2014 doi

  30. [38]

    W., Tremblay, P

    O'Brien, M. W., Tremblay, P. E., Klein, B. L., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 8687, 10.1093/mnras/stad3773

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    B., & Toonen, S

    Pakmor, R., Zenati, Y., Perets, H. B., & Toonen, S. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 503, 4734, 10.1093/mnras/stab686

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Collins, C

    Pakmor, R., Callan, F. P., Collins, C. E., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5260, 10.1093/mnras/stac3107

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    G., Gänsicke, B

    Parsons, S. G., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 4473, 10.1093/mnras/stx1522

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    G., & Straniero, O

    Prada Moroni, P. G., & Straniero, O. 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 507, 1575, 10.1051/0004-6361/200912847

    2009 doi

  35. [43]

    2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    2022, Physics Reports, 988, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    Saumon, D., Blouin, S., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2022, Physics Reports, 988, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.09.001

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, The Astrophysical Journal, 263, 835, 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 32, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    R., & Freed, I

    Thorstensen, J. R., & Freed, I. W. 1985, The Astronomical Journal, 90, 2082, 10.1086/113916

    1985 doi

  40. [48]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, L12, 10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/L12

    Vennes, S., & Kawka, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, L12, 10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/L12

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, The total mass of the close, double degenerate ( DA + DQ ) system NLTT 16249, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03144

    ---. 2024, The total mass of the close, double degenerate ( DA + DQ ) system NLTT 16249, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03144

    2024 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    J., & Thorstensen, J

    Vennes, S., Kawka, A., O’Toole, S. J., & Thorstensen, J. R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, L5, 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L5

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Hearty, F

    Wilson, J. C., Hearty, F. R., Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 055001, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0075

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    E., Ivanova, N., Van Der Sluys, M

    Woods, T. E., Ivanova, N., Van Der Sluys, M. V., & Chaichenets, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 744, 12, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/12

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    Zenati, Y., Toonen, S., & Perets, H. B. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 1135, 10.1093/mnras/sty2723

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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