Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Binary Analysis and Period Study of the Long-Period, High Mass Ratio Contact Binary KIC 7766185

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper establishes that KIC 7766185 is an A-type W UMa contact binary in a very shallow contact state, with a mass ratio of 0.81 and one of the largest, most massive secondary stars known in such systems.

desk verdict A solid, honest single-object study whose headline fillout factor is prior-enforced rather than fully measured; the mass ratio and masses hold up, and the evolutionary story needs a sensitivity test before being taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14979 v1 pith:CSES7A5Z submitted 2025-07-20 astro-ph.SR

Conor M Larsen , Andrej Prsa This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords KIC7766185contactbinaryWUrsaeMajoriseclipsingradialvelocitieslightcurvemodelingeclipsetimingvariationsstellarparameters
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 is trying to establish that KIC 7766185, a 0.835-day eclipsing binary, is an A-type W Ursae Majoris contact binary — a common-envelope system in which the larger star is also the hotter one — and one of the most extreme examples known: its mass ratio is q=0.81, its fillout factor is only 0.029, and its secondary star is among the largest and most massive secondaries ever measured in a well-studied W UMa system. The authors combine radial velocities from ground-based spectroscopy with Kepler and Gaia photometry and fit the system with a forward binary model using MCMC sampling. A sympathetic reader would care because this combination of a long period, high mass ratio, and very shallow contact is rare, and the paper argues it is a snapshot of a binary that has only recently come into contact. The period study also finds a possible cyclic variation in eclipse timings, which would point to a third body or magnetic activity, though the paper is explicit that the cycle is not yet confirmed.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a forward binary model with Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling, solved separately for the radial-velocity curve (mass ratio, projected semi-major axis, systemic velocity) and for the Kepler light curve (fillout factor, inclination, temperature ratio, mass ratio), with temperatures anchored by Gaia multi-color photometry using updated passbands. The fillout factor f — the fractional amount by which the common envelope overfills the inner critical lobe — is the quantity that carries the 'shallow contact' claim, and the thin connecting neck is resolved by discretizing the stellar surfaces into 6000 triangles. The eclipse-timing variation curve is built from Kepler quarters and TESS sectors and fit with a third-body light-time formula. The load-bearing choice in the light-curve run is a uniform prior on f confined to [0,0.1], imposed specifically to keep solutions out of the semi-detached state.

What would settle it

Re-run the light-curve MCMC with the fillout prior removed or widened to [0,1]; if the posterior moves to a semi-detached configuration or to a fillout factor well above 0.1, the paper's classification of KIC 7766185 as a shallow, recently formed contact binary fails. Alternatively, future TESS eclipse timings over the next several years could test the claimed 6000-day cyclic variation directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper reports that KIC 7766185 consists of a primary of 1.97 solar masses at 6095 K and a secondary of 1.58 solar masses at 5860 K, in an orbit inclined at 73.13 degrees, with a mass ratio of 0.81 and a fillout factor of 0.029±0.002 — just barely in contact through a thin neck roughly 0.25 solar radii across. Because the primary is both larger and hotter, the system is classified as A-type; because the mass ratio exceeds 0.72, it is also an H-type high-mass-ratio system. Compared with about 700 individually studied W UMa systems, the secondary sits in the 99.8th percentile of secondary radii and the 98.9th percentile of secondary masses, yet it is not over-luminous for its mass, appearing consistent with detached eclipsing binaries rather than typical W UMa secondaries. The paper also argues that the low fillout factor and near-equal component properties indicate a binary that has recently entered contact, and it reports a possible cyclic eclipse-timing variation with a period near 6000 days that it does not claim to confirm.

Load-bearing premise

The shallow-contact result depends on a prior that forbids the fit from considering semi-detached or deeper-contact configurations; if that prior were removed, the system could turn out to be semi-detached, which would change the evolutionary story.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, KIC 7766185 becomes a benchmark for the earliest stage of contact: a system that has just begun sharing a common envelope, with the mass ratio still near unity.
  • Its secondary, massive but not over-luminous, supports the idea that energy transfer is less efficient in high-mass-ratio H-type systems, a testable input for contact binary evolution models.
  • The A-type classification with such a low fillout factor is unusual, since A-type systems typically have deeper contact; finding more such systems would require revising the expected parameter space of A-type W UMa stars.
  • The cyclic ETV signal, if future observations confirm it, would favor a third body or magnetic cycle as the angular-momentum-loss driver that brought this binary into contact.
  • The method of using Gaia multi-color photometry with updated EDR3 passbands to pin down component temperatures can be applied to other contact binaries with only light-curve data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the reported fillout factor is prior-limited, the same analysis pipeline applied to other catalog shallow-contact W UMa binaries with uninformative priors could reveal how many apparent shallow-contact classifications are artefacts of similar choices.
  • If the 6000-day, high-eccentricity third-body orbit is real, it would provide a concrete pathway for Kozai-Lidov-driven orbital decay and contact formation in a system like this one; that connection is not made explicitly in the paper.
  • The normal luminosity of the high-mass secondary suggests testing whether the mass-luminosity relation for W UMa secondaries turns over above roughly 1.5 solar masses, a prediction that could be checked against larger samples.
  • A longer spectroscopic campaign, with more than seven spectra, could independently verify the mass ratio and check for the third-body velocity wobble predicted by the 6000-day ETV fit.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a combined photometric and spectroscopic study of the contact binary KIC 7766185. Radial velocities from seven Mayall 4-m echelle spectra are extracted via broadening functions; Kepler, TESS, and Gaia photometry are used for light-curve modeling and temperature determination. PHOEBE MCMC runs yield a mass ratio q = 0.81 (from both the radial-velocity curve and the light curve), a fillout factor f = 0.029 ± 0.002, inclination i = 73.13 deg, effective temperatures T1 = 6095 K and T2 = 5860 K, and masses M1 = 1.97 and M2 = 1.58 solar masses. A period study of eclipse timings over the ~15 yr Kepler/TESS baseline finds evidence for a cyclic ETV variation, which the authors fit with a demonstrative third-body model but do not claim as a confirmed detection. The system is classified as an A-type, H-type (high mass ratio) W UMa binary, and comparison with the WUMaCat sample places the secondary in the 99.8th percentile of secondary radii and 98.9th of secondary masses, leading to the interpretation that the system may have only recently entered contact.

Significance. If the derived parameters hold, KIC 7766185 is a valuable outlier: a long-period, high-mass-ratio, shallow-contact A-type W UMa system with an unusually massive secondary. The paper is careful in several respects: it independently checks the photometric mass ratio against the spectroscopic value, uses Gaia multi-color photometry with updated passbands to corroborate the temperature ratio, explicitly tests and rejects significant extraneous light in the Kepler aperture, and is appropriately cautious about the third-body interpretation of the ETV variation. The central claims, however, rest on the fillout factor being small, and that smallness is enforced by the prior used in the light-curve MCMC run rather than demonstrated by the data. The evolutionary speculation of recent contact therefore requires additional support. With a reanalysis using a wider fillout prior or a model comparison against semi-detached geometry, the paper could become a solid contribution to the study of extreme W UMa systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Table 5] The light-curve MCMC run imposes a uniform prior on the fillout factor restricted to [0, 0.1] 'to keep the fillout factor from falling into the semi-detached state.' The reported f = 0.029 ± 0.002 and the associated 'shallow contact' conclusion are therefore conditional on this prior; the posterior cannot explore f > 0.1, so the data have not been shown to prefer shallow contact over deeper contact or a semi-detached configuration. This matters because the Section 7 context comparison and the Section 8 evolutionary interpretation ('recently begun interacting') both depend directly on the small fillout factor. The discrepancy with Cook & Kobulnicky (2023), who used a prior extending to 0.99 and found f = 0.08 ± 0.03, is plausibly due to the different prior, as the authors themselves note. I request a rerun with a wider prior on f (e.g., uniform over [0, 0.6]) or, at minimum, a model comparison between the contact solution and a semi-detached geometry, so that the small fillout is a measured outcome rather than an input assumption.
  2. [Section 5, Table 4] The paper labels qph as the 'photometric mass ratio' and states 'Both methods produce the same result of 0.81.' However, the LC run explicitly uses the posterior distributions from the RV run as priors on the sampled parameters, including the mass ratio. The light-curve mass ratio is therefore not an independent photometric determination; it is a combined RV+LC estimate. The agreement between qph and qsp is not surprising because one is informed by the other. This does not invalidate the high mass ratio, which is well supported by the RV data alone, but the wording overstates the independence of the two determinations. Please clarify in the text that the LC run incorporates the RV posterior as a prior, and avoid calling qph purely photometric.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] The LC run section lists 'Temperature Ratio' twice in the parameter column; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected or one entry relabeled.
  2. [Section 5.1] The text contains the typo 'efffective temperatures'; please change to 'effective temperatures'.
  3. [Section 8] The phrase 'radius radio' should be 'radius ratio'.
  4. [References] The reference 'Conroy et al. 2020' appears twice with slightly different page numbers; consolidate into a single entry.
  5. [Figure 5] The corner plot labels are small and some panels lack units; increasing the font size and adding units (e.g., degrees for inclination, solar radii for a sin i) would improve readability.
  6. [Section 6] The description of the 'phase method' for obtaining Kepler ETV points is brief; please specify how many quarters were used and how the phase of minimum was determined from the smoothed phased light curve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: independent RV, Kepler, and Gaia constraints drive the fit; the shallow-contact fillout prior is an acknowledged modeling assumption, not a derivation loop.

full rationale

This paper is an observational parameter-estimation study, not a derivation-from-first-principles chain. The reported parameters come from MCMC fits to three independent data sets: radial velocities from seven Mayall echelle spectra, phase-folded Kepler photometry, and Gaia G/BP/RP photometry. The spectroscopic mass ratio qsp=0.81±0.02, a sin i, and gamma are determined from broadening-function RVs; the light-curve run then samples f, i, T2/T1, and q using the RV posteriors as priors; Gaia colors fix T1=6095 K and T2=5860 K with a broad 4000-7000 K prior. No central quantity is defined in terms of another central quantity, and no 'prediction' is a renamed fitted input. The one true modeling assumption is the LC prior: 'a uniform distribution on the fillout factor ranging from 0 to 0.1 to keep the fillout factor from falling into the semi-detached state.' This makes the reported f=0.029±0.002 and the 'shallow contact' description conditional on that prior, and the authors themselves note that Cook & Kobulnicky's wider 0.03-0.99 prior yields f=0.08±0.03. This is a legitimate limitation on the evolutionary 'recently formed contact' speculation, but it is not circular: the data still select f within the allowed interval, and the other headline results (q≈0.81, large secondary radius and mass, A-type classification) rest on independent RV, photometric, and catalog comparisons. Self-citations to PHOEBE, the KEBC, and the TESS-EBs catalog are citations to tools and archival data, not load-bearing circular support. Score 1 reflects only the prior-conditioned shallow-contact inference.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard contact-binary modeling assumptions and on several explicit priors. The most consequential choices are the narrow fillout prior, the adopted primary temperature prior, and the fixed gravity darkening coefficient; each could shift the inferred parameters if changed.

free parameters (3)
  • Fillout factor prior range = 0 to 0.1 (uniform)
    Imposed in the LC MCMC run to exclude semi-detached solutions; directly bounds the reported f=0.029 and predetermines a contact classification.
  • Primary temperature prior = 6080 ± 125 K (Gaussian)
    Adopted from literature estimates to keep MCMC walkers in a plausible range; affects T1/T2 and hence masses/radii slightly.
  • Gravity darkening coefficient = 0.32 for both components
    Set as a fixed input; for late-type convective envelopes the canonical value is ~0.08, and no sensitivity test is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Circular orbit (e=0)
    Tidal circularization expected for close binaries; Duquennoy & Mayor (1991) cited.
  • domain assumption Contact geometry / Roche potential model
    PHOEBE models stars as equipotential surfaces in a Roche potential; standard for contact binaries.
  • domain assumption Atmosphere models (Castelli & Kurucz 2004)
    Limb darkening and fluxes interpolated from these model atmospheres.
  • domain assumption Gaia EDR3 passband correction
    Pre-launch PTFs in PHOEBE were replaced with EDR3 passbands to fit Gaia photometry; this correction is necessary to obtain acceptable fits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binary Analysis and Period Study of the Long-Period, High Mass Ratio Contact Binary KIC 7766185." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSES7A5Z

@misc{pith2026250714979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binary Analysis and Period Study of the Long-Period, High Mass Ratio Contact Binary KIC 7766185},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSES7A5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14979}
}
abstract

We present an in-depth photometric and spectroscopic study of the contact binary KIC 7766185. Spectroscopic observations were conducted on the Mayall 4-m telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory and used to extract radial velocities. Using the radial velocity measurements, Kepler photometry, and Gaia multi-color photometry, binary analysis was performed in PHOEBE to determine orbital and stellar parameters. The results classify KIC 7766185 as an A-type W UMa system and reveal one of the largest and most massive secondary stars in the sample of well studied W UMa systems. The two stars are in a shallow contact state, with a small fillout factor of $0.029\pm0.002$. Along with the binary analysis, we conduct a period study that reveals evidence for a cyclic variation in the eclipse timings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase-folded light curve of KIC 7766185 from Kepler (black) and TESS Sector 55 (red). The light curves are normalized to their median values. 2.1. Photometric Observations KIC 7766185 was observed by the Kepler Space Tele￾scope (Borucki et al. 2010) between 2009 and 2013 in Quarters 0 - 17. The observations were obtained at long cadence (30 minutes) in the Kepler passband which cov￾ers a wavelength range of 400 - 85… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Hβ line for all seven spectra. The spec￾tra are ordered by phase with an offset in normalized flux. The spectra were smoothed with the Savitzky–Golay filter to make both lines more apparent. We used a 3rd order filter with a window length of 15. For a template, we downloaded a synthetic spectrum from the POLLUX database of synthetic stellar spectra (Palacios et al. 2010). To employ broadening functions, we need … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized broadening function (black) com￾puted with SAPHIRES along with Gaussian fits. 4. EXTRANEOUS LIGHT Extraneous light is any additional flux added to the light curve from a source external to the binary system. It alters the amplitude of the light curve, thus impacting parameter determination. KIC 7766185 has two nearby sources with Gaia G magnitudes of 17.8 and 16.7 (com￾pared to 11.9 for KIC 7766185).2 Bef… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Amplitudes of the primary eclipse for each pixel in the Kepler pipeline aperture for Quarter 8. The black star is the target KIC 7766185. The two red stars on the left are the faint Gaia objects. The white pixels were not included in the Kepler pipeline aperture fo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of the inferred parameters in the (a) LC run, (b) the RV run and (c) the temperature run. The vertical dashed lines in the one dimensional distributions represent the 68th percentile. The three contours in the two dimensional distributions denote the 68th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Model light curve plotted on the Kepler observations. (b) Model radial velocity curve along with the radial velocity measurements. (c) Mesh plot graphically displaying the system face on. (d) Model multi-color light curve along with the Gaia observations. The three…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ETV curve for Kepler 7766185. The red and orange points are the Kepler and TESS ETVs determined through the phase method. The green points are the averages and standard deviations of the individual measurements over each TESS sector. The black curve is a third body fit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The mass vs. period relationship for both the primary and secondary stars. (b) The mass ratio vs. period relationship. (c) The radius vs. period relationship for both the primary and secondary stars. (d) The radius vs. mass relationship for both the primary and sec…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Luminosity vs. Mass for detached EBs, W UMa primaries and the primary of KIC 7766185. (b) Luminosity vs. Mass for detached EBs, W UMa secondaries and the secondary of KIC 7766185 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 18 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]

    89ř 69C s !қ q Ngc u ӱ K CqB> L @e K>- , / aH `E H3 -6

    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...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12, 217, 10.1016/0083-6656(70)90041-3

    Binnendijk , L. 1970, Vistas in Astronomy, 12, 217, 10.1016/0083-6656(70)90041-3

    doi:10.1016/0083-6656(70)90041-3 1970

  5. [5]

    M., Csizmadia , S., et al

    Borkovits , T., Elkhateeb , M. M., Csizmadia , S., et al. 2005, , 441, 10.1051/0004-6361:20052805

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052805 2005

  6. [6]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., & et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., & et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  7. [7]

    Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., Prusti, T., et al. 2021, , 649, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 2021

  8. [8]

    M., Latham , D

    Brown , T. M., Latham , D. W., Everett , M. E., & Esquerdo , G. A. 2011, , 142, 112, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112 2011

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres. astro-ph/0405087

    2004 arXiv

  2. [10]

    E., Pr s a , A., Stassun , K

    Conroy , K. E., Pr s a , A., Stassun , K. G., et al. 2014, , 147, 45, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/2/45

    2014 doi

  3. [12]

    E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al

    Conroy, K. E., Kochoska, A., Hey, D., et al. 2020, , 250, 10.3847/1538-4365/abb4e2

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    M., & Kobulnicky , H

    Cook , E. M., & Kobulnicky , H. A. 2023, , 166, 200, 10.3847/1538-3881/acfc47

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    2004, , 426, 1001–1005, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040430

    Csizmadia, S., & Klagyivik, P. 2004, , 426, 1001–1005, 10.1051/0004-6361:20040430

    2004 doi

  6. [15]

    P., et al

    Czesla , S., Schr \"o ter , S., Schneider , C. P., et al. 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages

    2019

  7. [16]

    C., & Plez , B

    de Laverny , P., Recio-Blanco , A., Worley , C. C., & Plez , B. 2012, , 544, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219330

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    1991, , 248, 485

    Duquennoy , A., & Mayor , M. 1991, , 248, 485

    1991

  9. [18]

    Eggleton , P. P. 2012, Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences, 29, 10.5140/JASS.2012.29.2.145

    2012 doi

  10. [19]

    2014, , 31, e024, 10.1017/pasa.2014.17

    Eker , Z., Bilir , S., Soydugan , F., et al. 2014, , 31, e024, 10.1017/pasa.2014.17

    2014 doi

  11. [20]

    2025, , 695, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452820

    Fabry , M., Marchant , P., Langer , N., & Sana , H. 2025, , 695, A109, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452820

    2025 doi

  12. [21]

    2022, , 661, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243094

    Fabry , M., Marchant , P., & Sana , H. 2022, , 661, A123, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243094

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Flannery , B. P. 1976, , 205, 10.1086/154266

    1976 doi

  14. [23]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  15. [24]

    2016, , 594, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628337

    Frasca , A., Molenda-Zakowicz , J., De Cat , P., et al. 2016, , 594, A39, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628337

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    2024, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 54, 58, 10.31577/caosp.2024.54.2.58

    Gazeas , K. 2024, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 54, 58, 10.31577/caosp.2024.54.2.58

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    Henneco , J., Schneider , F. R. N., & Laplace , E. 2024, , 682, A169, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347893

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    W., & Foreman-Mackey, D

    Hogg, D. W., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2018, , 236, 11, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab76e

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    E., Jones , D., & Pr s a , A

    Horvat , M., Conroy , K. E., Jones , D., & Pr s a , A. 2019, , 240, 36, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaffd7

    2019 doi

  20. [29]

    In \'a cio , J. R. P., Mac \^e do , I. M., Ferreira , \'E . V. X., et al. 2024, , 529, 2967, 10.1093/mnras/stae357

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    2021, , 254, 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb23

    Latkovi\' c , O., C eki, A., & Lazarevi\' c , S. 2021, , 254, 10.3847/1538-4365/abeb23

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    2004, , 355, 1383, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08457.x

    Li , L., Han , Z., & Zhang , F. 2004, , 355, 1383, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08457.x

    2004

  23. [32]

    2008, , 387, 97, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12736.x

    Li , L., Zhang , F., Han , Z., Jiang , D., & Jiang , T. 2008, , 387, 97, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12736.x

    2008

  24. [33]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2018

  25. [34]

    A., Gazeas , K

    Loukaidou , G. A., Gazeas , K. D., Palafouta , S., et al. 2022, , 514, 5528, 10.1093/mnras/stab3424

    2022 doi

  26. [35]

    Lucy , L. B. 1968 a , , 151, 1123, 10.1086/149510

    1968 doi

  27. [36]

    1968 b , , 153, 877, 10.1086/149712

    ---. 1968 b , , 153, 877, 10.1086/149712

    1968 doi

  28. [37]

    1976, , 205, 10.1086/154265

    ---. 1976, , 205, 10.1086/154265

    1976 doi

  29. [38]

    E., et al

    Menon , A., Langer , N., de Mink , S. E., et al. 2021, , 507, 5013, 10.1093/mnras/stab2276

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    2010, , 516, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913932

    Palacios , A., Gebran , M., Josselin , E., et al. 2010, , 516, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913932

    2010 doi

  31. [40]

    2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 239, 10.1002/asna.201512254

    Paunzen , E., & Vanmunster , T. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 239, 10.1002/asna.201512254

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    W., et al

    Pr s a, A., Batalha, N., Slawson, R. W., et al. 2011, , 141, 83, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    F., Devinney , E

    Pr s a , A., Guinan , E. F., Devinney , E. J., et al. 2008, , 687, 542, 10.1086/591783

    2008 doi

  35. [44]

    2005, , 628, 426, 10.1086/430591

    Pr s a , A., & Zwitter , T. 2005, , 628, 426, 10.1086/430591

    2005 doi

  36. [45]

    E., Horvat , M., et al

    Pr s a , A., Conroy , K. E., Horvat , M., et al. 2016, , 227, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    E., et al

    Pr s a , A., Kochoska , A., Conroy , K. E., et al. 2022, , 258, 16, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac324a

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 163, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/163

    Qian , S.-B., Zhu , L.-Y., Liu , L., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 163, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/163

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    W., et al

    Riello , M., De Angeli , F., Evans , D. W., et al. 2021, , 649, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    A., & Eggleton, P

    Robertson, J. A., & Eggleton, P. P. 1977, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 179

    1977

  42. [51]

    1986, Symposium - International Astronomical Union, 118, 159–172, 10.1017/S0074180900151307

    Ruci\' n ski, S. 1986, Symposium - International Astronomical Union, 118, 159–172, 10.1017/S0074180900151307

    1986 doi

  43. [52]

    Rucinski , S. M. 2012, in From Interacting Binaries to Exoplanets: Essential Modeling Tools, ed. M. T. Richards & I. Hubeny , Vol. 282, 365--370, 10.1017/S1743921311027840

    2012 doi

  44. [53]

    W., Pr s a , A., Welsh , W

    Slawson , R. W., Pr s a , A., Welsh , W. F., et al. 2011, , 142, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/160

    2011 doi

  45. [54]

    2012, , 143, 99, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/4/99

    Terrell, D., Gross, J., & Cooney, W. 2012, , 143, 99, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/4/99

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    1986, in Instrumentation in Astronomy VI, ed

    Tody, D. 1986, in Instrumentation in Astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, Vol. 0627, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 733 -- 748. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  47. [56]

    Tofflemire, B. M. 2019, tofflemire/saphires: Zenodo archive, 0.1.11, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3497509

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Valdes , F. 1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 25, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems I, ed. D. M. Worrall , C. Biemesderfer , & J. Barnes , 417

    1992

  49. [58]

    2013, , 430, 2029, 10.1093/mnras/stt028

    Yildiz , M., & Do g an , T. 2013, , 430, 2029, 10.1093/mnras/stt028

    2013 doi

Pith tools

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