pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.22490 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

SED and Galactic kinematic diagnostics for dormant BH/NS binary candidates

Qian-Yu An , Wei-Min Gu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords dormant black hole binariesneutron star binariesGaia DR3 candidatesspectral energy distribution fittingultraviolet excessGalactic kinematicsnatal kickscompact object candidates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining ultraviolet excess measurements with Galactic kinematic data narrows 1,328 dormant black hole and neutron star binary candidates to 182 highest-priority targets for follow-up, including 19 with fitted companion masses of at least

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

The paper applies broadband spectral energy distribution fitting from optical through infrared wavelengths, augmented by GALEX near-ultraviolet photometry, to 1,328 previously identified dormant black hole and neutron star binary candidates from Gaia DR3. It quantifies ultraviolet excesses relative to single-star model predictions and checks whether moderate excesses can be produced by non-degenerate stellar companions. The authors also analyze the sample's Galactic motions to flag systems whose velocities are consistent with natal kicks imparted during compact-object formation. By merging these two diagnostics, they isolate 182 sources as top-priority targets for spectroscopic or photometric follow-up. Among these, 19 objects have fitted companion masses of 3 solar masses or greater and are therefore flagged as black-hole candidates.

Core claim

By performing broadband SED fitting that incorporates GALEX ultraviolet photometry on 1,328 Gaia DR3 dormant black hole and neutron star binary candidates, and by supplementing this with Galactic kinematic analysis for natal-kick signatures, the authors identify 182 sources as the highest-priority candidates for follow-up observations; 19 of these have fitted companion masses of at least 3 solar masses and are therefore classified as black-hole candidates.

What carries the argument

Ultraviolet excess measured by comparing observed GALEX near-UV fluxes against single-star SED model predictions, combined with kinematic deviations from expected Galactic rotation that trace natal kicks.

If this is right

  • 182 sources now have the highest priority for spectroscopic or photometric follow-up to confirm the presence of compact objects.
  • 19 candidates with fitted companion masses greater than or equal to 3 solar masses become the leading black-hole candidates in the sample.
  • Moderate ultraviolet excesses in some sources can be explained by non-degenerate stellar companions rather than compact objects.
  • Kinematic analysis isolates systems whose space velocities are consistent with receiving a natal kick during compact-object formation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same ultraviolet-plus-kinematic filtering approach could be applied to larger candidate lists expected from future Gaia data releases.
  • Confirmed systems among the 182 targets would provide direct constraints on the efficiency of natal kicks in black-hole and neutron-star formation channels.
  • If many of the ultraviolet excesses turn out to be produced by faint white-dwarf companions instead of black holes or neutron stars, the method would still yield a clean sample of close white-dwarf binaries.

Load-bearing premise

Single-star SED models correctly predict the primary star's flux contribution, so that any ultraviolet excess must arise from a non-degenerate companion or a compact object, and that observed kinematic deviations are caused primarily by natal kicks rather than other dynamical processes.

What would settle it

Radial-velocity monitoring of the 19 black-hole candidates that fails to detect orbital motion from any companion more massive than about 3 solar masses would falsify the black-hole classification for those sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22490 by Qian-Yu An, Wei-Min Gu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The ratio of observed NUV flux to model-predicted NUV flux as a function of the previously provided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The ratio of total model-predicted NUV flux to observed NUV flux as a function of the previously [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a), Vpec as a function of the previously provided companion mass. NS-like zone, transition zone, and BH-like zone are respectively indicate by blue squares, orange squares and red squares. (b), Vpec as a function of RNUV. (c), Vpec as a function of |Z|max. In all panels, the horizontal black dashed line marks Vpec = 100 km s−1 , above which sources are considered to be probably accelerated by supernova na… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The third data release of the Gaia mission (Gaia DR3) has enabled large-scale searches for dormant black hole and neutron star binaries with stellar companions at AU-scale separations. A recent study has proposed thousands of dormant black hole and neutron star binary candidates using summary statistics from Gaia DR3 by simulating and fitting Gaia observables. In this work, we perform broadband spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting from the optical to the infrared for 1,328 candidates, incorporating GALEX ultraviolet photometry to assess the presence of hidden hot companions. We quantify ultraviolet excess by comparing observed near-ultraviolet fluxes with single-star SED predictions and further test whether excesses can be explained by non-degenerate stellar companions for sources exhibiting moderate excess. We additionally examine the Galactic kinematics of the sample to identify systems potentially affected by natal kicks during compact-object formation. By combining the ultraviolet and kinematic diagnostics, we identify 182 sources as the highest-priority candidates for follow-up observations, in which 19 are black hole candidates with fit_companion_mass $\geq$ 3 $M_\odot$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs broadband SED fitting from optical to infrared on 1,328 Gaia DR3 dormant BH/NS binary candidates, incorporates GALEX NUV photometry to quantify UV excess relative to single-star model predictions, tests whether moderate excesses can be explained by non-degenerate companions, and applies Galactic kinematic cuts to flag potential natal-kick signatures. Combining the UV and kinematic diagnostics yields 182 highest-priority candidates for follow-up, of which 19 are classified as black-hole candidates with fit_companion_mass ≥ 3 M⊙.

Significance. If the UV-excess and kinematic filters prove reliable, the work supplies a concrete, observationally prioritized list of 182 candidates that could accelerate targeted spectroscopic or photometric follow-up of dormant compact-object binaries at AU separations. The reliance on public Gaia DR3 and GALEX catalogs is a methodological strength that enables reproducible large-scale selection.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and SED-fitting section] Abstract and the section describing the SED fitting workflow: quantitative details on fitting procedures, error budgets, adopted model grids (e.g., BT-Settl), reddening treatment, and validation against known single stars or confirmed binaries are absent. Without these, the numerical support for the headline counts of 182 and 19 candidates remains only moderately defensible, as the UV-excess step is load-bearing for the entire selection.
  2. [UV-excess quantification section] Section on ultraviolet-excess quantification: the central assumption that single-star SED models accurately predict the primary NUV flux (so that any excess can be attributed to a companion or compact object) is not tested against systematic uncertainties such as chromospheric activity, metallicity-dependent line blanketing, or reddening errors. If these models systematically under-predict UV flux, moderate excesses will produce false positives that inflate the 182-candidate list; the kinematic filter cannot rescue the sample if the UV step already contains contamination.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results section] Clarify the precise definition and derivation of the parameter fit_companion_mass, including its uncertainty and how it is obtained from the SED fit.
  2. [Results section] Add a table or figure that directly compares the UV-excess distribution of the final 182 candidates against a control sample of confirmed single stars to demonstrate the separation achieved.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive assessment of the potential impact of our work. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions that will be incorporated to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and SED-fitting section] Abstract and the section describing the SED fitting workflow: quantitative details on fitting procedures, error budgets, adopted model grids (e.g., BT-Settl), reddening treatment, and validation against known single stars or confirmed binaries are absent. Without these, the numerical support for the headline counts of 182 and 19 candidates remains only moderately defensible, as the UV-excess step is load-bearing for the entire selection.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of the SED-fitting workflow lacks sufficient quantitative detail. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to specify: the chi-squared minimization procedure and convergence criteria; the full error budget incorporating both photometric uncertainties and model systematics; the exact BT-Settl grid parameters and ranges adopted for effective temperature, surface gravity, and metallicity; the reddening treatment using the standard Cardelli et al. extinction law with R_V = 3.1; and validation results obtained by applying the same pipeline to a control sample of spectroscopically confirmed single stars and known binaries drawn from the literature. These additions will directly support the robustness of the 182- and 19-candidate counts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [UV-excess quantification section] Section on ultraviolet-excess quantification: the central assumption that single-star SED models accurately predict the primary NUV flux (so that any excess can be attributed to a companion or compact object) is not tested against systematic uncertainties such as chromospheric activity, metallicity-dependent line blanketing, or reddening errors. If these models systematically under-predict UV flux, moderate excesses will produce false positives that inflate the 182-candidate list; the kinematic filter cannot rescue the sample if the UV step already contains contamination.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the single-star NUV predictions have not been explicitly tested against the listed systematics in the submitted version. In the revision we will add a new subsection that (i) quantifies typical NUV excesses from chromospheric activity using literature relations for solar-type stars, (ii) examines metallicity-dependent line blanketing by comparing BT-Settl variants at [Fe/H] = 0 and -0.5, and (iii) assesses the impact of reddening uncertainties by repeating the fits with E(B-V) varied by ±0.05 mag. A sensitivity analysis will be presented showing how these effects shift the UV-excess thresholds and the size of the final candidate list. While the kinematic diagnostics provide an independent check, we agree that strengthening the UV step itself is essential and will report the resulting robustness metrics. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; selection uses external catalogs and post-hoc filters

full rationale

The paper starts from an external list of 1,328 candidates drawn from a prior study and public Gaia DR3/GALEX data, then applies UV-excess quantification (observed NUV minus single-star SED prediction) and kinematic cuts as independent diagnostics. These steps are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, nor do any equations reduce the final 182-candidate count or the 19 BH candidates to the input list by construction. No self-definitional loops, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear in the derivation chain. The central result remains a straightforward application of external data and standard modeling assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard single-star atmosphere models and the interpretation of UV excess and velocity anomalies as diagnostics for companions or kicks; no new free parameters are introduced beyond those implicit in the SED fits.

free parameters (1)
  • fit_companion_mass
    Companion mass fitted from SED modeling to classify sources as black hole candidates when >=3 solar masses.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Single-star SED templates accurately predict the flux of the visible primary without hidden companions
    Invoked to quantify ultraviolet excess by comparing observed NUV fluxes to single-star predictions.
  • domain assumption Deviations in galactic kinematics primarily trace natal kicks from compact-object formation
    Used to flag systems potentially affected by formation kicks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5487 in / 1425 out tokens · 59214 ms · 2026-05-16T09:50:07.244789+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We quantify ultraviolet excess by comparing observed near-ultraviolet fluxes with single-star SED predictions... fit the SEDs with a single-star model... using BT-Settl library... reduced χ²... R_NUV = F_NUV,obs/F_NUV,mod

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArrowOfTime arrow_from_z unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We evaluate the V_pec at the Galactic-plane crossing phase... integrate the orbits backward for 1 Gyr in the Galactic potential under the Milky Way potential model McMillan17... V_pec ≥ 100 km s⁻¹

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed

    Allard, F. 2016, in SF2A-2016: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, ed. C. Reyl´ e, J. Richard, L. Cambr´ esy, M. Deleuil, E. P´ econtal, L. Tresse, & I. Vauglin, 223–227

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    H., Alexander, D

    Allard, F., Hauschildt, P. H., Alexander, D. R., Tamanai, A., & Schweitzer, A. 2001, ApJ, 556, 357, doi: 10.1086/321547

    work page doi:10.1086/321547 2001

  4. [4]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 12...

    work page doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 2012

  5. [5]

    2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    Barbary, K. 2016, extinction v0.3.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.804967

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.804967 2016

  6. [6]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascu´ es, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810395 2008

  7. [7]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad712f

    Bianchi, L., Hutchings, J., Bohlin, R., Thilker, D., & Berti, E. 2024, ApJ, 976, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad712f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad712f 2024

  8. [8]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

  9. [9]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 2015

  10. [10]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    work page doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  11. [11]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 2016

  12. [12]

    2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3140

  13. [13]

    2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad799

  14. [14]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293

    work page doi:10.1086/316293 1999

  15. [15]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 9

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  16. [16]

    2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    Chaty, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347908 2024

  17. [17]

    Fryer, C. L. 1999, ApJ, 522, 413, doi: 10.1086/307647 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1086/307647 1999

  18. [18]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  19. [19]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  20. [20]

    A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D. L. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225, 336.16

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08728.x Contopoulos J, Lovelace RVE (1994) Magnetically Driven Jets and Winds: Exact Solutions

    Hobbs, G., Lorimer, D. R., Lyne, A. G., & Kramer, M. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 974, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09087.x 2005

  22. [22]

    W., Yuan, H

    Huang, Y., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv204

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv204 2015

  23. [23]

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

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  24. [24]

    2025a, ApJ, 984, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fa

    Hutchinson, B. 2025a, ApJ, 984, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fa

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc2fa

  25. [25]

    2025b, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Stellar parameters from XP and RVS spectra (Huson+, 2025),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJ/984/58

    Hutchinson, B. 2025b, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Stellar parameters from XP and RVS spectra (Huson+, 2025),, VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJ/984/58. Originally published in: 2025ApJ...984...58H

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1106

    Janka, H.-T. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1355, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1106

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1106 2013

  27. [27]

    Z., Thompson, T

    Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K. Z., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2577, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab907

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab907 2021

  28. [28]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.10608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.10608

    Jayasinghe, T. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.10608, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.10608

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.10608 2025

  29. [29]

    G., & Lorimer, D

    Lyne, A. G., & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 127, doi: 10.1038/369127a0

    work page doi:10.1038/369127a0 1994

  30. [30]

    2022, A&A, 664, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243147

    Mahy, L., Sana, H., Shenar, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A159, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243147

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243147 2022

  31. [31]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, AJ, 129, 1993, doi: 10.1086/428488

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/428488 2005

  32. [32]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/426387 2005

  33. [33]

    McMillan, P. J. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 76, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2759 2017

  34. [34]

    A., et al

    Morrissey, P., Schiminovich, D., Barlow, T. A., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L7, doi: 10.1086/424734

    work page doi:10.1086/424734 2005

  35. [35]

    Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1503.010 http://ascl.net/1503.010 M¨ uller-Horn, J., Rix, H.-W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05982, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05982

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05982 2015

  36. [36]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169 pandas development team, T

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000169 2000

  37. [37]

    R., Winn, J

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  38. [38]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 983, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbe6e 2025

  39. [39]

    2010, A&A, 510, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912222

    Sartore, N., Ripamonti, E., Treves, A., & Turolla, R. 2010, A&A, 510, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912222

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912222 2010

  40. [40]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18079, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18079

    work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  41. [41]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 637, doi: 10.1126/science.aau4005

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau4005 2019

  42. [42]

    X., Woosley, S

    Timmes, F. X., Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1996, ApJ, 457, 834, doi: 10.1086/176778

    work page doi:10.1086/176778 1996

  43. [43]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 8586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3749

    Chatterjee, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3749

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3749 2024

  44. [44]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1583, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9

    Wang, S., Zhao, X., Feng, F., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 1583, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-024-02359-9 2024

  45. [45]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  46. [46]

    2016, MNRAS, 458, 3012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw426

    Wyrzykowski, L., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska, Z., Skowron, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3012, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw426

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw426 2016

  47. [47]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1203, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01766-0 zhang-zhixiang

    Yi, T., Gu, W.-M., Zhang, Z.-X., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1203, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01766-0 zhang-zhixiang. 2025, zhang-zhixiang/spectool: spectool version 1.0.1, v1.0.1 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14947417

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01766-0 2022

  48. [48]

    2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag058

    Zhao, Y., Gandhi, P., Knigge, C., et al. 2026, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag058

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag058 2026