pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24364 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

Recognition: unknown

Fates of the sub-stellar objects (FOSSO) II. Evidence for Suppression of Metal Pollution in White Dwarfs by Close Substellar Companions

Zhangliang Chen , Xin-Yue Zhang , Di-Chang Chen , Kejun Wang , Bo Ma , Ji-Wei Xie , Ji-Lin Zhou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 01:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords white dwarfsmetal pollutionsubstellar companionsplanetary debrisdynamical clearingN-body simulationspost-main-sequence evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

White dwarfs with close substellar companions show metal pollution rates five times lower than isolated white dwarfs.

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

The authors investigate whether close substellar companions can protect white dwarfs from being polluted by metals from accreted planetary debris. They analyze 17 systems and find that those with orbital periods under five days have a pollution fraction of only 7.7 percent, suppressed by a factor of 5.75 relative to single white dwarfs at 99.96 percent confidence. Wider companions do not show this suppression, maintaining pollution rates around 25 percent similar to isolated stars. N-body simulations demonstrate that these close companions can dynamically clear 80 to 90 percent of small-body contaminants, aligning with the observational data.

Core claim

In a sample of 17 white dwarf-substellar companion systems, white dwarfs with close companions (orbital period less than 5 days) display a metal-pollution fraction of 7.7 percent, which is 5.75 times lower than for single white dwarfs. This indicates a protection efficiency of 87 percent. Systems with wider companions exhibit pollution fractions comparable to single white dwarfs at about 25 percent. Numerical simulations of dynamical interactions confirm that massive close companions are able to remove most small-body pollutants from the system.

What carries the argument

Close-in substellar companions that dynamically clear small-body contaminants through gravitational interactions, preventing their accretion onto the white dwarf.

If this is right

  • The metal pollution observed in white dwarfs largely originates from systems without close massive companions.
  • The long-term stability of remnant planetary systems depends on the presence of surviving close substellar bodies.
  • Pollution rates in white dwarf spectra can indicate the likelihood of undetected close companions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This mechanism may help explain the range of pollution levels seen in different white dwarf populations.
  • Future observations could use the presence of metal pollution to predict or search for close companions.
  • The dynamical protection could extend to understanding debris disks in other post-main sequence systems.

Load-bearing premise

The sample of 17 white dwarf-substellar companion systems is representative of the population and not affected by selection biases in measuring pollution fractions.

What would settle it

Finding a high fraction of metal pollution in a larger sample of white dwarfs with close substellar companions would disprove the suppression effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24364 by Bo Ma, Di-Chang Chen, Ji-Lin Zhou, Ji-Wei Xie, Kejun Wang, Xin-Yue Zhang, Zhangliang Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Well-constrained WDs with substellar compan￾ions (BDs or giant planets). The ‘close’ and ‘wide’ are de￾fined as having an orbital period shorter or much longer than 5 days, respectively. Red markers denote the systems con￾taining a polluted WD. Systems were divided into two categories according to the orbital period: close systems (P < 5 d), which are expected to have undergone common envelope evolution; a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Probability distribution of metal-pollution frac￾tion. The blue and purple lines represent the distribution for WDs with close and wide companions. The vertical gray region shows the metal-pollution fraction 44 ± 6% derived from a single WD sample (L. B. Ould Rouis et al. 2024). lution fraction. Moreover, even if the fraction of metal pollution were to decline with cooling age, the white dwarf–close compan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Upper panel: Probability distribution of sup￾pression factor for WDs with close (purple) and wide (blue) substellar companion. The shaded region indicates the 1-σ confidence interval. Lower panel: Probability distribution of protection rate for WDs with close companion (purple). The green-shaded region represents the protection rate from N– body simulation with a system separation of 0.01 AU. The green das… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results for dynamical shielding scenario. Left panel: Protection rates (Fprotection) as a function of mass, with different line styles representing distinct semi-major axis values. Right panel: Mapping the modified close encounter ratio in the planetary mass-semi major axis diagram. ward trend, governed by the physical radius, falls out￾side its predictive scope. However, while the adopted mass-… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Approximately 25--50\% of white dwarfs (WDs) exhibit metal absorption lines in their photospheres, interpreted as evidence of ongoing/recent accretion of planetary debris from remnant systems. Previous theoretical studies have suggested that massive, close-in substellar companion may prevent delivery of larger bodies via dynamical interactions, thereby reducing white-dwarf pollution. However, no conclusive observational evidence has yet been established to confirm such a protective effect. In this work, based on a sample of 17 white dwarf-substellar companion (1--75 $M_{\rm J}$) systems with reliable spectroscopic classifications, we find that white dwarfs hosting close substellar companions (orbital period $P < 5$ d) exhibit a metal-pollution fraction of $7.7^{+11.3}_{-4.0}\%$, which is suppressed by a factor of $5.75^{+3.24}_{-1.94}$ (corresponding to a protection efficiency of $87.2^{+3.4}_{-9.2}\%$) relative to single white dwarfs with a confidence level of 99.96\%. In contrast, white dwarfs with wider companions show a metal-pollution fraction of approximately $25.0^{+24.0}_{-12.8}\%$, comparable to that of single white dwarf systems. To interpret these results, we perform ensembles of N-body integrations and demonstrate that massive close-in substellar companions are capable of clearing 80\%--90\% of small-body contaminants. The good consistency between the observational statistics and dynamical simulations provides strong evidence for suppressed metal pollution in white dwarfs with close companions, and offers insights into the long-term dynamical evolution of WD remanent systems.

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 paper presents evidence from a sample of 17 white dwarf-substellar companion systems that close companions with orbital periods P < 5 days suppress metal pollution in the white dwarf photospheres. The close subsample shows a pollution fraction of 7.7^{+11.3}_{-4.0}%, suppressed by a factor of 5.75^{+3.24}_{-1.94} (87.2% protection efficiency) relative to single white dwarfs at 99.96% confidence, while wider companions exhibit rates similar to single WDs (~25%). N-body simulations confirm that such companions can clear 80-90% of small-body contaminants.

Significance. If the central result holds, it constitutes the first observational confirmation of the hypothesized protective role of close substellar companions against white dwarf metal pollution. The consistency between the empirical suppression factor and the dynamical clearing efficiency from N-body integrations adds substantial weight to the interpretation, advancing our understanding of dynamical interactions in evolved planetary systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sample Selection and Classification] The description of how the 17 systems were selected and vetted for reliable spectroscopic classifications is insufficiently detailed. Since the key result hinges on the difference in pollution fractions between close and wide companions, the paper must demonstrate that the sample is free from selection biases that could preferentially affect the close-in systems (e.g., completeness of RV or transit detections around polluted vs. non-polluted WDs).
  2. [Statistical Analysis and Uncertainties] With a total sample of only 17 systems, the close-companion bin is small, leading to large asymmetric uncertainties. The method used to calculate the 99.96% confidence level for the suppression and the protection efficiency should be fully specified, including any assumptions in the binomial statistics or Monte Carlo approach.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from stating the number of systems in the close and wide subsamples to allow immediate assessment of the statistical basis.
  2. [N-body Integrations] Provide more specifics on the initial conditions, particle numbers, and integration timescales in the N-body simulations to facilitate independent verification.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive assessment of the work's significance. We have revised the manuscript to address both major concerns by expanding the sample description and fully documenting the statistical methods.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sample Selection and Classification] The description of how the 17 systems were selected and vetted for reliable spectroscopic classifications is insufficiently detailed. Since the key result hinges on the difference in pollution fractions between close and wide companions, the paper must demonstrate that the sample is free from selection biases that could preferentially affect the close-in systems (e.g., completeness of RV or transit detections around polluted vs. non-polluted WDs).

    Authors: We agree that the original description was insufficiently detailed. In the revised manuscript we have expanded Section 2 with a complete account of the sample compilation from the FOSSO I catalog and the literature, including explicit vetting criteria for spectroscopic classifications. We have added a dedicated paragraph and supporting references arguing that the sample is free from the suggested biases: companion detections (RV or transit) are drawn from independent photometric and spectroscopic surveys whose completeness does not correlate with the presence of metal lines, which are measured from separate optical spectra. A new table listing all 17 systems, their orbital periods, masses, pollution status, and literature references has been included to allow readers to assess selection effects directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Statistical Analysis and Uncertainties] With a total sample of only 17 systems, the close-companion bin is small, leading to large asymmetric uncertainties. The method used to calculate the 99.96% confidence level for the suppression and the protection efficiency should be fully specified, including any assumptions in the binomial statistics or Monte Carlo approach.

    Authors: We acknowledge the small-sample limitation and the need for explicit methodology. The 99.96% confidence was obtained via a binomial proportion test comparing the observed pollution rate in the close subsample against the well-established ~25% rate for single white dwarfs, with asymmetric uncertainties derived from the beta distribution (Clopper-Pearson intervals). In the revised text we have inserted a new subsection that fully specifies the procedure: the exact binomial probability formula, the assumption of independent Bernoulli trials with no informative priors, the Monte Carlo validation runs (10^5 realizations) used to confirm the significance, and the propagation of uncertainties into the suppression factor and protection efficiency. We also note the small-sample caveat in the discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central result is direct observational comparison of measured fractions.

full rationale

The paper's core claim rests on counting metal-pollution incidence in a sample of 17 WD-substellar systems split by orbital period (P<5 d vs. wider), then comparing the resulting binomial fractions (7.7% vs. ~25%) to the known rate for single WDs. The suppression factor and protection efficiency are simple arithmetic ratios of these directly observed rates, with uncertainties propagated from binomial statistics. N-body integrations are performed afterward solely for interpretation and show consistency with the observed suppression; they do not supply the input fractions or define the reported percentages. No self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes appear in the derivation. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (literature single-WD pollution rate) and receives the default low-circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard interpretation that photospheric metals trace recent debris accretion, the assumption that the 17-system sample is unbiased, and the choice of a 5-day period threshold to define 'close'. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Orbital period threshold = 5 days
    The 5-day cut that separates close from wide companions is stated without derivation from the data; it directly determines which systems enter the low-pollution bin.
  • Companion mass range = 1-75 M_J
    The 1-75 Jupiter-mass window defines the substellar sample; altering the bounds would change the 17-system count and the reported fractions.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Metal absorption lines in white-dwarf spectra indicate ongoing or recent accretion of planetary debris
    Invoked in the first sentence of the abstract as the interpretation of the 25-50% pollution rate.
  • domain assumption The 17 white-dwarf-substellar systems constitute an unbiased sample for comparing pollution rates
    Required for the statistical claim that the close-companion fraction differs from the single-white-dwarf rate at 99.96% confidence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5645 in / 1590 out tokens · 54275 ms · 2026-05-08T01:34:04.036598+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2024, ApJL, 966, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad394c

    Akiba, T., McIntyre, S., & Madigan, A.-M. 2024, ApJL, 966, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad394c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad394c 2024

  2. [2]

    R., Le Bourdais, ´E., et al

    Albert, L., Poulsen, S. R., Le Bourdais, ´E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.12601, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.12601

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.12601 2025

  3. [3]

    M., & Romero, A

    Bertolami, M. M., & Romero, A. D. 2009, ApJL, 693, L23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/1/l23 2009

  4. [4]

    Hauschildt, P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030252

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030252 2003

  5. [5]

    V., et al

    Beuermann, K., Dreizler, S., Hessman, F. V., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322241

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322241 2013

  6. [6]

    J., Hollands, M., et al

    Bonsor, A., Carter, P. J., Hollands, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2683, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3603

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3603 2020

  7. [7]

    Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1999, ApJ, 514, 344, doi: 10.1086/306917

    work page doi:10.1086/306917 1999

  8. [8]

    title AGN-controlled cooling in elliptical galaxies

    Burleigh, M. R., Hogan, E., Dobbie, P. D., Napiwotzki, R., & Maxted, P. F. L. 2006, MNRAS, 373, L55, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00242.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00242.x 2006

  9. [9]

    R., Steele, P

    Burleigh, M. R., Steele, P. R., Dobbie, P. D., et al. 2011, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1331, Planetary Systems Beyond the Main Sequence, ed. S. Schuh, H. Drechsel, & U. Heber, 262–270, doi: 10.1063/1.3556209

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3556209 2011

  10. [10]

    L., Littlefair, S

    Casewell, S. L., Littlefair, S. P., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2018a, MNRAS, 481, 5216, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2599

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2599

  11. [11]

    L., Burleigh, M

    Casewell, S. L., Burleigh, M. R., Wynn, G. A., et al. 2012, ApJL, 759, L34, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L34

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/l34 2012

  12. [12]

    L., Braker, I

    Casewell, S. L., Braker, I. P., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2018b, MNRAS, 476, 1405, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty245

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty245

  13. [13]

    L., Belardi, C., Parsons, S

    Casewell, S. L., Belardi, C., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 3571, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1608

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1608 2020

  14. [14]

    L., Burleigh, M

    Casewell, S. L., Burleigh, M. R., Napiwotzki, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2301

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2301 2024

  15. [15]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 69, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0609-7

    Chen, D.-C., Zhou, J.-L., Xie, J.-W., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 69, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0609-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0609-7 2019

  16. [16]

    2026, A&A, 707, A312, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557835

    Chen, Z., Jin, H., Ge, H., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A312, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557835

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557835 2026

  17. [17]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9 de Wit, J., Alonso, R., Rackham, B

    Coutu, S., Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9 de Wit, J., Alonso, R., Rackham, B. V., et al. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 270, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ae1228

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9 2019

  18. [18]

    J., Liebert, J., Harris, H

    Eisenstein, D. J., Liebert, J., Harris, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJS, 167, 40, doi: 10.1086/507110

    work page doi:10.1086/507110 2006

  19. [19]

    2004, AJ, 128, 1868, doi: 10.1086/423919

    Farihi, J., & Christopher, M. 2004, AJ, 128, 1868, doi: 10.1086/423919

    work page doi:10.1086/423919 2004

  20. [20]

    2009, ApJ, 694, 805, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/805 9

    Farihi, J., Jura, M., & Zuckerman, B. 2009, ApJ, 694, 805, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/805 9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/694/2/805 2009

  21. [21]

    G., & G¨ ansicke, B

    Farihi, J., Parsons, S. G., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0032, doi: 10.1038/s41550-016-0032

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-016-0032 2017

  22. [22]

    R., Casewell, S

    French, J. R., Casewell, S. L., Dupuy, T. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3807 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3807 2023

  23. [23]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693, 10.48550/arXiv.2206.06693

    Ge, J., Zhang, H., Zang, W., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2206.06693

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.06693 2022

  24. [24]

    2012, ApJS, 199, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29

    Giammichele, N., Bergeron, P., & Dufour, P. 2012, ApJS, 199, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/29 2012

  25. [25]

    2021, A&A, 650, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038757

    Irrgang, A., Geier, S., Heber, U., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038757

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038757 2021

  26. [26]

    2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036

    Jura, M. 2003, ApJL, 584, L91, doi: 10.1086/374036

    work page doi:10.1086/374036 2003

  27. [27]

    J., Kepler, S

    Kleinman, S. J., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2013, ApJS, 204, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/204/1/5 2013

  28. [28]

    2009, A&A, 498, 517, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    Koester, D. 2009, A&A, 498, 517, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811468

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811468 2009

  29. [29]

    T., & Farihi, J

    Koester, D., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Farihi, J. 2014, A&A, 566, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423691

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423691 2014

  30. [30]

    2009, A&A, 505, 441, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912531

    Koester, D., Voss, B., Napiwotzki, R., et al. 2009, A&A, 505, 441, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912531

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912531 2009

  31. [31]

    2001, A&A, 378, 556, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011235

    Koester, D., Napiwotzki, R., Christlieb, N., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 556, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011235

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011235 2001

  32. [32]

    A., Vanderburg, A., MacDonald, R

    Limbach, M. A., Vanderburg, A., MacDonald, R. J., et al. 2025, ApJL, 984, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc9ad

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc9ad 2025

  33. [33]

    P., Casewell, S

    Littlefair, S. P., Casewell, S. L., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1895

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1895 2014

  34. [34]

    S., Casewell, S

    Longstaff, E. S., Casewell, S. L., Wynn, G. A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 2566, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz127

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz127 2019

  35. [35]

    L., Burgasser, A

    Luhman, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., & Bochanski, J. J. 2011, ApJL, 730, L9, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/L9

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/730/1/l9 2011

  36. [36]

    Burleigh, M. R. 2006, Nature, 442, 543, doi: 10.1038/nature04987 M¨ uller, S., Baron, J., Helled, R., Bouchy, F., & Parc, L. 2024, A&A, 686, A296, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348690 O’Brien, M. W., Tremblay, P.-E., Gentile Fusillo, N. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 3055, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3303 Ould Rouis, L. B., Hermes, J. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2...

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04987 2006

  37. [37]

    G., Hermes, J

    Parsons, S. G., Hermes, J. J., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 976, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1610

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1610 2017

  38. [38]

    G., Brown, A

    Parsons, S. G., Brown, A. J., Casewell, S. L., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf166

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf166 2025

  39. [39]

    1986, ApJ, 307, 242, doi: 10.1086/164410

    Wegner, G. 1986, ApJ, 307, 242, doi: 10.1086/164410

    work page doi:10.1086/164410 1986

  40. [40]

    , keywords =

    Phillips, M. W., Tremblin, P., Baraffe, I., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937381 2020

  41. [41]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1611

    Rappaport, S., Vanderburg, A., Nelson, L., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1611

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1611 2017

  42. [42]

    , keywords =

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, A&A, 537, A128, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118085 2012

  43. [43]

    R., Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., & Song, I

    Rodriguez, D. R., Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., & Song, I. 2011, ApJL, 732, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/L29

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/732/2/l29 2011

  44. [44]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Steele, P. R., Burleigh, M. R., Dobbie, P. D., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 2768, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19225.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19225.x 2011

  45. [45]

    R., Burleigh, M

    Steele, P. R., Burleigh, M. R., Farihi, J., et al. 2009, A&A, 500, 1207, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200911694

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911694 2009

  46. [46]

    R., Saglia, R

    Steele, P. R., Saglia, R. P., Burleigh, M. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts620

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts620 2013

  47. [47]

    P., Jao, W.-C., Henry, T

    Subasavage, J. P., Jao, W.-C., Henry, T. J., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4547, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4547 van Roestel, J., Kupfer, T., Bell, K. J., et al. 2021, ApJL, 919, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac22b7

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/4547 2009

  48. [48]

    Nature , author =

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S. A., Xu, S., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 363, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2713-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2713-y 2020

  49. [49]

    2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150571, doi: 10.1098/rsos.150571

    Veras, D. 2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150571, doi: 10.1098/rsos.150571

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.150571 2016

  50. [50]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 3379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3490

    Veras, D., Birader, Y., & Zaman, U. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 3379, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3490

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3490 2022

  51. [51]

    M., Bonsor, A., & G¨ ansicke, B

    Veras, D., Leinhardt, Z. M., Bonsor, A., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1871

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1871 2014

  52. [52]

    MIRI-LRS Spectrum of a Cold Exoplanet around a White Dwarf: Water, Ammonia, and Methane Measurements

    Voyer, M., Changeat, Q., Lagage, P.-O., et al. 2025, ApJL, 982, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adbd46

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adbd46 2025

  53. [53]

    2026, A&A, 707, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557402

    Zhang, X.-Y., Xie, J.-W., Chen, D.-C., & Zhou, J.-L. 2026, A&A, 707, A195, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557402

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557402 2026

  54. [54]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 3587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1137

    Zorotovic, M., & Schreiber, M. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 3587, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1137

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1137 2022

  55. [55]

    N., & H¨ unsch, M

    Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Reid, I. N., & H¨ unsch, M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 477, doi: 10.1086/377492

    work page doi:10.1086/377492 2003

  56. [56]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 725, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/725

    Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., Klein, B., Koester, D., & Jura, M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 725, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/725

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/725 2010