pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19441 · v1 · pith:2CKLFXAWnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

An Ultramassive White Dwarf with a Likely Oxygen-Neon Core

Stefan M. Arseneau , J.J. Hermes , Vedant Chandra , Roberto Raddi , Maria E. Camisassa , Alberto Rebassa-Mansergas , Santiago Torres This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords ultramassive white dwarfsoxygen-neon coregravitational redshiftType Ia supernovaewhite dwarf cooling sequencestellar evolution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measurements of an ultramassive white dwarf favor an oxygen-neon core with Bayes factor 2.7.

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

The paper presents gravitational redshift measurements from high-resolution spectra of the white dwarf SDSS J060851.44-005950.3, combined with photometry, to determine its mass and radius. These values are then compared to theoretical mass-radius relations for ultramassive white dwarfs with different core compositions. The data show a preference for an oxygen-neon core over a carbon-oxygen core. This matters because the core composition determines whether the white dwarf can explode as a Type Ia supernova. The result also links the absence of cooling delays on the Q-branch to oxygen-neon cores in such stars.

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass of 1.226 solar masses and radius of 0.491 Earth radii for this ultramassive white dwarf, derived from gravitational redshifts and photometry, align better with oxygen-neon core models than carbon-oxygen core models according to state-of-the-art relations, with a Bayes factor of 2.7. This indicates the white dwarf is likely structurally incapable of producing a Type Ia supernova and provides evidence that white dwarfs passing the Q-branch without cooling delay have oxygen-neon cores.

What carries the argument

Gravitational redshift from UVES and MagE spectra paired with photometric constraints, compared against mass-radius relations that distinguish between carbon-oxygen and oxygen-neon cores in ultramassive white dwarfs.

If this is right

  • This white dwarf is likely structurally incapable of producing a Type Ia supernova.
  • White dwarfs which pass through the Q-branch without experiencing a delay in cooling compared to the normal white dwarf cooling sequence likely have oxygen-neon cores.
  • Core composition of ultramassive white dwarfs can be probed observationally through mass and radius measurements despite the photosphere being the outermost layer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Additional ultramassive white dwarfs with similar measurements could test how common oxygen-neon cores are among high-mass white dwarfs.
  • This finding may inform models of white dwarf evolution and the contribution of different core types to supernova rates.
  • Connections between cooling behavior on the Q-branch and core composition could be explored in other stellar populations.

Load-bearing premise

The state-of-the-art mass-radius relations accurately capture the structural differences between carbon-oxygen and oxygen-neon cores at the measured mass and radius without large systematic model errors.

What would settle it

Revised mass-radius relations for ultramassive white dwarfs that incorporate different input physics and show no preference or a preference for carbon-oxygen cores at this mass and radius would falsify the conclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19441 by Alberto Rebassa-Mansergas, J.J. Hermes, Maria E. Camisassa, Roberto Raddi, Santiago Torres, Stefan M. Arseneau, Vedant Chandra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SDSS J0608−0059 sits well below the main white dwarf cooling track, indicating that it is ultramassive. It has low kinematics, with a transverse velocity of 10.84 ± 0.06 km s−1 according to Gaia astrometry. Evolutionary tracks for white dwarfs with masses of 0.6 M⊙, 1.0 M⊙, and 1.2 M⊙ are marked in black (using C/O core evolutionary tracks from B´edard et al. 2020), and stars are colored by their transvers… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Best fit gravitational redshift to the Hα and Hβ lines of SDSS J0608−0059 in a window of ±30 ˚A for the lower￾resolution MagE data (left) and ±15 ˚A for the higher-resolution UVES data (right). The gravitational redshift of the white dwarf is its radial velocity in the frame of reference of the common proper motion companion, corrected for the orbital motion and gravitational redshift of the companion. The… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Model atmosphere best fits to Gaia, SDSS, PanSTARRs, and SkyMapper photometry. We find a best fit temperature of 17, 790+400 −370 K. The best fit model atmo￾sphere is plotted in black, with photometry computed from the model spectrum in each band plotted as open points. We find a reduced chi-square statistic (χ 2 r) of 1.4. The 16th to 84th confidence interval sampled from the MCMC posteriors is shaded in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The posterior distributions of gravitational redshift and radius as well as mass and radius for SDSS J0608−0059. Contours represent the 0.5σ, 1.0σ, 1.5σ, and 2.0σ confidence intervals for a 2D Gaussian. We observe that the oxygen/neon core models (blue) are preferred over the carbon-oxygen models (red) with a Bayes factor of 2.7. We interpret this as evidence that ultramassive white dwarfs which pass throu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The core composition of ultramassive white dwarfs remains an open question in stellar evolution. The carbon content of white dwarf cores is critical to their role as progenitors of Type Ia supernovae. However, because the stellar photosphere only extends to the outermost layer of the star, observational probes of core compositions are limited. Here we present gravitational redshift measurements of an ultramassive white dwarf, SDSS J060851.44-005950.3, which indicate the likely presence of an oxygen-neon core. We measure the mass ($1.226_{-0.025}^{+0.024} M_\odot$) and radius ($0.491_{-0.009}^{+0.009}~R_\oplus$) of the white dwarf using gravitational redshifts from high-resolution UVES and MagE spectra paired with independent constraints from photometry. By comparing to state-of-the-art mass-radius relations for ultramassive white dwarfs, we find preference for a oxygen-neon core over a carbon-oxygen core, with a Bayes factor of $2.7$. This is a white dwarf which is likely structurally incapable of producing a Type Ia supernova, according to current understanding of supernova physics. This object provides evidence that white dwarfs which pass through the Q-branch without experiencing a delay in cooling compared to the normal white dwarf cooling sequence likely have oxygen-neon cores.

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 reports gravitational redshift measurements of the ultramassive white dwarf SDSS J060851.44-005950.3 using high-resolution spectra from UVES and MagE, combined with photometric constraints, yielding a mass of 1.226 +0.024/-0.025 M⊙ and radius of 0.491 ±0.009 R⊕. Comparison to state-of-the-art mass-radius relations for ultramassive white dwarfs shows a Bayes factor of 2.7 in favor of an oxygen-neon core over carbon-oxygen, implying the white dwarf is likely not a Type Ia supernova progenitor and supporting ONe cores for objects passing the Q-branch without cooling delay.

Significance. If robust, this provides direct observational evidence on core composition for an ultramassive white dwarf, addressing a key open question in stellar evolution and Type Ia supernova progenitor channels. The independent gravitational-redshift mass/radius determination is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model-comparison section] The Bayes factor of 2.7 provides only mild preference. The manuscript does not appear to marginalize over or quantify systematic uncertainties in the adopted external mass-radius relations (e.g., core crystallization, envelope assumptions, or equation-of-state differences) that could be comparable to the ~2% observational errors and shift the Bayes factor across or below unity.
  2. [Results/Discussion on mass-radius comparison] The central claim of 'likely' ONe core rests on treating the literature tracks as fixed; without testing multiple independent track sets or propagating model errors into the likelihood, the result is sensitive to the fidelity of those specific relations at ~1.23 M⊙.
minor comments (2)
  1. Ensure consistent notation for asymmetric uncertainties (e.g., 1.226_{-0.025}^{+0.024}) across text, tables, and figures.
  2. A supplementary figure or table showing the likelihood or posterior comparison between the CO and ONe models would improve clarity of the Bayes-factor result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive report. The comments correctly identify limitations in the strength of the model comparison and the treatment of theoretical uncertainties. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model-comparison section] The Bayes factor of 2.7 provides only mild preference. The manuscript does not appear to marginalize over or quantify systematic uncertainties in the adopted external mass-radius relations (e.g., core crystallization, envelope assumptions, or equation-of-state differences) that could be comparable to the ~2% observational errors and shift the Bayes factor across or below unity.

    Authors: We agree that a Bayes factor of 2.7 corresponds to only mild evidence on standard interpretive scales. The current analysis adopts the published mass-radius relations at face value and does not marginalize over their internal modeling choices. In the revised manuscript we will expand the model-comparison section (and update the abstract accordingly) to state explicitly that the Bayes factor is mild, to list the main systematic assumptions in the adopted relations (crystallization, envelope mass, equation of state), and to note that variations at the level of the observational errors could in principle move the factor below unity. We will also add a short paragraph discussing why a full marginalization over these systematics lies outside the scope of the present observational study. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results/Discussion on mass-radius comparison] The central claim of 'likely' ONe core rests on treating the literature tracks as fixed; without testing multiple independent track sets or propagating model errors into the likelihood, the result is sensitive to the fidelity of those specific relations at ~1.23 M⊙.

    Authors: The manuscript relies on the most recent published ultramassive white-dwarf tracks available at the time of submission. We acknowledge that the result is therefore sensitive to the fidelity of those particular relations and that no alternative independent sets were tested. In revision we will qualify the discussion by (i) reiterating that the conclusion is conditional on the adopted tracks, (ii) citing the primary references and their stated assumptions, and (iii) noting that future comparisons with independent model grids would be valuable. Full propagation of model errors into the likelihood would require access to the underlying grids and is not feasible within this work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: mass-radius comparison uses independent measurements against external literature relations

full rationale

The derivation measures mass (1.226 +0.024/-0.025 M⊙) and radius (0.491 ±0.009 R⊕) from gravitational redshifts in UVES/MagE spectra plus independent photometry. These observables are then compared to pre-existing state-of-the-art mass-radius tracks for ONe vs CO cores published by other groups, yielding a Bayes factor of 2.7. No equation or step reduces the core-composition inference to a parameter fitted from the same dataset, nor does any load-bearing premise rest on a self-citation chain. The result is therefore a direct test against external model predictions rather than a self-referential construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions in white dwarf astrophysics; only the abstract is available so the ledger is limited to explicitly invoked elements.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gravitational redshift from the spectra directly yields surface gravity and thus mass-radius without significant contamination from rotation, magnetic fields, or other effects.
    Invoked to convert spectra plus photometry into the reported mass and radius.
  • domain assumption Published mass-radius relations for ultramassive white dwarfs correctly encode the structural distinction between carbon-oxygen and oxygen-neon cores at ~1.23 solar masses.
    Required for the Bayes factor comparison to be meaningful.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5803 in / 1363 out tokens · 33281 ms · 2026-06-26T19:09:57.024401+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

80 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    K., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Allam, S. S., et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 634, doi: 10.1086/518864

    work page doi:10.1086/518864 2007

  2. [2]

    G., C´ orsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., C´ orsico, A. H., Camisassa, M. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4492, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1720

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1720 2023

  3. [3]

    G., Gil-Pons, P., C´ orsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., Gil-Pons, P., C´ orsico, A. H., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A30, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038930

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038930 2021

  4. [4]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2168

    Arseneau, S., Chandra, V., Hwang, H.-C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2168

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2168 2024

  5. [5]

    M., Hermes, J

    Arseneau, S. M., Hermes, J. J., Camisassa, M. E., Raddi, R., & Bauer, E. B. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 297, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c4b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae4c4b 2026

  6. [6]

    M., Hermes, J

    Arseneau, S. M., Hermes, J. J., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf8dd 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, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Coll...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf8dd 2025

  7. [7]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  8. [8]

    2018, AJ, 156, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21

    Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 2018

  9. [9]

    2025, ApJ, 984, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc300

    Batziou, E., Glas, R., Janka, H.-T., et al. 2025, ApJ, 984, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adc300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adc300 2025

  10. [10]

    B., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al

    Bauer, E. B., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae401e B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe B´ edard, A., Blouin, S., & Cheng, S. 2024, Nature, 627, 286, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07102-y

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae401e 2026

  11. [11]

    2021, ApJL, 911, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b

    Blouin, S., Daligault, J., & Saumon, D. 2021, ApJL, 911, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf14b 2021

  12. [12]

    2025, ApJ, 988, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addc70

    Caliskan, O., Uzundag, M., Kilic, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addc70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addc70 2025

  13. [13]

    2024, A&A, 683, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348344

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A. 2024, A&A, 683, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348344

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348344 2024

  14. [14]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., Koester, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5198, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac348

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac348 2022

  15. [15]

    E., Althaus, L

    Camisassa, M. E., Althaus, L. G., C´ orsico, A. H., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A87, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833822

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833822 2019

  16. [16]

    L., & Rankin, J

    Castanheira, B. G., & Kepler, S. O. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1709, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14855.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14855.x 2009

  17. [17]

    M., & Rankin, J

    Castanheira, B. G., Kepler, S. O., Kleinman, S. J., Nitta, A., & Fraga, L. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2561, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16633.x —. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 50, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts474

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16633.x 2010

  18. [18]

    2025, ApJ, 991, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf745

    Castro-Tapia, M., & Cumming, A. 2025, ApJ, 991, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf745

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf745 2025

  19. [19]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  20. [20]

    L., & Cheng, S

    Chandra, V., Hwang, H.-C., Zakamska, N. L., & Cheng, S. 2020, ApJ, 899, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba8a2 2020

  21. [21]

    D., & M´ enard, B

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., & M´ enard, B. 2019, ApJ, 886, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4989 2019

  22. [22]

    D., M´ enard, B., & Toonen, S

    Cheng, S., Cummings, J. D., M´ enard, B., & Toonen, S. 2020, ApJ, 891, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab733c 2020

  23. [23]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 C´ orsico, A. H., De Ger´ onimo, F. C., Camisassa, M. E., &

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

  24. [24]

    Althaus, L. G. 2019, A&A, 632, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936698

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936698 2019

  25. [25]

    R., Chandra, V., Zakamska, N

    Crumpler, N. R., Chandra, V., Zakamska, N. L., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 237, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ddc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8ddc 2024

  26. [26]

    J., et al

    Curd, B., Gianninas, A., Bell, K. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx320

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx320 2017

  27. [27]

    M., & Rankin, J

    Darbha, S., Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 846, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17353.x De Ger´ onimo, F. C., C´ orsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G.,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17353.x 2010

  28. [28]

    C., & Camisassa, M

    Wachlin, F. C., & Camisassa, M. E. 2019, A&A, 621, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833789 De Ger´ onimo, F. C., Uzundag, M., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2025, ApJL, 980, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adad73

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833789 2019

  29. [29]

    2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kotzlowski, H. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors, ed. M. Iye & A. F. Moorwood, 534–545, doi: 10.1117/12.395512

    work page doi:10.1117/12.395512 2000

  30. [30]

    Lau, H. H. B. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2180

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2180 2015

  31. [31]

    1996, ApJ, 472, 783, doi: 10.1086/178106

    Dominguez, I., Straniero, O., Tornambe, A., & Isern, J. 1996, ApJ, 472, 783, doi: 10.1086/178106

    work page doi:10.1086/178106 1996

  32. [32]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016

  33. [33]

    B., Park, M., et al

    Dotter, A., Bauer, E. B., Park, M., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae48f3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae48f3 2026

  34. [34]

    J., Liebert, J., Koester, D., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Liebert, J., Koester, D., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 676, doi: 10.1086/504424 9

    work page doi:10.1086/504424 2006

  35. [35]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab323 2021

  36. [36]

    Williams, K. A. 2010, ApJ, 712, 585, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/712/1/585

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/585 2010

  37. [37]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1...

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  38. [38]

    M., Hermes, J

    Heintz, T. M., Hermes, J. J., El-Badry, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78d9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac78d9 2022

  39. [39]

    M., Hermes, J

    Heintz, T. M., Hermes, J. J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 969, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad479b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad479b 2024

  40. [40]

    J., Kepler, S

    Hermes, J. J., Kepler, S. O., Castanheira, B. G., et al. 2013, ApJL, 771, L2, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/L2

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/771/1/l2 2013

  41. [41]

    A., Tremblay, P

    Hollands, M. A., Tremblay, P. E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 663, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1028-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1028-0 2020

  42. [42]

    2009, A&A, 501, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811191

    Holmberg, J., Nordstr¨ om, B., & Andersen, J. 2009, A&A, 501, 941, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811191

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811191 2009

  43. [43]

    Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N. L. 2025, ApJ, 991, 226, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfa1c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfa1c 2025

  44. [44]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905 2024

  45. [45]

    2025, ApJ, 994, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae100a

    Jewett, G., Kilic, M., Moss, A., et al. 2025, ApJ, 994, 255, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae100a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae100a 2025

  46. [46]

    E., et al

    Kanaan, A., Nitta, A., Winget, D. E., et al. 2005, A&A, 432, 219, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041125

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041125 2005

  47. [47]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244220 2023

  48. [48]

    G., Kosakowski, A., et al

    Kilic, M., Moss, A. G., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2341, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3182

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3182 2023

  49. [49]

    A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al

    Kollmeier, J. A., Rix, H.-W., Aerts, C., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae0576

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae0576 2026

  50. [50]

    M., & Saumon, D

    Kowalski, P. M., & Saumon, D. 2006, ApJL, 651, L137, doi: 10.1086/509723

    work page doi:10.1086/509723 2006

  51. [51]

    R., Romero, A

    Lauffer, G. R., Romero, A. D., & Kepler, S. O. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1547, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1925

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1925 2018

  52. [52]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    Limongi, M., Roberti, L., Chieffi, A., & Nomoto, K. 2024, ApJS, 270, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad12c1 2024

  53. [53]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Nelemans, G. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 107, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141031 2014

  54. [54]

    L., Burles, S., Thompson, I

    Marshall, J. L., Burles, S., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 701454, doi: 10.1117/12.789972

    work page doi:10.1117/12.789972 2008

  55. [55]

    Morton, D. C. 1991, ApJS, 77, 119, doi: 10.1086/191601

    work page doi:10.1086/191601 1991

  56. [56]

    A., Lisker, T., et al

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

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629648 2020

  57. [57]

    1991, ApJL, 367, L19, doi: 10.1086/185922

    Nomoto, K., & Kondo, Y. 1991, ApJL, 367, L19, doi: 10.1086/185922

    work page doi:10.1086/185922 1991

  58. [58]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e061, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2024.53 Ould Rouis, L. B., Hermes, J. J., Guidry, J. A., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 146, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae4222

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2024.53 2024

  59. [59]

    L., & Thompson, T

    Piro, A. L., & Thompson, T. A. 2014, ApJ, 794, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/28 2014

  60. [60]

    2022, A&A, 658, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141837

    Raddi, R., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141837

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141837 2022

  61. [61]

    2025, A&A, 695, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452135

    Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Torres, S., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452135

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452135 2025

  62. [62]

    S., Sonith, L

    Rawat, N. S., Sonith, L. S., Kamath, U. S., et al. 2026, MNRAS, 547, stag361, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag361

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag361 2026

  63. [63]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.15939

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Tejero-G´ omez, I., & Raddi, R. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.15939. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15939

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    D., Kepler, S

    Romero, A. D., Kepler, S. O., C´ orsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., & Fraga, L. 2013, ApJ, 779, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/58

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/58 2013

  65. [65]

    M., Tucker, M

    Rowan, D. M., Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., & Hermes, J. J. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4574, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1116

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1116 2019

  66. [66]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  67. [67]

    2021, ApJ, 906, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc87e 2021

  68. [68]

    Shen, K. J. 2015, ApJL, 805, L6, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/L6

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/805/1/l6 2015

  69. [69]

    J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Shen, K. J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2012, ApJ, 748, 35, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/35

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/35 2012

  70. [70]

    J., Blouin, S., & Breivik, K

    Shen, K. J., Blouin, S., & Breivik, K. 2023, ApJL, 955, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf57b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf57b 2023

  71. [71]

    2007, A&A, 476, 893, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078132

    Siess, L. 2007, A&A, 476, 893, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078132

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078132 2007

  72. [72]

    Starrfield, S., Iliadis, C., & Hix, W. R. 2008, in Classical Novae, ed. M. F. Bode & A. Evans, Vol. 43, 77–101, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511536168.006

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511536168.006 2008

  73. [73]

    Theoretical Studies of Accretion of Matter onto White Dwarfs and the Single Degenerate Scenario for Supernovae of Type Ia

    Starrfield, S., Iliadis, C., Timmes, F. X., et al. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1210.6086 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1210.6086 2012

  74. [74]

    D., Toonen, S., Zapartas, E., Justham, S., & G¨ ansicke, B

    Temmink, K. D., Toonen, S., Zapartas, E., Justham, S., & G¨ ansicke, B. T. 2020, A&A, 636, A31, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936889

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936889 2020

  75. [75]

    2012, A&A, 546, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218966

    Toonen, S., Nelemans, G., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A70, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201218966

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201218966 2012

  76. [76]

    E., & Bergeron, P

    Tremblay, P. E., & Bergeron, P. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1755, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/2/1755

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/2/1755 2009

  77. [77]

    E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A

    Tremblay, P. E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/730/2/128 2011

  78. [78]

    P., et al

    Tremblay, P.-E., Fontaine, G., Gentile Fusillo, N. P., et al. 2019, Nature, 565, 202, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0791-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0791-x 2019

  79. [79]

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

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21394.x 2012

  80. [80]

    (fi,obs −f i(θ))2 σ2 fi + ln 2πσ2 fi # − 1 2 (1/d−ϖ) 2 σ2ϖ + ln 2πσ2 ϖ + 2 lnd − 1 2 (AV −A V,NGF)2 (0.05AV,NGF)2 + ln 2π(0.05AV,NGF)2 − 1 2

    Wu, C., Xiong, H., & Wang, X. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2972, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac273 11 APPENDIX A.CORNER PLOT We use a likelihood function based on that of Raddi et al. (2025) and Arseneau et al. (2026): lnL(T eff, R, d, AV , M) =− 1 2 nX i=1 " (fi,obs −f i(θ))2 σ2 fi + ln 2πσ2 fi # − 1 2 (1/d−ϖ) 2 σ2ϖ + ln 2πσ2 ϖ + 2 lnd − 1 2 (AV −A V,NGF)2 (0.05AV,NGF)2 +...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac273 2022