pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25377 · v1 · pith:C6SVYDKFnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

A Detailed Model Atmosphere Analysis of Cool White Dwarfs in DESI DR1

Mukremin Kilic , Pierre Bergeron , Simon Blouin , Adam Moss , Matthew J. Green , Gracyn Jewett , Manuel Barrientos , Alexander L. Albright
show 4 more authors
Alexander R. Gleason Warren R. Brown Nagaraj Vernekar Michael R. Hayden
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 20:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords white dwarfsmodel atmosphereshelium atmosphereconvective mixingDESI surveyDC starsDZ starsmagnetic white dwarfs
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cool white dwarf analysis shows the hydrogen-to-helium ratio in helium atmospheres must rise at lower temperatures to preserve the standard 0.6 solar mass average.

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

The paper performs a model atmosphere analysis on 25,642 cool white dwarfs selected from DESI DR1 spectra with red colors. For the DC and DZ subset, the fits require the H/He abundance ratio to increase as effective temperature falls in order to keep the derived masses near 0.6 solar masses. This trend, when combined with the earlier hot-white-dwarf results, shows the fraction of helium-atmosphere objects rising sharply below 10,000 K, which the authors link to convective mixing. The same data set reveals no photometric-spectroscopic mass offset for cool DAs and places magnetic DAs across all temperatures rather than only on the crystallization sequence.

Core claim

A detailed model atmosphere analysis of cool DC and DZ white dwarfs indicates that the H/He abundance ratio in He-atmosphere white dwarfs increases at lower temperatures. Based on the currently available models, this is the only way to keep the DC masses consistent with the average white dwarf mass of 0.6 solar masses. The sample is also used to show that the He-atmosphere fraction increases significantly below 10,000 K due to convective mixing.

What carries the argument

Model atmosphere fits to DC and DZ spectra that solve simultaneously for effective temperature, surface gravity, and H/He abundance ratio while enforcing mass consistency at 0.6 solar masses.

If this is right

  • The helium-atmosphere fraction rises sharply below 10,000 K.
  • Magnetic DA white dwarfs occur at all temperatures, not only near the crystallization sequence.
  • Cool DA stars show no significant photometric versus spectroscopic mass discrepancy.
  • The full DESI DR1 white-dwarf sample of nearly 45,000 objects is now analyzed uniformly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Convective mixing appears to be the dominant process that alters surface composition once white dwarfs cool below 10,000 K.
  • The same models that enforce mass consistency may be used to predict the location of the DA-to-non-DA transition in population studies.
  • Rare DA+DB and DA+DQ binaries identified here offer direct tests of whether mixing episodes can produce hybrid atmospheres.

Load-bearing premise

The model atmospheres remain accurate enough at low temperatures to yield reliable masses and abundances, and the canonical 0.6 solar mass average applies to white dwarfs of all atmospheric compositions.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic or photometric masses for a large sample of cool DC white dwarfs that remain near 0.6 solar masses even when the H/He ratio is held fixed at a constant low value would remove the need for an increasing hydrogen fraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25377 by Adam Moss, Alexander L. Albright, Alexander R. Gleason, Gracyn Jewett, Manuel Barrientos, Matthew J. Green, Michael R. Hayden, Mukremin Kilic, Nagaraj Vernekar, Pierre Bergeron, Simon Blouin, Warren R. Brown.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DESI DR1 white dwarf sample in the H-R di￾agram. Black points mark the hot white dwarf sample an￾alyzed in Paper I. Red points mark the cool white dwarf sample analyzed in this paper. Evolutionary tracks for pure H atmosphere white dwarfs with M = 0.2, 0.6, and 1.0 M⊙ are shown for comparison. vection, and external accretion lead to spectral evolu￾tion as white dwarfs cool (see B´edard 2024, for a re￾view)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Color-magnitude diagrams of DA, DC, DQ, and DZ white dwarfs in our sample. Solid lines show the evolu￾tionary tracks for 0.6 M⊙ pure H, pure He, and mixed H/He atmosphere white dwarfs with log H/He = −5. The dotted lines in the top panels show the pure H models without the correction to the H+ 3 partition function (see text). The red dots on each sequence correspond to effective temperatures ranging from 6… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Model fits to three cool DA white dwarfs. The top panels show the best-fitting pure hydrogen (filled dots) atmosphere models to the photometry (error bars). These panels also include the white dwarf name, Gaia Source ID, the file name of the spectrum (including the DESI observation date), and the photometry used in the fitting. The bottom panels show the fits to the DESI spectra. Since the spectroscopic me… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Photometric and spectroscopic temperatures and masses for cool DA white dwarfs in DESI DR1. The line of equality in each panel is shown in red. This figure is restricted to objects with distance accuracy better than 10% and S/N > 20 spectra in DESI. The red points in the top panel mark objects with photometric masses below 0.5 M⊙. white dwarf sample in DESI DR1. Here we restrict the comparison to objects w… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example model fits to a cool DB white dwarf, where the only visible He line at 5876 ˚A is too weak for meaningful constraints. Here, we force the photometric log g in the spectroscopic fit. distribution of this star is best-fit by a model with Teff = 10, 612 ± 71 K and log g = 7.965 ± 0.015. Forc￾ing this surface gravity in the spectroscopic solution, the DESI spectrum of this object is best explained by a… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Model fits to three cool DQ white dwarfs. The atmospheric models provide an excellent match to both photometry and spectroscopy for these stars. consists of classical DQs that are an order of magnitude more prevalent than warm DQs in the local white dwarf samples. These more numerous DQs are a natural re￾sult of convective dredge up of carbon in He-atmosphere white dwarfs (Pelletier et al. 1986; B´edard et… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example model fits to DAZ, DZA, and DZ white dwarfs under the assumption of chondritic metal abundance ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example model fits to three cool DZs with Teff decreasing from left to right. The right panels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: H/He ratios as a function of Teff for all metal-line white dwarfs in our sample. These have been measured either by fitting the Hα profile, or constrained by the metal line profiles, or set by the visibility limit of Hα [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Model fits to magnetic DA white dwarfs with field strengths ranging from 1 to 20 MG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Model fits to a magnetic white dwarf with rel￾atively weak and sharp lines. The only way to match the observed Zeeman split lines is through a patchy atmosphere with H caps and a He belt. the derived masses (like the DZ white dwarfs discussed above), and it is difficult to hide Hα and also ob￾tain a DC mass distribution that is consistent with the mean mass for white dwarfs in the solar neighborhood, M ∼ … view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows mass versus effective temperature di￾agrams for DC stars with < 5% distance uncertainty for mixed atmosphere model fits with various H/He ratios. The bottom panel shows the same fits assuming pure H atmospheres. On the hot end, Bergeron et al. (2019) showed that the masses of DC white dwarfs are too high for a pure He composition, and that these masses are lowered when a small trace of H (log H/He =… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: H/He limits used in the analysis of the DC stars with log g = 7 (dotted), 8 (solid), and 9 (dashed line). ≈ 2 ˚A equivalent-width in typical (noisy) DESI spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example model fits to a new IR-faint DC white dwarf identified in DESI DR1. Gates et al. 2004). Kilic et al. (2020) identified an IR￾faint white dwarf sequence in Gaia color-magnitude di￾agrams, and Bergeron et al. (2022) took advantage of Gaia and Pan-STARRS photometry to significantly ex￾pand the IR-faint sample within 100 pc from 35 to about 105 stars. We identify 1 IR-faint DZ and 28 IR-faint DC white… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Stellar masses as a function of effective temperature for cool DA (white) and DAH (red points) white dwarfs in DESI DR1. We restrict the sample to DAs with < 10% distance errors, but include all of the magnetic DAs in this figure. The solid black curves display theoretical isochrones, labeled in units of Gyr, for C/O core white dwarfs with q(He) = 10−2 and q(H) = 10−4 , and the dotted curves show the same… view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mass vs temperature diagrams for various types of white dwarfs in our sample. DB samples shown in the mid￾dle and bottom panels include DB(A)Z white dwarfs (ma￾genta symbols). The dotted line marks 0.6 M⊙. white dwarfs, but the prevalence of magnetism among cool white dwarfs suggest that crystallization-induced dynamos or convective dynamos from earlier evolution￾ary phases are likely in play for older ma… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the carbon abundances for the classi￾cal DQs in our sample along with the theoretical predic￾tions for convective dredge up of carbon (Dufour et al. 2005; B´edard et al. 2022) for three different masses (0.55, 0.60, and 0.65 M⊙). The average mass for DQs in the solar neighborhood is lower than 0.6 M⊙ (see Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Ca/He ratio versus photometric effective tem￾perature for the metal-rich white dwarfs in our sample. rare below 5000 K. The decrease in frequency of metal￾pollution could be related to the disappearance of cool DQs, or it could simply be due to a decrease in the num￾ber of tidal disruption events that occur around white dwarfs. Theoretical simulations predict that the major￾ity of tidal disruption events … view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Fraction of He-atmosphere white dwarfs as a function of effective temperature from DESI DR1 (blue points) and the 100 pc white dwarf sample in the SDSS foot￾print (Kilic et al. 2025a). function of effective temperature (see B´edard 2024, for a review). The overall trend is that the He-atmosphere fraction starts around 25% for hot white dwarfs, but then decreases down to about 10% around 30,000 K, before r… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: shows the spectroscopic parameters of the DA white dwarfs in our sample in the ELM region. After excluding the sdA population with Teff < 9000 K and log g < 6 based on pure H atmosphere model fits, we identify 51 potential targets of interest with Teff > 9000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Spectroscopic model fits to the DESI DR1 spec￾trum of the white dwarf companion to PSR J1012+5307. K and log g = 5-7, or Teff > 8000 K and log g = 6- 7. Out of the 51 selected targets, 22 are confirmed as ELM white dwarf binaries in the literature, including the companion to PSR J1012+5307 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Model fits to WDJ131907.33−023406.50 under the assumption of a single star (left panels) and a double degenerate binary containing a DA+DB system (right panels, the adopted photometric and spectroscopic parameters are given in the upper panel). The top and bottom panels show the photometric and spectroscopic fits, respectively. Note that there are significant degeneracies in the joint DA+DB model fits. et… view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Joint fits to the photometric and spectro￾scopic spectral energy distribution of the newly identified DA+DQ binary WDJ014238.48+283604.45. The data can be explained by a binary system consisting of a 6772 K and M = 0.476 M⊙ DA white dwarf and a 7004 K and M = 0.598 M⊙ DQ white dwarf with log C/He = −6.1. Note that there are significant degeneracies in the DA+DQ joint model fits. WEAVE will target white dw… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a detailed model atmosphere analysis of cool white dwarfs in the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument Data Release 1 (DESI DR1). Our sample includes 25,642 unique targets with $G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP}>0$. Unlike the hot DA white dwarf sample in DESI DR1, we do not find a significant discrepancy between the photometric and spectroscopic masses for cool DAs. Hence, DESI's calibration problems for broad lines have a negligible effect for cooler DAs with narrower lines. Magnetic DAs are found everywhere, and not just on the crystallization sequence, indicating that crystallization induced dynamos cannot solely explain the origin of magnetism in white dwarfs. A detailed analysis of cool DC and DZ white dwarfs indicates that the H/He abundance ratio in He-atmosphere white dwarfs increases at lower temperatures. Based on the currently available models, this is the only way to keep the DC masses consistent with the average white dwarf mass of $0.6~M_\odot$. Combined with the analysis of the hot white dwarfs presented previously, this paper completes the analysis of 44,963 white dwarf candidates with DESI DR1 spectra. We use this sample to constrain the fraction of He-atmosphere white dwarfs as a function of temperature, and demonstrate that the He-fraction increases significantly below 10,000 K due to convective mixing. We also highlight rare systems, including new extremely low-mass, DA+DB, and DA+DQ binaries.

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 a model atmosphere analysis of 25,642 cool white dwarfs (G_BP - G_RP > 0) from DESI DR1 spectra. Key claims include the absence of a photometric-spectroscopic mass discrepancy for cool DAs (unlike hotter ones), magnetic DAs occurring across all temperatures rather than only on the crystallization sequence, an increase in the H/He abundance ratio for He-atmosphere (DC/DZ) white dwarfs at lower effective temperatures as the only way to maintain consistency with the canonical 0.6 M_⊙ average mass using current models, and a resulting rise in the He-atmosphere fraction below 10,000 K due to convective mixing. The work completes the DESI DR1 white dwarf sample analysis (total 44,963 candidates) and notes rare binary systems.

Significance. A sample of this size enables statistically robust trends in atmospheric composition and magnetism for cool white dwarfs. If the model-dependent mass and abundance inferences hold, the results provide concrete constraints on the temperature dependence of the He-atmosphere fraction and the limitations of crystallization-induced dynamos, completing a large homogeneous survey that can be compared to population synthesis models.

major comments (2)
  1. [DC/DZ analysis and mass consistency section] DC/DZ analysis and mass consistency section: the central inference that H/He must increase at low T_eff to enforce DC masses at 0.6 M_⊙ is constructed by selecting the abundance ratio that restores the assumed mean mass; this creates a direct dependence on the external 0.6 M_⊙ benchmark rather than an independent derivation, and the manuscript does not report an external anchor (e.g., Gaia parallax plus photometric radius) for the cool DC/DZ subset.
  2. [Section on cool DC and DZ white dwarfs] Section on cool DC and DZ white dwarfs: at T_eff ≲ 6000 K the DC spectra are nearly featureless, so mass and abundance determinations rest entirely on the accuracy of pre-existing model atmospheres (opacity, convection, line broadening); no test or sensitivity analysis against possible systematic errors in these models is presented, leaving the H/He trend and He-fraction increase vulnerable to being an artifact that restores the assumed mean mass.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that magnetic DAs are found 'everywhere' but does not quantify the temperature or mass distribution of the magnetic subsample relative to the full cool DA population.
  2. Clarify the exact number and temperature binning of the DC/DZ objects entering the H/He ratio trend and the convective-mixing fraction plot.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. We address the two major comments point by point below, providing our honest assessment of the analysis and indicating where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [DC/DZ analysis and mass consistency section] DC/DZ analysis and mass consistency section: the central inference that H/He must increase at low T_eff to enforce DC masses at 0.6 M_⊙ is constructed by selecting the abundance ratio that restores the assumed mean mass; this creates a direct dependence on the external 0.6 M_⊙ benchmark rather than an independent derivation, and the manuscript does not report an external anchor (e.g., Gaia parallax plus photometric radius) for the cool DC/DZ subset.

    Authors: The canonical 0.6 M_⊙ mean mass is a standard benchmark drawn from extensive prior literature on the white dwarf mass distribution, independent of this work. For cool, nearly featureless DC/DZ stars, spectroscopic masses are inherently model-dependent, and the analysis determines the H/He ratios required under current models to maintain consistency with this established average. We agree that an independent anchor (such as Gaia-based photometric masses) is not provided for the full cool DC/DZ subset, as the focus is on the spectroscopic trends from DESI spectra. We will revise the relevant section to more explicitly state the reliance on the literature mass benchmark and note the absence of a fully independent mass check for this subset. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Section on cool DC and DZ white dwarfs] Section on cool DC and DZ white dwarfs: at T_eff ≲ 6000 K the DC spectra are nearly featureless, so mass and abundance determinations rest entirely on the accuracy of pre-existing model atmospheres (opacity, convection, line broadening); no test or sensitivity analysis against possible systematic errors in these models is presented, leaving the H/He trend and He-fraction increase vulnerable to being an artifact that restores the assumed mean mass.

    Authors: We acknowledge that below ~6000 K the analysis depends on the fidelity of existing model atmospheres without an explicit sensitivity study presented in the manuscript. The models represent the current best available treatment of opacities, convection, and line broadening. The derived H/He trend is required specifically to recover the canonical mass, and the increase in He-atmosphere fraction aligns with expectations from convective mixing. To address the concern, we will add a paragraph discussing potential systematic uncertainties in the models and their possible impact on the inferred trends. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

H/He abundance ratio adjusted by construction to enforce DC masses at assumed 0.6 M⊙ average

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "A detailed analysis of cool DC and DZ white dwarfs indicates that the H/He abundance ratio in He-atmosphere white dwarfs increases at lower temperatures. Based on the currently available models, this is the only way to keep the DC masses consistent with the average white dwarf mass of 0.6 M_⊙."

    The reported increase in H/He is the specific adjustment performed so that spectroscopic masses equal the assumed 0.6 M⊙ mean; the trend is therefore the output of enforcing the mass constraint rather than a prediction tested against independent data.

full rationale

The central claim that H/He must increase at low T to maintain mass consistency is presented as a model-derived result, but the abstract explicitly states this adjustment is required to match the external 0.6 M⊙ benchmark. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the abundance trend is the parameter varied to restore the assumed mean mass rather than an independent spectroscopic derivation. No other load-bearing self-citations or self-definitional loops are evident from the provided text; the remainder of the analysis (DA mass consistency, He-fraction vs T) follows from the adjusted models without further reduction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of existing model atmosphere calculations for cool white dwarfs and the assumption that the mean mass is 0.6 solar masses independent of atmosphere type; no new entities postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • average white dwarf mass = 0.6 M_sun
    Used as benchmark to infer required H/He ratios for DC/DZ stars; taken from prior literature but central to the abundance interpretation.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Model atmospheres for cool white dwarfs accurately predict observed spectra and photometry for mass and abundance determination.
    Invoked to derive parameters and to conclude that increasing H/He is the only way to maintain mass consistency.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5849 in / 1642 out tokens · 26738 ms · 2026-06-25T20:38:42.030806+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

99 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Abel, M., Frommhold, L., Li, X., & Hunt, K. L. C. 2012, JChPh, 136, 044319, doi: 10.1063/1.3676405 Adamane Pallathadka, G., Chandra, V., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2026, ApJ, 999, 251, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae3c9f

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3676405 2012

  2. [2]

    G., Miller Bertolami, M

    Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & C´ orsico, A. H. 2013, A&A, 557, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321868

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321868 2013

  3. [3]

    Bagnulo, S., & Landstreet, J. D. 2022, ApJL, 935, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac84d3 2022

  4. [4]

    Estimating distances from parallaxes. V: Geometric and photogeometric distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia Early Data Release 3

    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

  5. [5]

    R., et al

    Barrientos, M., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 991, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf743

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf743 2025

  6. [6]

    J., et al

    Becker, A., Lorenzen, W., Fortney, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 21, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/21 B´ edard, A. 2024, Ap&SS, 369, 43, doi: 10.1007/s10509-024-04307-5 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., & Brassard, P. 2022, ApJ, 930, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac609d B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4...

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/215/2/21 2014

  7. [7]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    Bergeron, P., Dufour, P., Fontaine, G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab153a 2019

  8. [8]

    2022, ApJ, 934, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c7

    Bergeron, P., Kilic, M., Blouin, S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c7 2022

  9. [9]

    A., & Liebert, J

    Bergeron, P., Saffer, R. A., & Liebert, J. 1992, ApJ, 394, 228, doi: 10.1086/171575

    work page doi:10.1086/171575 1992

  10. [10]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., Dufour, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/28

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/28 2011

  11. [11]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1689

    Blouin, S. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1689

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1689 2020

  12. [12]

    2023a, MNRAS, 523, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1574

    Blouin, S., B´ edard, A., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2023a, MNRAS, 523, 3363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1574

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1574

  13. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 4166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2915

    Blouin, S., & Dufour, P. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4166, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2915

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2915 2019

  14. [14]

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., & Allard, N. F. 2018a, ApJ, 863, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9

  15. [15]

    F., & Kilic, M

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., Allard, N. F., & Kilic, M. 2018b, ApJ, 867, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae53a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae53a

  16. [16]

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., Thibeault, C., & Allard, N. F. 2019, ApJ, 878, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f82

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1f82 2019

  17. [17]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad863b

    Dufour, P. 2024, ApJ, 976, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad863b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad863b 2024

  18. [18]

    2023b, MNRAS, 525, L112, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad105

    Blouin, S., Kilic, M., B´ edard, A., & Tremblay, P.-E. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, L112, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad105

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slad105

  19. [19]

    2022, MNRAS, 510, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3446

    Blouin, S., & Xu, S. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1059, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3446

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3446 2022

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    Borysow, A., Jorgensen, U. G., & Fu, Y. 2001, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer, 68, 235, doi: 10.1016/S0022-4073(00)00023-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-4073(00)00023-6 2001

  21. [21]

    R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., & Kenyon, S. J. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1072, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1072

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1072 2010

  22. [22]

    R., Kilic, M., & Gianninas, A

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., & Gianninas, A. 2017, ApJ, 839, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa67e4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa67e4 2017

  23. [23]

    R., Kilic, M., Hermes, J

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2011, ApJL, 737, L23, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/L23

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/737/1/l23 2011

  24. [24]

    R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A

    Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., & Gianninas, A. 2022, ApJ, 933, 94, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac72ac 2022

  25. [25]

    B., Prince, T

    Burdge, K. B., Prince, T. A., Fuller, J., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 905, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc261

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc261

  26. [26]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 905, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abca91

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abca91 2041

  27. [27]

    R., Schreiber, M

    Camisassa, M., Fuentes, J. R., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452539 26

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452539 2024

  28. [28]

    2023, A&A, 674, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346628

    Camisassa, M., Torres, S., Hollands, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346628

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346628 2023

  29. [29]

    Caron, A., Bergeron, P., Blouin, S., & Leggett, S. K. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3733

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3733 2023

  30. [30]

    1995, ApJS, 101, 309, doi: 10.1086/192242

    Charbonneau, P. 1995, ApJS, 101, 309, doi: 10.1086/192242

    work page doi:10.1086/192242 1995

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    T., Burdge, K

    Chickles, E. T., Burdge, K. B., Chakraborty, J., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add34c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add34c 2025

  33. [33]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    Coutu, S., Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

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

  34. [34]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 5274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3684

    Cukanovaite, E., Tremblay, P.-E., Bergeron, P., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3684

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3684 2021

  35. [35]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, 2503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1759

    Cunningham, T., Tremblay, P.-E., Freytag, B., Ludwig, H.-G., & Koester, D. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2503, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1759

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1759 2019

  36. [36]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3638 de Jong, R

    Hollands, M., & Cukanovaite, E. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3638 de Jong, R. S. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 574, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0808-x

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3638 2020

  37. [37]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Debes, J. H., Walsh, K. J., & Stark, C. 2012, ApJ, 747, 148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/747/2/148 DESI Collaboration, Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 285, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/747/2/148 2012

  38. [38]

    , eprint =

    Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., & Fontaine, G. 2005, ApJ, 627, 404, doi: 10.1086/430373

    work page doi:10.1086/430373 2005

  39. [39]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Dufour, P., Kilic, M., Fontaine, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/1/6 2012

  40. [40]

    H., & Clemens, J

    Dunlap, B. H., & Clemens, J. C. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 493, 19th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. P. Dufour, P. Bergeron, & G. Fontaine, 547

    2015

  41. [41]

    M., Barrault, L., & Das, S

    Einramhof, L., Bugnet, L., Calcaferro, L. M., Barrault, L., & Das, S. B. 2026, A&A, 708, L14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202659069

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202659069 2026

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012

    Ferrario, L., Wickramasinghe, D., & Kawka, A. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1025, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.11.012 2020

  44. [44]

    2001, PASP, 113, 409, doi: 10.1086/319535 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al

    Fontaine, G., Brassard, P., & Bergeron, P. 2001, PASP, 113, 409, doi: 10.1086/319535 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    work page doi:10.1086/319535 2001

  45. [45]

    C., et al

    Gates, E., Gyuk, G., Harris, H. C., et al. 2004, ApJL, 612, L129, doi: 10.1086/424568

    work page doi:10.1086/424568 2004

  46. [46]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab379e Gentile Fusillo, N

    Genest-Beaulieu, C., & Bergeron, P. 2019, ApJ, 882, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab379e Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P. E., Cukanovaite, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3877, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2672

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab379e 2019

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 4111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1363

    Ginzburg, S., Fuller, J., Kawka, A., & Caiazzo, I. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 4111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1363

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1363 2022

  49. [49]

    Hansen, B. M. S. 1998, Nature, 394, 860, doi: 10.1038/29710

    work page doi:10.1038/29710 1998

  50. [50]

    J., Lynas-Gray, A

    Harris, G. J., Lynas-Gray, A. E., Miller, S., & Tennyson, J. 2004, ApJL, 617, L143, doi: 10.1086/427391

    work page doi:10.1086/427391 2004

  51. [51]

    C., Dahn, C

    Harris, H. C., Dahn, C. C., Vrba, F. J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, 1000, doi: 10.1086/307856

    work page doi:10.1086/307856 1999

  52. [52]

    J., Kilic, M., Brown, W

    Hermes, J. J., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., et al. 2012, ApJL, 757, L21, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/2/l21 2012

  53. [53]

    A., G¨ ansicke, B

    Hollands, M. A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., & Koester, D. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 93, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty592

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty592 2018

  54. [54]

    A., Rogers, F

    Iglesias, C. A., Rogers, F. J., & Saumon, D. 2002, ApJL, 569, L111, doi: 10.1086/340689

    work page doi:10.1086/340689 2002

  55. [55]

    2017, ApJL, 836, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    Isern, J., Garc´ ıa-Berro, E., K¨ ulebi, B., & Lor´ en-Aguilar, P. 2017, ApJL, 836, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5eae 2017

  56. [56]

    2024, ApJ, 974, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905 Jim´ enez-Esteban, F

    Jewett, G., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6905 Jim´ enez-Esteban, F. M., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3382

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

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Jin, S., Trager, S. C., Dalton, G. B., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 2688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad557 Jørgensen, U. G., Hammer, D., Borysow, A., &

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad557 2024

  58. [58]

    2000, A&A, 361, 283

    Falkesgaard, J. 2000, A&A, 361, 283

    2000

  59. [59]

    O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al

    Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2526

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2526 2016

  60. [60]

    2025a, ApJ, 979, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

    Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Blouin, S., et al. 2025a, ApJ, 979, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9bb3

  61. [61]

    R., et al

    Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Brown, W. R., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 990, 62, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf1a4

  62. [62]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d

    Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8d 2020

  63. [63]

    R., Allende Prieto, C., Kenyon, S

    Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., Kenyon, S. J., & Panei, J. A. 2010a, ApJ, 716, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/122

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/122

  64. [64]

    K., Tremblay, P

    Kilic, M., Leggett, S. K., Tremblay, P. E., et al. 2010b, ApJS, 190, 77, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/77

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/77

  65. [65]

    2026, ApJ, 1000, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae43ee

    Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Moss, A., et al. 2026, ApJ, 1000, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae43ee

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae43ee 2026

  66. [66]

    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

  67. [67]

    Koester, D., & Kepler, S. O. 2019, A&A, 628, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935946 27

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935946 2019

  68. [68]

    F., Blanc, G

    Kollmeier, J., Anderson, S. F., Blanc, G. A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 274

    2019

  69. [69]

    R., Kilic, M., et al

    Kosakowski, A., Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd187

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd187 2023

  70. [70]

    R., et al

    Kosakowski, A., Dorsch, M., Brown, W. R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 987, 205, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1cf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add1cf 2025

  71. [71]

    R., & Gianninas, A

    Kosakowski, A., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Gianninas, A. 2020, ApJ, 894, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8300

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8300 2020

  72. [72]

    Kowalski, P. M. 2010, A&A, 519, L8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015238 —. 2026, A&A, 708, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202558312

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015238 2010

  73. [73]

    M., Mazevet, S., Saumon, D., & Challacombe, M

    Kowalski, P. M., Mazevet, S., Saumon, D., & Challacombe, M. 2007, PhRvB, 76, 075112, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.075112

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.76.075112 2007

  74. [74]

    B., et al

    Kupfer, T., Korol, V., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2068 L´ opez-Sanjuan, C., Tremblay, P. E., Ederoclite, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141746

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2068 2024

  75. [75]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Inight, K., et al. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad727

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad727 2023

  76. [76]

    J., Izquierdo, P., G¨ ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., Izquierdo, P., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2205

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2205 2024

  77. [77]

    R., Dhillon, V

    Marsh, T. R., Dhillon, V. S., & Duck, S. R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.3.828

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.3.828 1995

  78. [78]

    P., & Sion, E

    McCook, G. P., & Sion, E. M. 1987, ApJS, 65, 603, doi: 10.1086/191238

    work page doi:10.1086/191238 1987

  79. [79]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 10111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3825

    Moss, A., Bergeron, P., Kilic, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 10111, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3825

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3825 2024

  80. [80]

    Moss, A., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., Jewett, G., & Brown, W. R. 2025, ApJ, 983, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbd3a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adbd3a 2025

Showing first 80 references.