Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 162 references

The first star-cluster post-common-envelope binary with fully constrained pre- and post-envelope states, Alessi12-PCE, pins common-envelope efficiency to either ≈0.99 (mid-AGB) or ≈0.05 (late-AGB).

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:48 UTC pith:XYORRS5B

load-bearing objection A genuinely new cluster-anchored post-CE benchmark with careful observations; the alpha_CE inference is real but degenerate, and the single-star assumption has a slightly self-referential flavor. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20611 v1 pith:XYORRS5B submitted 2026-07-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

A Framework for Linking Pre- and Post-Common Envelope Binary Properties with Star Clusters: The First Demonstration with a Massive White Dwarf+M Dwarf Binary in Alessi 12

Steffani M. Grondin , Maria R. Drout , Jason Nordhaus , Philip S. Muirhead , Bailey Filer , Alexander Laroche , Jeremy J. Webb , Floor S. Broekgaarden
show 7 more authors
Ryan Chornock Kyle Kremer Natalie LeBaron Raffaella Margutti Nikki Noughani Huei Sears Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords binary starscommon envelope evolutionwhite dwarfsM dwarf starsopen star clustersstellar evolutionorbital periodradial velocity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes that Alessi12-PCE is the first white dwarf + M dwarf binary in a star cluster for which both the pre-common-envelope and post-common-envelope properties are precisely measured. Combining the cluster age with the white dwarf cooling age, the authors reconstruct a 5.4±0.1 solar-mass progenitor that engulfed its M dwarf companion during the asymptotic giant branch phase, leaving a 6.99-hour orbit with a final separation of 2.07 solar radii. They show that convection-based common envelope models reproduce this exact final separation in only two scenarios: a mid-AGB interaction with efficiency α_CE≈0.99, or a late-AGB interaction with α_CE≈0.05. The framework matters because cluster membership supplies an independent stellar age, allowing the timing of the envelope ejection to be anchored — something field binaries cannot provide — and enabling empirical tests of common-envelope physics.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Alessi12-PCE, a 6.99-hour detached binary in the open cluster Alessi 12 composed of a 1.06±0.02 solar-mass white dwarf and a 0.37±0.058 solar-mass M4 dwarf, is the first such system in a cluster whose entire evolutionary history can be reconstructed without invoking a merger. The cluster age (135±50 Myr) minus the white dwarf cooling age (22±5 Myr) gives the lifetime of the WD progenitor; stellar evolution models then require an initial mass of 5.4±0.1 solar masses, with the common envelope beginning on the asymptotic giant branch. Energy-budget arguments yield a broad range α_CE≈0.03–1.55 depending on exactly when along the AGB the interaction begins, and c

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is an age-anchored reconstruction chain: cluster membership fixes the system's age; the white dwarf's atmosphere models give its mass and cooling age; subtracting the cooling age from the cluster age yields the progenitor's main-sequence-plus-giant lifetime, which stellar evolution tracks convert into a 5.4±0.1 solar-mass initial mass. With that mass and the observed final separation, the common-envelope efficiency α_CE — the fraction of released orbital energy that unbinds the envelope — is computed from the energy budget. The paper then applies a convection-based model in which, at each inspiral step, the local efficiency is zero when convection can carry the rel

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction assumes the white dwarf formed by single-star evolution, so its formation time equals the cluster age minus the cooling age and its helium core grows on the AGB at the single-star rate; if the WD is instead a merger product, the inferred 5.4 solar-mass progenitor and all derived α_CE values collapse.

What would settle it

If refined cluster-age measurements place Alessi 12 outside roughly 85–185 Myr, the 5.4±0.1 solar-mass progenitor inference fails; or if a full double-lined orbit yields an M dwarf mass outside 0.37±0.058 solar masses, the final separation and the two α_CE solutions (0.99 and 0.05) are ruled out.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Either a mid-AGB common envelope with near-unity efficiency or a late-AGB event with efficiency near 0.05 is required to explain the observed 6.99-hour orbit; both match the same measured post-CE parameters.
  • The inferred α_CE varies from about 0.03 to 1.55 depending on when along the AGB the envelope ejection begins, so CE timing is degenerate with efficiency in this single system.
  • The white dwarf's consistency with the initial-final mass relation, plus the negligible dynamical encounter rate, makes Alessi12-PCE a clean benchmark that rules out merger and dynamical formation channels.
  • The same cluster-based framework can be applied to other WD+MS binaries in open clusters to place empirical constraints on common-envelope physics without relying on field-star age assumptions.
  • If a similar common-envelope event is caught by time-domain surveys, the predicted light-curve rise timescale could distinguish the mid-AGB high-efficiency scenario from the late-AGB low-efficiency scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: A refined age for Alessi 12 — for example from higher-precision photometry or asteroseismology — could break the AGB-timing degeneracy and single out one of the two α_CE solutions, making the system a stronger test of convection-regulated CE models.
  • Editorial inference: The existence of two widely different efficiencies for the same binary suggests α_CE is unlikely to be a single universal constant; population synthesis codes that adopt a universal value may need to account for CE onset timing as a key variable.
  • Editorial inference: Applied to an ensemble of cluster WD+MS binaries spanning different WD masses, this framework could map how α_CE and CE outcomes depend on the donor's evolutionary phase, offering a direct observational proxy for envelope structure at CE onset.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a framework for reconstructing the pre- and post-common-envelope properties of WD+MS binaries in star clusters and applies it to Alessi12-PCE, a WD+M dwarf binary in the open cluster Alessi 12. Using Keck/LRIS, Gemini/GMOS, and Shane/Kast spectroscopy, Swift/UVOT photometry, and ZTF light curves, the authors measure a DA WD with M_WD = 1.06 ± 0.02 M_sun, T_eff = 39,100 ± 300 K, log g = 8.69 ± 0.04, an M4V companion with M = 0.37 ± 0.058 M_sun, and an orbital period of 6.99 hr, implying a_f = 2.07 ± 0.02 R_sun. Combining the WD cooling age with the Alessi 12 cluster age and MESA single-star models yields a progenitor mass M_i = 5.4 ± 0.1 M_sun and initial separations a_i ≈ 1200–3400 R_sun. Model-agnostic α_CE values range from about 0.03 to 1.55 depending on the assumed AGB onset time; the Wilson & Nordhaus convective-CE framework reproduces the observed a_f at a mid-AGB solution with α_CE ≈ 0.99 and a late-AGB solution with α_CE ≈ 0.05. The authors argue against a merger and a dynamical origin and propose the approach as a general method for cluster post-CE binaries.

Significance. If the reconstruction is correct, Alessi12-PCE is a rare and valuable anchor: it is the first cluster post-CE binary with a massive WD for which both pre- and post-CE parameters are claimed to be precisely determined, and the comparison with convective-CE models is a forward prediction rather than a fit to the final period. The observational characterization is careful: Monte Carlo uncertainties are propagated for the WD parameters, the orbital period is confirmed by anti-correlated RVs, and alternative formation channels are explicitly considered. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent acceptance of the central α_CE and pre-CE claims: the exclusion of a merger origin is circular, and the initial-separation calculation appears to use the wrong mass ratio in the Roche-lobe formula. These issues are fixable within the scope of a revision, but they must be addressed before the central results can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2, §7.2, §9.1] The exclusion of a merger origin is circular and load-bearing. Section 6.2 adopts thick-hydrogen WD atmosphere models because “the WD properties and age of Alessi 12 rule out a merger scenario (see Section 9.1)”, but Section 9.1 infers M_i = 5.4 M_sun from MESA single-star models and then demonstrates consistency with the Miller et al. (2026) IFMR using that same M_i. Since the MESA grid is stated in §7.2 to be calibrated to the Cummings et al. (2018) IFMR, the comparison in Figure 10 is not independent. Section 9.2 computes only single-single encounter rates and does not address the primordial triple/merger channel invoked for V471 Tau. If the WD is a merger product, t_form = t_cluster − t_cool and the AGB core-growth reconstruction in §7.2 no longer apply, and the derived M_i, a_i, and α_CE values lose their foundation. Please supply an independent merger diagnostic or explicitly refra
  2. [§7.3, Eq. (1), §8.1] Equation (1) appears to use the wrong mass ratio for the donor’s Roche lobe. The text defines q ≡ M*/M_i and then applies the Eggleton approximation; with that definition the formula returns the Roche-lobe radius of the M-dwarf companion, not of the giant donor. To compute the initial separation at RLOF for the donor one needs q = M_i/M_* (or the appropriate reciprocal form). Since a_i is used to compute E_orb,i in §8.1 and therefore α_CE, the numerical values in Table 2 and Figure 9 may be systematically affected. Please verify the definition used in the code, correct the formula if needed, and recompute the quoted ranges.
  3. [§7.2, Table 2] The quoted progenitor mass M_i = 5.4 ± 0.1 M_sun does not include the adopted cluster-age uncertainty. The authors adopt log t_cluster = 0.20, giving t_cluster = 134.89 ± 49.78 Myr and t_form = 113.04 ± 50.02 Myr, yet no propagation of this large uncertainty into M_i or α_CE is shown. The allowed mass range appears to come only from the M_WD and RGB-radius conditions. Please state explicitly whether the age uncertainty affects the allowed M_i range and include it in the α_CE uncertainty budget, or explain why it is irrelevant.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2.2] The WD RV description refers to Hβ/Hγ in one sentence and Hβ/Hδ elsewhere. Please check which lines were actually used and make the text consistent.
  2. [Figure 9] The labels “Early-AGB / Mid-AGB / Late-AGB” each show min = 0.034, max = 1.55, which appears to be a typo; the text in §8.1 gives different ranges for different AGB stages. Please correct the figure labels to match the stated values.
  3. [§4.2 vs §9.2] The adopted reddening is A_V = 0.10 from Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) in §4.2 but 0.08 in the dynamical-rate calculation of §9.2. Please reconcile or explain the difference.
  4. [Abstract, §8.2.2] The phrase “exactly two scenarios” is stronger than the analysis supports: the companion mass has a range (0.326–0.414 M_sun) and the 5.3 and 5.5 M_sun models are said to behave similarly. The two crossings are better described as two families of solutions or two AGB epochs, each with an associated α_CE range.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typos include “a the physically-motivated” in §8.2 and “Aless12-PCE” in the Figure 8 caption. These do not affect the science.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The merger-exclusion test is circular: M_i = 5.4 is computed from the single-star assumption and then used to validate that same assumption.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§7.2 (with §6.2 and §9.1)]
    "Despite the relatively large uncertainty in the Alessi 12 cluster age, the inferred formation times are inconsistent with a merger scenario (see Section 9.1 for details), so the WD evolution can be modeled as a single star up until the CE event."

    The 'inferred formation times' are obtained in §7.2 from t_form = t_cluster − t_cool using single-star MESA models; this identity presupposes the WD formed by single-star evolution rather than a merger. §7.2 then refers to §9.1 to conclude that a merger is excluded. In §9.1, the same single-star-derived M_i = 5.4±0.1 is plotted against the single-star IFMR, and the agreement is used to conclude that 'the mass (and temperature) of the WD in Alessi12-PCE is consistent with single-star evolutionary models.' That consistency is a restatement of the input assumption, not an independent test: if the WD were a merger product, t_form would not equal t_cluster − t_cool, so the derived M_i would not be a physical initial mass. §6.2's adoption of a thick hydrogen atmosphere is likewise justified by r

full rationale

The observed post-CE quantities (P_orb, M_WD, M_*, a_f) are independent measurements from spectroscopy, photometry, and Kepler's law, and the MESA-based computation of M_i is not fitted to the binary's final separation. The Wilson & Nordhaus convective-CE framework is applied without tuning its free parameters to Alessi12-PCE and is anchored to external binary populations, so the heavy self-citation by itself is not the circular step. The genuine circularity is the merger exclusion: §7.2 computes M_i = 5.4±0.1 under the single-star assumption (t_form = t_cluster − t_cool), §9.1 uses that model-dependent M_i to claim consistency with the single-star IFMR, and §6.2/§7.2 then use that claim to justify the single-star modeling. The thin/thick atmosphere difference is small, so the load-bearing use of §9.1 is the authorization of single-star evolution, and that authorization is circular. Because the derived pre-CE mass and all α_CE values collapse if the WD is a merger product, the circularity affects the central pre-CE reconstruction, although the rest of the analysis retains independent content; hence a score of 6 rather than higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard astrophysical models (MESA, WD cooling tracks, IFMR) plus a coauthor-developed CE framework. The main ad hoc choices are the AGB-stage fractions, the adopted cluster-age uncertainty, and the M-dwarf systematic. No new physics entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • AGB onset stage fractions = 33%, 66%, 99% of maximum AGB radius
    Chosen by hand to represent early/mid/late AGB interactions; directly sets the range of initial separations a_i ≈ 1200–3400 R_sun and all derived α_CE values (Sections 7.3, 8.1).
  • Adopted cluster age uncertainty = log t_cluster = 0.20 (σ ≈ 50 Myr)
    No individual uncertainty is provided in Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020); the authors adopt the catalog's typical value and propagate it into t_form and M_i. This choice influences which MESA models are allowed (Section 7.2).
  • M dwarf mass systematic uncertainty = 10%
    Included to account for known systematic underpredictions of the Mann et al. (2019) M_Ks relation in tight binaries; directly affects the companion mass grid used in CE modeling (Section 6.1).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The Hα emission line originates predominately from the irradiated surface of the M dwarf and traces its center of light, not its center of mass; therefore the measured semi-amplitude underestimates the true value.
    Section 5.3: used to interpret the RV curve and to argue q < 0.5 is consistent with the photometric mass measurements. If the emission originated from the WD or from starspots, the RV-derived upper limit would be invalid, though the anti-correlated motion and period remain secure.
  • domain assumption The WD's pre-CE evolution was single-star evolution up to the CE, and the CE onset time is t_cluster - t_cool, with the helium core mass at onset approximately equal to the final WD mass.
    Section 7.2: This is the central premise of the IFMR-style reconstruction. It requires cluster membership and a non-merger origin; the authors test merger (Section 9.1) and dynamical (Section 9.2) alternatives.
  • domain assumption The M dwarf's mass is unchanged by the CE because its thermal timescale (10^8–10^9 yr) vastly exceeds the CE duration (~hundreds of days).
    Section 7.1: assumed based on Hjellming & Taam (1991) and Nordhaus & Spiegel (2013); if significant accretion occurred, the pre-CE mass and separation estimates would shift.
  • domain assumption For M_i > 5.3 M_sun the CE occurs on the AGB rather than the RGB, because the AGB radius exceeds the maximum RGB radius at the relevant core mass.
    Section 7.2: used to restrict the progenitor mass to 5.3–5.5 M_sun and to map the helium-core growth to the AGB phase.
  • domain assumption The Wilson & Nordhaus (2019) convective CE framework—where the local CE efficiency is 0 or 1 depending on convective transport timescales—is a valid physical description of CE energy deposition.
    Section 8.2: The central conclusion that convective CE models reproduce the observed separation depends entirely on this theoretical model, which was developed by coauthor Nordhaus and collaborators and is not independently machine-checked.
  • domain assumption The MESA models with solar metallicity and mass-loss prescriptions (Reimers η=0.7, Bloecker η=0.15) produce WDs consistent with the empirical IFMR (Cummings et al. 2018).
    Section 7.2: used to infer M_i from the post-CE WD mass and to compute envelope binding energies; if the mass-loss prescription is wrong, both M_i and E_bind shift.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 41311 in / 11095 out tokens · 93777 ms · 2026-08-01T09:48:31.618195+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Common envelope (CE) evolution is a critical phase in the lives of binary stars, producing close binaries that are progenitors of type Ia supernovae and gravitational wave sources. Despite its importance, CE evolution remains poorly understood, largely due to the scarcity of systems with constrained pre- and post-CE properties. Here, we present a star cluster-based framework for reconstructing the evolutionary histories of white dwarf+main-sequence (WD+MS) post-CE binaries, where cluster membership can provide an independent age constraint and/or rule out a merger origin for the WD. We demonstrate this method with Alessi12-PCE, the first such binary in an open cluster with precisely determined pre- and post-CE properties. We classify the companion as an M4V and measure a WD mass of $1.06 \pm 0.02 M_{\odot}$, making it the most massive WD+MS binary associated with a cluster. A 6.99-hour periodicity detected in a light curve is confirmed as the binary orbital period via radial velocity monitoring. Combined with the WD mass, WD cooling age, and Alessi 12 cluster age, stellar evolution models imply a $5.40 \pm 0.10 M_{\odot}$ WD progenitor that entered a CE on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB). CE evolution models where convection is the dominant physical mechanism that sets $\alpha_{\text{CE}}$ reproduce the observed orbital separation in exactly two scenarios: either a mid-AGB interaction with $\alpha_{\text{CE}}\approx0.99$, or a late-AGB interaction with $\alpha_{\text{CE}}\approx0.05$. Applicable to other post-CE binaries in star clusters, our new framework enables empirical constraints on CE physics inaccessible from field binaries alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20611 by Alexander Laroche, Bailey Filer, Floor S. Broekgaarden, Huei Sears, Jason Nordhaus, Jeremy J. Webb, Kyle Kremer, Maria R. Drout, Natalie LeBaron, Nikki Noughani, Philip S. Muirhead, Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay, Raffaella Margutti, Ryan Chornock, Steffani M. Grondin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A χ 2 cluster membership analysis for Alessi12-PCE. Left: A 3D spatial analysis of Alessi12-PCE (star) relative to the probable cluster members (P > 0.5) of Alessi 12 from T. Cantat-Gaudin et al. (2020) (circles, colored by their χ 2 value), with the cluster center marked by a white cross. Each source is colored by its spatial χ 2 value (color bar), computed from a combination of right ascension (α), decli… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Multi-wavelength spectral energy distribution of Alessi12-PCE, combining ultraviolet photometry from Swift UVOT (U, B, UVW1, UVM2, UVW2), optical photometry from Pan-STARRS1 (g, r, i, z, y), and near-infrared photometry from 2MASS (J, H, Ks). Each photometric band is indicated accordingly. The SED reveals the composite nature of the system: a hot WD dominates the ultraviolet and blue optical flux, while an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Summary of fitting properties to determine the M dwarf spectral type and WD atmospheric parameters (Teff and log g). Left: Flux-space spectral fitting of Alessi12-PCE. Although a broad range of WD atmospheric models provide acceptable fits to the observed continuum (gray), only models containing an M4V companion are consistent within 1σ, demonstrating that the companion’s spectral type is robustly constrai… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The orbital variability of Alessi12-PCE. Left panel: A schematic illustrating variability due to a reflection/irradiation effect. Here, the WD irradiates one hemisphere of the tidally locked M dwarf, so the same face always points towards the WD throughout the binary’s orbit. An orbital phase of 0 (‘A’) corresponds to the time when the irradiated face is hidden from the observer (minimum observable irradia… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A Monte Carlo analysis to determine the cooling age (tcool; left plot) and mass (MWD; right plot) of the WD in Alessi12-PCE, using the A. B´edard et al. (2020) “thick” DA WD atmosphere models (colored grid). All Monte Carlo results are plotted as small circles and our previously derived WD Teff and log g are indicated as white circles, indicating the derived WD tcool and MWD. 6.2. White Dwarf Mass and Cool… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Location of Alessi12-PCE (pink star) in the Porb–MWD plane, compared with the currently known population of detached WD+MS post-CE binaries. With MWD = 1.06 ± 0.02 M⊙, Alessi12-PCE is the most massive such system associated with an open star cluster. Comparison systems are grouped by the role they play. Cluster systems (diamonds): the only two other detached WD+MS post-CE binaries known in open clusters, V… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The pre-CE WD progenitor core mass (solid lines) and radius (dashed lines) evolution of 5.2 − 5.6M⊙ MESA models from E. C. Wilson & J. Nordhaus (2020). Only models that (i) reach a WD mass of MWD = 1.06 ± 0.02M⊙ (black line) in the time span of tform = tcluster − tcool = 113.13 ± 51.29 Myr and (ii) enter a CE phase on the AGB as opposed to the RGB are viable progenitor models (orange, yellow, and green lin… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left panels: The CE ejection efficiency αCE (top) and the final orbital separation (bottom) as a function of age along the AGB for a 5.4M⊙ progenitor. The mid-AGB (green) and late-AGB (blue) MESA profiles from E. C. Wilson & J. Nordhaus (2019) that reproduce the observed final separation of Alessi12-PCE (red line) are marked as circles. The two AGB stages for which envelope ejection occurs at the observed … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of CE efficiency (αCE) estimates for WD post-CE binaries from this work and the literature, color-coded by binary type (WD+MS, WD+WD, WD+brown dwarf). The top panel shows literature which present individual system estimates for αCE. This includes our model agnostic range of αCE ≈ 0.03 − 1.55, which includes the mean measurements for the early, mid, and late AGB CE onset times across our three pr… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Alessi12-PCE (pink) is shown relative to the initial–final mass relation (IFMR) for single white dwarfs in open clusters from D. R. Miller et al. (2026) (blue). Empir￾ical IFMR constraints from D. R. Miller et al. (2026) (blue line), along with relations based on PARSEC and MIST stel￾lar models from J. D. Cummings et al. (2018) (black lines), are included for comparison. The inferred initial and final mas… view at source ↗

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

162 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    J., Bavera, S

    Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., Briel, M., et al. 2025, ApJS, 281, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adfb78 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013a, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013b, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collabor...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/adfb78 2025

  2. [2]

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

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    2021, lightkurve/lightkurve: Lightkurve v2.0.9, v2.0.9 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4654522 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G

    Barentsen, G., Hedges, C., Vin ´ ıcius, Z., et al. 2021, lightkurve/lightkurve: Lightkurve v2.0.9, v2.0.9 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4654522 B´ edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4654522 2021

  4. [4]

    2017, MNRAS, 471, 4702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1759

    Belczynski, K., Ryu, T., Perna, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1759

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1759 2017

  5. [5]

    Bessell, M. S. 1999, PASP, 111, 1426, doi: 10.1086/316454

    doi:10.1086/316454 1999

  6. [6]

    1995, A&A, 297, 727

    Bloecker, T. 1995, A&A, 297, 727

    1995

  7. [7]

    2019, A&A, 623, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834693

    Bossini, D., Vallenari, A., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834693

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834693 2019

  8. [8]

    G., Curtis, J

    Bouma, L. G., Curtis, J. L., Hartman, J. D., Winn, J. N., & Bakos, G. ´A. 2021, AJ, 162, 197, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac18cd

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac18cd 2021

  9. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

  10. [11]

    S., Lam, A., Levina, S., et al

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Lam, A., Levina, S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.05322, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.05322 26Grondin et al

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.05322 2026

  11. [12]

    J., Parsons, S

    Brown, A. J., Parsons, S. G., van Roestel, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad612

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad612 2023

  12. [13]

    2014, A&A, 566, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323052

    Camacho, J., Torres, S., Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323052

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323052 2014

  13. [14]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038192 2020

  14. [15]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  15. [16]

    2020, MNRAS, 495, 4028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1273

    Carroll-Nellenback, J., & Tu, Y. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 4028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1273

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1273 2020

  16. [17]

    G., Nordhaus, J., & Wilson, E

    Chamandy, L., Blackman, E. G., Nordhaus, J., & Wilson, E. 2021, MNRAS, 502, L110, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab017

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slab017 2021

  17. [18]

    G., et al

    Chamandy, L., Carroll-Nellenback, J., Blackman, E. G., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 234, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae036

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae036 2024

  18. [19]

    G., & Wilson, E

    Chamandy, L., Nordhaus, J., Blackman, E. G., & Wilson, E. 2025, PASA, 42, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.4

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2025.4 2025

  19. [20]

    G., et al

    Chamandy, L., Frank, A., Blackman, E. G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1898, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1950

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1950 2018

  20. [21]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  21. [22]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1281 2015

  22. [23]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1605 2014

  23. [24]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 1442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1326

    Cojocaru, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Torres, S., & Garc ´ ıa-Berro, E. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1442, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1326

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1326 2017

  24. [25]

    2025, Astropy, v7.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17756022

    Collaboration, A. 2025, Astropy, v7.2.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17756022

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17756022 2025

  25. [26]

    1995, Machine Learning, 20, 273, doi: 10.1007/BF00994018

    Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. 1995, Machine Learning, 20, 273, doi: 10.1007/BF00994018

    doi:10.1007/bf00994018 1995

  26. [27]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Choi, J. 2018, ApJ, 866, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadfd6 2018

  27. [28]

    J., Kolb, U., & Knigge, C

    Davis, P. J., Kolb, U., & Knigge, C. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 287, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19690.x De Marco, O. 2009, PASP, 121, 316, doi: 10.1086/597765 De Marco, O., Passy, J.-C., Moe, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2277, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17891.x Di Stefano, R., Kruckow, M. U., Gao, Y., Neunteufel, P. G., & Kobayashi, C. 2023, ApJ, 944, 87, do...

    arXiv 2012

  28. [29]

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2180 2015

  29. [30]

    2023, A&A, 675, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    Donada, J., Anders, F., Jordi, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245219 2023

  30. [31]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368, doi: 10.1086/160960

    doi:10.1086/160960 1983

  31. [32]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017

  32. [33]

    K., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B

    Elms, A. K., Tremblay, P.-E., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 4996, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2171

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2171 2023

  33. [34]

    1987, in IAU Colloq

    Fontaine, G., & Wesemael, F. 1987, in IAU Colloq. 95: Second Conference on Faint Blue Stars, ed. A. G. D

    1987

  34. [35]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac90c1 2023

  35. [36]

    J., Barnes, S

    Fritzewski, D. J., Barnes, S. A., Weingrill, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346083

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346083 2023

  36. [37]

    L., Woosley, S

    Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., & Hartmann, D. H. 1999, ApJ, 526, 152, doi: 10.1086/307992 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    doi:10.1086/307992 1999

  37. [38]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    doi:10.1086/422091 2004

  38. [39]

    2015, MNRAS, 454, 576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1848

    Gieles, M., & Zocchi, A. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1848

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1848 2015

  39. [40]

    H., & Rebull, L

    Godoy-Rivera, D., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Rebull, L. M. 2021, ApJS, 257, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2058

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac2058 2021

  40. [41]

    2026, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.18.0, v1.18.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20764140

    Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Haberland, M., et al. 2026, scipy/scipy: SciPy 1.18.0, v1.18.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20764140

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20764140 2026

  41. [42]

    M., Drout, M

    Grondin, S. M., Drout, M. R., Nordhaus, J., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7500

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad7500 2024

  42. [43]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac463

    Guidarelli, G., Nordhaus, J., Carroll-Nellenback, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5994, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac463

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac463 2022

  43. [44]

    2019, MNRAS, 490, 1179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2641

    Guidarelli, G., Nordhaus, J., Chamandy, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1179, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2641

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2641 2019

  44. [45]

    R., Millman, K

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

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

  45. [46]

    J., & Jao, W.-C

    Henry, T. J., & Jao, W.-C. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 593, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-102740

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-102740 2024

  46. [47]

    S., Schreiber, M

    Hernandez, M. S., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1677, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3815

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3815 2021

  47. [48]

    S., Schreiber, M

    Hernandez, M. S., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 517, 2867, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2837

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2837

  48. [49]

    S., Schreiber, M

    Hernandez, M. S., Schreiber, M. R., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2022b, MNRAS, 512, 1843, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac604

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac604

  49. [50]

    S., & Taam, R

    Hjellming, M. S., & Taam, R. E. 1991, ApJ, 370, 709, doi: 10.1086/169854

    doi:10.1086/169854 1991

  50. [51]

    M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J

    Hook, I. M., Jørgensen, I., Allington-Smith, J. R., et al. 2004, PASP, 116, 425, doi: 10.1086/383624 Linking Pre/Post-CE Binary Properties with Star Clusters27

    doi:10.1086/383624 2004

  51. [52]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  52. [53]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    arXiv 2002

  53. [54]

    Iben, Jr., I., & Tutukov, A. V. 1984, ApJ, 282, 615, doi: 10.1086/162241 IRSA. 2022, Zwicky Transient Facility Image Service, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA539

    work page doi:10.1086/162241 1984

  54. [55]

    Fregeau, J. M. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 553, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13064.x

    arXiv 2008

  55. [57]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2582

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2582 2015

  56. [58]

    2020, Common Envelope Evolution, 2514-3433 (IOP), doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/abb6f0

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., & Ricker, P. 2020, Common Envelope Evolution, 2514-3433 (IOP), doi: 10.1088/2514-3433/abb6f0

    doi:10.1088/2514-3433/abb6f0 2020

  57. [59]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2 2013

  58. [60]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07388, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07388

    Jackim, R., Heyl, J., & Richer, H. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.07388, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.07388

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.07388 2024

  59. [61]

    S., Bauer, E

    Jermyn, A. S., Bauer, E. B., Schwab, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acae8d 2023

  60. [62]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., R¨ oser, S., Schilbach, E., & Scholz, R. D. 2005, A&A, 438, 1163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042523

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042523 2005

  61. [63]

    G., Kosakowski, A., et al

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3182 2023

  62. [64]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87 – 90

    2016

  63. [65]

    Z., Weatherford, N

    Kremer, K., Rui, N. Z., Weatherford, N. C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac06d4 2021

  64. [66]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    arXiv 2001

  65. [67]

    Lau, M. Y. M., Hirai, R., Price, D. J., & Mandel, I. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2490

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2490 2022

  66. [68]

    Law-Smith, J. A. P., Everson, R. W., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2011.06630, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2011.06630

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.06630 2020

  67. [69]

    2011, MNRAS, 410, 2370, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17609.x

    Leigh, N., & Sills, A. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 2370, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17609.x

    arXiv 2011

  68. [70]

    Identification of 30,000 White Dwarf-Main Sequence binaries candidates from Gaia DR3 BP/RP(XP) low-resolution spectra

    Li, J., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14494, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14494 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14494 2025

  69. [71]

    K., & Han, Z

    Liu, Z.-W., R¨ opke, F. K., & Han, Z. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 082001, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/acd89e 2023

  70. [72]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    doi:10.1007/bf00648343 1976

  71. [73]

    W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A

    Mann, A. W., Dupuy, T., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc 2019

  72. [74]

    2022, Universe, 8, 243, doi: 10.3390/universe8040243

    Marigo, P. 2022, Universe, 8, 243, doi: 10.3390/universe8040243

    doi:10.3390/universe8040243 2022

  73. [75]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77 2017

  74. [76]

    D., Curtis, J

    Marigo, P., Cummings, J. D., Curtis, J. L., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 1102, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1132-1

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1132-1 2020

  75. [77]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  76. [78]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc686

    Charbonneau, D. 2020, ApJ, 905, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc686

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc686 2020

  77. [79]

    E., et al

    Melis, C., Klein, B., Doyle, A. E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbdfa

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbdfa 2020

  78. [80]

    2022, ApJL, 926, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a5

    Tremblay, P.-E. 2022, ApJL, 926, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a5 2022

  79. [81]

    R., Caiazzo, I., Heyl, J., et al

    Miller, D. R., Caiazzo, I., Heyl, J., et al. 2026, ApJ, 996, 69, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae18c8

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae18c8 2026

  80. [82]

    S., & Stone, R

    Miller, J. S., & Stone, R. P. S. 1993, Lick Observatory Techical Reports, 66

    1993

Showing first 80 references.