Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

Discoveries and Properties of EL CVn-type Binaries in the TESS Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports 29 EL CVn-type eclipsing binaries drawn from TESS data, 11 of them new, and argues from their mass–period and temperature–gravity positions that they formed through stable mass transfer.

desk verdict A worthwhile new catalog of EL CVn binaries, but the quoted uncertainties are unrealistic and the mass-period agreement is not robust until the MLP calibration offsets are quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08877 v1 pith:7ZQZNRVM submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.SR

Jianping Xiong , Zhenwei Li , Jiao Li , Xiaobin Zhang , Xiaodian Chen , Kaifan Ji , Zhanwen Han , Xuefei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords ELCVn-typebinariesextremelylow-masswhitedwarfseclipsingTESSpre-heliumstablemasstransferbinarystarevolutionlightcurvemodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the discovery and characterization of 29 EL CVn-type eclipsing binaries identified in TESS data from sectors 1–65, 11 of them new. EL CVn systems pair an A/F main-sequence star with a small, hot pre-helium white dwarf, a short-lived stage that records the aftermath of stable mass transfer. The authors fit each system's light curve and spectral energy distribution to obtain temperatures, masses, and radii, then compare the results with the white-dwarf mass–period relation and with evolutionary tracks of extremely low-mass white dwarfs. They find that the systems sit on the expected relation and tracks, and conclude that these binaries most likely formed through stable Roche-lobe overflow mass transfer. The paper also publishes a complete parameter catalog for the 29 systems.

What carries the argument

The identifying signature is the secondary eclipse shape: in an EL CVn light curve the pre-white-dwarf star is hidden behind the main-sequence star, producing a deeper, flat-bottomed 'boxy' minimum that is detected by measuring the slope of the locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) of the phase-folded light curve between phases 0.4 and 0.6. From that starting point, the parameter derivation chains through three tools: a fast multilayer-perceptron network trained on synthetic eclipses generated with a binary light-curve simulator; a spectral-energy-distribution fit that combines Gaia parallaxes with multi-band photometry to fix absolute temperatures; and a mass calibration that uses the mean-density–temperature relation for main-sequence stars, fed by the fitted relative radius, mass ratio, and orbital period. The final evolutionary comparison uses the white-dwarf mass–period relation and helium-white-dwarf evolutionary tracks.

What would settle it

Obtain double-lined radial-velocity curves for several of the 11 newly discovered systems and compare the dynamical masses with the masses derived here; if the white-dwarf masses disagree beyond the quoted uncertainties or move off the published mass–period relation, the stable-mass-transfer conclusion would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 29 TESS eclipsing binaries with a deeper, flat-bottomed 'boxy' secondary eclipse are EL CVn-type systems, and that their measured properties place them on the mass–period relation for low-mass white dwarfs and on the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$–$\log g$ evolutionary tracks of extremely low-mass white dwarfs. Because both comparisons agree within uncertainties, the paper concludes these systems formed through stable mass transfer rather than through a common-envelope or other dynamical channel. The pre-helium white dwarfs sit at an earlier evolutionary stage than typical extremely low-mass white dwarfs, with higher surface gravity and lower effective temperature, consistent with having recently finished mass transfer and begun contracting.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the synthetic eclipses used to train the light-curve fitting network faithfully represent the real binaries, including reflection, gravity darkening, limb darkening, and circular orbits; if any of those effects is mis-modeled, the fitted masses, radii, and surface gravities are biased, and the formation conclusion rests on biased inputs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The catalog supplies complete physical parameters for 29 systems, including 17 that previously lacked determined parameters.
  • The newly discovered systems extend the observed period range on the long side, with periods from 0.64 to 2.5 days that supplement the previously sparse sample above about 1 day.
  • The agreement between the sample and the mass–period relation and the extremely-low-mass-white-dwarf evolutionary tracks supports the interpretation that EL CVn binaries form through stable mass transfer.
  • The pre-helium white dwarfs in these systems are in an earlier contracting stage than typical extremely low-mass white dwarfs; as they cool, they should evolve toward the standard extremely-low-mass-white-dwarf locus.
  • The slope-based identification method can be applied to other eclipsing-binary catalogs with TESS light curves to find additional EL CVn systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not quantify the completeness of their 29-system sample; a natural extension would be to run the same slope screen on ground-based eclipsing-binary catalogs with TESS follow-up and measure what fraction of the true EL CVn population is recovered.
  • If the pre-helium white dwarfs are still contracting, pulsating EL CVn members of the catalog should show measurable period changes over years to decades, a testable consequence the paper does not develop.
  • Because the mass calibration assumes solar metallicity, obtaining metallicities for the A/F stars would shift some derived masses; a few outliers on the $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$–$\log g$ diagram may move onto or off the tracks once that systematic is removed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript identifies 29 EL CVn-type eclipsing binaries from TESS sectors 1–65, of which 11 are claimed to be newly discovered, and derives their physical parameters by combining TESS light-curve fits, Gaia parallaxes, and multi-band SED fits. The light curves are modeled with an MLP trained on PHOEBE synthetic light curves to obtain q, i, r1, r2, and T2/T1; SED fits provide T1 and T2; and masses are obtained from a mean-density–Teff relation for the A/F star using MIST models. The derived pre-He WD masses and effective temperatures are then compared with the Lin et al. (2011) mass–period relation and the Li et al. (2019) ELM WD evolutionary tracks. The authors conclude that the systems are consistent with stable mass transfer formation. A catalog of 29 systems with derived parameters is provided in Appendix A.

Significance. If the derived parameters are reliable, the catalog of 29 EL CVn systems, including 11 new discoveries with periods extending above 1 day, is a useful observational resource for studying low-mass white dwarf formation and binary mass transfer. The paper's strengths include direct comparison with external spectroscopic temperatures for 7–8 overlapping systems (Fig. 6), mass comparisons with published values (Fig. 8), and the use of a fast MLP-based light-curve model. However, the central evolutionary conclusion rests on the accuracy of the MLP-derived mass ratios and on SED assumptions, and those links are not yet quantitatively secured. The manuscript does not release the trained model or the fitting code, which limits independent verification of the method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 1] The only external validation of the MLP light-curve fitting is given in Table 1 for two previously published systems. The mass ratio q differs from Wang et al. (2020a) by +10.6% for TIC 149160359 (0.1002 vs 0.0906) and by -7.6% for TIC 416264037 (0.1003 vs 0.1086), while the quoted MCMC uncertainties are of order 10^-4. The inclination differs by 5.2 degrees for TIC 149160359. These are systematic offsets, not statistical fluctuations, yet the paper later uses M2 = q M1 to compute the pre-He WD mass and compares against the ±10% band of the Lin et al. (2011) relation in Fig. 9. A 7–11% bias in q therefore directly undermines the conclusion that the TESS systems are consistent with the mass–period relation. The authors must either quantify and propagate this calibration systematic (e.g., by expanding the training grid, validating on a larger set of known systems, or adding a systematic error term to the MCMC uncertainties) or substantially soften the claims in Section 5.
  2. [Section 4.2, Fig. 10] The SED fitting fixes the surface gravities of the A/F star and the pre-He WD to log g = 4.0 and 5.0, respectively. While the final log g values in Table 2 are computed from the derived masses and radii, the effective temperatures T1 and T2 that place the systems in the Teff–log g diagram of Fig. 10 are obtained under these fixed gravities. The model fluxes, and hence the fitted T2 values, depend on the assumed log g. No sensitivity test is presented to show how T2 or the inferred M2 would change if log g were allowed to vary over the plausible pre-He WD range (e.g., 4.5–6.0 dex). Without such a test, the apparent alignment of the TESS points with the Li et al. (2019) tracks in Fig. 10 is not independent of the adopted SED assumptions. The authors should fit log g as a free parameter or demonstrate explicitly that the evolutionary-track conclusion is insensitive to the assumed gravities.
  3. [Appendix A, Table 2] The catalog table contains duplicate entries: TIC 35399970 appears as both the first and fifth rows with identical parameters, and TIC 464641792 appears as rows 14 and 20. This makes the claim of 29 unique systems ambiguous. In addition, many quoted uncertainties are unrealistically small given the systematic offsets documented in Table 1: radii are listed with errors of 0.0000–0.001 R_sun and masses with errors of 0.001–0.005 M_sun, yet the external comparison shows q uncertainties at the 10% level. The catalog should be de-duplicated and should include propagated systematic uncertainties (at least from the MLP calibration and the metallicity assumption), so that the quoted precision reflects the true accuracy of the parameters.
  4. [Section 4.3, Fig. 9] The masses of the primary stars are derived from the mean-density–Teff grid for solar metallicity only ([M/H]=0), as acknowledged in the text. However, the effect of this assumption on the derived M1 and M2 is not quantified. A metal-poor or metal-rich A/F star of the same Teff and mean density has a different mass in the MIST grid, and this systematic propagates directly into the comparison shown in Fig. 9. Since the metallicity of the targets is generally unknown, the authors should either compute grids for a range of metallicities or add a systematic uncertainty of at least several percent to M2 before drawing conclusions about agreement with the mass–period relation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sections 3, 4, 5, Fig. captions] Multiple references to "Sec. ??" are unresolved (e.g., in Secs. 3, 4.3, 5, and in the captions of Figs. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10). These cross-references must be filled in before submission.
  2. [Table 1] The footnote states that the relative radius from Wang et al. (2020a) is r_pole, whereas the present work uses a different radius convention. The comparison of r1 and r2 in Table 1 is therefore not apples-to-apples; the authors should either convert Wang et al.'s values to the same convention or state explicitly that the comparison is only approximate.
  3. [Section 3] The detection thresholds (more than 10 data points between the maximum and minimum slope phases, and >50% of those points with |slope| < 0.2) are described but not justified. A completeness/reliability test, e.g., by applying the same criteria to a sample of known non-EL CVn eclipsing binaries, would strengthen the identification methodology.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The normalization in Eq. (1) is written as subtracting the mean magnitude of all points; if phase coverage is uneven or eclipses dominate, normalizing to the mean can bias the baseline. Consider normalizing to the out-of-eclipse median magnitude instead.
  5. [Appendix A, Table 2] The periods are reported with inconsistent precision: some entries have 9 decimal places (e.g., 1.2908616) while others have only 3 or 4 (e.g., 0.892, 0.741). The table should use a uniform number of significant digits so that the catalog is immediately usable.
  6. [Abstract, Section 5] The notation for surface gravity is inconsistent: the abstract uses "Teff-logg" while the body and figures use "Teff-log g". Please unify to "Teff–log g" throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: catalogue parameters come from independent fits and external models; the mass-period and Teff-log g agreement is a comparison, not an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the MLP light-curve model is trained on PHOEBE synthetic curves with parameter ranges from external EL CVn studies; the fitted q, i, r1, r2, and T2/T1 are validated against the external light-curve solutions of Wang et al. (2020a); SED fitting fixes log g values from van Roestel et al. (2018), but the final log g values in Table 2 are recomputed from masses and radii derived via the independent MIST rho-Teff relation for main-sequence stars; and the pre-He WD mass is obtained as q*M1. The subsequent comparison with the Lin et al. (2011) mass-period relation and the Li et al. (2019) evolutionary tracks is exactly that: a comparison of independently derived quantities against external theoretical predictions. No equation in the paper defines a fitted parameter in terms of the target comparison, no parameter is fitted to the mass-period or Teff-log g relations, and the cited self-work (Xiong et al. 2024 for the MLP model) is validated here against external data rather than being invoked as an unverified premise. The Table 1 offsets between this MLP and Wang et al. (2020a) for q and i are a real systematic-accuracy concern, but they do not make the relation between model and comparison circular; they would affect the uncertainty of the derived masses and hence the robustness of the agreement, not its logical independence.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The parameter derivation rests on four fitted or chosen inputs: the light-curve parameters, SED temperatures and extinction, fixed log g values, and the solar-metallicity MIST grid. The physical interpretation adds modeling assumptions from PHOEBE, ATLAS, MIST, and the same group's evolutionary tracks. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Light curve fitted parameters q, i, r1, r2, T2/T1 = per system; e.g., q=0.1002, i=89.66 degrees, r1=0.3882, r2=0.0873, T2/T1=1.0966 for TIC 149160359
    Fitted simultaneously to the TESS light curve with MCMC over the trained MLP surrogate; all subsequent masses, radii, and log g depend on these values.
  • SED fitted temperatures T1, T2 and extinction E(B-V) = per system; e.g., T1=7827 K, T2=8583 K for TIC 149160359
    Fitted to multi-band photometry with T2/T1 and radius ratio fixed from the light curve solution; T2 is the product of T1 and the fitted ratio, so its uncertainty is propagated.
  • Fixed surface gravities in SED fitting = log g1 = 4.0, log g2 = 5.0
    Chosen from van Roestel et al. (2018), not fitted; the SED temperature solution depends on these values.
  • Solar metallicity [M/H]=0 for the mean density-Teff mass grid = [M/H]=0
    Adopted because no metallicity measurements are available; the primary mass and hence the WD mass scale directly with this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kepler's third law combined with spherical volume gives the mean density relation in Eq. 4.
    Used in Section 4.3 to convert fitted r1, q, and period to the primary mean density.
  • domain assumption PHOEBE synthetic light curves accurately represent EL CVn eclipses, including limb darkening, gravity darkening, and reflection.
    The surrogate MLP model is trained on these synthetic curves in Section 4.1; any mismatch between PHOEBE physics and real light curves biases all fitted parameters.
  • domain assumption MIST rho-Teff relations for solar-metallicity main-sequence stars give the correct primary mass.
    Applied in Section 4.3; no metallicity information is available, and the paper uses [M/H]=0 only.
  • domain assumption ATLAS/Kurucz model atmospheres and the fixed log g values (4.0 and 5.0) are adequate for SED fitting.
    Used in Section 4.2; the absolute temperatures T1 and T2 are obtained from these SED models.
  • domain assumption The Lin et al. (2011) mass-period relation and Li et al. (2019) ELM WD tracks correctly describe post-stable-mass-transfer systems.
    Used in Section 5 to interpret consistency as evidence for stable mass transfer; these models come from the same research group.
  • domain assumption Orbital eccentricity is negligible for the selected candidates.
    Adopted in Section 3 following Peng et al. (2024); the light curve model does not fit eccentricity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discoveries and Properties of EL CVn-type Binaries in the TESS Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZQZNRVM

@misc{pith2026241208877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discoveries and Properties of EL CVn-type Binaries in the TESS Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZQZNRVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08877}
}
read the original abstract

EL CVn-type systems represent a rare evolutionary stage in binary star evolution, providing ideal laboratories for investigating stable mass transfer processes and the formation of extremely low-mass white dwarfs (ELM WDs). The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) has delivered an extensive collection of high-precision time-domain photometric data, which is invaluable for studying EL CVn binaries. In this study, we identified 29 EL CVn systems from the TESS eclipsing binary catalogs (sectors 1-65), 11 of which are newly discovered. These systems consist of smaller, hotter pre-He white dwarfs and A/F main-sequence stars. The orbital periods of these binaries range from 0.64 to 2.5 days. Utilizing TESS light curves, Gaia distances, and multi-band photometric data (e.g., GALEX, 2MASS, WISE, SkyMapper), we modeled the light curves and spectral energy distributions to derive system parameters, including effective temperatures, masses, and radii. These systems were then compared with the white dwarf mass-period relation and the evolutionary tracks of ELM WDs. The comparison reveals that these binaries are consistent with the expected mass-period relation for white dwarfs and align well with the evolutionary tracks on the Teff-logg diagram for ELM WDs. This result suggests that these EL CVn systems likely formed through stable mass transfer processes. We provide a catalog of complete parameters for 29 EL CVn systems identified from the TESS survey. This catalog will serve as an essential resource for studying binary mass transfer, white dwarf formation, and pulsation phenomena in EL CVn-type systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic illustration of the slope calculations for six previously known EL CVn systems (Wang et al. 2020a; Peng et al. 2024). In the upper panel, the plot utilizes hexagonal bins ("hexbin") to depict TESS observation data, where the shading of each bin corresponds to the density of data points within the respective region. Darker shades indicate a higher concentration of points within a hexagonal cell. The red s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The color-magnitude diagram of EL CVn sys￾tems. The grayscale plot represents the sources within 100 pc from Gaia DR3, with the intensity corresponding to stellar density. The red “plus” markers indicate previously known EL CVn systems (see Sec. ??), while the newly discovered EL CVn candidates are represented by blue filled squares. through locally weighted regression. During the smooth￾ing process, 3% of the data … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The period distribution of EL CVn systems from observation. The gray histogram represents EL CVn binaries previously identified, while the red hatched histogram is the period distribution of the EL CVn binaries we discovered in TESS survey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The light curve fitting results for TIC 149160359 (left) and TIC 416264037 (right) (Wang et al. 2020a). The posterior distributions and the uncertainties of the fitting parameters are shown in blue histograms. In the top right corner, the grayscale plot in black shades…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The SED fitting results for TIC 149160359 (left) and TIC 416264037 (right) (Wang et al. 2020a). The blue filled circles and black open circles represent the observed and fitted photometric values, respectively. The blue dashed line is the SED of the A/F-type main seque…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of effective temperatures (Teff ) de￾rived from SED fitting and spectroscopic measurements. The x-axis represents effective temperatures obtained by spectra, while the y-axis shows results from the SED fit￾ting. Blue open squares and triangles represent the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ¯ρ - Teff distribution of observed EL CVn systems. The different colored lines represent the ¯ρ - Teff grid for main-sequence stars derived from the MIST models ([M/H]=0, Paxton et al. (2011, 2013, 2015); Dotter (2016); Choi et al. (2016)), while the open squares s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The period-mass distribution. The red solid line representing the period–mass relation proposed by Lin et al. (2011), and the black dashed lines marking the ±10% uncer￾tainty range around this relation. Gray open circles depict the extremely low-mass (ELM) white dwarf …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The comparison of mass measurements. The x￾axis shows the previously known values and the y-axis repre￾sents our measured results. The red squares and triangles in￾dicate results obtained from both double-lined spectroscopy and light curve fitting, while the blue squar…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Teff -log g diagram of EL CVn systems. The colored solid lines depict the evolutionary tracks of Helium White Dwarfs (He WDs) presented by Li et al. (2019). The filled circles represent extremely low-mass white dwarfs com￾piled by Li et al. (2019). The filled squares …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al

    Albareti, F. D., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa8992 2017

  2. [2]

    2014, Advances in Space Research, 53, 900, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.045

    Bianchi, L., Conti, A., & Shiao, B. 2014, Advances in Space Research, 53, 900, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.045

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2013.07.045 2014

  3. [3]

    Carter, J. A. 2012, ApJ, 748, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/115

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/2/115 2012

  4. [4]

    A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J

    Caldwell, D. A., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D., et al. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 201, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abc9b3 2020

  5. [5]

    A., Rappaport, S., & Fabrycky, D

    Carter, J. A., Rappaport, S., & Fabrycky, D. 2011, ApJ, 728, 139, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/139 C ¸ akırlı,¨O., Hoyman, B., & ¨Ozdarcan, O. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2058, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1948

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/139 2011

  6. [6]

    Chen, X., Maxted, P. F. L., Li, J., & Han, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx115

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx115 2017

  7. [7]

    2022, ApJS, 263, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca284

    Chen, X., Ding, X., Cheng, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 263, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca284

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca284 2022

  8. [8]

    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

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    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

    2000 doi

  3. [11]

    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

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

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

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, ApJ, 815, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/26

    Faigler, S., Kull, I., Mazeh, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 815, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/1/26

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    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, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023b, A&A...

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    R., Matson, R

    Guo, Z., Gies, D. R., Matson, R. A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa61a4

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 43, 518

    Henden, A., & Munari, U. 2014, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 43, 518

    2014

  10. [18]

    W., Koo, J.-R., et al

    Hong, K., Lee, J. W., Koo, J.-R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdd39

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Davenport, J

    Howard, E. L., Davenport, J. R. A., & Covey, K. R. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 96, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac6e42

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al

    Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., P´ al, A., et al. 2020a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 204, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2e —. 2020b, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 206, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abca2d

    doi

  13. [21]

    W., Tkachenko, A., Johnston, C., et al

    IJspeert, L. W., Tkachenko, A., Johnston, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141489

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Horvat, M., et al

    Jones, D., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 63, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7927

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Lee, C.-U., et al

    Kim, S.-L., Lee, J. W., Lee, C.-U., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 212, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac23de

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 236, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aca158

    Kunimoto, M., Tey, E., Fong, W., et al. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 236, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/aca158

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 234, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2ef0

    Kunimoto, M., Huang, C., Tey, E., et al. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 234, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac2ef0

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1, doi: 10.1086/190589 12

    1979 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Hong, K., Kim, H.-Y., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., Kim, H.-Y., & Park, J.-H. 2022a, MNRAS, 515, 4702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2151

    doi

  20. [28]

    W., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H. 2022b, MNRAS, 511, 654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac075

    doi

  21. [29]

    W., Koo, J.-R., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H

    Lee, J. W., Koo, J.-R., Hong, K., & Park, J.-H. 2020, AJ, 160, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab9621

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., & Han, Z. 2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1 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, record ascl:1812.013

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2011, ApJ, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    Lin, J., Rappaport, S., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/70

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210

    Liu, C., Fu, J., Shi, J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.07210. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07210

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al

    Luo, A. L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, NewA, 78, 101363, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363 Matijeviˇ c, G., Prˇ sa, A., Orosz, J

    Luo, Y. 2020, NewA, 78, 101363, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2020.101363 Matijeviˇ c, G., Prˇ sa, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/123

    2020

  27. [35]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Anderson, D. R., Burleigh, M. R., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1156, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19567.x

    2011

  28. [36]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Bloemen, S., Heber, U., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1681, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt2007

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e033, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.27

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    2024, NewA, 107, 102153, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2023.102153 Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T

    Peng, Y., Wang, K., & Ren, A. 2024, NewA, 107, 102153, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2023.102153 Prˇ sa, A., & Zwitter, T. 2005, ApJ, 628, 426, doi: 10.1086/430591 Prˇ sa, A., Conroy, K. E., Horvat, M., et al. 2016, ApJS, 227, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29 Prˇ sa, A., Kochoska, ...

    2024

  34. [42]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/82 Ruci´ nski, S

    Rappaport, S., Nelson, L., Levine, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/82 Ruci´ nski, S. M. 1969, AcA, 19, 245

    2015 doi

  35. [43]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Stumpe, M

    Smith, J. C., Stumpe, M. C., Van Cleve, J. E., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1000, doi: 10.1086/667697

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Smith, J

    Stumpe, M. C., Smith, J. C., Catanzarite, J. H., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 100, doi: 10.1086/674989 van Kerkwijk, M. H., Rappaport, S. A., Breton, R. P., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/51 van Roestel, J., Kupfer, T., Ruiz-Carmona, R., et al. 2018, MNRAS,...

    2014 doi

  38. [46]

    2020a, ApJ, 888, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab584c

    Wang, K., Zhang, X., & Dai, M. 2020a, ApJ, 888, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab584c

    doi

  39. [47]

    R., Lester, K

    Wang, L., Gies, D. R., Lester, K. V., et al. 2020b, AJ, 159, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab52fa

    doi

  40. [48]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

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

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, ApJS, 270, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0ceb

    Xiong, J., Ding, X., Li, J., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0ceb

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  43. [51]

    M., & Rix, H.-W

    Zhang, X., Green, G. M., & Rix, H.-W. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1941

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    B., Fu, J

    Zhang, X. B., Fu, J. N., Liu, N., Luo, C. Q., & Ren, A. B. 2017, ApJ, 850, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9577

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    B., Luo, C

    Zhang, X. B., Luo, C. Q., & Fu, J. N. 2013, ApJ, 777, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/77

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    B., Wang, K., Chen, X

    Zhang, X. B., Wang, K., Chen, X. H., Luo, C. Q., & Zhang, C. G. 2019, ApJ, 884, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa9

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 13 A

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 13 A. APPENDIX A T able 2.Absolute parameters of 29 EL CVn-type binaries from TESS survey. TIC Period (d) T 1 (K) T 2 (K) log g1...

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.