Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Thermally inflated accretors in post-mass transfer binaries: Abell 35 and its class revisited

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The companion in Abell 35 is not an evolved subgiant but a main-sequence star temporarily inflated by a recent mass-transfer episode, observed roughly 10^5 to 10^6 years after accretion ended.

desk verdict Strong observational case for A35's inflated-accretor status, but the model's central assumption on accretion entropy is untested — needs careful review. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.23756 v2 pith:NKHCL5XJ submitted 2026-03-24 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Soumyadeep Bhattacharjee , Kareem El-Badry , Jim Fuller , Cheyanne Shariat , Natsuko Yamaguchi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords binarystarswhitedwarfsmasstransferstellaraccretionthermalinflationAbell35bluelurkerspost-mass-transferevolution
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 argues that the strange subgiant-looking companions in Abell 35-type binaries — stars that are too big and bright for ordinary main-sequence stars but too common to be finely tuned near-twin binaries — are actually ordinary main-sequence stars that a recent mass-transfer episode puffed up out of thermal equilibrium. For the prototype Abell 35, a new astrometric orbit gives a 790-day period and yields a companion with T_eff ≈ 4925 K, radius ≈ 2.95 R_sun, near-solar metallicity, and rapid rotation aligned with the orbit, all consistent with recent accretion and spin-up. The authors show that a twin-binary origin is dynamically disfavored, then build self-consistent binary evolution models in which accreted gas deposits half its infall energy into the star's envelope. The accretor balloons to giant-like radii without overflowing its Roche lobe, then contracts over roughly a million years through a bloated, rapidly rotating phase matching what is observed. If correct, this makes Abell 35-type systems a short-lived but common stage, and connects them to post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide white-dwarf binaries as one evolutionary sequence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a modified accretion prescription in the binary evolution code: instead of assuming accreted material enters with the entropy of the stellar surface, the model assumes the material has been virialized and retains a fraction f_E = 0.5 of its infall gravitational energy as entropy deposited in the accretor's envelope (Equation 2). This extra entropy is what makes a low-mass star with a convective envelope expand rather than merely swallow mass; under the default prescription the same stars do not inflate. The same machinery also sets the star spinning near critical rotation, which later yields the observed 1–10 day rotation periods during contraction.

What would settle it

A direct, resolved 3D radiation-hydrodynamic simulation of mass accretion onto a ~1 M_sun convective-envelope star that measures the fraction of infall energy actually retained as entropy — if it returns f_E < 0.2, the inflation engine is removed. Observationally, finding an A35-type system whose companion's mass and age match an evolved star rather than a recently contracted main-sequence star would also falsify the class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms: the subgiant companions in Abell 35-type binaries are main-sequence accretors temporarily inflated out of thermal equilibrium by recent mass transfer. The accretor expands dramatically during rapid accretion but does not fill its Roche lobe, so mass transfer remains stable even at rates and mass ratios classically thought unstable. After the donor's envelope is stripped, the inflated accretor thermally relaxes back to the main sequence over 10^4–10^6 years, passing through exactly the temperatures, radii, and spin rates observed in the A35-type population. For Abell 35 itself, the revised distance, 790-day astrometric orbit, and rotational alignment with the orbit a

Load-bearing premise

The whole inflation rests on the assumption that accreted matter deposits half of its infall gravitational energy as entropy in the star's envelope; if the real deposited fraction is much smaller, the inflation disappears, and the paper's numerical setup cannot probe values below f_E ≈ 0.2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Most AU-scale companions to hot white dwarfs (T_eff ≳ 50,000 K) should appear inflated and evolved, while companions to cooler white dwarfs should look like ordinary main-sequence stars.
  • Abell 35-type binaries, post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide WD+main-sequence binaries are successive stages of a single post-mass-transfer pathway.
  • Stable mass transfer can survive accretion rates up to ~10^-2 M_sun/yr and mass ratios once considered unstable, so inflated accretors may be common rather than exceptional.
  • A35's companion is currently contracting and spinning down; its rotational axis aligned with the orbit is a direct relic of accretion-induced spin-up.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the inflated-accretor picture is right, the apparent 'subgiant' luminosity of A35's companion is temporary; in a few million years the star will look like a normal main-sequence star, so the present population of A35-type systems is a snapshot of a transient phase, and a larger census should find more systems outside planetary nebulae than inside.
  • The f_E = 0.5 assumption is the weakest physical input, and the paper cannot numerically test f_E ≲ 0.2; a 3D simulation of the accretion boundary layer on a low-mass convective star would directly measure this parameter and could either confirm or remove the inflation mechanism.
  • Applying the same contraction tracks backwards, some systems currently classified as post-AGB binaries with 'two evolved stars' may in fact be one evolved donor plus one inflated main-sequence accretor; checking whether the secondary's mass matches its pre-accretion zero-age main-sequence mass would test this.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the subgiant companions in Abell 35–type binaries are main-sequence accretors temporarily inflated by recent mass transfer, rather than evolved subgiants. It presents a new Gaia DR3 astrometric orbit for A35 (P_orb = 790 d, e ≈ 0.05, i ≈ 26°), a revised SED and spectroscopic analysis giving T_eff ≈ 4925 K, R ≈ 2.95 R_sun, near-solar metallicity, and v_rot sin i = 86 km/s, with the rotation axis aligned to the orbit. The authors disfavor a coeval twin-binary origin using a comparison of astrometric masses with an IFMR-based initial-mass estimate, and then present MESA binary models with a new accretion prescription (Eq. 2, f_E = 0.5) that inflates low-mass convective-envelope accretors. They find that the post-mass-transfer contraction phase passes through the observed A35-like parameters at ages ~10^4–10^6 yr, and propose a unifying evolutionary sequence connecting post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide WD+MS binaries.

Significance. If the inflated-accretor interpretation holds, the paper resolves a long-standing population puzzle without invoking finely tuned twin binaries, and it provides a testable evolutionary framework. The observational contribution is genuinely strong: a new astrometric orbit, a careful MCMC SED fit, four independent spectroscopic cross-checks, a Na-D–based reddening estimate, and a dynamical-mass argument. The MESA models are reproducible (public github repository), and the paper makes falsifiable predictions, e.g., that most AU-scale companions to hot WDs should appear inflated. The main weakness is that the inflation in the models is driven by a new, largely unvalidated accretion prescription, and the mass argument relies on an extrapolated IFMR. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the central claim is fully supported, but they do not invalidate the observational data or the overall scenario, which is plausible and timely.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1.1, Eq. (2), Appendix C (Figs. 15–16)] The central modeled phenomenon—inflation of a low-mass convective-envelope accretor—appears only with the new prescription f_E = 0.5. With MESA's default surface-entropy accretion, a 1 M_sun accretor does not inflate (Fig. 15, right). The paper states in §3.1.1 that f_E ≲ 0.2 is numerically unstable, so the weak-deposition regime is untested. Because f_E = 0.5 is an order-of-magnitude estimate from a Keplerian disk, and boundary layers may radiate a large fraction of the infall energy, the calculation does not currently demonstrate that the inflation is robust. I request (a) a numerical method to access lower f_E, or (b) an explicit calibration/error budget for f_E from independent constraints, or (c) a clear qualification in the abstract/conclusions that the inflation prediction depends on this untested parameter.
  2. [§2.3, Fig. 6] The argument against the evolved-subgiant interpretation hinges on comparing astrometry-allowed subgiant masses with initial masses from the Cunningham et al. (2024) IFMR extrapolated below 1 M_sun. The paper acknowledges the IFMR is not calibrated there. Binary interactions may truncate WD masses (as the authors note, citing Ironi et al. 2025), but the adopted extrapolation could also err in the opposite direction, and the derived tension is therefore not robust. Please quantify how much the IFMR would need to shift to restore a twin-binary solution, or redo the comparison with a plausible binary-IFMR range, and state whether the conclusion survives.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.1] Typo 'T rff,SG' should be 'T_eff,SG'. Also, in Table 1, the WD row has 'WDT_eff #' and 'log(g) # 7.2±0.3K'—the K unit does not belong on log g, and the formatting is broken.
  2. [§2.3] Typos: 'dyanamical' should be 'dynamical'; 'componant' should be 'component'.
  3. [Table 1 / §2.2.2] The text quotes v_rot ≈ 195 km/s (derived from P_phot and R_SG), while Table 1 lists v_rot sin i = 86 km/s and P_phot = 0.767 d. Please clarify explicitly that 195 km/s is the deprojected equatorial value obtained by dividing by sin i ≈ 0.44, to avoid apparent inconsistency.
  4. [§2.2.3] Define 'HPDP photometry' (IUE High Prime Data Products?) at first use, since many readers will not recognize the acronym.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inflated-accretor interpretation rests on independent Gaia/SED/spectroscopic evidence; the f_E=0.5 accretion prescription is a disclosed model assumption, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The central claim—that A35-type companions are main-sequence accretors inflated by recent mass transfer—is supported by a chain that is largely independent of the MESA models: the Gaia DR3 astrometric orbit and revised distance, the SED-derived Teff and radius, the new FEROS spectroscopy giving v_rot sin i and solar metallicity, the spin-orbit alignment, and the dynamical-mass versus IFMR argument against a coeval twin-binary origin. The MESA calculations are presented as a plausibility test of the evolutionary scenario, and the paper explicitly states that the models are 'tailored for A35' rather than fitted to it. The main caveat is that the inflation of low-mass convective-envelope accretors appears only with the new accretion prescription (Eq. 2 with f_E=0.5), and the paper itself notes that f_E≲0.2 is numerically unstable, so the weak-deposition regime cannot be probed. This is a genuine model-assumption sensitivity, and it weakens the strength of the MESA support as an independent test, but it is not circular: f_E is not calibrated to A35's Teff or radius, the prescription is physically motivated from a Keplerian-disk estimate, and the conclusion does not reduce to the prescription by construction. The observational facts—large radius, rapid aligned rotation, young hot WD, dynamical mass tension—stand independently. Self-citations in the paper are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing in a circular way. Thus no circular step meets the standard of 'prediction equivalent to input by construction.'

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical phenomenon (inflation) is powered by two hand-set inputs: f_E = 0.5 (entropy-deposition fraction) and chosen initial conditions; the paper's own Equation 2 carries the effect. The observational parameter set is anchored to measured quantities (Gaia orbit and parallax, FEROS spectra, Na-D reddening, photometric period). The MESA microphysics (convection, overshoot, winds, magnetic braking) is inherited from Choi et al. (2016) and Temmink et al. (2023); the WD properties, log g, and the IFMR come from external literature. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • f_E — retained fraction of infall energy deposited in the accretor = 0.5
    Eq. 2, §3.1.1. Controls the entropy deposited by accretion and hence the amplitude of the inflation that is the paper's central phenomenon. Chosen from a Keplerian-disk argument, not measured or fit; low values (f_E ≲ 0.2) are numerically unstable, so the suppressing regime cannot be tested.
  • β — mass retention fraction of transferred mass = 0.5 (models A, C); 0.05 (model B)
    §3.1: non-conservative mass transfer with 50% (or 5%) of transferred mass accreted; chosen values bracket plausible outcomes. (MESA defines β as the lost fraction, so inlists read accordingly.)
  • Initial conditions for MESA models = M_d = 1.2 M_sun; M_a = 0.5 M_sun (A, C), 0.7 M_sun (B); P_i = 1000 d (A, B), 600 d (C)
    §3.2.1: 'We have not carried out an exhaustive search of the parameter space to best-match the system's properties' — hand-picked representative starting points chosen to yield A35-like outcomes.
  • R_WD — white dwarf radius in the SED fit = (1.62 ± 0.02) × 10^-2 R_sun (fixed E(b-v) = 0.03); (1.7 ± 0.2) × 10^-2 R_sun (free reddening)
    §2.2.1: the only free WD parameter in the SED fit; depends on adopting T_WD = 80 kK and log g = 7.5 from the literature.
  • E(b-v) — reddening = 0.047 ± 0.023 when free; fixed to 0.03 from Na D EW in the adopted fit
    §2.2.1: estimated two ways (free fit and Na-D doublet EW, Poznanski et al. 2012); the adopted 0.03 drives the final T_eff and R_WD.
  • log(g)_SG fixed at 3.5 in the SED fit = 3.5
    §2.2.1: fixed because previous studies used it and the SED is claimed insensitive; an assumption entering the radius/Teff estimate.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption MESA r24.03.1 microphysics package: Ledoux convection, MLT α = 1.9, semiconvection α_sc = 0.1, core/shell overshoot f/f0 = 0.129/0.0129 and 0.0174/0.00174, Reimers wind η_R = 0.1, Bloecker wind η_B = 0.2, energy eqn 'dedt'
    §3.1: standard choices inherited from Choi et al. (2016) and Temmink et al. (2023); the fiducial model runs with gold_tolerances off because gold-tolerance runs crash in the WD cooling phase 'for unclear reasons'.
  • domain assumption Kolb & Ritter (1990) Roche-lobe overflow mass transfer prescription
    §3.1: the standard prescription, which the paper itself notes breaks down at the large Roche-lobe overfill factors reached in models A and C (Fig. 9).
  • ad hoc to paper Cunningham et al. (2024) initial-final mass relation extrapolated to initial masses < 1 M_sun
    §2.3: 'This IFMR is not directly calibrated for initial masses < 1 M_sun. We perform a simple extrapolation of Equation 1 in their paper, which is adequate for our purpose.' The twin-binary disfavoring conclusion depends on this extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Rappaport et al. (1983) magnetic braking with γ = 4 for accretor spin-down
    §3.1.2, Eq. 5: used to produce the rotation evolution compared with observed P_rot; the authors note the spin model 'may be far from reality.'
  • domain assumption Temmink et al. (2023) stability criteria (Mdot < Mdot_KH) and L3-overfill analysis
    §3.2.3, Eq. 6: the basis for the claim that extreme mass ratios may remain stable; the same reference is used to argue that Roche overfill and L3 overflow do not necessarily trigger instability.
  • domain assumption P_phot = 0.767 d is the accretor's rotation period
    §2.2.2: photometric period from Jacoby (1981) and TESS (Bond & Zeimann 2024) is assumed to be the rotation period; it drives v_rot ≈ 195 km/s and the spin-orbit alignment conclusion (i_rot ≈ 26.2° ≈ i_orbit).
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometric orbital solution for A35 is reliable; the single-star parallax is unusable (RUWE ≈ 16)
    §2.1.1: parallax error inflated per Nagarajan & El-Badry (2024). The 165.75 pc distance and the entire dynamical-mass argument rest on this solution.
  • domain assumption WD parameters T_WD = 80 ± 10 kK and log g ≈ 7.5 adopted from Herald & Bianchi (2002)/Ziegler et al. (2012) as inputs
    §2.2.1, §2.2.3: the SED WD radius and the WD mass range (0.53–0.61 M_sun) used in the Gaia mass inference are conditioned on these literature values, which the paper itself shows to be in tension with post-AGB evolutionary tracks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermally inflated accretors in post-mass transfer binaries: Abell 35 and its class revisited." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKHCL5XJ

@misc{pith2026260323756,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermally inflated accretors in post-mass transfer binaries: Abell 35 and its class revisited},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKHCL5XJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.23756}
}
abstract

A small but growing class of binaries containing hot ($T_{\rm eff}\sim10^5\ {\rm K}$) white dwarfs (WDs) and rapidly rotating, apparently subgiant companions -- including the prototype, Abell 35 -- show companions that are too large and luminous to be ordinary main-sequence stars yet too numerous to be explained as finely tuned near-twin binaries. We argue that these stars are instead main-sequence accretors temporarily inflated out of thermal equilibrium by recent mass transfer. For the subgiant of Abell 35, a new Gaia DR3 astrometric orbit ($P_{\rm orb}=790\ {\rm d}$), combined with updated photometric and spectroscopic constraints, yields $T_{\rm eff}\approx4925\pm75\ {\rm K}$, $R\approx3\pm0.05\ R_{\odot}$, near-solar metallicity, and rapid rotation aligned with the orbit ($v_{\rm rot}\approx195\pm3\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}}$), indicating substantial recent accretion and spin-up. Dynamical mass limits disfavor a coeval twin-binary origin, supporting the inflated-accretor interpretation. We test this scenario using self-consistent MESA binary evolution calculations with a new accretion prescription in which accreted material retains a fraction of its infall energy, rather than adopting the default assumption that its entropy equals that of the accretor's surface. The accretor expands to giant-like radii when $\dot{M}$ is high yet remains within its Roche lobe, allowing stable mass transfer even for mass ratios traditionally considered unstable. After mass transfer ceases, the star contracts on Myr timescales through a bloated, rapidly rotating phase whose temperatures, radii, and spins match those observed in Abell 35-type systems. This framework naturally explains the population and unifies Abell 35-type binaries with post-AGB binaries, blue lurkers, and wide WD+main-sequence systems as successive stages of the same post-mass-transfer evolutionary pathway.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23756 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Inferring the reddening from the high resolution optical spectrum of the subgiant obtained with FEROS. Left panel: Nor￾malized stellar spectrum around the Na-D doublet. The narrow ISM lines are well resolved. We overplot a (suitably rotationally broad￾ened) synthetic spectrum from BOSZ and a stellar spectrum from the CKS survey best matching the observed Na-D lines in A35. The details about the spectral analysis are… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: The nebula of Abell 35 (A35) with the cen￾tral (unresolved binary) star marked. Henceforth, we simply call this central star as A35. Bottom panel: The Gaia color-magnitude diagram (CMD) showing the position of Abell 35 (effectively, the companion) in the subgiant branch. The inset presents 100 random samples of the Gaia orbital solution for visualization of the orbit. adopt an uncertainty floor of 0.03 ma… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The SED of A35 (black circles) and our best fit PHOENIX+TMAP model with a fixed E(b − v)=0.03 (blue line). This fit uses a solar metallicity for the subgiant and a temperature of 80 kK for the WD. The corresponding synthetic photometry from our model is shown as red crosses. We also present the FUSE (grey) and IUE (green) spectra. The PHOENIX spectrum is downresolved for clarity. The bottom panel shows the deviation… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left three panels: Comparison of the FEROS spectrum of the subgiant in A35 with GALAH and CKS spectra for three wavelength ranges, each containing a strong Ba II line. The good match indicates a new-solar metallicity of the subgiant and no significant Ba excess. Right …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: The spectrscopic log(g) and Teff of the WD from Ziegler et al. (2012, dark blue star) and Herald & Bianchi (2002, light blue star) compared to the post-AGB tracks from (Miller Bertolami 2016, solid lines) for Z = 0.01 (model file 0100 t03.dat.txt). We also …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examining the evolved subgiant scenario. Top Panel: Subgiant mass permitted by Gaia astrometry (MGaia SG , blue) and the initial mass of the WD (MIFMR init , orange, estimated using the IFMR from Cunningham et al. 2024), as a function of the assumed WD mass. The dark (…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top Panel: Evolution of radius (Racc) and temperature (Teff, acc) of the accretor in model A over the course of the binary evolution, colored according to βM˙ . The black open circle marks the beginning of the model, and the arrows mark the direction of evolution. The …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Roche Lobe (RL, d) and Outer lobe (ROL, d) overfill fac￾tors of the donor around the epoch of the highest accretion rates. For all our models, ROL, d/RL, d ≈ 1.3 during this epoch (calculated using equation 4 in Temmink et al. 2023). Thus, we have used this single scal…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ratio of the 1) donor mass loss rate rate, M˙ d ≈ M˙ , to the global thermal timescale of the donor M˙ KH, d (blue lines) and 2) accretor’s accretion rate M˙ a ≈ βM˙ to the Eddington-limited ac￾cretion rate M˙ Edd, a. We only show ±300 years around the epoch of peak m…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We concentrate on the periods after maximum M˙ . We find that the accretion rate decreases to ∼ 10−5M⊙/yr within 100 yr, and to ∼ 10−10M⊙/yr within 104 yr. By this time, both the stars have settled at their final masses. In Mod￾els A and C, the accretor gains a substa…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Orbital periods and WD masses for A35 and several other classes of related post-mass transfer binaries. The Rappa￾port et al. (1995) relation for stable RGB mass transfer is shown as dashed line and a shaded error region. A35 seems most similar to the Gaia WD+MS binar…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cartoon depicting the proposed evolutionary sequence connecting the different observed populations of post-mass transfer wide binaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ratio of the donor to accretor luminosity in the optical (0.5−0.7 nm, assuming blackbodies) in the approximate age range of the post-AGB binary systems. In all our models, despite the ac￾cretor’s inflation, the donor dominates the optical light after peak mass transfe…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evolution of a 2 M⊙ accretor with M˙ = 10−3 M⊙/year (left panel) and 1 M⊙ accretor with M˙ = 10−4 M⊙/year (right panel) for the fiducial and new accretion prescriptions. The insets show the evolution of the accretor radius until its mass doubles. The dotted line in th…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Mass fraction of the surface convection zone (calculated from the Ledoux unstable mass at radius >0.5 R⊙) as a function of the total mass for the 1 M⊙ accretor for both accretion prescrip￾tions. The new prescription disrupts surface convection almost com￾pletely at th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mass-Orbital Period Distribution of Massive White Dwarfs Formed Through Stable Mass Transfer

    astro-ph.SR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Simulations show that intermediate-mass progenitors with non-degenerate cores before helium burning produce a mass-orbital period relation for massive white dwarfs that accounts for long-period systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abell, G. O. 1955, PASP, 67, 258, doi: 10.1086/126815

    work page doi:10.1086/126815 1955

  2. [2]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty174

    Aller, A., Lillo-Box, J., Vuˇckovi´c, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty174

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty174 2018

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 674, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243462 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Sordo, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243462 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243462 2023

  4. [4]

    R., & Zorotovic, M

    Belloni, D., Schreiber, M. R., & Zorotovic, M. 2024, A&A, 687, A12, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449320

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202449320 2024

  5. [5]

    R., Kong, A

    Bhattacharjee, S., Kulkarni, S. R., Kong, A. K. H., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 024201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ada702

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ada702 2025

  6. [6]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  7. [7]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofr´e, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

  8. [8]

    1995, A&A, 297, 727

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

    1995

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    C., M´esz´aros, S., Fleming, S

    Bohlin, R. C., M´esz´aros, S., Fleming, S. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 234, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    E., & Livio, M

    Bond, H. E., & Livio, M. 1990, ApJ, 355, 568, doi: 10.1086/168789

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    E., & Zeimann, G

    Bond, H. E., & Zeimann, G. R. 2024, ApJ, 967, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3df9

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, PASP, 129, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455

    Brahm, R., Jord´an, A., & Espinoza, N. 2017, PASP, 129, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 380, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02446-x

    Budaj, J., Bernhard, K., Jones, D., & Munday, J. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 380, doi: 10.1038/s41550-024-02446-x

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    E., et al

    Buder, S., Kos, J., Wang, X. E., et al. 2025, PASA, 42, e051, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2025.26

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    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

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    P., & Giuli, R

    Cox, J. P., & Giuli, R. T. 1968, Principles of stellar structure

    1968

  9. [17]

    O’Brien, M

    Cunningham, T., Tremblay, P.-E., & W. O’Brien, M. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 3602, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3275

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Andrews, J

    Decleir, M., Gordon, K. D., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5dbe

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    T., & O’Connell, R

    Dorman, B., Rood, R. T., & O’Connell, R. W. 1993, ApJ, 419, 596, doi: 10.1086/173511

    1993 doi

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    El-Badry, K. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac815

    El-Badry, K., Seeburger, R., Jayasinghe, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 5620, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac815

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Clayton, G. C. 2019, ApJ, 886, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  18. [26]

    Y ., & Iben, Jr., I

    Fujimoto, M. Y ., & Iben, Jr., I. 1989, ApJ, 341, 306, doi: 10.1086/167495 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243709 A35-TYPESYSTEMS AND INFLATED ACCRETORS21

    1989 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Parsons, S

    Garbutt, J. A., Parsons, S. G., Toloza, O., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4840, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae807

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Lynas-Gray, A. E. 1998, MNRAS, 301, L33, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9809331

    1998 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    F., Chen, X., & Han, Z

    Ge, H., Webbink, R. F., Chen, X., & Han, Z. 2020, ApJ, 899, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba7b7

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    2024a, dust extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models, v1.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4658887 —

    Gordon, K. 2024a, dust extinction: Interstellar Dust Extinction Models, v1.5, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4658887 —. 2024b, The Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 7023, doi: 10.21105/joss.07023

    doi

  24. [32]

    D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Cartledge, S., & Clayton, G. C. 2009, ApJ, 705, 1320, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/1320

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accb59

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Misselt, K

    Gordon, K. D., Misselt, K. A., Bouwman, J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 916, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac00b7

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2023, ApJ, 950, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc86e

    Gossage, S., Kalogera, V ., & Sun, M. 2023, ApJ, 950, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc86e

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    O., & Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, C. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 742, doi: 10.1086/116893

    1994 doi

  29. [37]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, ApJL, 970, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63

    Hallakoun, N., Shahaf, S., Mazeh, T., Toonen, S., & Ben-Ami, S. 2024, ApJL, 970, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5e63

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Han, Z., Podsiadlowski, P., Maxted, P. F. L., & Marsh, T. R. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 669, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06451.x

    2003

  32. [40]

    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

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    E., & Bianchi, L

    Herald, J. E., & Bianchi, L. 2002, ApJ, 580, 434, doi: 10.1086/343034

    2002 doi

  34. [42]

    2016, A&A, 588, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628125

    Hillen, M., Kluska, J., Le Bouquin, J.-B., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628125

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

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

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

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

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    P., Perets, H

    Igoshev, A. P., Perets, H. B., & Michaely, E. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1448, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa833

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f2

    Ironi, O., Ben-Ami, S., Hallakoun, N., & Shahaf, S. 2025, ApJ, 982, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb5f2

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    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

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Jacoby, G. H. 1981, ApJ, 244, 903, doi: 10.1086/158765

    1981 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Jayasinghe, T., Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5945, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2187

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Petigura, E

    Johnson, J. A., Petigura, E. A., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80e7

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, 123–153, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 5

    Jones, D. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, 123–153, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5 5

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., Brown, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2501

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    2017, A&A, 600, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730700

    Jones, D., Van Winckel, H., Aller, A., Exter, K., & De Marco, O. 2017, A&A, 600, L9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730700

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    2009, A&A, 498, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810703

    Jorissen, A., Frankowski, A., Famaey, B., & van Eck, S. 2009, A&A, 498, 489, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810703

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Tubbesing, S., et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    1999

  49. [57]

    2018, AJ, 155, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf

    Kawahara, H., Masuda, K., MacLeod, M., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaaaf

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    1977, A&A, 54, 539

    Kippenhahn, R., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1977, A&A, 54, 539

    1977

  51. [59]

    Knigge, C., Toonen, S., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1336

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    1990, A&A, 236, 385

    Kolb, U., & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  53. [61]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y . 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, Science, 344, 275, doi: 10.1126/science.1251999

    Kruse, E., & Agol, E. 2014, Science, 344, 275, doi: 10.1126/science.1251999

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    Lau, M. Y . M., Hirai, R., Mandel, I., & Tout, C. A. 2024, ApJL, 966, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3d50

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    1947, ApJ, 105, 305, doi: 10.1086/144905

    Ledoux, P. 1947, ApJ, 105, 305, doi: 10.1086/144905

    1947 doi

  57. [65]

    Smith, J. C. 2019, ApJ, 881, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf8

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    M., Gosnell, N

    Leiner, E. M., Gosnell, N. M., Geller, A. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d0c

    2025 doi

  59. [67]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf9a1

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

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 L¨obling, L., Boffin, H. M. J., & Jones, D. 2019, A&A, 624, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834466 L¨obling, L., Maney, M. A., Rauch, T., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 528, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3247

    1962 doi

  61. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    Lu, W., Fuller, J., Quataert, E., & Bonnerot, C. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 1409, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3621

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    W., et al

    Masuda, K., Kawahara, H., Latham, D. W., et al. 2019, ApJL, 881, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab321b M´esz´aros, S., Bohlin, R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A197, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449306

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    1979, A&A, 78, 167 Miller Bertolami, M

    Meyer, F., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1979, A&A, 78, 167 Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2016, A&A, 588, A25, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526577

    1979 doi

  64. [72]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2328 22 BHATTACHARJEE ET AL

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, PASP, 136, 094203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7981

    Nagarajan, P., & El-Badry, K. 2024, PASP, 136, 094203, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7981

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    1977a, PASJ, 29, 249, doi: 10.1093/pasj/29.2.249 —

    Neo, S., Miyaji, S., Nomoto, K., & Sugimoto, D. 1977a, PASJ, 29, 249, doi: 10.1093/pasj/29.2.249 —. 1977b, PASJ, 29, 249, doi: 10.1093/pasj/29.2.249

    doi

  69. [77]

    C., Mathieu, R

    Nine, A. C., Mathieu, R. D., Gosnell, N. M., & Leiner, E. M. 2023, ApJ, 944, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb046 O’Connor, C. E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08880, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08880

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y . Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    Oomen, G.-M., Van Winckel, H., Pols, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833816

    2018 doi

  72. [80]

    1981, A&A, 102, 17 pandas development team, T

    Packet, W. 1981, A&A, 102, 17 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    1981 doi

  73. [81]

    G., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M

    Parsons, S. G., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2125, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2143

    2016 doi

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

    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

  76. [84]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  77. [85]

    Perets, H. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02939, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02939

    2025 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    Perryman, M. A. C., Lindegren, L., Kovalevsky, J., et al. 1997, A&A, 323, L49

    1997

  79. [87]

    A., Howard, A

    Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa80de

    2017 doi

  80. [88]

    1991, ApJ, 370, 604, doi: 10.1086/169847

    Popham, R., & Narayan, R. 1991, ApJ, 370, 604, doi: 10.1086/169847

    1991 doi

  81. [89]

    X., & Bloom, J

    Poznanski, D., Prochaska, J. X., & Bloom, J. S. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1465, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21796.x

    2012

  82. [90]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  83. [91]

    S., Hamers, A

    Rajamuthukumar, A. S., Hamers, A. S., Neunteufel, P., Pakmor, R., & de Mink, S. E. 2023, ApJ, 950, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc86c

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    S., Korol, V ., Stegmann, J., et al

    Rajamuthukumar, A. S., Korol, V ., Stegmann, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.09607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.09607

    2025 doi

  85. [93]

    1995, MNRAS, 273, 731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.3.731

    Han, Z. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.3.731

    1995 doi

  86. [94]

    Rappaport, S., Verbunt, F., & Joss, P. C. 1983, ApJ, 275, 713, doi: 10.1086/161569

    1983 doi

  87. [95]

    Rauch, T., & Deetjen, J. L. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 288, Stellar Atmosphere Modeling, ed. I. Hubeny, D. Mihalas, & K. Werner, 103, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0403239

    2003 doi arXiv

  88. [96]

    R., & Koester, D

    Schreiber, M. R., & Koester, D. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 1377, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12288.x

    2007

  89. [97]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers, D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  90. [98]

    2001, A&A, 365, 465, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000146

    Reyniers, M., & Van Winckel, H. 2001, A&A, 365, 465, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000146

    2001 doi

  91. [99]

    2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067

    Scherbak, P., Lu, W., & Fuller, J. 2025, ApJ, 990, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf067

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    2025, ApJ, 981, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb156

    Shahaf, S. 2025, ApJ, 981, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb156

    2025 doi

  93. [101]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    Shahaf, S., Bashi, D., Mazeh, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    2023 doi

  94. [102]

    2025a, PASP, 137, 094201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adfb30

    Shariat, C., El-Badry, K., & Naoz, S. 2025a, PASP, 137, 094201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adfb30

    doi

  95. [103]

    2025b, PASP, 137, 074201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add5a1

    Roestel, J. 2025b, PASP, 137, 074201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/add5a1

    doi

  96. [104]

    2025c, ApJ, 978, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025c, ApJ, 978, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a

    doi

  97. [105]

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., Hansen, B. M. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf76b

    2023 doi

  98. [106]

    S., Naoz, S., & Rose, S

    Shariat, C., Ye, C. S., Naoz, S., & Rose, S. 2025d, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.18678, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.18678

    doi

  99. [107]

    2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 035002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.3.035002

    Sheinis, A., Anguiano, B., Asplund, M., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 035002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.3.035002

    2015 doi

  100. [108]

    E., Phinney, E

    Soberman, G. E., Phinney, E. S., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1997, A&A, 327, 620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703016

    1997 doi arXiv

  101. [109]

    2018, ApJ, 858, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a4

    Sun, M., & Arras, P. 2018, ApJ, 858, 14, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a4

    2018 doi

  102. [110]

    D., Pols, O

    Temmink, K. D., Pols, O. R., Justham, S., Istrate, A. G., & Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    2023 doi

  103. [111]

    1997, A&A, 320, 913

    Thevenin, F., & Jasniewicz, G. 1997, A&A, 320, 913

    1997

  104. [112]

    2014, AJ, 147, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/86

    Tokovinin, A. 2014, AJ, 147, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/86

    2014 doi

  105. [113]

    Toonen, S., Boekholt, T. C. N., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2022, A&A, 661, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141991

    2022 doi

  106. [114]

    2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, doi: 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    Toonen, S., Hamers, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, doi: 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    2016 doi

  107. [115]

    S., & Bandopadhyay, D

    Toonen, S., Portegies Zwart, S., Hamers, A. S., & Bandopadhyay, D. 2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835

    2020 doi

  108. [116]

    A., Jones, D., Boffin, H

    Tyndall, A. A., Jones, D., Boffin, H. M. J., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2082, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1713 van Winckel, H. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 391, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.071601.170018 A35-TYPESYSTEMS AND INFLATED ACCRETORS23 Van Winckel, H., Jorissen, A., Exter, K., et al. 20...

    2013

  109. [117]

    2007, A&A, 470, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077840

    Verhoelst, T., van Aarle, E., & Acke, B. 2007, A&A, 470, L21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077840

    2007 doi

  110. [118]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  111. [119]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/adea39

    2025 doi

  112. [120]

    2020, A&A, 642, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038574

    Werner, K., Reindl, N., L¨obling, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A228, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038574

    2020 doi

  113. [121]

    G., Henry, T

    Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc

    2019 doi

  114. [122]

    J., & Stickland, D

    Wonnacott, D., Kellett, B. J., & Stickland, D. J. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.2.277

    1993 doi

  115. [123]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Ciardi, D. R., et al. 2024a, PASP, 136, 074201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad5ebd

    doi

  116. [124]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Rees, N. R., et al. 2024b, PASP, 136, 084202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809

    doi

  117. [125]

    2025, PASP, 137, 104205, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., & Shahaf, S. 2025, PASP, 137, 104205, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ae0d30

    2025 doi

  118. [126]

    2024c, MNRAS, 527, 11719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4005

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Fuller, J., et al. 2024c, MNRAS, 527, 11719, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad4005

    doi

  119. [127]

    Zahn, J. P. 1977, A&A, 57, 383

    1977

  120. [128]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae029

    Zhao, Z.-Q., Li, Z.-W., Xiao, L., Ge, H.-W., & Han, Z.-W. 2024, MNRAS, 531, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slae029

    2024 doi

  121. [129]

    Ziegler, M., Rauch, T., Werner, K., K¨oppen, J., & Kruk, J. W. 2012, A&A, 548, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219536

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.