Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Progenitor Systems of Classical Novae in M31

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the first statistically significant delay time distribution for classical novae in M31, finding two progenitor populations: stars aged 2-3.2 Gyr and stars older than 7.9 Gyr.

desk verdict First observational nova DTD for M31 is a real step forward, but the claimed second detection is marginal and the text overstates Padova; deserves revision, not rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04925 v2 pith:SZP2IPRX submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

C.S. Abelson , Carles Badenes , Laura Chomiuk , Benjamin F. Williams , Katelyn Breivik , Lluís Galbany , Cristina Jimenez Palau This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords ClassicalnovaeDelaytimedistributionM31StellarageBinaryevolutionPHATsurveyBayesianinferenceNovaprogenitors
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 derives the first delay time distribution for classical novae in Andromeda (M31), connecting where novae explode to the ages of the stars around them. A delay time distribution measures how many nova-producing systems form per unit stellar mass as a function of how long after a burst of star formation the systems turn on. The result has two statistically significant detections: a progenitor population with ages 2-3.2 Gyr and another with ages 7.9-14.1 Gyr, together with upper limits at other ages. The distribution is consistent with either a constant production efficiency or a higher production efficiency at earlier delay times. If correct, this gives the first observational handle on the evolutionary timescales and formation efficiencies of nova progenitors in a large galaxy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the delay time distribution itself: the rate per unit stellar mass at which nova-producing binaries form as a function of delay after a star-formation burst. The machinery recovers it by treating it as the common vector $\Psi_j$ in the discrete convolution $R_i(t_0)=\sum_j M_{i,j}\Psi_j$, where $M_{i,j}$ is the stellar mass formed in spatial cell $i$ at age bin $j$ from the Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury (PHAT) stellar age distribution map and $R_i(t_0)$ is the present-day nova rate in that cell. The inversion uses dynamic nested sampling to explore the seven-bin parameter space and a modified chi-squared likelihood ($\chi^2_\gamma$ from Mighell) that folds the variance of the stellar mass map into the variance of the predicted nova counts. The 826 spatial cells with different stellar compositions serve as simultaneous constraints on one galaxy-wide delay time distribution.

What would settle it

A near-infrared or radio nova survey across the PHAT footprint that is complete through dust and finds a large population of disk novae concentrated in young stellar cells would falsify the spatial-completeness assumption; depending on the size of that population, the 2-3.2 Gyr detection could disappear when those systems are included. A more direct test is to re-run the full delay time distribution recovery using the southern PHAT extension once published: if the 2-3.2 Gyr signal is absent in the doubled sample, the published detection was likely statistical noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the spatial correlation between 253 unique historical novae and the spatially resolved stellar age distribution of the M31 disk, measured from HST photometry, can be inverted to recover the delay time distribution of nova production. In the recovery, the delay time distribution $\Psi_j$ is common to all 826 spatial cells and is convolved with the stellar mass formed in each age bin $M_{i,j}$ to predict each cell's nova count; the predicted counts are fit to observed counts with a Bayesian nested-sampling routine. The recovered delay time distribution has statistically significant signal in two age bins: $(3.7^{+6.8}_{-3.5}\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-9}$ events per solar mass of formed stars for delay times of 2-3.2 Gyr and $(4.8^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-9}$ events per solar mass for 7.9 Gyr to the age of the universe, with the quoted uncertainties being statistical and systematic in that order. The result is consistent across three of four isochrone models, with BaSTI an outlier; all bins together are consistent with a decaying, constant, or mildly non-monotonic formation efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the historical nova catalog is not strongly biased against faint or dust-hidden novae in the disk, so the measured spatial correlation between novae and younger stellar populations is real rather than artificially weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nova population of M31 is not dominated exclusively by very old progenitors: a statistically significant population arises from 2-3.2 Gyr old stars, implying that intermediate-age stellar populations can produce a meaningful share of classical novae.
  • The delay time distribution and its upper limits are consistent with either a constant or a declining production efficiency with delay time, so a uniform nova formation rate cannot yet be ruled out.
  • Completeness-corrected, the nova delay time distribution is about four orders of magnitude above the observed Type Ia supernova delay time distribution, implying a strong upper limit of $\lesssim 0.1\%$ on the fraction of nova-producing binaries that later explode as Type Ia supernovae in star-forming galaxies like M31.
  • The 2-3.2 Gyr signal could reflect a burst of nova progenitor formation associated with the 2-3 Gyr old galactic merger in M31, though the wide uncertainties caution against over-interpretation.
  • Extending the analysis to the southern half of M31, which the paper notes is underway, would roughly double the nova sample and improve the time resolution of the delay time distribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the southern extension of the PHAT footprint doubles the nova sample, a disappearing 2-3.2 Gyr signal would point to small-sample noise, while a sharpening signal would support a merger-driven burst of nova progenitors.
  • Carrying the same inversion to M33, the LMC, or the SMC, where resolved stellar age maps and transient catalogs exist, would test whether the nova delay time distribution is universal or shaped by each galaxy's star formation history.
  • The less-than-0.1 percent single-degenerate conversion fraction implied by the comparison with the Type Ia supernova delay time distribution is a direct test for population synthesis models: models that route more than that fraction of nova binaries into Type Ia explosions are in conflict with these data.
  • A larger, extinction-insensitive nova sample could resolve the predicted roughly 40 Myr turn-on delay when the first white dwarfs form, a regime the current seven-bin map cannot probe.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first attempt to measure a delay-time distribution (DTD) for classical nova progenitors in M31, using spatially resolved star formation histories from the PHAT survey (Williams et al. 2017) and the historical M31 nova catalog of Pietsch et al. (2007). The method follows Maoz & Badenes (2010) and Badenes et al. (2015): nova counts in 826 spatial cells are modeled as a convolution of the stellar mass formed in seven age bins with a common DTD, and the DTD amplitudes are inferred with dynamic nested sampling. The analysis is repeated with four isochrone sets to assess systematic uncertainties. The paper reports two statistically significant DTD detections, at 2–3.2 Gyr and at 7.9–14.1 Gyr, with upper limits in other bins, and compares completeness-corrected rates to theoretical DTDs from Kemp et al. (2021) and to the Type Ia supernova DTD.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable first empirical nova DTD for an external galaxy: the oldest-bin detection appears robust across all four isochrone sets, the use of four independent stellar evolution models is a genuine strength, and the comparison with BPS predictions is made without tuning the data to the models. The derived upper limit on the fraction of nova progenitors that become Type Ia supernovae is also an interesting constraint. The significance of the paper is reduced, however, by the fragility of the 2–3.2 Gyr detection, which is one of the two headline claims and is not consistently recovered by the Padova isochrone set. The central methodology is sound, but the reporting and combination scheme need to be corrected before the results can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 / Table 1] The claim that the 2–3.2 Gyr bin is a robust detection is internally inconsistent with Table 1. The table lists Padova as an upper limit (< 2.0e-8) and BaSTI as an upper limit (< 3.9e-8) in this bin, yet Section 4 states that 'the other three isochrone sets (MIST, Padova, and PARSEC) also yield a detection.' This is a direct contradiction of the paper's own detection criterion in Section 3, which defines a non-detection when the lower edge of the 68.27% HPD region reaches the edge of the parameter space. Moreover, the 'combined (excl. BaSTI)' entry averages only the PARSEC, Padova, and MIST posteriors, but no exact rule is given for averaging a posterior that is an upper limit with two detection posteriors. Averaging an upper-limit posterior will shift the combined posterior toward zero, and the reported 68% HPD of (3.7^{+6.8}_{-3.5})e-9 is not reproducible without that rule. Please specify the exact combination procedure, report the actual Padova HPD for this bin, and state whether the properly combined HPD excludes zero. If it does not, the abstract and the conclusion that there are 'two statistically significant detections' must be revised.
  2. [Section 5 / Section 2.1] The spatial completeness of the nova catalog against extinction in the dusty disk is load-bearing for the young-age bins and for the overall DTD shape. The paper acknowledges this concern and argues against a large missing disk population using the PNe distribution from Shafter & Irby (2001), but that is an indirect argument. Because the PHAT survey already provides a resolved extinction map (Dalcanton et al. 2015) that is used in the SAD fitting, the analysis could directly test robustness by repeating the DTD fit with cells weighted by extinction or by excluding high-AV regions, or by modeling an incompleteness term as a function of cell extinction. As written, the possibility that disk novae are undercounted is acknowledged but not quantitatively bounded, and this directly affects the credibility of the 2–3.2 Gyr detection and the interpretation of a declining DTD.
  3. [Section 5 / Figure 6] The absolute-rate comparisons, including the statement that the completeness-corrected nova DTD is about four orders of magnitude higher than the SN Ia DTD, depend on the effective survey length of 38 years. That number is derived from the assumption that the final 3000-day bin is complete, while the paper itself notes that Darnley et al. (2006) infer a rate about twice as high. The effective survey length should carry an uncertainty and that uncertainty should be propagated into the completeness-corrected DTDs and into the derived SN Ia fraction. Without this propagation, the claimed 'strong upper limit' on the SN Ia fraction is not fully supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) uses Ẍ_{i,j} in the numerator, but the model has only defined M_{i,j}; this appears to be a typographical artifact and should be corrected to M_{i,j} for consistency.
  2. [Section 3] The text says the authors 'calculated the edges of the 5% highest probability density (HPD) region' and then took the midpoint as the maximally likely rate; this is likely intended to be a different percentile (e.g., 50% or the posterior mode), and the wording should be clarified.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption singles out BaSTI for lacking a detection in the 2–3.2 Gyr bin, but Table 1 shows that Padova also has only an upper limit in that bin; the caption should be updated to match Table 1.
  4. [Figure 1] The rolling average of the nova rate in panel (c) is shown without uncertainty bands, which makes the claim of consistency with Capaccioli et al. (1989) and Shafter & Irby (2001) difficult to judge; adding uncertainties would strengthen the completeness discussion.
  5. [General] The paper states that data and code 'will be shared upon a reasonable request'; for a Bayesian analysis whose central claim depends on the exact posterior combination scheme, public release of the code and posterior samples would be much more appropriate and should be considered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DTD is inferred from independent nova positions and PHAT stellar age maps; the self-citations are methodological precedents, not load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is open rather than circular. The DTD parameters Psi_j are free parameters in Eq. (2), fit by nested sampling to the observed per-cell nova counts n_i via the modified chi-square likelihood in Eq. (4), using the externally produced PHAT SAD maps of Williams et al. (2017). The reported DTD values are the outputs of that fit, and no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citations with methodological weight are Maoz & Badenes (2010) and Badenes et al. (2015), which supply the convolution/inverse-problem formulation; those papers do not provide the M31 nova counts or the PHAT SAD data used here, so they are precedents rather than load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz arguments. The comparison to theoretical DTDs is explicitly post hoc: Section 5 states 'no adjustments have been made to our data to bring them into alignment with the theoretical rates,' so the Kemp et al. comparison does no work in setting the measured values. The completeness corrections are acknowledged estimates, cross-checked against independent rate measurements, not against the DTD itself. The Table 1 discrepancy for the 2-3.2 Gyr bin (Padova shown as an upper limit while the text calls it a detection) is a statistical robustness concern about the combining procedure, not a circularity, because the claimed detection is not equivalent by construction to any fit input. No circular step can be quoted from the paper; the central measurement stands on independent data. A small score of 2 reflects only the minor methodological self-citations, which are not circular.

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

The central measurement rests on the PHAT SAD map and the nova catalog. The only free parameters are the DTD amplitudes in seven time bins, of which two are detected; no new physical entities are introduced. The main assumptions are the reliability of the SAD map, the universality of the DTD across the disk, and the absence of severe spatial completeness biases in the historical catalog.

free parameters (8)
  • DTD amplitude, 0-0.3 Gyr bin = < 6.2e-7 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the inverse problem, fitted to the 253 nova counts across 826 spatial cells.
  • DTD amplitude, 0.3-0.6 Gyr bin = < 3.2e-7 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the DTD recovery, constrained as an upper limit.
  • DTD amplitude, 0.6-1 Gyr bin = < 1.2e-7 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the DTD recovery, constrained as an upper limit.
  • DTD amplitude, 1-2 Gyr bin = < 4.1e-8 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the DTD recovery, constrained as an upper limit.
  • DTD amplitude, 2-3.2 Gyr bin = (3.7+6.8-3.5 +/- 2.1)e-9 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the DTD recovery; one of the two claimed detections, though not robust across all isochrone sets.
  • DTD amplitude, 3.2-7.9 Gyr bin = < 1.5e-8 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the DTD recovery, constrained as an upper limit.
  • DTD amplitude, 7.9-14.1 Gyr bin = (4.8+1.0-0.9 +/- 0.2)e-9 events/M_sun (combined)
    Free parameter in the DTD recovery; the robust detection in the oldest bin.
  • Effective survey length = 38 years
    Estimated by assuming the final 3000-day bin is complete at 30 novae/yr and scaling earlier bins. Used only for completeness-corrected rates, not for the main DTD in counts. The choice affects the rate normalization.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Nova rate in a spatial cell is the convolution of the star formation history with a universal delay time distribution (Equation 1).
    The definition of the DTD and the discrete linear model in Equation 2. This is the foundational model of the analysis.
  • domain assumption Nova counts in each spatial cell are Poisson-distributed around the model expectation, approximated by a modified chi-squared likelihood.
    The likelihood in Equations 3 and 4 treats counts as independent draws with variance n_i + 1 + Var(m_i). This is a standard but approximate treatment for low-count data.
  • domain assumption The PHAT SAD map from Williams et al. (2017) accurately represents the stellar mass formed in each spatial cell and time bin.
    The DTD recovery depends directly on the M_i,j values from the SAD map. Any systematic error in the star formation history propagates into the DTD. The paper tests isochrone dependence but assumes the maps are otherwise reliable.
  • domain assumption Nova production efficiency is the same in all spatial cells of M31 (a single universal DTD).
    The model assumes that the DTD, Psi_j, is common across the entire PHAT footprint. Variations in metallicity or environment that change nova production per unit mass would bias the recovered DTD.
  • domain assumption The historical nova catalog is not spatially biased against disk novae due to dust extinction.
    The paper argues that dust does not hide a large disk population (Section 5, citing Shafter & Irby 2001), but this cannot be directly verified from the catalog itself.
  • standard math The stellar mass in each cell follows the Kroupa IMF and the distance to M31 is 752 kpc.
    Inherited from Williams et al. (2017) and Riess et al. (2012). These are standard inputs from the prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Progenitor Systems of Classical Novae in M31." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZP2IPRX

@misc{pith2026250104925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Progenitor Systems of Classical Novae in M31},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZP2IPRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04925}
}
abstract

We present the first characterization of the statistical relationship between a large sample of novae in M31 and their progenitor stellar populations in the form of a delay time distribution. To this end, we leverage the spatially resolved stellar age distribution of the M31 disk derived from deep HST photometry by the Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury (PHAT) survey and a large catalog of novae in M31. Our delay time distribution has two statistically significant detections: one population of nova progenitors, ages between 2 and 3.2 Gyr, with an unnormalized rate of ($3.7^{+6.8}_{-3.5} \pm 2.1) \cdot 10^{-9}$ events / $M_{\odot}$, and another of ages between 7.9 Gyr and the age of the Universe with ($4.8^{+1.0}_{-0.9} \pm 0.2) \cdot 10^{-9}$ events / $M_{\odot}$ (uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively). Together with the upper limits we derive at other time bins, these detections are consistent with either a constant production efficiency or a higher production efficiency of novae at earlier delay times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04925 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Peak brightness in various filters vs. outburst date (used as a proxy for discovery date) for all novae in the Pietsch catalog. Novae that fall in the PHAT footprint are highlighted in pink. The average and standard deviation of the brightness in time bins of 3000 days are presented as the horizontal lines and shaded regions, respectively. (b) Time taken to decay from peak brightness to 2 magnitudes below peak b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The global star formation history of M31, in units of mass formed, as measured by Williams et al. (2017) and rebinned according to our temporal binning scheme. The different isochrone models yield slightly different measure￾ments, with BaSTI emerging as an outlier in both the 5th and 6th bins. Due to their small relative size, uncertainties are omitted. The PHAT survey collected HST photometry for 117 million indivi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior probability distributions on the DTD (in our chosen time binning scheme) for all four isochrone models. BaSTI is a notable outlier in its detection of a signal in the 600-1000 Myr bin, its lack of a detection in the 2-3.2 Gyr bin, and its disagreement on the value of the DTD in the 7.9-14.1 Gyr bin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The PHAT SAD map of M31, calculated using MIST and binned according to our temporal scheme, with the Pietsch nova catalog overplotted. A darkly shaded spatial cell indicates higher SFR, with the shading normalized separately for each time bin. come less accurate as the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparisons between the SAD map derived from the four isochrone models for select time bins. The gray scale is normalized independently for each plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Violin plot of our posterior distributions for the DTD rate in each time bin. (b) Violin plot of our completeness￾corrected DTDs plotted against theoretical DTDs from Kemp et al. (2021) and an observed SNIa DTD from Maoz et al. (2012). The DTD in blue is derived us…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. On the light-curves of disk and bulge novae

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Single-peaked novae concentrate near the Galactic plane, while multiple-peaked novae spread to heights around 1000 pc, with a claimed 4.2-sigma difference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Baade, W., & Swope, H. H. 1963, AJ, 68, 435, doi: 10.1086/108996

    work page doi:10.1086/108996 1963

  3. [3]

    2015, ApJL, 804, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L25

    Badenes, C., Maoz, D., & Ciardullo, R. 2015, ApJL, 804, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/L25

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/l25 2015

  4. [4]

    A., et al

    Badenes, C., Mazzola, C., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa765

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa765 2018

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  6. [7]

    1989, AJ, 97, 1622, doi: 10.1086/115104 Nova Progenitors in M31 13

    Capaccioli, M., Della Valle, M., D’Onofrio, M., & Rosino, L. 1989, AJ, 97, 1622, doi: 10.1086/115104 Nova Progenitors in M31 13

    doi:10.1086/115104 1989

  7. [8]

    BASTI: An interactive database of updated stellar evolution models

    Cassisi, S., Pietrinferni, A., Salaris, M., et al. 2005, BASTI: An interactive database of updated stellar evolution models. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509543

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  8. [9]

    E., Yungelson, L

    Chen, H.-L., Woods, T. E., Yungelson, L. R., Gilfanov, M., & Han, Z. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 458, 2916, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw458

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw458 2016

Show all 78 references
  1. [10]

    E., Yungelson, L

    Chen, H.-L., Woods, T. E., Yungelson, L. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 1678, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2644

    2019 doi

  2. [11]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e2b

    Chen, Z., Williams, B., Lang, D., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7e2b

    2025 doi

  3. [12]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  4. [13]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 391–444, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    1989, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol

    Ciardullo, R., Tamblyn, P., & Phillips, A. 1989, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 21, 1127

    1989

  6. [15]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    2009 doi

  7. [16]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    J., Fouesneau, M., Hogg, D

    Dalcanton, J. J., Fouesneau, M., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/3

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    2012, The Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury (”PHAT”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T91S30

    Dalcanton, Julianne, & Williams, Benjamin. 2012, The Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury (”PHAT”), STScI/MAST, doi: 10.17909/T91S30

    2012 doi

  10. [19]

    J., Bode, M

    Darnley, M. J., Bode, M. F., Kerins, E., et al. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 369, 257, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10297.x

    2006

  11. [20]

    A., Herwig, F., Pignatari, M., & Truran, J

    Denissenkov, P. A., Herwig, F., Pignatari, M., & Truran, J. W. 2012, Nova Framework: A New Tool For Modeling of Nova Outbursts and Nucleosynthesis. https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7776

    2012 arXiv

  12. [21]

    A., Truran, J

    Denissenkov, P. A., Truran, J. W., Pignatari, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 2058, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1000

    2014 doi

  13. [22]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05271.x

    2002

  14. [23]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 751, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/751/1/60 —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 775, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/775/1/76 Edward Higson, Will Handley, M. H. . A. L. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891–913, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    2012 doi

  15. [24]

    S., & Starrfield, S

    Gallagher, J. S., & Starrfield, S. 1978, ARA&A, 16, 171, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.001131

    1978

  16. [25]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150608

    Gallart, C., Zoccali, M., & Aparicio, A. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 387, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150608

    2005 arXiv

  17. [26]

    F., Gilbert, K

    Girardi, L., Williams, B. F., Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 724, 1030, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1030

    2010 doi

  18. [27]

    B., Wang, J

    Hammer, F., Yang, Y. B., Wang, J. L., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 475, 2754, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3343

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Hobson, M

    Handley, W. J., Hobson, M. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2015a, MNRAS, 450, L61, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slv047 —. 2015b, MNRAS, 453, 4384, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1911

    doi

  20. [29]

    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

  21. [30]

    2004, AJ, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953 —

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2004, AJ, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953 —. 2009, AJ, 138, 1243, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/138/5/1243

    2004 doi

  22. [31]

    1997, ApJL, 487, L45, doi: 10.1086/310862

    Hatano, K., Branch, D., Fisher, A., & Starrfield, S. 1997, ApJL, 487, L45, doi: 10.1086/310862

    1997 doi

  23. [32]

    Hubble, E. P. 1929, ApJ, 69, 103, doi: 10.1086/143167

    1929 doi

  24. [33]

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

    2007 doi

  25. [34]

    2011, Common envelope: the progress and the pitfalls

    Ivanova, N. 2011, Common envelope: the progress and the pitfalls. https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1226

    2011 arXiv

  26. [35]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abef67

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Karakas, A

    Kemp, A. J., Karakas, A. I., Casey, A. R., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 6117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1160

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    J., Karakas, A

    Kemp, A. J., Karakas, A. I., Casey, A. R., Kobayashi, C., & Izzard, R. G. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1175, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3103

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    1995, in Cataclysmic Variables, ed

    Kolb, U. 1995, in Cataclysmic Variables, ed. A. Bianchini, M. D. Valle, & M. Orio (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 511–515

    1995

  30. [39]

    2024, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4, v2.1.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2024, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4, v2.1.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    2024 doi

  31. [40]

    2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    Kroupa, P. 2002, Science, 295, 82, doi: 10.1126/science.1067524

    2002 doi

  32. [41]

    A., van Roestel, J., et al

    Kupfer, T., Prince, T. A., van Roestel, J., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1254–1267, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1344

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    F., Durbin, M

    Lazzarini, M., Williams, B. F., Durbin, M. J., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7568

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1314–1327, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16988.x

    Maoz, D., & Badenes, C. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1314–1327, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16988.x

    2010

  35. [44]

    Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., & Brandt, T. D. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 426, 3282–3294, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21871.x 14 C.S. Abelson et al

    2012

  36. [45]

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

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

    2014 doi

  37. [46]

    2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 883, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078467

    2008 doi

  38. [47]

    Mayall, N. U. 1931, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 43, 217, doi: 10.1086/124125

    1931 doi

  39. [48]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2399

    Mazzi, A., Girardi, L., Zaggia, S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2399

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., et al

    Mazzola, C. N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2859

    2020 doi

  41. [50]

    Mighell, K. J. 1999, ApJ, 518, 380, doi: 10.1086/307253

    1999 doi

  42. [51]

    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

  43. [52]

    M., & Badenes, C

    Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., & Badenes, C. 2019, ApJ, 875, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Mohamed, S., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2007, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 372, 15th European Workshop on White Dwarfs, ed. R. Napiwotzki & M. R. Burleigh, 397 Moll´ a, M., Ferrini, F., & D ´ ıaz, A. I. 1997, ApJ, 475, 519, doi: 10.1086/303550

    2007 doi

  45. [54]

    Mukherjee, P., Parkinson, D., & Liddle, A. R. 2006, ApJL, 638, L51, doi: 10.1086/501068

    2006 doi

  46. [55]

    Neal, R. M. 2003, The Annals of Statistics, 31, 705 , doi: 10.1214/aos/1056562461

    2003

  47. [56]

    Pavlovskii, K., Ivanova, N., Belczynski, K., & Van, K. X. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2786

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

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

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15 Payne Gaposchkin, C. 1963, ARA&A, 1, 145, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.01.090163.001045

    2015

  49. [58]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 168, doi: 10.1086/422498

    Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Castelli, F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 168, doi: 10.1086/422498

    2004 doi

  50. [59]

    2013, A&A, 558, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321950

    Hidalgo, Sebastian. 2013, A&A, 558, A46, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321950

    2013 doi

  51. [60]

    2007, A&A, 465, 375, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066812

    Pietsch, W., Haberl, F., Sala, G., et al. 2007, A&A, 465, 375, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066812

    2007 doi

  52. [61]

    2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 26

    Podsiadlowski, P., & Mohamed, S. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 26

    2007

  53. [62]

    1995, ApJ, 445, 789, doi: 10.1086/175741

    Prialnik, D., & Kovetz, A. 1995, ApJ, 445, 789, doi: 10.1086/175741

    1995 doi

  54. [63]

    G., Fliri, J., & Valls-Gabaud, D

    Riess, A. G., Fliri, J., & Valls-Gabaud, D. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/745/2/156

    2012 doi

  55. [64]

    1991, Astrophysical Journal, 376, 177, doi: 10.1086/170265

    Ritter, H., Politano, M., Livio, M., & Webbink, R. 1991, Astrophysical Journal, 376, 177, doi: 10.1086/170265

    1991 doi

  56. [65]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 5017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1279

    Rubele, S., Pastorelli, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5017, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1279

    2018 doi

  57. [66]

    K., Heiger, M., Badenes, C., et al

    Sarbadhicary, S. K., Heiger, M., Badenes, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abca86

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    W., & Irby, B

    Shafter, A. W., & Irby, B. K. 2001, ApJ, 563, 749, doi: 10.1086/324044

    2001 doi

  59. [68]

    W., Henze, M., Rector, T

    Shafter, A. W., Henze, M., Rector, T. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 34, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/34

    2015 doi

  60. [69]

    M., Doyle, T., Lauer, T

    Shara, M. M., Doyle, T., Lauer, T. R., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 839, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65cd

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling, J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer,...

    2004 doi

  62. [71]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833 , doi: 10.1214/06-BA127

    2006 doi

  63. [72]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    W., Sparks, W

    Starrfield, S., Truran, J. W., Sparks, W. M., & Kutter, G. S. 1972, ApJ, 176, 169, doi: 10.1086/151619

    1972 doi

  65. [74]

    2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    Toonen, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244137

    2023 doi

  66. [75]

    M., & Bildsten, L

    Townsley, D. M., & Bildsten, L. 2004, ApJ, 600, 390, doi: 10.1086/379647

    2004 doi

  67. [76]

    Webb, N. A. 2023, Accreting white dwarfs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10055

    2023 arXiv

  68. [77]

    F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J

    Williams, B. F., Lang, D., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/9

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    F., Dolphin, A

    Williams, B. F., Dolphin, A. E., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa862a

    2017 doi

  70. [79]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 623, 398, doi: 10.1086/428435

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.