Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Exploring the M-dwarf Luminosity--Temperature--Radius Relationships using Gaia DR2

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M-dwarf radii are inflated by 3–7% relative to theoretical models, and the inflated sequence is intrinsically tight, with less than 1–2% spread.

desk verdict Large homogeneous M-dwarf radius sample with a solid core; the tight intrinsic-spread claim leans on a model-dependent correction, and the printed Eq. 4 has a sign error that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03025 v1 pith:TQNHOTXY submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Sam Morrell , Tim Naylor This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords M-dwarfsradiusinflationspectralenergydistributionfittingGaiaDR2stellarmodelsmetallicitymagneticactivitylow-massstars
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 adds a fourth route to M-dwarf radii: fit the whole spectral energy distribution to model-atmosphere synthetic photometry, then combine the fitted angular scale with a Gaia DR2 geometric distance. Applied to 15,274 nearby stars, the method returns temperatures, luminosities, and radii that show a 3–7% inflation relative to purely theoretical isochrones below roughly 4000 K. The paper argues that the inflated sequence is intrinsically very tight—after correcting for metallicity, the intrinsic spread is at most 1–2%—and that this tightness, together with the absence of activity–radius correlations, rules out magnetic inflation as the explanation. If true, this gives exoplanet and stellar-modelling communities a large homogeneous sample and empirical radius relations anchored in archival photometry alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified spectral energy distribution fit. Synthetic photometry is produced by folding the BT-Settl CIFIST model-atmosphere grid through the Gaia, 2MASS, and AllWISE passbands; the shape of the eight-band SED fixes $T_{\rm SED}$ and $\log(g)$, while the radius is obtained analytically from the dilution factor that minimises $\chi^2$: $\log_{10}(R^2/d^2) = -0.4\,(\sum_i (Z_i-m_i)/\sigma_i^2)/(\sum_i 1/\sigma_i^2)$, with $d$ from Bailer-Jones et al. (2018). Because the fit acts only on the photosphere, it does not assume an interior model, which is what allows the paper to confront interior models with data. Two additional interpolated metallicity grids ($[{\rm M/H}]=\pm 0.25$) provide the correction $F(L_{\rm SED})\,[{\rm Fe/H}]$ that removes the apparent metallicity–radius correlation and reduces the radius scatter to 2.4%.

What would settle it

Interferometric radii for the same stars, derived from Gaia distances and compared band-by-band with the SED-fitted radii, would settle the claim: if the two radius scales disagree by more than the quoted 2.4% in a temperature-dependent way, the model-atmosphere temperature scale is implicated rather than a physical inflation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that main-sequence M-dwarfs do not match the radii of purely theoretical models: at fixed luminosity, the measured radii are larger by 3–7%, while the empirical PARSEC 1.2S models, which adopt an observationally calibrated temperature–optical-depth relation, trace the inflated sequence. The paper also claims that the inflated sequence is remarkably coherent, with an intrinsic scatter no larger than 1–2%, after accounting for a ~1.7% radius scatter introduced by metallicity measurement uncertainties and the ~1.6% fitting uncertainty. This tightness, plus the lack of correlation between radius residual and rotation period, Rossby number, X-ray luminosity, or H-$\alpha$ activity, leads the authors to conclude that stellar magnetism is currently unable to explain the inflation. The fitted sample yields empirical $R(T_{\rm SED})$ and $R(L_{\rm SED})$ relations, with the luminosity–radius relation expressed as a correction to the Dotter et al. (2008) solar-metallicity isochrone.

Load-bearing premise

The method trusts that the synthetic model atmospheres predict correct relative fluxes across the eight photometric bands; if they do not—and the paper itself flags a 4000 K discontinuity in the CIFIST grid—the fitted temperatures and radii, and hence the inflation and tightness claims, would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exoplanet transit radii around M-dwarfs could be measured to roughly 2% accuracy from archival photometry plus a metallicity measurement, without new spectra or eclipses.
  • Stellar evolution codes that predict smaller radii below 4000 K are missing physics; the empirical $R(L_{\rm SED})$ relation gives them a quantitative target.
  • Magnetic inflation models, which predict a spread of radii at fixed mass or luminosity, are constrained to saturate at rotation rates slower than the slowest rotators in the sample if they are to survive.
  • The previously reported correlation between M-dwarf radius and metallicity at fixed luminosity is reinterpreted as a fitting artifact of solar-metallicity atmospheres, not a physical structural effect.
  • The dominant source of error in M-dwarf radii becomes the precision of metallicity measurements, redirecting effort toward better stellar metallicities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reader could test the atmosphere dependence directly: cross-calibrating these SED-fitted radii against interferometric radii for the same stars would expose any temperature-scale bias hidden in the 3–7% inflation claim.
  • The 4000 K discontinuity in the CIFIST grid could be used as a natural experiment—comparing bolometric corrections across that gap with independent spectrophotometry would tell whether the gap is a model artifact or a real spectral feature.
  • The paper's tight-sequence result implies that spot coverage must be strikingly uniform across M-dwarfs; measuring spot filling factors from rotational light curves of stars spanning the same $T_{\rm SED}$ range would test whether that homogeneity is real.
  • The metallicity-correction calibration, built here from two literature samples, could be extended to larger spectroscopic surveys with higher-precision metallicities, which would show whether the 1.7% metallicity-limited scatter is a floor or an artefact of those catalogues.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting method to measure effective temperatures and radii for 15,274 M-dwarfs within 100 pc using Gaia DR2 parallaxes and multi-band photometry (Gaia BP/RP, 2MASS, WISE). The method uses BT-Settl CIFIST model atmospheres to fit the shape of the SED and the dilution factor, with a log(g) prior from Baraffe et al. isochrones. The authors derive empirical TSED-R and LSED-R relations, find radii inflated by 3-7% relative to theoretical isochrones, argue that the intrinsic scatter in the inflated sequence is at most 1-2%, and conclude that magnetic activity is unlikely to explain the inflation. They also provide metallicity-dependent corrections and discuss practical strategies for measuring accurate M-dwarf radii.

Significance. The paper provides the largest homogeneous sample of M-dwarf radii to date and offers a method that can be applied to any star with photometry and a parallax. The derived empirical relations are valuable for exoplanet host star characterization and for testing stellar structure models. The paper is transparent about many systematic checks (spot simulations, contamination, activity correlations) and makes the full catalogue publicly available, which is a strength. The main claims, if confirmed, would significantly constrain the radius inflation mechanism and provide falsifiable predictions that can be tested with future data.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.4, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) has a sign error. Minimizing χ² = Σ((m_i - Z_i + x)²/σ_i²) over x = 5 log10(R/d) gives x = +Σ((Z_i - m_i)/σ_i²)/Σ(1/σ_i²), so log10(R²/d²) = +0.4 Σ((Z_i - m_i)/σ_i²)/Σ(1/σ_i²). The printed equation has a minus sign. If the analysis code followed the printed equation, the fitted dilution factors—and hence all radii—would be systematically inverted. Please verify the sign in the code and correct Equation (4).
  2. [4.2.5] The claim of a tight intrinsic sequence with scatter below 1-2% is an upper limit rather than a measured value. After applying the metallicity correction, the residual scatter is 2.4%, which equals the quadrature sum of the 1.6% radius uncertainty and the 1.7% metallicity-induced uncertainty, leaving no statistical budget for an intrinsic spread. The paper should present this as an upper limit (as it does in the text 'at most 1-2%') and avoid stating in the abstract and conclusions that the spread is 'no more than' a measured quantity. In addition, F(LSED) in Equation (16) is computed from the same BT-Settl AGSS2009 atmosphere family used for the fits; if those atmospheres have systematic flux errors, the correction and the resulting tight-sequence conclusion are biased. A sensitivity test with an independent atmosphere grid would significantly strengthen this claim.
  3. [4.2.4] The correlations with activity indicators are performed on radius residuals [R−Rfit(LSED)]/R that have not been corrected for metallicity. Figure 18 shows that these uncorrected residuals span ±6% as a function of [Fe/H], so the metallicity-induced scatter can dilute any genuine activity-radius correlation. The authors should re-run these correlation tests on metallicity-corrected radii (Equation 16) or include [Fe/H] as a covariate in the regression before concluding that no correlation exists.
  4. [2.3] The uncertainty estimates are based on the full 3D grid search for only 158 stars (1% of the sample), and this characteristic uncertainty is then applied to all stars. While this is a reasonable approximation, the paper should explicitly state that this assumes the uncertainty distribution of the 1% subsample is representative of the entire sample, and it should provide some evidence (e.g., a comparison of the distributions of photometric quality or fitted parameters) that this representative assumption holds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'no more than a 1-2% intrinsic spread' should be phrased as 'an upper limit of 1-2%' to reflect the fact that the intrinsic spread is not directly measured but rather bounded by the uncertainty budget.
  2. [2.2 and throughout] The paper switches between TSED and Teff in the text and figures; for clarity, define TSED as the SED-derived effective temperature and use it consistently, and note explicitly that TSED is assumed equal to the physical Teff.
  3. [Figure 6] The caption should note that the 68% confidence contours are based on the randomly selected 1% subsample, as stated in the text, so that readers do not infer that these are per-star uncertainties for the full sample.
  4. [4.2.3] The spot simulation adopts a fixed spot temperature ratio Tspot = 0.8 Timac; the conclusion that spots can reproduce the observed scatter may depend on this choice, and a brief discussion of how varying this ratio affects the results would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the radius scale is anchored by external DEB/interferometric comparisons, and the model-based metallicity correction is a forward-model robustness issue, not a by-construction identity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Radii are obtained from the SED dilution factor (Eqs. 2-4) combined with Gaia DR2 distances, not from the stellar-structure models being tested; T_SED comes from the SED shape and L_SED from integrated photometry plus distance. The log(g) tophat prior uses Baraffe et al. (2015) isochrones that also appear in the comparison plots, but this is a weak prior (±0.5 dex) and does not define the radius; the method is validated against external DEB and interferometric samples (Figs. 12-13), so the central inflation claim has independent support. The metallicity correction F(L_SED) in Sec. 4.2.5 is computed by forward-fitting the same BT-Settl/AGSS2009 atmosphere grids, not by fitting the target residual; after applying it, the 2.4% scatter is compared with the quadrature sum of independent radius (1.6%) and metallicity (1.7%) uncertainties. The resulting '<1-2% intrinsic spread' is therefore an error-budget inference, not a quantity that equals an input by construction. The Wilson & Naylor (2017, 2018) self-citations are used only to assess WISE contamination and are not load-bearing. The sign error in Eq. (4) is a correctness concern outside the scope of circularity analysis, since it does not make any predicted quantity equivalent to a fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on the accuracy of the model atmospheres used for SED fitting, the Gaia distances, and the theoretical isochrones used for comparison. The free parameters are mostly procedural choices (photometric floor, log(g) prior width, spot temperature ratio) rather than fits to the key results.

free parameters (3)
  • Photometric uncertainty floor = 0.01 mag
    Adopted for all eight bands to avoid over-weighting unrealistically small reported errors; directly affects chi-square and derived uncertainties.
  • log(g) prior width = ±0.5 dex
    Top-hat prior around the Baraffe et al. (2015) 4 Gyr isochrone value; if this prior is wrong, the SED fit and radius can shift.
  • Spot temperature ratio = T_spot = 0.8 T_imac
    Used in the starspot simulation (Eq. 12-13) to test the effect of spots on the measured scatter; not central to the radius determination but affects the interpretation of the spread.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BT-Settl CIFIST model atmospheres accurately reproduce the relative broad-band fluxes of M-dwarfs for given Teff and log(g).
    The entire TSED measurement and the metallicity correction rely on these model atmospheres; a systematic error in the models would bias temperature and radius.
  • domain assumption Extinction is negligible for stars within 100 pc.
    Stated in Section 2.2; if extinction were non-negligible, the SED shape and luminosity would be wrong.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR2 systematics are below 0.1 mas and Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) distances are unbiased.
    Radius scales linearly with distance; a distance bias propagates directly to the radius and luminosity.
  • domain assumption The Baraffe et al. (2015) isochrone provides a reliable log(g) range for M-dwarfs.
    Used to set the log(g) prior in Section 2.3; if the mass-radius relation in the isochrone is wrong, the SED fit could shift.
  • domain assumption Comparison models (Dotter et al., Baraffe et al., PARSEC) are valid representations of M-dwarf structure.
    The inflation claim is a difference between measured radii and these models; the PARSEC 1.2S model, which matches the data, is calibrated on DEBs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the M-dwarf Luminosity--Temperature--Radius Relationships using Gaia DR2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TQNHOTXY

@misc{pith2026190803025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the M-dwarf Luminosity--Temperature--Radius Relationships using Gaia DR2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TQNHOTXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03025}
}
abstract

There is growing evidence that M-dwarf stars suffer radius inflation when compared to theoretical models, suggesting that models are missing some key physics required to completely describe stars at effective temperatures $(T_{\rm SED})$ less than about 4000K. The advent of Gaia DR2 distances finally makes available large datasets to determine the nature and extent of this effect. We employ an all-sky sample, comprising of $>$15\,000 stars, to determine empirical relationships between luminosity, temperature and radius. This is accomplished using only geometric distances and multiwave-band photometry, by utilising a modified spectral energy distribution fitting method. The radii we measure show an inflation of $3 - 7\%$ compared to models, but no more than a $1 - 2\%$ intrinsic spread in the inflated sequence. We show that we are currently able to determine M-dwarf radii to an accuracy of $2.4\%$ using our method. However, we determine that this is limited by the precision of metallicity measurements, which contribute $1.7\%$ to the measured radius scatter. We also present evidence that stellar magnetism is currently unable to explain radius inflation in M-dwarfs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03025 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The system responses used to generate the synthetic photome￾try. The photometry is comprised of magnitudes from Gaia (blue dashed), the Two Micron All-Sky Survey (red solid) and WISE (black dot-dashed). For reference, the model spectrum for an M-dwarf star with an effective temperature Teff = 3300K is included (grey dashed). structure of rocky exoplanets. Their small size makes M-stars the current target-of-choice f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The search space for one of our targets whose χ 2 lies at the median value of the randomly selected uncertainty sample. The red ellipsoid indicates the 68% confidence contour resulting from the process. bounds; as these are nearly symmetrical. The confidence contours were determined from the resulting 2D PDF by identifying the set of highest probability pixels whose sum was 0.68 and drawing a contour around them. We… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fits resulting from the use of the method presented in Section 2.3 and Section 2.4. The best fitting model spectrum for each target is shown in the top panel (red) with the observed photometry from which it was derived overlaid (black). The appropriate bandpasses are plotted in light grey for reference. In the bottom panel are the residuals and uncertainties in magnitudes for each photometric band. The middle panel … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure illustrates the sigma clipping performed on our final catalogue. The black dashed line shows the final linear fit to the clipped sample after 8 iterations. The red points in this plot are those lying more than 5σ away from this line, and are thus flagged as…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of points from our full sample of 15 274 sources in TSED − R space. The colour map results from a kernel density estimation, which is intended to indicate the density of points within the plot. For comparison, we include the Dotter et al. (2008) isochr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The gap in the stellar sequence at 4000K evident in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The good sample of our dataset in the LSED − R plane. Due to the strong correlation between the axes in the TSED − R plane, this plane is preferable for accurately measuring radius inflation in our sample. Accompanying the data are the same isochrones as in [PITH_FULL…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The TSED − R relationship derived for our sample. The final relationship, given by Equation 6, is the solid blue line along with its 68% confidence intervals shown in red. The black dots show the stars used to perform the fit of the relationship. The red points borderi…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The luminosity - radius relationship plotted atop the stars from our sample. As with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The radius inflation of our data from the 4 Gyr Dotter et al. (2008) solar metallicity isochrone [R − RD08(L)]/R. The median radius inflation within each luminosity bin is shown as a black point. The luminosity - radius correction to this same isochrone is overlaid as…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A comparison between the distributions of the relative residual of our measured radius R with respect to our LSED − R relation Rfit(LSED); defined in Equation 9. Our sample is shown in black, with each of the others overplotted. Both the interferometric and DEB sample…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The radius inflation with respect to the Dotter et al. (2008) 4 Gyr isochrone ([R − RD08(L)]/R) obtained by the four different methods. Inflation is plotted as a function of luminosity. The red points show detached eclipsing binaries (Southworth 2015; Parsons et al. 2…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The points show the radius and temperature retrieved by our fitting a catalogue of simulated synthetic photometry with varying spot filling factor γ. We show 0% (γ = 0.0) and 100% (γ = 1.0) spot coverage, which lie along the relation, along with γ = 0.8 which lies at …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The correlation between our measured relative radius residual [R − R(L)]/R and rotation period Prot (left) and Rossby number Ro (right). The sample is divided between saturated (triangles) and unsaturated (circles) activity samples. The transition is marked by a grey …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Our sample of stars with X-ray luminosity LX /Lbol against relative radius residual [R − Rfit(LSED)]/R. The sample is divided into stars that lie in the saturated (triangles) and unsaturated (circles) regimes. This transitions is marked by a grey dashed line drawn at …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Our sample of stars for which we have Hα luminosity LHα /Lbol against relative radius residual [R − Rfit(LSED)]/R. The sample is divided into stars that lie in the saturated (triangles) and unsaturated (circles) regime, delimited by the dashed line drawn at LHα /Lbol …
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The correlation between radius residual and [Fe/H] for stars within our sample. The metallicities are from Terrien et al. (2015) (orange) and Gaidos et al. (2014) (blue). The radii and uncertainties are from our sample and fit using only solar metallicity atmospheres.…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png]

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. Unstable magnetospheric accretion on the T Tauri star TW Hya

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.5 of 10

    TW Hya’s large-scale field is a ~0.83 kG tilted dipole that varies yearly; accretion is unstable (rmag/rcor ≈ 0.33–0.40) and no close-in planet is detected above ~0.3–1 Mjup.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., 2012, in EAS Publications Series

    Allard F., Homeier D., Freytag B., Sharp C. M., 2012, in EAS Publications Series. pp 3--43, @doi 10.1051/eas/1257001

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA\

    Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Scott P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARA\

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180410121B ( @eprint arXiv 1804.10121 )

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  6. [6]

    Barentsen G., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1651 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.3230B 444, 3230

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1651 2014

  7. [8]

    V., 2005, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2005-8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005LRSP....2....8B 2, 8

    Berdyugina S. V., 2005, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.12942/lrsp-2005-8 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005LRSP....2....8B 2, 8

    doi:10.12942/lrsp-2005-8 2005

  8. [9]

    H., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503318 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644..475B 644, 475

    Berger D. H., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/503318 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...644..475B 644, 475

    work page doi:10.1086/503318 2006

Show all 98 references
  1. [10]

    E., Shallis M

    Blackwell D. E., Shallis M. J., 1977, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/180.2.177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977MNRAS.180..177B 180, 177

    1977 doi

  2. [11]

    E., Shallis M

    Blackwell D. E., Shallis M. J., Selby M. J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/188.4.847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979MNRAS.188..847B 188, 847

    1979 doi

  3. [12]

    H., King J

    Boone R. H., King J. R., Soderblom D. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2006.06.002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006NewAR..50..526B 50, 526

    2006 doi

  4. [13]

    S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/112 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757..112B 757, 112

    Boyajian T. S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/112 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757..112B 757, 112

    2012 doi

  5. [14]

    S., Browning M

    Brun A. S., Browning M. K., 2017, @doi [Living Reviews in Solar Physics] 10.1007/s41116-017-0007-8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017LRSP...14....4B 14, 4

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    Caffau E., Ludwig H.-G., Steffen M., Freytag B., Bonifacio P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-010-9541-4 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SoPh..268..255C 268, 255

    2011 doi

  7. [16]

    Casagrande L., 2008, @doi [Physica Scripta Volume T] 10.1088/0031-8949/2008/T133/014020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008PhST..133a4020C 133, 014020

    2008 doi

  8. [17]

    G., Prasad N

    Chaturvedi P., Sharma R., Chakraborty A., Anandarao B. G., Prasad N. J. S. S. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac5de , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...27C 156, 27

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    Chen Y., Girardi L., Bressan A., Marigo P., Barbieri M., Kong X., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1605 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444.2525C 444, 2525

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    Cort \'e s-Contreras M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629056 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    R., Saar S

    Cranmer S. R., Saar S. H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...741...54C 741, 54

    2011 doi

  12. [21]

    W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589654 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178...89D 178, 89

    Dotter A., Chaboyer B., Jevremovi \'c D., Kostov V., Baron E., Ferguson J. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589654 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178...89D 178, 89

    2008 doi

  13. [22]

    T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..161D 795, 161

    Douglas S. T., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795..161D 795, 161

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    E., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09330.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..753D 362, 753

    Drew J. E., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09330.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362..753D 362, 753

    2005

  15. [24]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu394 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2036D 440, 2036

    Drew J. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu394 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.2036D 440, 2036

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    Evans D. W., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832756 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  17. [26]

    A., Chaboyer B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/183 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..183F 779, 183

    Feiden G. A., Chaboyer B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/183 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..183F 779, 183

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    Gaia Collaboration Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., Prusti T., de Bruijne J. H. J., Babusiaux C., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2018, preprint, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2018arXiv180409365G ( @eprint arXiv 1804.09365 )

    2018 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Gaidos E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2014MNRAS.443.2561G 443, 2561

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    A., David T

    Gillen E., Hillenbrand L. A., David T. J., Aigrain S., Rebull L., Stauffer J., Cody A. M., Queloz D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...849...11G 849, 11

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    Girardi L., Bertelli G., Bressan A., Chiosi C., Groenewegen M. A. T., Marigo P., Salasnich B., Weiss A., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020612 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  23. [32]

    Han E., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa803c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154..100H 154, 100

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa844 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..114H 155, 114

    Hartman J. D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa844 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..114H 155, 114

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2680 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1945H 448, 1945

    He miniak K. G., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu2680 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1945H 448, 1945

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    Higl J., Weiss A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731008 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  28. [37]

    G., Browning M

    Ireland L. G., Browning M. K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab3da , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..132I 856, 132

    2018 doi

  29. [38]

    J., Jeffries R

    Jackson R. J., Jeffries R. D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu651 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.2111J 441, 2111

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Deliyannis C

    Jackson R. J., Deliyannis C. P., Jeffries R. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.3245J 476, 3245

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson P., et al., 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python , http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  32. [41]

    Y., Muirhead P

    Kesseli A. Y., Muirhead P. S., Mann A. W., Mace G., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabccb , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..225K 155, 225

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    Y., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157...63K 157, 63

    Kesseli A. Y., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157...63K 157, 63

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    Kochukhov O., Shulyak D., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190204157K

    2019

  35. [44]

    L., Tucker R

    Kraus A. L., Tucker R. A., Thompson M. I., Craine E. R., Hillenbrand L. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/728/1/48 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...728...48K 728, 48

    2011 doi

  36. [45]

    L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e75 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845...72K 845, 72

    Kraus A. L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7e75 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...845...72K 845, 72

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833334 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    Lanzafame A. C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833334 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146468 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..363L 127, 363

    Limber D. N., 1958, @doi [ ] 10.1086/146468 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..363L 127, 363

    1958 doi

  39. [48]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  40. [49]

    L \'o pez-Morales M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513142 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660..732L 660, 732

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/70 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...70M 787, 70

    MacDonald J., Mullan D. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/70 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...787...70M 787, 70

    2014 doi

  42. [51]

    J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9611 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850...58M 850, 58

    MacDonald J., Mullan D. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9611 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850...58M 850, 58

    2017 doi

  43. [52]

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz J., Weiler M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    W., Gaidos E., Ansdell M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/188 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..188M 779, 188

    Mann A. W., Gaidos E., Ansdell M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/188 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...779..188M 779, 188

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    W., Feiden G

    Mann A. W., Feiden G. A., Gaidos E., Boyajian T., von Braun K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/64 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2015ApJ...804...64M 804

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...63M 871, 63

    Mann A. W., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf3bc , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...63M 871, 63

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Marigo P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/77 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...835...77M 835, 77

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    Masana E., Jordi C., Ribas I., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20054021 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A

    2006 doi

  49. [58]

    McQuillan A., Aigrain S., Mazeh T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt536 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.432.1203M 432, 1203

    2013 doi

  50. [59]

    McQuillan A., Mazeh T., Aigrain S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/211/2/24 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJS..211...24M 211, 24

    2014 doi

  51. [60]

    C., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1400 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1400M 691, 1400

    Morales J. C., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1400 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...691.1400M 691, 1400

    doi

  52. [61]

    C., Torres G., Marschall L

    Morales J. C., Torres G., Marschall L. A., Brehm W., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/671 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...707..671M 707, 671

    doi

  53. [62]

    J., MacDonald J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322336 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559..353M 559, 353

    Mullan D. J., MacDonald J., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322336 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...559..353M 559, 353

    2001 doi

  54. [63]

    C., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Allard F., Udry S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220574 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Neves V., Bonfils X., Santos N. C., Delfosse X., Forveille T., Allard F., Udry S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220574 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    R., Charbonneau D., Irwin J., Berta-Thompson Z

    Newton E. R., Charbonneau D., Irwin J., Berta-Thompson Z. K., Rojas-Ayala B., Covey K., Lloyd J. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/20 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147...20N 147, 20

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M

    Newton E. R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M. L., Mink J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...85N 834, 85

    2017 doi

  57. [66]

    E., 2015, Guide to NumPy, 2nd edn

    Oliphant T. E., 2015, Guide to NumPy, 2nd edn. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, USA

    2015

  58. [67]

    G., Marsh T

    Parsons S. G., Marsh T. R., Copperwheat C. M., Dhillon V. S., Littlefair S. P., G \"a nsicke B. T., Hickman R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16072.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.402.2591P 402, 2591

    2010

  59. [70]

    G., et al., 2012c, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21773.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1950P 426, 1950

    Parsons S. G., et al., 2012c, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21773.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1950P 426, 1950

    2012

  60. [71]

    G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw516 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2793P 458, 2793

    Parsons S. G., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw516 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.2793P 458, 2793

    2016 doi

  61. [72]

    G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2345 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp.2233P

    Parsons S. G., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2345 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.tmp.2233P

    2018 doi

  62. [73]

    J., Mamajek E

    Pecaut M. J., Mamajek E. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....9P 208, 9

    2013 doi

  63. [74]

    Pietrzy \'n ski G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11878 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Natur.495...76P 495, 76

    2013 doi

  64. [75]

    Pyrzas S., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19746.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419..817P 419, 817

    2012

  65. [76]

    Rabus M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3430 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2019MNRAS.484.2674R 484, 2674

    2019 doi

  66. [77]

    Reiners A., Basri G., Browning M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/538 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692..538R 692, 538

    2009 doi

  67. [78]

    C., Reyl \'e C., Derri \`e re S., Picaud S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Derri \`e re S., Picaud S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  68. [79]

    R., et al., 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016yCat.9050....0R 9050

    Rosen S. R., et al., 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016yCat.9050....0R 9050

    2016

  69. [80]

    Rozyczka M., Kaluzny J., Krzeminski W., Mazur B., 2007, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AcA....57..323R 57, 323

    2007

  70. [81]

    B., 2009, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AcA....59..385R 59, 385

    Rozyczka M., Kaluzny J., Pietrukowicz P., Pych W., Mazur B., Catelan M., Thompson I. B., 2009, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AcA....59..385R 59, 385

    2009

  71. [82]

    Schweitzer A., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190403231S

    2019

  72. [83]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  73. [84]

    H., 2016, in Kastner J

    Somers G., Pinsonneault M. H., 2016, in Kastner J. H., Stelzer B., Metchev S. A., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 314, Young Stars Planets Near the Sun. pp 91--94 ( @eprint arXiv 1510.01702 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921315006092

    2016 arXiv

  74. [85]

    M., Torres G., Zejda M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Southworth J., 2015, in Rucinski S. M., Torres G., Zejda M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 496, Living Together: Planets, Host Stars and Binaries. p. 164 ( @eprint arXiv 1411.1219 )

    2015 arXiv

  75. [86]

    G., Mathieu R

    Stassun K. G., Mathieu R. D., Vaz L. P. R., Stroud N., Vrba F. J., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382353 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJS..151..357S 151, 357

    2004 doi

  76. [87]

    R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518961 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..663S 172, 663

    Stauffer J. R., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518961 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJS..172..663S 172, 663

    2007 doi

  77. [88]

    B., 2006, in Gabriel C., Arviset C., Ponz D., Enrique S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2006, in Gabriel C., Arviset C., Ponz D., Enrique S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV. p. 666

    2006

  78. [89]

    C., Fleming S

    Terrien R. C., Fleming S. W., Mahadevan S., Deshpande R., Feiden G. A., Bender C. F., Ramsey L. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L9 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760L...9T 760, L9

    2012 doi

  79. [90]

    C., Mahadevan S., Deshpande R., Bender C

    Terrien R. C., Mahadevan S., Deshpande R., Bender C. F., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/16 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2015ApJS..220...16T 220, 16

    2015 doi

  80. [91]

    Thompson B., Frinchaboy P., Kinemuchi K., Sarajedini A., Cohen R., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/85 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148...85T 148, 85

    2014 doi

  81. [92]

    Torres G., 2013, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201211743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2013AN....334....4T 334, 4

    2013 doi

  82. [93]

    Torres G., Ribas I., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/338587 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...567.1140T 567, 1140

    2002 doi

  83. [94]

    H., Pavlovski K., Feiden G

    Torres G., Sandberg Lacy C. H., Pavlovski K., Feiden G. A., Sabby J. A., Bruntt H., Viggo Clausen J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/31 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...31T 797, 31

    2014 doi

  84. [95]

    M., Hawley S

    Walkowicz L. M., Hawley S. L., West A. A., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426792 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116.1105W 116, 1105

    2004 doi

  85. [96]

    F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/26 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...26W 809, 26

    Welsh W. F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/26 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...26W 809, 26

    2015 doi

  86. [97]

    J., Naylor T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx629 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.2517W 468, 2517

    Wilson T. J., Naylor T., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx629 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.2517W 468, 2517

    2017 doi

  87. [98]

    J., Naylor T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2395 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.2148W 481, 2148

    Wilson T. J., Naylor T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2395 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.2148W 481, 2148

    2018 doi

  88. [99]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  89. [100]

    J., Drake J

    Wright N. J., Drake J. J., Mamajek E. E., Henry G. W., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2011ApJ...743...48W 743, 48

    2011 doi

  90. [101]

    J., Newton E

    Wright N. J., Newton E. R., Williams P. K. G., Drake J. J., Yadav R. K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1670 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2351W 479, 2351

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.