Dynamical masses for the Hyades binary 80 Tauri

Guillermo Torres (CfA)

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 31 references

Dynamical masses for the Hyades binary 80 Tauri

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 Using only astrometric observations, the paper measures the components of the ~170-year Hyades binary 80 Tau at 1.63 and 1.11 solar masses, making it the sixth Hyades binary with individual dynamical masses.

desk verdict A credible astrometric-only mass measurement for 80 Tau, worth refereeing; the mass-ratio/barycenter degeneracy is real but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03215 v1 pith:7HTVW6SJ submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.SR

Guillermo Torres (CfA) This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.SR

keywords Hyadesclustervisualbinarydynamicalmassesmass-luminosityrelationGaiaastrometryHipparcospropermotionorbitalacceleration

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

The paper aims to show that the individual masses of the long-period visual binary 80 Tau in the Hyades can be derived even though the radial-velocity information normally used for such measurements is unavailable. Combining roughly 180 years of visual orbit measurements with Hipparcos and Gaia proper motions, it reports $M_A = 1.63^{+0.30}_{-0.13}\,M_\odot$ and $M_B = 1.11^{+0.21}_{-0.14}\,M_\odot$. If these are correct, 80 Tau becomes the sixth Hyades binary with individual dynamical masses and the first to be measured purely from astrometry. The result matters because it adds a data point to the empirical mass-luminosity relation of a cluster with well-known age and composition, and that relation is a direct test of stellar evolution models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the mass fraction $f = M_B/(M_A+M_B)$, constrained by comparing the Gaia proper motions of the primary and secondary against the simultaneously fitted barycenter proper motion. Because each component's measured proper motion is perturbed by its orbital motion around the barycenter, the ratio of those perturbations is fixed by the masses; this proper-motion-ratio constraint stands in for the missing radial-velocity constraint. The relative visual orbit supplies the geometry, the 24-year Hipparcos-to-Gaia baseline supplies the orbital acceleration scale, and Kepler's third law together with the adopted parallax converts the fitted semimajor axis into the total mass. The paper thus uses the binary itself as an astrometric accelerometer.

What would settle it

Take a new resolved-astrometry epoch for the secondary (e.g., from a future Gaia data release or adaptive-optics imaging) and compare it with the model orbit: the predicted secondary proper motion at that epoch is determined by $f = 0.402$ and the fitted barycenter motion, so a positional or proper-motion residual larger than the astrometric uncertainties would falsify the mass ratio.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the mass ratio of a visual binary can be extracted from the difference between the Gaia proper motions of its two components, with no spectroscopy needed. For 80 Tau the fitted mass fraction is $f = M_B/(M_A+M_B) = 0.402^{+0.040}_{-0.043}$, and combining this with the relative orbit and a weighted mean parallax of $20.984 \pm 0.060$ mas gives a total mass of $2.72^{+0.46}_{-0.17}\,M_\odot$ and component masses of $1.63^{+0.30}_{-0.13}\,M_\odot$ and $1.11^{+0.21}_{-0.14}\,M_\odot$. The resulting orbit is very eccentric ($e = 0.915^{+0.020}_{-0.018}$) and highly inclined, bringing the stars to about $3.7$ au at periastron. These masses are consistent, within their 10% or larger uncertainties, with the mass-luminosity relation defined by the five previously known Hyades binaries and with the PARSEC isochrones for the cluster's age and metallicity.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement hangs on the assumption that the small difference between the two stars' Gaia proper motions is a faithful tracer of their mass ratio, since that difference is the only substitute for the missing radial-velocity data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

80 Tau becomes the sixth Hyades binary with individually measured masses, adding a new anchor to the empirical mass-luminosity relation.
Long-period visual binaries whose primaries are rapid rotators, or whose orbital phase keeps the components moving slowly, become measurable without radial velocities.
The fitted orbit makes specific predictions: the stars approach to about 3.7 au at periastron, and the current radial-velocity difference is only about 2.1 km/s, so future resolved imaging can check the orbit.
The new masses sit between 51 Tau and 70 Tau, tightening the empirical relation in the 1.1--1.6 solar-mass range.

Reading between the lines

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

If the method generalizes, the many long-period visual binaries with Gaia component proper motions but no usable radial velocities could each yield individual masses, letting the Hyades test be repeated in other clusters and moving groups.
The strong anticorrelation between the mass fraction and the fitted barycenter proper motion suggests that the mass errors are dominated by uncertainty in the barycenter motion; a third astrometric epoch could break that degeneracy and cut the mass uncertainties below the current 10--20%.
The paper's note that several older Hyades mass determinations reuse partial results from earlier analyses implies that a single self-consistent reanalysis of all six systems could, on its own, sharpen or shift the empirical mass-luminosity relation before any new observations are taken.
The same astrometric-acceleration logic applies to unresolved binaries if future astrometry resolves or models their photocenter motion, potentially replacing spectroscopic mass ratios for systems too faint or too rotationally broadened for radial velocities.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a genuine new result—first individual dynamical masses for 80 Tau, and the first Hyades binary with masses derived without radial velocities. The analysis is transparent and the result is plausible. I'd send it to review.

What's new: Torres combines 180 years of visual orbit measurements with Hipparcos and Gaia proper motions in a single MCMC fit. The clever step is using the separate Gaia proper motions of the two components to constrain the mass ratio, plus the Hipparcos-Gaia acceleration to pin down the total mass. The paper is careful about the messy historical visual data: the author groups observations, iterates on the error scales, and explicitly shows that an alternative weighting scheme gives nearly the same masses. That is exactly the right kind of robustness check. The MLR comparison is also honest—he flags how several older determinations use fixed partial results, and doesn't oversell the agreement with models.

The soft spot is the mass ratio. As the author notes, the accuracy of f depends on how well the barycenter proper motion is constrained. Table 4 shows f is correlated with the barycenter proper motion at roughly -0.98 in both coordinates. The primary-secondary proper motion difference is independent of f, so f is effectively measured by the tiny orbital perturbation on the primary's motion relative to the inferred mu0. That means a systematic error in the Hipparcos-Gaia frame tie or in the predicted acceleration from the visual orbit could shift f by more than the formal uncertainty. The wide uniform priors on mu0 mean the data are doing the work, but the near-degeneracy is real. I don't think it's fatal—the visual orbit is well constrained over a full cycle, and the alternative-weighting check is reassuring—but a robustness test with a cluster-based prior on mu0, or fixing f and re-solving, would strengthen the claim. The visual weighting itself is subjective, but the author is upfront and the result doesn't hang on it.

Who this is for: anyone working on binary orbits, the Hyades mass-luminosity relation, or astrometric acceleration methods. It deserves a serious referee—someone who can check the Brandt catalog handling and perhaps re-derive the posterior. The paper is a solid contribution, not a definitive last word.

Recommendation: accept for peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper determines the masses of the components of the Hyades visual binary 80 Tau using relative visual astrometry from 1831-2015 together with Hipparcos and Gaia proper motions. A single MCMC fit solves for the relative orbit, the mass fraction f, the barycenter proper motion, and two error-scaling factors; the derived masses, M(A) = 1.63(+0.30/-0.13) M_sun and M(B) = 1.11(+0.21/-0.14) M_sun, agree with the mass-luminosity relation defined by five other Hyades binaries and with PARSEC isochrones. The paper claims this is the first individual dynamical-mass determination in the Hyades that does not use radial velocities.

Significance. If the result holds, 80 Tau becomes the sixth Hyades binary with dynamically measured component masses and the first astrometric-only case, making a useful methodological contribution for long-period binaries with rotationally broadened spectral lines. The study is careful in its use of the 180-year visual record, releases machine-readable tables of all observations and residuals, is explicit about its limitations, and reports a falsifiable prediction for future radial-velocity measurements. The main residual risk is that the individual masses rest on the separation of the mass fraction f from the barycenter proper motion in a strongly correlated fit.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Table 4] The correlations between f and the two components of the barycentric proper motion are -0.978 and -0.981, so the posterior for f is essentially a ridge in the (f, mu0) plane. In the adopted likelihood, mu0 appears in all four proper-motion observables, and the Gaia primary-minus-secondary proper-motion difference cancels the f-dependent orbital terms; the mass ratio is therefore identified by how the primary's Hipparcos, Gaia, and HG proper motions are placed relative to the solved mu0. The paper should add a robustness demonstration that this separation is data-driven rather than prior-driven, for example by re-fitting in the mu_HG-subtracted parameterization recommended by Brandt (2018) or by replacing the uniform mu0 priors with an external cluster-membership prior, and should report the resulting f and mass posteriors. Without this check, the central claim that these are secure astrometric-only individual masses remains conditional on the joint (f, mu0) identification.
[Sections 2.1 and 3] The group errors sigma_rho and sigma_t are set by iterating to achieve balanced residuals, and then the free scaling factors f_rho and f_theta are fit to set the absolute scale. Because the visual observations determine P and a, and hence the total mass and the geometry of the relative orbit, the quoted credible intervals inherit this subjective weighting choice. The alternative three-group treatment described in Section 5 is reassuring but is only one variant; a systematic sensitivity test (e.g., varying group boundaries and the nominal sigma_rho and sigma_t values over a factor of two, or marginalizing over group assignments) would make the mass errors more defensible and would strengthen the mass-luminosity comparison in Section 4.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Section 2.2] The statement that 'Separate proper motion values from Gaia for the primary and secondary provide a direct constraint on the mass ratio' is imprecise in the implemented model, because the difference mu_G,A - mu_G,B is independent of f; the mass ratio is constrained only jointly with the solved barycenter motion. Suggest rephrasing to avoid overstating the role of the primary-secondary proper-motion difference.
[Table 3] The priors for P and a are listed as [2,7] and [-2,2], while the note says that only P, a, f_rho, and f_theta are log-uniform; the table should state explicitly that these ranges are in log10 units so that the bounds are not misread.
[Section 3] The proper motions are treated as effectively instantaneous because the Hipparcos and Gaia observing windows are much shorter than the orbital period, but no quantitative estimate of the resulting acceleration error is given; a sentence giving the maximum expected effect at the relevant epochs would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 80 Tau masses are derived from astrometric data alone, with the mass-luminosity relation used only for a posteriori comparison.

full rationale

The derivation chain for M_A and M_B is self-contained: the visual orbit parameters and the mass fraction f are solved simultaneously with the barycenter proper motion mu0 from the likelihood built from visual separations, position angles, and four proper-motion measurements (Hipparcos primary, Gaia–Hipparcos positional difference, Gaia primary, Gaia secondary). No mass-luminosity relation or stellar model enters the likelihood; the MLR is invoked only in Section 4 after the masses are obtained, to compare them with five previously known Hyades binaries. The only self-citations are the adopted comparison masses for those binaries (Torres et al. 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Torres & Ribas 2002), and these are not inputs to the 80 Tau fit. The high negative correlations between f and mu0 (Table 4) indicate a statistical degeneracy, but that is a robustness/identifiability concern, not circularity: the paper does not define f in terms of mu0, nor fit one from the other by construction, and it does not use the MLR to set f. The astrometric-only claim is therefore not circular, and the comparison with theory is an independent consistency check rather than an input to the measurement.

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

The mass derivation assumes a single Keplerian binary with no unmodeled companions, instantaneous proper motions at catalog epochs, and a Brandt (2018) cross-calibrated Hipparcos and Gaia reference frame. The only auxiliary free parameters are the error-scaling factors and group weights for the historical visual observations; the orbital elements and mass fraction are the intended measured outputs, not hidden inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

f_rho (separation error scale factor) = 1.487 (+0.087/-0.074)
Multiplicative scaling of the separation uncertainties is fitted simultaneously with the orbital parameters to balance residuals between separation and position-angle data; it directly affects the weights of all visual observations.
f_theta (tangential position-angle error scale factor) = 1.454 (+0.083/-0.071)
Multiplicative scaling of the tangential position-angle uncertainties is fitted to set the absolute scale of position-angle errors relative to separation errors; it influences the orbit and hence the total mass.
Group error levels for historical visual measurements (sigma_rho, sigma_t) = 0.13/0.10, 0.06/0.025, 0.03/0.042, 0.014/0.012 arcsec
The four groups of visual observations are assigned uncertainties by hand and iterated until residual balance is achieved; the relative weights of the 180-year-old observations affect the fitted orbit and masses.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The two stars follow a single Keplerian relative orbit with no unmodeled companions or cluster perturbations.
The model in Section 3 is a standard binary orbit with only the two components; no third-body or tidal term is included.
domain assumption The Hipparcos and Gaia proper motions can be treated as instantaneous velocities at their catalog mean epochs.
The observing windows (about 2.5 and 1.7 years) are much shorter than the 170-year orbital period, so curvature within each window is neglected.
domain assumption The Brandt (2018) cross-calibration places Hipparcos and Gaia/DR2 proper motions on a common reference frame with valid covariance information.
Table 2 uses the Brandt (2018) accelerations and error inflation formulas without an independent frame check.
domain assumption The weighted average parallax is uncorrelated with the other adjusted parameters and adequately represents the distance to the system.
Section 3 states the parallax is assumed uncorrelated with the other properties and is computed as a weighted average of the Table 2 values.
domain assumption Extinction toward the Hyades is negligible for the absolute magnitude comparison.
Section 4 derives absolute visual magnitudes ignoring extinction; this affects the mass-luminosity comparison, not the central mass derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical masses for the Hyades binary 80 Tauri." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HTVW6SJ

@misc{pith2026190803215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical masses for the Hyades binary 80 Tauri},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HTVW6SJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03215}
}

read the original abstract

The empirical mass-luminosity relation in the Hyades cluster rests on dynamical mass determinations for five binary systems, of which one is eclipsing and the other four are visual or interferometric binaries. The last one was identified and first measured more than 20 years ago. Here we present dynamical mass measurements for a new binary system in the cluster, 80 Tau, which is also a visual pair with a much longer orbital period of about 170 yr. Although we lack the radial-velocity information that has enabled the individual mass determinations in all of the previous binaries, we show that it is still possible to derive the component masses for 80 Tau using only astrometric observations. This is enabled by the accurate proper motion measurements from the Hipparcos and Gaia missions, which constrain the orbital acceleration in the plane of the sky. Separate proper motion values from Gaia for the primary and secondary provide a direct constraint on the mass ratio. Our mass measurements, M(A) = 1.63 (+0.30/-0.13) M(sun) and M(B) = 1.11 (+0.21/-0.14) M(sun), are consistent with the mass-luminosity relation defined by the five previously known systems, which in turn is in good agreement with current models of stellar evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03215 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Empirical mass-luminosity relation in the Hyades based on the six binary systems in the cluster with dynamical mass determinations for the individual components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

A., Sanwal, N

Abt, H. A., Sanwal, N. B., & Levy, S. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 549

work page 1980
[2]

T., Mozurkewich, D., Hajian, A

Armstrong, J. T., Mozurkewich, D., Hajian, A. R., et al. 2006 , AJ, 131, 2643

work page 2006
[3]

I., & Balega, Y

Balega, I. I., & Balega, Y. Y. 1988, Soviet Astronomy Letters , 14, 393

work page 1988
[4]

Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31

2018
[5]

D., Dupuy, T

Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., & Bowler, B. P. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.07285

arXiv 2019
[6]

D., & Huang, C

Brandt, T. D., & Huang, C. X. 2015, ApJ, 807, 24

work page 2015
[7]

Burnham, S. W. 1906, A General Catalogue of Double Stars within 121 ◦ of the North Pole, (W ashington: Carnegie Institution of W ashington), p. 388

work page 1906
[8]

2014, MNRAS, 444, 2 525

Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2 525

work page 2014

Show all 31 references

[9]

2016, ApJ, 823, 102

Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

2016
[10]

J., Brandt, T

Dupuy, T. J., Brandt, T. D., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, L4

2019
[11]

201 6, A&A, 585, A75 ESA, ed

Dutra-Ferreira, L., Pasquini, L., Smiljanic, R., et al. 201 6, A&A, 585, A75 ESA, ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues

1997
[12]

W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

2018
[13]

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

Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

2013
[14]

2016, The Journal of Open Source Softwar e, 24, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45906 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Softwar e, 24, http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.45906 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 20 18, A&A, 616, A1

2016 doi
[15]

Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457

1992
[16]

2010, Commun

Goodman, J., & W eare, J. 2010, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 5, 65

2010
[17]

Gregory, P. C. 2005, ApJ, 631, 1198

2005
[18]

Heintz, W. D. 1981, ApJS, 46, 247 Høg, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, A&A, 355, L27

1981
[19]

Izmailov, I. S. 2019, Astronomy Letters, 45, 30

2019
[20]

2009, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 446

Lampens, P., Torres, K., Fr´ emat, Y., et al. 2009, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 446

2009
[21]

2001, A&A, 374, 54 0

Lebreton, Y., Fernandes, J., & Lejeune, T. 2001, A&A, 374, 54 0

2001
[22]

I., et al

Martin, C., Mignard, F., Hartkopf, W. I., et al. 1998, A&AS, 1 33, 149

1998
[23]

McClure, R. D. 1982, ApJ, 254, 606

1982
[24]

Perryman, M. A. C., Brown, A. G. A., Lebreton, Y., et al. 1998, A&A, 331, 81

1998
[25]

M., & Solensky, R

Peterson, D. M., & Solensky, R. 1988, ApJ, 333, 256

1988
[26]

M., Stefanik, R

Peterson, D. M., Stefanik, R. P., & Latham, D. W. 1993, AJ, 105 , 2260

1993
[27]

2002, A&A, 393, 897

Royer, F., Grenier, S., Baylac, M.-O., et al. 2002, A&A, 393, 897

2002
[28]

J., & Milone, E

Schiller, S. J., & Milone, E. F. 1987, AJ, 93, 1471 S¨ oderhjelm, S. 1999, A&A, 341, 121

1987
[29]

Tomkin, J., Pan, X., & McCarthy, J. K. 1995, AJ, 109, 780

1995
[30]

2002, ApJ, 567, 1140

Torres, G., & Ribas, I. 2002, ApJ, 567, 1140

2002
[31]

Torres, K. B. V., Lampens, P., Fr´ emat, Y., et al. 2011, A&A, 5 25, A50 van Bueren, H. G. 1952, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 11, 385 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, Astrophysics and Space Science Librar y

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A., Sanwal, N

Abt, H. A., Sanwal, N. B., & Levy, S. G. 1980, ApJS, 43, 549

work page 1980

[2] [2]

T., Mozurkewich, D., Hajian, A

Armstrong, J. T., Mozurkewich, D., Hajian, A. R., et al. 2006 , AJ, 131, 2643

work page 2006

[3] [3]

I., & Balega, Y

Balega, I. I., & Balega, Y. Y. 1988, Soviet Astronomy Letters , 14, 393

work page 1988

[4] [4]

Brandt, T. D. 2018, ApJS, 239, 31

2018

[5] [5]

D., Dupuy, T

Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., & Bowler, B. P. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.07285

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

D., & Huang, C

Brandt, T. D., & Huang, C. X. 2015, ApJ, 807, 24

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Burnham, S. W. 1906, A General Catalogue of Double Stars within 121 ◦ of the North Pole, (W ashington: Carnegie Institution of W ashington), p. 388

work page 1906

[8] [8]

2014, MNRAS, 444, 2 525

Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2 525

work page 2014