pith. sign in

arxiv: 2401.14703 · v7 · submitted 2024-01-26 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

The POKEMON Speckle Survey of Nearby M Dwarfs. III. The Stellar Multiplicity Rate of M Dwarfs within 15 pc

Catherine A. Clark , Gerard T. van Belle , Elliott P. Horch , David R. Ciardi , Kaspar von Braun , Brian A. Skiff , Jennifer G. Winters , Michael B. Lund
show 3 more authors
Mark E. Everett Zachary D. Hartman Joe Llama
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 04:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords M dwarfsstellar multiplicity ratespeckle imagingvolume-limited sampleplanetary systemscompanion separation15 parsecs
0
0 comments X

The pith

M dwarfs within 15 pc have a stellar multiplicity rate of 23.5 percent.

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

The paper measures the rate at which M dwarfs have stellar companions using speckle imaging on a volume-limited sample of 455 stars within 15 parsecs combined with literature data. It reports a multiplicity rate of 23.5 percent and a companion rate of 28.8 percent. Separation distributions differ between multiples known to host planets, peaking at 198 au, and those not known to host planets, peaking at 5.57 au. This pattern indicates that close stellar companions suppress planet formation around M dwarfs in the same way observed for FGK stars.

Core claim

Combining new speckle observations with known companions from the literature yields a stellar multiplicity rate of 23.5% ± 2.0% and a companion rate of 28.8% ± 2.1% for M dwarfs within 15 pc. The projected separation distribution for multiples known to host planets peaks at 198 au, whereas the distribution for multiples not yet known to host planets peaks at 5.57 au. This separation difference suggests that the presence of close-in stellar companions inhibits the formation of M-dwarf planetary systems.

What carries the argument

The volume-limited 15-pc sample of 455 M-dwarf primaries observed with speckle imaging, merged with literature companions to determine multiplicity and separation statistics.

If this is right

  • The stellar multiplicity rate within 15 pc is 23.5% with an uncertainty of 2.0%.
  • The companion rate is 28.8% with an uncertainty of 2.1%.
  • Multiples known to host planets have a separation distribution peaking at 198 au.
  • Multiples not known to host planets have a separation distribution peaking at 5.57 au.
  • The presence of close-in stellar companions inhibits planet formation around M dwarfs similarly to FGK stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Planet detection surveys around M dwarfs may need to prioritize or correct for systems lacking close stellar companions.
  • Additional planet discoveries could test whether the observed separation difference persists or shifts.
  • The result may inform models of how binary companions truncate disks and affect planet formation efficiency.
  • Overall multiplicity statistics could refine predictions for the fraction of single M dwarfs available for planet searches.

Load-bearing premise

The 455 M dwarfs within 15 pc form a complete, unbiased volume-limited sample and that all known companions from the literature are correctly identified without major incompleteness.

What would settle it

A comprehensive search that reveals a significantly different number of close companions or alters the peak separation values in either the planet-hosting or non-planet-hosting groups would falsify the claimed rates and inhibition effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2401.14703 by Brian A. Skiff, Catherine A. Clark, David R. Ciardi, Elliott P. Horch, Gerard T. van Belle, Jennifer G. Winters, Joe Llama, Kaspar von Braun, Mark E. Everett, Michael B. Lund, Zachary D. Hartman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The sky locations of the 455 targets in the volume-limited, 15-pc POKEMON sample. Targets with no known companions are marked with open black circles, while targets with known companions are marked with larger, orange stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distance (left) and absolute GRP magnitude (right) distributions for the 455 targets in the 15-pc POKEMON sample. We use the mass-magnitude relation from Giovinazzi & Blake (2022) to estimate the masses of these targets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Percentage of stellar companions detectable within our speckle images versus distance. Circles color-coded by G magnitude represent the detectability of simulated companions at all separations. Open black circles represent the detectability of simulated companions specifically within 100 au. We find that the majority of potential stellar companions would be detectable, particularly for the nearby targets, … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative stellar multiplicity rate as a function of distance, binned by one parsec. The 95% Poisson confidence interval is shown. We also show the overall stellar multiplicity rate (and uncertainties) for comparison. No corrections have been applied for undetected companions. Although the cumulative multiplicity rate is higher at smaller distances due to a smaller number of stars in those bins, we do fin… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Projected separation distributions for various populations of M-dwarf multiples. The histogram shows the distribution of projected separations for the targets in the 15-pc POKEMON sample that are known to be multiple, separated by planet￾host (orange) and non-planet-host (white) status. The dotted, black line is a Gaussian fit to the projected separations of the non-planet-hosting POKEMON multiples, with a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

M dwarfs are ubiquitous in our galaxy, and the rate at which they host stellar companions, and the properties of these companions, provides a window into the formation and evolution of the star(s), and of any planets that they may host. The Pervasive Overview of 'Kompanions' of Every M dwarf in Our Neighborhood (POKEMON) speckle survey of nearby M dwarfs is volume-limited from M0V through M9V out to 15 pc, with additional targets at larger distances. In total, 1125 stars were observed, and 455 of these are within the volume-limited, 15-pc sample of M-dwarf primaries. When we combine the speckle observations with known companions from the literature, we find that the stellar multiplicity rate of M dwarfs within 15 pc is 23.5% plus or minus 2.0%, and that the companion rate is 28.8% plus or minus 2.1%. We also find that the projected separation distribution for multiples that are known to host planets peaks at 198 au, while the distribution for multiples that are not yet known to host planets peaks at 5.57 au. This result suggests that the presence of close-in stellar companions inhibits the formation of M-dwarf planetary systems, similar to what has been found for FGK stars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents results from the POKEMON speckle survey of M dwarfs, using a volume-limited sample of 455 stars within 15 pc (out of 1125 observed targets). Combining new speckle observations with literature companions yields a stellar multiplicity rate of 23.5% ± 2.0% and companion rate of 28.8% ± 2.1%. The projected separation distribution for planet-hosting multiples peaks at 198 au while that for non-hosting multiples peaks at 5.57 au; the authors interpret the difference as evidence that close-in stellar companions inhibit M-dwarf planet formation, analogous to FGK stars.

Significance. The volume-limited 15-pc sample and direct counting approach (with external literature) provide a useful benchmark multiplicity rate for nearby M dwarfs if completeness corrections are robust. This strengthens demographic studies of low-mass stars and their planets. The separation-distribution comparison, if free of detection bias, would usefully extend the FGK-star result on companion inhibition of planet formation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the multiplicity rate of 23.5% ± 2.0% is presented without explicit reference to the detection completeness corrections, false-positive rates, or verification criteria for literature companions that were applied to the 455-star sample; these details are load-bearing for the central measurement.
  2. [Results (separation distributions)] Results section on separation distributions: the interpretive claim that close-in companions inhibit planet formation rests on the reported peaks (198 au vs. 5.57 au). This comparison assumes planet-detection completeness is independent of stellar-companion separation, but close companions can introduce RV jitter, photometric dilution, or TTVs that lower sensitivity; the manuscript does not test or bound this bias.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the 455-star sample is stated to be volume-limited, but a brief statement of the distance and spectral-type cuts used to define it would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments. We address each major comment below. Where the comments identify areas for improved clarity or discussion, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the multiplicity rate of 23.5% ± 2.0% is presented without explicit reference to the detection completeness corrections, false-positive rates, or verification criteria for literature companions that were applied to the 455-star sample; these details are load-bearing for the central measurement.

    Authors: The details of the detection completeness corrections, false-positive rates, and literature companion verification criteria are fully described in Sections 3 and 4 of the manuscript. We agree that the abstract would benefit from a brief reference to these steps for transparency. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the abstract to include the clause 'after applying detection completeness corrections and verifying literature companions' immediately before reporting the multiplicity and companion rates. This change does not alter the numerical results but makes the load-bearing aspects explicit in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (separation distributions)] Results section on separation distributions: the interpretive claim that close-in companions inhibit planet formation rests on the reported peaks (198 au vs. 5.57 au). This comparison assumes planet-detection completeness is independent of stellar-companion separation, but close companions can introduce RV jitter, photometric dilution, or TTVs that lower sensitivity; the manuscript does not test or bound this bias.

    Authors: We acknowledge that this is a valid concern not explicitly addressed in the original manuscript. Close stellar companions can indeed introduce biases in planet detection via RV jitter, photometric dilution, or TTVs. While the large separation between the reported peaks makes it unlikely that such effects fully account for the difference, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that (1) explicitly states the assumption of separation-independent planet detection completeness, (2) qualitatively discusses how the listed biases could preferentially suppress planet detections around close companions, and (3) notes that a uniform, volume-limited planet survey would be required to quantitatively bound the effect. The interpretation is presented with this caveat; no new quantitative test was performed. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Multiplicity rates are direct empirical counts; no circular derivation

full rationale

The paper computes the stellar multiplicity rate (23.5% ± 2.0%) and companion rate (28.8% ± 2.1%) as straightforward proportions: the number of systems with companions (from new speckle data plus literature) divided by the 455-star volume-limited sample. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations reduce these counts to inputs by construction. The separation distribution peaks (198 au vs. 5.57 au) are likewise empirical histograms from the same observed sample. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or uniqueness-imported steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical survey. Its claims rest on standard domain assumptions about sample completeness and external data quality rather than new theoretical entities or fitted parameters.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The 455 M-dwarf primaries form a complete, volume-limited sample out to 15 pc with accurate distances.
    The multiplicity rate calculation depends on the sample being volume-limited and unbiased (abstract).
  • domain assumption Literature companions are correctly identified and can be merged without duplication or omission.
    The combined rate and separation distributions rely on the accuracy of external companion catalogs (abstract).

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5835 in / 1503 out tokens · 33654 ms · 2026-05-24T04:52:12.678983+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

158 extracted references · 158 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues

    1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Aitken, R. G. 1899, Astronomische Nachrichten, 150, 113, doi: 10.1002/asna.18991500802 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.18991500802 2013

  3. [3]

    I., Balega, Y

    Balega, I. I., Balega, Y. Y., Maksimov, A. F., et al. 1999, A&AS, 140, 287, doi: 10.1051/aas:1999422

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1999422 1999

  4. [4]

    C., Ribas, I., et al

    Baroch, D., Morales, J. C., Ribas, I., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833440

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833440 2018

  5. [5]

    H., & Henry, T

    Wasserman, L. H., & Henry, T. J. 2000, AJ, 120, 1106, doi: 10.1086/301495

    work page doi:10.1086/301495 2000

  6. [6]

    2010, A&A, 520, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014114

    Bergfors, C., Brandner, W., Janson, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 520, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014114

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014114 2010

  7. [7]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts019

    Bergfors, C., Brandner, W., Daemgen, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 182, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts019

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts019 2013

  8. [8]

    L., S´ egransan, D., Forveille, T., et al

    Beuzit, J. L., S´ egransan, D., Forveille, T., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, 997, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20048006

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20048006 2004

  9. [9]

    1987, A&AS, 71, 57

    Blazit, A., Bonneau, D., & Foy, R. 1987, A&AS, 71, 57

    work page 1987

  10. [10]

    J., Koch, D

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D. G., Basri, G., et al. 2011, ApJ, 728, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/117

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/117 2011

  11. [11]

    G., Masuda, K., & Winn, J

    Bouma, L. G., Masuda, K., & Winn, J. N. 2018, AJ, 155, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabfb8

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabfb8 2018

  12. [12]

    P., Liu, M

    Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Shkolnik, E. L., & Tamura, M. 2015, ApJS, 216, 7, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/7

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/216/1/7 2015

  13. [13]

    J., Simcoe, R

    Burgasser, A. J., Simcoe, R. A., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1405, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1405

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/1405 2010

  14. [14]

    Burnham, S. W. 1891a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 127, 289 —. 1891b, Astronomische Nachrichten, 127, 369, doi: 10.1002/asna.18911272301 —. 1894, Publications of Lick Observatory, 2, 3 —. 1913, Measures of proper motion stars made with the 40-inch refractor of the Yerkes observatory in the years 1907 to 1912

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.18911272301 1913

  15. [15]

    R., Beichman, C

    Ciardi, D. R., Beichman, C. A., Horch, E. P., & Howell, S. B. 2015, ApJ, 805, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/16

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/16 2015

  16. [16]

    A., Padgett, D

    Cieza, L. A., Padgett, D. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2009, ApJL, 696, L84, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/L84

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/l84 2009

  17. [17]

    A., Horch, E

    Clark, C. A., Horch, E. P., & Davidson, J. W. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 206, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acfee1

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acfee1 2023

  18. [18]

    A., van Belle, G

    Clark, C. A., van Belle, G. T., Ciardi, D. R., et al. 2022a, AJ, 163, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6101

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6101

  19. [19]

    A., van Belle, G

    Clark, C. A., van Belle, G. T., Horch, E. P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11446, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VII, ed. P. G

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    M´ erand, & S

    Tuthill, A. M´ erand, & S. Sallum, 114462A, doi: 10.1117/12.2563055

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2563055

  21. [21]

    A., van Belle, G

    Clark, C. A., van Belle, G. T., Horch, E. P., et al. 2022b, AJ, 164, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac739c —. 2024, AJ, 167, 56, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0bfd Cort´ es-Contreras, M., B´ ejar, V. J. S., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2017, A&A, 597, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629056

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac739c 2024

  22. [22]

    Lowrance, P. J. 2003, AJ, 126, 2421, doi: 10.1086/378607

    work page doi:10.1086/378607 2003

  23. [23]

    2022, AJ, 164, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c66

    Sanchez-Bermudez, J. 2022, AJ, 164, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac7c66 2022

  24. [24]

    C., Harrington, R

    Dahn, C. C., Harrington, R. S., Riepe, B. Y., et al. 1976, Publications of the U.S. Naval Observatory Second Series, 24, 1

    work page 1976

  25. [25]

    C., Harris, H

    Dahn, C. C., Harris, H. C., Subasavage, J. P., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa880b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa880b 2017

  26. [26]

    New neighbours. I. 13 new companions to nearby M dwarfs

    Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Beuzit, J. L., et al. 1999a, A&A, 344, 897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9812008

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9812008

  27. [27]

    Accurate masses of very low mass stars: II The very low mass triple system Gl 866

    Delfosse, X., Forveille, T., Udry, S., et al. 1999b, A&A, 350, L39, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909409

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9909409

  28. [28]

    2007, A&A, 462, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066319

    Desidera, S., & Barbieri, M. 2007, A&A, 462, 345, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066319

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066319 2007

  29. [29]

    B., Henry, T

    Dieterich, S. B., Henry, T. J., Golimowski, D. A., Krist, J. E., & Tanner, A. M. 2012, AJ, 144, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/64 2012

  30. [30]

    B., Henry, T

    Dieterich, S. B., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 94, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/94

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/94 2014

  31. [31]

    Berta-Thompson, Z. K. 2014, ApJ, 784, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/2/156

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/2/156 2014

  32. [32]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´ c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89, doi: 10.1086/589654 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    work page doi:10.1086/589654 2008

  33. [33]

    J., Kratter, K

    Dupuy, T. J., Kratter, K. M., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, 80, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/80

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/80 2016

  34. [34]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2017, ApJS, 231, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c 2017

  35. [35]

    J., Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., Best, W. M. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 174, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3cd1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3cd1 2019

  36. [36]

    1988, A&A, 200, 135 17

    Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1988, A&A, 200, 135 17

    work page 1988

  37. [37]

    2004, A&A, 417, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034164

    Eggenberger, A., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 417, 353, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034164

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034164 2004

  38. [38]

    Espin, T. E. 1920, MNRAS, 80, 329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/80.3.329

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/80.3.329 1920

  39. [39]

    E., & Milburn, W

    Espin, T. E., & Milburn, W. 1926, MNRAS, 86, 131, doi: 10.1093/mnras/86.3.131

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/86.3.131 1926

  40. [40]

    T., Zacharias, N., & Jao, W.-C

    Finch, C. T., Zacharias, N., & Jao, W.-C. 2018, AJ, 155, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab2b1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab2b1 2018

  41. [41]

    A., & Marcy, G

    Fischer, D. A., & Marcy, G. W. 1992, ApJ, 396, 178, doi: 10.1086/171708

    work page doi:10.1086/171708 1992

  42. [42]

    2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 16, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.625250

    Fontanive, C., & Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 16, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.625250

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2021.625250 2021

  43. [43]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz671

    Fontanive, C., Rice, K., Bonavita, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4967, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz671

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz671 2019

  44. [44]

    J., Skrutskie, M

    Forrest, W. J., Skrutskie, M. F., & Shure, M. 1988, ApJL, 330, L119, doi: 10.1086/185218 Fouqu´ e, P., Moutou, C., Malo, L., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1960, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3246

    work page doi:10.1086/185218 1988

  45. [45]

    G., Henry, T

    Franz, O. G., Henry, T. J., Wasserman, L. H., et al. 1998, AJ, 116, 1432, doi: 10.1086/300500

    work page doi:10.1086/300500 1998

  46. [46]

    Furlan, E., & Howell, S. B. 2020, ApJ, 898, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9c Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9c 2020

  47. [47]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Clampin, M., et al. 2006, SSRv, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7 2006

  48. [48]

    L., Burnham, R., & Thomas, N

    Giclas, H. L., Burnham, R., & Thomas, N. G. 1971, Lowell proper motion survey Northern Hemisphere. The G numbered stars. 8991 stars fainter than magnitude 8 with motions > 0”.26/year

    work page 1971

  49. [49]

    2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e20224008, doi: 10.1002/asna.20224008

    Gili, R., Prieur, J.-L., Rivet, J.-P., et al. 2022, Astronomische Nachrichten, 343, e20224008, doi: 10.1002/asna.20224008

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.20224008 2022

  50. [50]

    2019 b , , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  51. [51]

    R., & Blake, C

    Giovinazzi, M. R., & Blake, C. H. 2022, AJ, 164, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8cf7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac8cf7 2022

  52. [52]

    E., & Reid, N

    Gizis, J. E., & Reid, N. I. 1996, AJ, 111, 365, doi: 10.1086/117789

    work page doi:10.1086/117789 1996

  53. [53]

    Haghighipour, N., & Raymond, S. N. 2007, ApJ, 666, 436, doi: 10.1086/520501

    work page doi:10.1086/520501 2007

  54. [54]

    R., Millman , K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  55. [55]

    I., McAlister, H

    Hartkopf, W. I., McAlister, H. A., Mason, B. D., et al. 1994, AJ, 108, 2299, doi: 10.1086/117242

    work page doi:10.1086/117242 1994

  56. [56]

    D., & L´ epine, S

    Hartman, Z. D., & L´ epine, S. 2020, ApJS, 247, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab79a6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab79a6 2020

  57. [57]

    Heintz, W. D. 1987, ApJS, 65, 161, doi: 10.1086/191221 —. 1993, AJ, 105, 1188, doi: 10.1086/116503

    work page doi:10.1086/191221 1987

  58. [58]

    Henry, T. J. 1991, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

    work page 1991

  59. [59]

    J., Franz, O

    Henry, T. J., Franz, O. G., Wasserman, L. H., et al. 1999, ApJ, 512, 864, doi: 10.1086/306793

    work page doi:10.1086/306793 1999

  60. [60]

    J., Ianna, P

    Henry, T. J., Ianna, P. A., Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Jahreiss, H. 1997, AJ, 114, 388, doi: 10.1086/118482

    work page doi:10.1086/118482 1997

  61. [61]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Subasavage, J. P., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 2360, doi: 10.1086/508233

    work page doi:10.1086/508233 2006

  62. [62]

    J., Subasavage, J

    Henry, T. J., Subasavage, J. P., Brown, M. A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 2460, doi: 10.1086/425052

    work page doi:10.1086/425052 2004

  63. [63]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 265, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac262

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aac262 2018

  64. [64]

    H., & Moorhead, J

    Herbig, G. H., & Moorhead, J. M. 1965, ApJ, 141, 649, doi: 10.1086/148150

    work page doi:10.1086/148150 1965

  65. [65]

    1909, Astronomische Nachrichten, 180, 39, doi: 10.1002/asna.19091800203

    Hertzsprung, E. 1909, Astronomische Nachrichten, 180, 39, doi: 10.1002/asna.19091800203

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.19091800203 1909

  66. [66]

    A., Ciardi, D

    Hirsch, L. A., Ciardi, D. R., Howard, A. W., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/117

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/117 2017

  67. [67]

    A., Rosenthal, L., Fulton, B

    Hirsch, L. A., Rosenthal, L., Fulton, B. J., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd639

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd639 2021

  68. [68]

    P., Bahi, L

    Horch, E. P., Bahi, L. A. P., Gaulin, J. R., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 10, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/1/10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/1/10 2012

  69. [69]

    P., Falta, D., Anderson, L

    Horch, E. P., Falta, D., Anderson, L. M., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 205, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/205

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/205 2010

  70. [70]

    P., Meyer, R

    Horch, E. P., Meyer, R. D., & van Altena, W. F. 2004, AJ, 127, 1727, doi: 10.1086/381956

    work page doi:10.1086/381956 2004

  71. [71]

    Hough, G. W. 1899, Astronomische Nachrichten, 149, 65, doi: 10.1002/asna.18991490502

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.18991490502

  72. [72]

    W., Marcy, G

    Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 51, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/51

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/51 2014

  73. [73]

    Howell, S. B. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 7, 10, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00010

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.00010 2020

  74. [74]

    B., Matson, R

    Howell, S. B., Matson, R. A., Ciardi, D. R., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdec6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdec6 2021

  75. [75]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    work page doi:10.1086/676406 2014

  76. [76]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in science & engineering, 9, 90

    work page 2007

  77. [77]

    Hussey, W. J. 1904, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 57, 180, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/1904LicOB.2.180H

    work page doi:10.5479/ads/bib/1904licob.2.180h 1904

  78. [78]

    2015, ApJ, 799, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/147

    Jang-Condell, H. 2015, ApJ, 799, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/147

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/147 2015

  79. [79]

    2014, ApJ, 789, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/102

    Janson, M., Bergfors, C., Brandner, W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/102 2014

  80. [80]

    2012, ApJ, 754, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/44 18

    Janson, M., Hormuth, F., Bergfors, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 754, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/44 18

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/754/1/44 2012

Showing first 80 references.