Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Five New Sirius-Like White Dwarf + Main Sequence Star Systems with MagAO-X

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A visible-light extreme adaptive optics survey finds one confirmed and four candidate white dwarf companions to Sun-like stars in a regime Gaia and earlier surveys cannot probe.

desk verdict A careful survey with one confirmed Sirius-like system and four solid candidates, but the title and abstract oversell five confirmed systems. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14439 v3 pith:TBHQEOIY submitted 2025-05-20 astro-ph.SR

Logan A. Pearce , Jared R. Males , Sebastiaan Y. Haffert , Laird M. Close , Joseph D. Long , Eden A. McEwen , Joshua Liberman , Maggie Y. Kautz
show 15 more authors
Jay K. Kueny Alycia J. Weinberger Jialin Li Elena Tonucci Katie Twitchell Avalon McLeod Warren B. Foster Olivier Guyon Alexander Hedglen Kyle Van Gorkom Jennifer Lumbres Lauren Schatz Victor Gasho Katie M. Morzinski Phil M. Hinz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords whitedwarfsSirius-likesystemsextremeadaptiveopticshigh-contrastimagingbinarystarscommonpropermotionUVexcessMagAO-X
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

Most white dwarfs known in binaries with ordinary stars orbit M dwarfs, because a white dwarf's ultraviolet-blue light stands out against a cool red star. Around hotter AFGK stars the dwarf is lost in the host's glare, and Sirius-like systems, meaning a white dwarf plus a non-interacting main-sequence star, appear in catalogs far less often than binary evolution predicts. The paper argues that an extreme adaptive optics instrument, a high-contrast camera that corrects atmospheric blur at very small angular scales, working at visible wavelengths where the contrast between a white dwarf and a Sun-like star is smallest, can recover the missing systems. Imaging 18 targets selected from a vetted UV-excess catalog, it reports one confirmed and four candidate white dwarf companions at projected separations of 26 to 124 au, plus a likely unresolved M dwarf plus white dwarf candidate and an M dwarf companion. If the same detection rate holds for the full 84-target list, the survey predicts 28 plus or minus 5 new Sirius-like systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is MagAO-X, an extreme adaptive optics system optimized for visible wavelengths of 500 to 1000 nm, where the flux contrast between a white dwarf and an AFGK main-sequence host is orders of magnitude more favorable than at near-infrared wavelengths. Detection uses three point-spread-function removal strategies chosen per target: radial profile subtraction for wide, bright companions; Karhunen-Loeve image processing with angular differential imaging, a principal-component PSF subtraction method, for companions hidden in speckles; and reference differential imaging when sky rotation is insufficient. Photometry is calibrated against the host star as an in-frame reference, with significance estimated through a small-sample aperture signal-to-noise prescription suited to close separations, and negative signal injection for the faintest candidate, HD 104018 cc1. White-dwarf classification is carried by fitting hydrogen- and helium-atmosphere cooling models to r', i', z' photometry, with absolute magnitudes derived by placing each companion at the host's Gaia distance. For TYC 4831-473-1 B, companionship is established directly by common proper motion between the 2022 and 2024 epochs.

What would settle it

Take a second epoch of images of BD+20 2007 cc1, BD-00 2082 cc1, TYC 1451-111-1 cc1, and HD 104018 cc1 after enough time that the host star's proper motion has shifted a stationary background object by several times the astrometric uncertainty: companions that move with the host are bound, while sources that remain fixed are background objects and must be removed from the tally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the Pup Search survey with MagAO-X on the 6.5 m Magellan Clay Telescope can resolve white dwarf companions to AFGK stars at angular separations of roughly 0.2 to 1.0 arcseconds and projected physical separations of 26 to 124 au. The single confirmed system, TYC 4831-473-1 B, is a hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarf 110 au from the Sun-like star TYC 4831-473-1; two epochs of astrometry show it moving with the host rather than with the background. Four further candidates, BD+20 2007 cc1, BD-00 2082 cc1, TYC 1451-111-1 cc1, and HD 104018 cc1, fall on the white dwarf sequence of the color-magnitude diagram and are best fit by hydrogen-dominated atmosphere models. The paper's central interpretive claim is that these objects sit in a parameter space that previous surveys, which mostly found systems at separations beyond about one arcsecond, and Gaia multiplicity diagnostics such as RUWE, proper motion anomaly, and astrometric orbits, cannot reach, so the observed shortage of Sirius-like systems reflects incompleteness of the searches, not a genuinely small population.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the four unconfirmed candidates are physically bound to their host stars and lie at the host's distance, which is what turns their photometry into white-dwarf absolute magnitudes and projected separations; a background star or a different distance would drop that object from the Sirius-like-system count.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Completing the full 84-target Pup Search list at the observed 6 out of 18 detection rate should produce 28 plus or minus 5 new Sirius-like systems.
  • The five new systems occupy 26 to 124 au projected separations, the regime where non-interacting Sirius-like systems are expected from binary evolution, so filling that gap revises the observed Sirius-like system frequency toward evolutionary predictions.
  • Orbital monitoring of these pairs can test whether 10 to 100 au Sirius-like systems are highly eccentric, implying eccentricity evolution and enhanced scattering of planetesimals into the white dwarf, or nearly circular, implying little companion influence on pollution.
  • Upcoming coronagraph upgrades to MagAO-X, with inner working angles about ten times smaller, are expected to connect direct-imaging detections with radial-velocity and spectroscopy-discovered Sirius-like systems and to probe beyond the reach of Gaia.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the four single-epoch candidates are confirmed by proper motion, the implied frequency of white dwarf companions around AFGK stars at 20 to 150 au would move the observed Sirius-like system fraction closer to the 50 to 60 percent binary fraction predicted by evolution, strengthening the case that the missing white dwarfs are simply hidden in glare.
  • The systematic tendency for the resolved companions to fit cooler effective temperatures than the UV-excess predictions, for example 8500 to 17000 K versus 30000 K for TYC 4831-473-1 B, suggests some UV-selected WD plus AFGK candidates may host an additional unresolved hot component, or that the SED-based temperatures are biased; spectroscopy of the resolved white dwarfs would discriminate.
  • The survey's completeness models imply that non-detections around high-RUWE targets are most plausibly companions inside roughly 100 mas, and applying the same visible-light extreme adaptive optics method with a coronagraph should recover them and can be generalized to M-dwarf hosts where UV excess also betrays a white dwarf.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the first results of the MagAO-X 'Pup Search' for white dwarf companions to AFGK stars. The authors present observations of 18 targets (Table 1 appears to list 19 unique targets), seven detected companion signals, photometry, spectral model fitting, survey completeness calculations, and comparisons with previous SLS surveys and Gaia-based detection metrics. They identify one system (TYC 4831-473-1 B) as a confirmed bound white dwarf via two epochs and common proper motion analysis, four additional white dwarf candidates from single-epoch imaging, one unresolved WD+M dwarf candidate, and one M dwarf companion. The central claim in the title and abstract is that five systems are 'confirmed' Sirius-like systems, which is stronger than the evidence presented in the body of the paper.

Significance. If the results are framed accurately, the survey demonstrates that MagAO-X can probe a parameter space—angular separations of ~0.2–1 arcsec and visible-band contrasts of ~1e-4 to 1e-3—that is complementary to previous SLS surveys and to Gaia-based multiplicity metrics. The completeness analysis with injection-recovery contrast curves, the careful handling of negative signal injection, and the placement of the survey in the context of Willems & Kolb (2004) and El-Badry (2024) are valuable and well executed. The one confirmed system, TYC 4831-473-1 B, is supported by common proper motion and a reasonable photometric fit to a hydrogen-dominated white dwarf model. However, the headline result as stated is not supported by the manuscript's own evidence, and the body text (Section 5) contradicts the title and abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Title/Abstract and Section 5] The abstract states that 'five of which are confirmed to be white dwarfs' and the title announces 'Five New Sirius-Like White Dwarf + Main Sequence Star Systems,' but the evidence in the paper supports only one confirmed system. Only TYC 4831-473-1 B has two epochs establishing common proper motion (Section 3.1.4). The other four WD candidates (BD+20 2007 cc1, BD-00 2082 cc1, TYC 1451-111-1 cc1, HD 104018 cc1) are single-epoch detections. Section 3.1.2 explicitly states that the absolute-magnitude and WD-model fitting 'assumes the companion is bound to the primary, which we have only established for TYC 4831-473-1 B to date.' The conclusion (Section 5) itself says 'one new confirmed Sirius-Like System' and 'four additional candidate SLS.' The title and abstract overstate the confirmation level and are internally inconsistent with the rest of the paper. Please revise the title and abstract to distinguish confirmed from candidate systems, or provide second-epoch astrometry for the four candidates.
  2. [Section 3.1.2 and Table 2] The white dwarf classification of the four candidate companions is conditional on the assumption that each candidate is physically bound to the primary and thus lies at the primary's distance. Section 3.1.2 uses the primary's Gaia parallax to convert measured fluxes to absolute magnitudes; if a candidate is a background star or a residual speckle, the resulting absolute magnitudes and the WD model fits in Figure 4 are invalid. The risk is concrete: BD-00 2082 cc1 has z' S/N = 2.2 (Table 2), and HD 104018 cc1 is detected only in i' and z' bands with S/N = 5.2 and 5.4, with the authors themselves noting that it may be 'not a true astrophysical signal' or 'a chance alignment' (Section 3.1.10). The phrase 'confirmed to be white dwarfs' in the abstract therefore requires either a second epoch establishing common proper motion for each candidate, or an alternative confirmation (e.g., spectroscopy) that does not rely on assumed companionship. Until then, these objects should be reported strictly as WD candidates.
  3. [Section 4.2] The predicted survey yield of '28±5 new SLS' is based on 'the same detection rate as in this paper (6/18),' but only one of those six detections is a confirmed SLS; the five other detections used in the rate include four unconfirmed WD candidates and one unresolved WD+M dwarf candidate. If any of these candidates turn out to be unassociated or non-astrophysical, the detection rate and the derived yield are not meaningful as a rate of SLS discovery. Please propagate the confirmation status into the rate used for the prediction, or clearly present the prediction as a candidate-based upper limit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 and Table 1] The text says the survey observed 3 targets in 2022 and 18 in 2024, implying 18 unique targets overall, but Table 1 lists 19 unique targets (with TYC 4831-473-1 and TYC 169-1942-1 each appearing at two epochs). Please reconcile the stated target count.
  2. [Section 3.1.7 and Figure 3] The heading and caption refer to 'BD-00 2028,' while Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 4 use 'BD-00 2082.' Use a single consistent identifier throughout.
  3. [Section 3 and Table 2] Section 3 states 'We detected six new candidate companions,' but Table 2 reports seven detections (TYC 4831-473-1 B, HD 92588 cc1, BD+20 2007 cc1, BD-00 2082 cc1, TYC 1451-111-1 cc1, HD 108738 cc1, HD 104018 cc1). Please correct the count to seven or clarify which detection is excluded.
  4. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'As shown in Figure 11, our current contrast limit probes all but the oldest white dwarf companions' is not directly illustrated by Figure 11, which shows the local WD luminosity function; the relevant contrast limit is indicated by the dashed grey line (b) in that figure. Please rephrase to make the connection explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the WD classifications and survey comparisons rest on external atmosphere models and Gaia astrometry, and the single-epoch association assumption is explicitly flagged rather than hidden.

full rationale

The paper's core derivations are externally anchored. Companion photometry is converted to absolute magnitudes using Gaia parallaxes of the host stars, and the WD classification is made by fitting Montreal WD atmosphere models and Phoenix stellar models to those magnitudes; neither the models nor the Gaia astrometry are refit to the survey's detection rate. The four single-epoch candidates are explicitly described as candidates rather than confirmed companions, and Section 3.1.2 states that the procedure 'assumes the companion is bound to the primary, which we have only established for TYC 4831-473-1 B to date.' That is a physical-association assumption, not a circular derivation: it does not make the WD photometric classification equivalent to the input. The one self-citation identified, Pearce et al. (2022) for contrast-limit computation in Section 3.2.1, is procedural and traces to the standard injection-recovery formalism of Mawet et al. (2014), so it is not load-bearing for the claimed detections. The future-yield estimate of 28±5 SLS explicitly uses the paper's own observed detection rate as a projection, not as evidence for the current detections. Concerns about background stars or speckles invalidating individual candidates are correctness risks regarding physical association, not circularity, and the paper itself flags them for HD 104018 cc1 and BD-00 2082 cc1. No step was found in which a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction or in which a result is defined into existence by its own inputs.

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

No free parameters were fit to the data in a way that would force the result, and no new physical entities are introduced. The analysis depends on standard atmosphere models, Gaia astrometry, literature orbital priors, and the untested assumption that single-epoch candidates are physically associated with their hosts.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-epoch candidate companions are at the same distance as their host stars, so the primary's Gaia parallax applies to the companion.
    Used in Section 3.1.2 to compute absolute magnitudes and fit WD models; if a candidate is unassociated, its inferred Teff and logg and its WD classification are invalid.
  • domain assumption Montreal hydrogen-dominated WD atmosphere models and Phoenix stellar models accurately predict photometry in the MagAO-X filters used here.
    Used in Section 3.1.2 and Figures 4 and 5 to classify companions and derive Teff/logg ranges.
  • domain assumption The orbital parameter priors adopted for completeness simulations (eccentricity distribution from Nielsen et al. 2019, uniform cos i and angles) represent the underlying SLS population.
    Used in Section 3.2.2 to compute survey completeness maps in Figure 8 and 14.
  • domain assumption The local white dwarf formation rate and cooling relation of Katz et al. 2014 describe the expected 100 pc WD population.
    Used in Section 4.2 with Equation 4 and 5 to compare observed and predicted WD number counts.
  • standard math The Mawet et al. 2014 formalism correctly estimates signal to noise for small numbers of photometric apertures and for contrast curves.
    Used for all S/N estimates of detections (Equation 1) and for the injection-recovery contrast limits in Section 3.2.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Five New Sirius-Like White Dwarf + Main Sequence Star Systems with MagAO-X." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TBHQEOIY

@misc{pith2026250514439,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Five New Sirius-Like White Dwarf + Main Sequence Star Systems with MagAO-X},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TBHQEOIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14439}
}
read the original abstract

Most known white dwarfs in multiple systems with main sequence stars have been discovered with M-type companions, because the white dwarf causes detectable UV excess and bluer colors than expected from a single M star. Surveys have shown that the number of white dwarfs in Sirius-like systems within 100 pc of the Sun is lower than expected, suggesting that white dwarfs are being missed in the glare of their main sequence companions. In this work we have leveraged the angular resolution and high-contrast capabilities, as well as optimization for visible wavelengths, of the extreme adaptive optics instrument MagAO-X to detect new white dwarf companions to AFGK stars. We present the first results of our survey with the extreme AO instrument MagAO-X, called the Pup Search, of 18 targets with seven new candidate companions, five of which are confirmed to be white dwarfs. We discuss the new detections in the context of previous surveys and other detection metric sensitivities and show that we are sensitive to a region not probed by other surveys. Finally we discuss the future of the Pup Search in light of developing technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14439 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Targets in RA/Dec. Targets accessible to MagAO-X from Las Campanas Observatory are plotted in blue. Targets out￾lined by the purple stars were observed in the second observing semester (B) of 2022, and the yellow stars in the first semester (A) of 2024, and magenta stars in second semester 2024. Bottom: Pup Search targets color magnitude diagram in Gaia absolute G magni￾tude vs Gaia bp - rp color. The red point… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Color-magnitude diagram of the confirmed and candidate companions from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MagAO-X images of the confirmed and candidate companion signals in this work. All images are North up/ East left; the filter, host star, and observation date are as indicated. Scale bars show angular and physical scales. The companion is marked by a white cross and label. TYC 4831-473-1 B displays two images (in the top red rectangle), i ′ from 2022 and z ′ from 2024, to show common proper motion. We show two images… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Map of χ 2 as a function of Teff and log g for hydrogen dominated WD atmosphere models fit to our photometry for the five candidate WD companions. The effective temperature is on the X-axis and log g on the Y-axis with χ 2 value interpolated between grid points. The be…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Map of χ 2 as a function of Teff , log([M/H]), and log g of Phoenix main sequence star models to our photometry for HD 92588 cc1 (top) and HD 108738 cc1. The effective temperature is on the X-axis and log([M/H]) (left) and log g (right) on the Y-axis with χ 2 value int…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Common proper motion plot for TYC 4831-473-1 B. The offset from TYC 4831-473-1 in RA and Dec are given on the x- and y-axis respectively, with our observed position in 2022 and 2024 are given by the blue and red circles. If TYC 4831-473-1 B were an un￾moving background…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (top) shows the proper motion anomaly (PMa) curve for HD 92588 (generated using the catalog and methodology of Kervella et al. 2022), indicating the mass sensitivity as a function of separation for the observed accel￾eration of the star between the Hipparcos and Gaia a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Map of completeness to hydrogen-dominated white dwarf companions in our survey to date. The contours and shading mark the fraction of WD companions we would have detected in our survey in regions of (sma,Teff ) space, with 1.0 being all hydrogen-dominated WDs hotter th…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of our work to previous SLS publications in angular separation vs physical separation. Confirmed and candidate companions in this work (orange stars) are plotted against known SLS from Zuckerman 2014 (red), H13 (and references there-in; blue), WDMS systems i…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reproduction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Number of WDs expected and observed within 100 pc local volume. The dashed blue line is the number of WDs predicted by theory (see text for details); the purple line is the 100 pc Gaia sample from Jimenez-Esteban et al. ´ 2023; the magenta line is the 100 pc SLS sampl…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Reduced images for the systems without candidate signal. Each system was reduced using the method indicated. All point-source like signals have been determined to be speckles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Contrast curves for non-detections. The colored regions mark the 2-, 3-, and 5-σ limits as a function of separation for each system and reduction method given. Separation is given in both λ/D units (bottom) and milliarcseconds (top); contrasts are given in flux contra…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Completeness maps for non-detections. Orange horizontal lines mark the WD companion Teff and uncertainty predicted in R20. a: TYC 1262-1500-1, b: HD 87147, c: BD-09 3292, d: CD-28 10038, e: HD 109439, f: TYC 169-1942-1 g: TYC 1447-1616-1, h: HD 146740, i: HD 7918, j: …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Proper motion anomaly plots for the four stars with non-detections with Hipparcos and Gaia astrometry, generated using the methodology of Kervella et al. (2022). The blue curve shows the mass of an unresolved companion that would cause the observed acceleration as a f…

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. A New Sirius-like System at Only 21 Parsecs: An Elusive White Dwarf Companion to the Nearby K-dwarf HD 38230

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HD 38230 B is a gravitationally bound white dwarf at 21 pc with a dynamical mass of 0.71 solar masses on a ~1400-year orbit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adams, W. S. 1915, PASP, 27, 236, doi: 10.1086/122440

    work page doi:10.1086/122440 1915

  2. [2]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  3. [4]

    W., & Oh, S

    Andrew, S., Penoyre, Z., Belokurov, V ., Evans, N. W., & Oh, S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2532 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astr...

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2532 2022

  4. [5]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia EDR3 (Bailer-Jones+, 2021), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/352. Originally published in: 2021AJ....161..147B B´edard, A., Bergeron, P., Brassard, P., & Fontaine, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abafbe 2021

  5. [6]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1522

    Belokurov, V ., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1522

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1522 2020

  6. [7]

    2011, ApJ, 737, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/28

    Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., Dufour, P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 28, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/28

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/1/28 2011

  7. [8]

    Bessel, F. W. 1844, MNRAS, 6, 136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/6.11.136

    doi:10.1093/mnras/6.11.136

  8. [9]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 6 http://www.astropy.org

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, ApJS, 230, 24, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 6 http://www.astropy.org

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [10]

    Blouin, S., Dufour, P., & Allard, N. F. 2018, Astrophys. J., 863, 184, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4a9

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    P., Cochran, W

    Bowler, B. P., Cochran, W. D., Endl, M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd243

    2021 doi

  3. [12]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    2021 doi

  5. [14]

    J., & Pickering, E

    Cannon, A. J., & Pickering, E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon+ 1918-1924; ADC 1989), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924) Costa Silva, A. R., Delgado Mena, E., & Tsantak...

    1993 doi

  6. [15]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.12146, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.12146

    El-Badry, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.12146, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.12146

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    2012, MNRAS, 426, 2500, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21836.x

    Ferrario, L. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 2500, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21836.x

    2012

  8. [17]

    1877, Astronomical register, 15, 186 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Flammarion, C. 1877, Astronomical register, 15, 186 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051...

    2016 doi

  9. [18]

    Gizis, J. E. 1997, AJ, 113, 806, doi: 10.1086/118302

    1997 doi

  10. [19]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969 NEWSLSWITHMAGAO-X 27

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969 NEWSLSWITHMAGAO-X 27

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Holberg, J. B. 2009, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 172, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012022, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/172/1/012022

    2009 doi

  12. [21]

    Burleigh, M. R. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2077, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1433

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    B., Oswalt, T

    Holberg, J. B., Oswalt, T. D., Sion, E. M., & McCook, G. P. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2295, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1357

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    B., Sion, E

    Holberg, J. B., Sion, E. M., Oswalt, T., et al. 2008, AJ, 135, 1225, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1225

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0 Jim´enez-Esteban, F

    Houk, N., & Swift, C. 1999, Michigan Spectral Survey, 5, 0 Jim´enez-Esteban, F. M., Torres, S., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5106, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3382 Jofr´e, E., Petrucci, R., Saffe, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424474

    1999 doi

  16. [25]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1402.7083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1402.7083

    Katz, B., Dong, S., & Kushnir, D. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1402.7083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1402.7083

    2014 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    2019, A&A, 623, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., & Th´evenin, F. 2019, A&A, 623, A72, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Th´evenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Kharchenko, N. V . 2001, Kinematika i Fizika Nebesnykh Tel, 17, 409

    2001

  20. [29]

    2010, Mem

    Koester, D. 2010, Mem. Della Soc. Astron. Ital., 81, 921 L´epine, S., Rich, R. M., & Shara, M. M. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1235, doi: 10.1086/521614

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    2018, Re-normalising the astrometric chi-square in Gaia DR2

    Lindegren, L. 2018, Re-normalising the astrometric chi-square in Gaia DR2. http://www.rssd.esa.int/doc fetch.php?id=3757412

    2018

  22. [31]

    D., Pearce, L., Haffert, S

    Long, J. D., Pearce, L., Haffert, S. Y ., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad924f

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    Lucas, M., Bottom, M., Guyon, O., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2022

  24. [33]

    12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed

    Series, V ol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans, J. J. Bryant, & K. Motohara, 121844E, doi: 10.1117/12.2632269

    doi

  25. [34]

    R., Close, L

    Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Haffert, S., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2022

  26. [35]

    12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed

    Series, V ol. 12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII, ed. L. Schreiber, D. Schmidt, & E. Vernet, 1218509, doi: 10.1117/12.2630584

    doi

  27. [36]

    R., Close, L

    Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Haffert, S. Y ., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.13014, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.13014

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    Marois, C., Lafreni`ere, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., & Nadeau, D. 2006, ApJ, 641, 556, doi: 10.1086/500401

    2006 doi

  29. [38]

    2014, ApJ, 792, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/97

    Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 97, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/97

    2014 doi

  30. [39]

    2015, A&A, 574, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425310

    Michalik, D., Lindegren, L., & Hobbs, D. 2015, A&A, 574, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425310

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    K., Ganguly, A., & Chatterjee, S

    Nayak, P. K., Ganguly, A., & Chatterjee, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6100, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3580

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    L., De Rosa, R

    Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., Macintosh, B., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    T., Farihi, J., Hollands, M., & Toonen, S

    Noor, H. T., Farihi, J., Hollands, M., & Toonen, S. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 2910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae731

    2024 doi

  34. [43]

    2015, MNRAS, 447, 2894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2529 O’Brien, M

    Norris, B., Schworer, G., Tuthill, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2529 O’Brien, M. W., Tremblay, P. E., Klein, B. L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3773

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

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

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

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    A., Males, J

    Pearce, L. A., Males, J. R., Weinberger, A. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4487, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2056

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    Koposov, S. E. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1148

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Pickles, A. J. 1998, PASP, 110, 863, doi: 10.1086/316197

    1998 doi

  40. [49]

    M., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Jim´enez-Esteban, F. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2039

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al

    Ren, J. J., Raddi, R., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc017

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    2023, gaia-dpci/GaiaXPy: GaiaXPy v2.1.0, 2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8239995

    Ruz-Mieres, D., & zuzannakr. 2023, gaia-dpci/GaiaXPy: GaiaXPy v2.1.0, 2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8239995

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, ApJL, 755, L28, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28

    2012 doi

  44. [53]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02912

    Stegmann, J., Vigna-G´omez, A., Rantala, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02912. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02912

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    P., Naoz, S., & Zuckerman, B

    Stephan, A. P., Naoz, S., & Zuckerman, B. 2017, ApJL, 844, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7cf3 STScI Development Team. 2013, pysynphot: Synthetic photometry software package, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.023

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    Torres, C. A. O., Quast, G. R., da Silva, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 460, 695, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065602

    2006 doi

  47. [56]

    E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A

    Tremblay, P. E., Bergeron, P., & Gianninas, A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/2/128

    2011 doi

  48. [57]

    G., Adibekyan, V

    Tsantaki, M., Sousa, S. G., Adibekyan, V . Z., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321103

    2013 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R

    Wang, J. J., Ruffio, J.-B., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2015, pyKLIP: PSF Subtraction for Exoplanets and Disks, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1506.001

    2015

  50. [59]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  51. [60]

    2004, A&A, 419, 1057, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040085

    Willems, B., & Kolb, U. 2004, A&A, 419, 1057, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040085

    2004 doi

  52. [61]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06020

    Yamaguchi, N., El-Badry, K., Rees, N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.06020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06020

    2024 arXiv

  53. [62]

    2014, Astrophys

    Zuckerman, B. 2014, Astrophys. J., 791, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/791/2/L27

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.