Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

EBLM XV -- Revised dynamical masses for the circumbinary planet host Kepler-16 AB, using the SOPHIE spectrograph

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1.93-meter telescope equipped with the SOPHIE spectrograph can resolve the faint companion of Kepler-16 AB well enough to weigh both stars to about one percent.

desk verdict First 2-m HRCCS masses for Kepler-16 AB; sound analysis, with one transferability caveat on SVD that a revision can fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19718 v1 pith:SFDVXWBN submitted 2025-05-26 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.SR

D. Sebastian , I. Boisse , A. Santerne , A. H.M.J. Triaud , T. A. Baycroft , Y. T. Davis , M. Deleuil , S. Grouffal
show 9 more authors
G. Hébrard N. Heidari D. V. Martin P. F.L. Maxted R. P. Nelson Lalitha S. M.G. Scott O. J. Scutt M. Standing
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.SR
keywords binaries:spectroscopicstars:fundamentalparameterslow-masseclipsingtechniques:circumbinaryplanetsdynamicalmassesM-dwarfcompanions
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 high-resolution cross-correlation spectroscopy (HRCCS), a technique developed to read exoplanet atmospheres, can extract the orbital motion of a faint stellar companion from spectra taken with a 2-meter-class telescope, not just with 8–10 meter telescopes. Applying it to 160 archived SOPHIE spectra of the circumbinary-planet host Kepler-16 AB, the authors recover the M-dwarf secondary at $9.5\sigma$ significance and measure its velocity semi-amplitude $K_2 = 46.88 \pm 0.28\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. Combining this with the primary's well-measured orbit and the known binary inclination yields dynamical masses $M_1 = 0.704 \pm 0.011\,M_\odot$ (1.5%) and $M_2 = 0.2054 \pm 0.0019\,M_\odot$ (0.9%). If correct, this opens the large existing sample of single-lined eclipsing binaries to precise, model-independent mass measurements on modest telescopes, and the slightly higher masses of Kepler-16 AB leave the known circumbinary planet's mass unchanged within uncertainties.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-correlation trail of the secondary, which is built by aligning all spectra to the primary's rest frame, removing the primary's absorption with a truncated singular-value decomposition (the number of removed components chosen by the 'effective rank' criterion), and then cross-correlating the residuals with an M-dwarf line mask. The secondary's weak signal is co-added either in the $K_2$–$V_{\rm rest}$ plane ('K-focusing', fitted by the Saltire model) or fitted simultaneously across the whole orbit with a double-Gaussian Keplerian model. The parameter carrying the mass measurement is $K_2$, the secondary's semi-amplitude: with the primary's semi-amplitude $K_1$ from earlier radial-velocity work and the inclination from Kepler light-curve modelling, the standard two-body mass equations give both masses directly.

What would settle it

An injection-recovery test on the actual SOPHIE spectra would settle the matter: add a synthetic M-dwarf spectrum with a known injected orbital semi-amplitude into the 160 detrended spectra, run the full pipeline, and check that the recovered $K_2$ is unbiased at the $0.28\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ level. A second check is an independent measurement of $K_2$ for Kepler-16 B with an 8-meter-class spectrograph, which would test whether the 2–7% mass offset from the older six-spectrum measurement is a bias in the old data or a systematic in the new method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that HRCCS works on 2-meter-class data: after a singular-value decomposition removes the dominant star's absorption spectrum from the 160 SOPHIE spectra, the M-dwarf secondary's cross-correlation signal is detected at $9.5\sigma$, and its Keplerian trail is visible in the time domain. Two independent fitting approaches — the K-focusing map fit with the Saltire model and a new global time-domain fit of the full cross-correlation trail — return consistent values of $K_2$, and bootstrapping plus time-splitting tests show the quoted $0.28\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ uncertainty is robust. The resulting masses are 2–7% higher than previous measurements, within $1.5\sigma$ of the photometric-dynamical model but only $3\sigma$ of the earlier six-epoch dynamical measurement, and they leave no measurable change in the circumbinary planet's mass.

Load-bearing premise

The chain of inference assumes that the data-cleaning step (a singular-value decomposition that removes the primary star's spectral lines) leaves more than 95% of the companion's spectral features intact, a fraction adopted from earlier simulations rather than re-derived for the SOPHIE spectra; if the removal is larger or velocity-dependent, the measured semi-amplitude $K_2$ and both dynamical masses would be systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A large existing sample of single-lined eclipsing binaries can be re-observed or re-analysed with this pipeline to turn them into double-lined systems, yielding model-independent masses of the M-dwarf companions.
  • The measured $K_2 = 46.88 \pm 0.28\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ implies the binary is 2–7% more massive than the photometric-dynamical value, which within uncertainties does not change the mass of the circumbinary planet.
  • The global time-domain CCF fit and the bootstrap/partial-data uncertainty protocol give a recipe for deriving trustworthy $K_2$ uncertainties even when the companion's CCF is barely above the noise.
  • For SOPHIE, the method should be applicable to companions of roughly $0.35\,M_\odot$ and above, roughly doubling the reach of precision dynamical masses from 2-meter telescopes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the method scales to fainter companions, the same 2-meter pipeline could turn the radius-inflation tension at the bottom of the main sequence into a direct mass benchmark for evolutionary models of fully convective stars.
  • The assumed survival fraction of the companion's lines during SVD detrending is the single most important thing to calibrate next; an injection-recovery test on SOPHIE data would convert the under-5% removal assumption into a measured bias correction across orbital phase.
  • If the 2–7% offset against the older six-epoch measurement is a real feature, it suggests HRCCS masses, not the photometric-dynamical model, become the reference values for Kepler-16 AB and its planet.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the High-Resolution Cross-Correlation Spectroscopy (HRCCS) method to 160 SOPHIE spectra of the circumbinary binary Kepler-16 AB, using SVD detrending to remove the primary and isolate the M-dwarf secondary. Two fitting methods (K-focusing with the Saltire model, and a new global time-domain fit) yield consistent values of the secondary semi-amplitude, K2 = 46.88 ± 0.28 km/s, with a detection significance of 9.5 sigma. Combining this with K1 from Triaud et al. (2022) and the photometric inclination from Doyle et al. (2011), the authors derive dynamical masses M1 = 0.704 ± 0.011 Msun and M2 = 0.2054 ± 0.0019 Msun, claiming 1.5% and 0.9% precision, and conclude that 2-m-class telescopes can deliver such measurements. The paper also presents time-splitting and bootstrap analyses to assess systematic uncertainties, and a phase/wavelength-resolved extraction of the secondary's signal.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable methodological demonstration: it extends HRCCS dynamical mass measurements from an 8-m class instrument to a 2-m class instrument, which would significantly broaden the sample of EBLM systems with model-independent masses. The paper is thorough in its uncertainty treatment: two independent fitting methods agree, time-splitting and bootstrap give consistent systematic estimates, and the final masses are compatible with the photometric-dynamical model at about 1.5 sigma. The authors are also explicit about the discrepancy with Bender et al. (2012) and about the assumptions involved in the SVD detrending. The central load-bearing measurement is K2, and the main weakness is that its accuracy depends on an untested extrapolation of the SVD removal fraction from ESPRESSO to SOPHIE data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, SVD detrending] The claim that SVD detrending removes less than 5% of the secondary's spectral features is based on 'Table 4 in S24' (Sebastian et al. 2024a), which was derived for ESPRESSO data (R≈140,000) on a different binary. The present SOPHIE data have R=40,000, a different wavelength range, and different phase sampling. This is a load-bearing extrapolation because a velocity-dependent or larger removal fraction would bias K2 directly. Since the mass function scales approximately as K2^3, a 1% K2 bias corresponds to roughly a 3% mass bias, comparable to the claimed 0.9% precision and to the 2.8% K2 offset from Bender et al. (2012). The time-splitting and bootstrap tests in Section 5 address statistical and correlated-noise uncertainties, but not this SVD systematic. I recommend adding an injection-recovery test: inject a synthetic secondary spectrum with known K2 into the SOPHIE data, run the full detrending and fitting pipeline, and verify that the recovered K2 is unbiased at the claimed level.
  2. [Section 6, Table 3] The paper attributes the ~3-sigma discrepancy with Bender et al. (2012) to their use of only six spectra, but this is an assertion rather than a demonstration. A systematic offset in either analysis could equally explain the discrepancy. Since the central claim is that the new masses are accurate, the authors should either quantify the expected scatter from a six-spectrum analysis (e.g., by re-fitting subsets of their own data or by simulation) or present a more hedged discussion of the possible common-mode systematics. As written, the explanation is plausible but not load-bearing evidence for the accuracy of the SOPHIE-based K2.
  3. [Section 4 and Table 1] The global time fit adopts tight uniform priors on P, T0, e, and omega from Triaud et al. (2022), and the K-focusing fit keeps them fixed. Since the T22 orbital parameters were derived partly from the same SOPHIE dataset, the K2 measurement is not fully independent of those parameters. The authors do re-fit the Keplerian parameters in the global fit and find values consistent with T22, which mitigates the concern, but the text does not explicitly address the degree of overlap. I would like a sentence clarifying how the overlapping data affect the claimed independence of the dynamical masses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] There is a typo: 'SOHPIE spectra' should be 'SOPHIE spectra'.
  2. [Author affiliations] The affiliation line contains a typo: 'Birmimgham' should be 'Birmingham'.
  3. [Section 3, Figure 2] The lower panel of Figure 2 shows the CCF slice and Saltire model, but the caption does not define the green/blue colors in the shaded uncertainty region; please clarify.
  4. [Section 5.2] The bootstrap description uses 'K_p' interchangeably with 'K2' in the text; please use a consistent notation throughout.
  5. [Section 7] The comparison to PHOENIX models in the right lower panel of Figure 4 is described as reproducing 'dominant features', but the model's average CCF contrast is smaller than the data; the text should state whether this offset is expected from the assumed Teff, metallicity, or line mask, or whether it indicates a systematic in the extracted contrast.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamical masses follow from a directly measured K2, not from a fit to literature values.

full rationale

The central result is the secondary semi-amplitude K2 = 46.88 ± 0.28 km/s, measured from SOPHIE CCFs after SVD detrending and fitted with two independent methods (Saltire K-focusing and global time fitting). K2 is not tuned to reproduce the literature masses; the masses are then computed with the standard mass function using K1 from Triaud et al. (2022), which is an independent published measurement from the same spectra, and the inclination from Doyle et al. (2011). P, T0, e, and omega are adopted from T22 as fixed values in the K-focusing method and re-fit with tight priors in the global fit, so the orbital parameters are not imposed by the secondary measurement. The only same-team citation with a potentially load-bearing role is Sebastian et al. (2024a) for the expectation that SVD detrending removes less than 5% of the secondary's features; this is a method-calibration extrapolation from ESPRESSO to SOPHIE and is a potential accuracy limitation, but it is not a circular construction of the result. No predicted quantity reduces by construction to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence circularity is minimal.

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

No new physical entities are proposed. The mass result rests on several adopted inputs (T22 orbital solution, Doyle inclination, S24 SVD efficiency) and hand-tuned data reduction thresholds, all of which are reasonable but should be re-validated for a new dataset.

free parameters (3)
  • SVD effective rank cap = 32 (median 12.5)
    Maximum number of SVD components removed per chunk, fixed at one fifth of 160; the paper states it handles noisy chunks but does not derive it from first principles.
  • Sigma-clipping threshold = 1.9 sigma
    Column-exclusion threshold in normalised chunks, described as found experimentally without a formal derivation.
  • Phase-exclusion velocity window = 10 km/s
    Spectra are excluded when secondary lines are within 10 km/s of primary; the choice affects which data are used and is justified by contamination concerns.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SVD detrending removes less than 5% of the secondary's spectral features
    Relied on Table 4 of S24; not re-derived for SOPHIE data. Section 3.
  • domain assumption The M5 CCF line mask is appropriate for the secondary
    The secondary is an M-dwarf with Teff around 3100 K; an ESPRESSO M5 mask is used. Section 3.
  • domain assumption Orbital parameters from T22 are reliable
    P, T0, e, omega are used for K-focusing and as priors in the global fit; if inaccurate, K2 could be biased. Sections 3 and 4.
  • domain assumption Inclination from Doyle et al. 2011 is accurate
    The photometric inclination i = 90.3401 +/- 0.0019 degrees is used to convert K1 and K2 into masses. Section 6.
  • domain assumption Double-Gaussian CCF model is valid
    The Saltire model and global fit assume the secondary CCF is a double Gaussian with side lobes. Sections 3 and 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EBLM XV -- Revised dynamical masses for the circumbinary planet host Kepler-16 AB, using the SOPHIE spectrograph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SFDVXWBN

@misc{pith2026250519718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EBLM XV -- Revised dynamical masses for the circumbinary planet host Kepler-16 AB, using the SOPHIE spectrograph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SFDVXWBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19718}
}
read the original abstract

Eclipsing binaries are perfect laboratories to measure precise, accurate and model-independent stellar radii and stellar masses, so long as both components are spectroscopically resolved. Resolving both components is difficult in high-contrast binaries, for instance, those composed of an FGK main-sequence star with an M-type companion. In those cases, the secondary can contribute <1% of the total flux in optical wavelengths. This makes measuring dynamical masses challenging and has typically only been attempted with large-aperture telescopes (8-10-m). The High-Resolution Cross-Correlation Spectroscopy (HRCCS) method was developed to extract weak emission and transmission spectra for exoplanet atmospheres. This method was recently adapted and applied to measure dynamical masses in high-contrast binaries. In this work, we apply the HRCCS method to optical spectra of the high-contrast binary and circumbinary planet host Kepler-16AB, obtained with the SOPHIE spectrograph at the 1.93-m telescope at the Observatoire de Haute-Provence. The secondary, which has a contrast ratio of ~ 6 x 10-3, is resolved with a detection significance of 9.5-sigma. We derive dynamical masses with a precision of 1.5% and 0.9% for the primary and secondary respectively. These are comparable, but slightly higher (within 2-7%) to previous mass-measurements, which has -- within the uncertainties -- no implication for the mass of the known circumbinary planet. This work demonstrates that dynamical mass measurements of high-contrast binaries can be done with 2-m class telescopes. We also investigate different analysis protocols to ensure we derive robust uncertainties for dynamical masses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel: Detrending for SOPHIE data. Black dots: Effective rank, Grey lines, RMS of the residual arrays as a function of wavelength. Lower panel: Atmospheric transmission. Wavelength areas with large RMS in the upper panel, match well with strong telluric lines, which are less cor￾related in the primary’s rest frame. (SVD, Kalman 1996). This is applied directly to each normalised chunk consisting of 160 spectra,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Global time fitting of CCF data of Kepler-16 B. Left panel: CCF data from detrended SOPHIE spectra, folded to the orbital phase of the binary. Middle panel: Best fit double Gaussian model. Right panel: Residuals. Phases without data are presented as blank blue sections. the fit uncertainty from the global time fit and with the systematic fit uncertainty (Sec. 5.1). We therefore find that the bootstrapping is a good … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Upper panels, CCF functions in the secondary’s rest-frame. Left: as a function of the orbital phase, Right: as a function of the Wavelength. Lower panels, measurements of individual CCF contrasts (grey dots) and binned data (black dots). Left: Phase curve of the M-dwarf secondary, Right: residual flux as a function of wavelength, showing a low resolution spectrum of the M-dwarf (Black dots) and a residual spectrum o… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751L..31B 751, L31

    Bender C. F., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/L31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...751L..31B 751, L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/751/2/l31 2012

  2. [2]

    L., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1806.04617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180604617B p

    Birkby J. L., 2018, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1806.04617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180604617B p. arXiv:1806.04617

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.04617 2018

  3. [3]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  4. [4]

    Bouchy F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..853B 505, 853

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912427 2009

  5. [5]

    Brogi M., Snellen I. A. G., de Kok R. J., Albrecht S., Birkby J., de Mooij E. J. W., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.486..502B 486, 502

    doi:10.1038/nature11161 2012

  6. [6]

    Casagrande L., Flynn C., Bessell M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13573.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.389..585C 389, 585

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2565D 530, 2565

    Davis Y. T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2565D 530, 2565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae842 2024

  8. [8]

    R., Carter J

    Doyle L. R., Carter J. A., Fabrycky D. C., et al., 2011, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1210923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Sci...333.1602D 333, 1602

    doi:10.1126/science.1210923 2011

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4085F 531, 4085

    Freckelton A. V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4085F 531, 4085

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JQSRT.27707949G 277, 107949

    Gordon I. E., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2021.107949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022JQSRT.27707949G 277, 107949

    2022

  4. [12]

    J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.123H 641, A123

    Hoeijmakers H. J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038365 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A.123H 641, A123

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    O., Wende-von Berg S., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P

    Husser T. O., Wende-von Berg S., Dreizler S., Homeier D., Reiners A., Barman T., Hauschildt P. H., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...553A...6H 553, A6

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Jones A., Noll S., Kausch W., Szyszka C., Kimeswenger S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...560A..91J 560, A91

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Kalman D., 1996, The College Mathematics Journal, 27, 2

    1996

  8. [16]

    Y., Muirhead P

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

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..68M 624, A68

    Martin D. V., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..68M 624, A68

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Maxted P. F. L., Triaud A. H. M. J., Martin D. V., 2023, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe9120498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Univ....9..498M 9, 498

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Maxted P. F. L., Miller N. J., Sebastian D., Triaud A. H. M. J., Martin D. V., Duck A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4577M 531, 4577

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Mayor M., et al., 2003, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Msngr.114...20M 114, 20

    2003

  13. [21]

    C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..130..403M 130, 403

    Morton D. C., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/317349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJS..130..403M 130, 403

    2000 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Szyszka C., Kimeswenger S., Vinther J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..92N 543, A92

    Noll S., Kausch W., Barden M., Jones A. M., Szyszka C., Kimeswenger S., Vinther J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..92N 543, A92

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Mamajek E

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

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Pepe F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038306 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...645A..96P 645, A96

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    S., Casali M

    Perruchot S., et al., 2008, in McLean I. S., Casali M. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II. p. 70140J, @doi 10.1117/12.787379

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...41P 152, 41

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    pp 606--610

    Roy O., Vetterli M., 2007, in 2007 15th European Signal Processing Conference. pp 606--610

    2007

  20. [28]

    Sebastian D., Triaud A. H. M. J., Brogi M., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3765 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52710921S 527, 10921

    doi

  21. [29]

    Sebastian D., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.2572S 530, 2572

    doi

  22. [30]

    Snellen I. A. G., de Kok R. J., de Mooij E. J. W., Albrecht S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature09111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Natur.465.1049S 465, 1049

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    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 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1411.1219

    2015 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    C., Sills A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...87S 776, 87

    Spada F., Demarque P., Kim Y. C., Sills A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/776/2/87 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...776...87S 776, 87

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3571S 511, 3571

    Standing M. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac113 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3571S 511, 3571

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 29--71, @doi 10.1007/978-94-011-6928-8_2 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6928-8_2

    Topping J., 1972, Some Statistical Ideas. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 29--71, @doi 10.1007/978-94-011-6928-8_2 , https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6928-8_2

    1972 doi

  27. [35]

    Torres G., Andersen J., Gim \'e nez A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&ARv..18...67T 18, 67

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219643 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..18T 549, A18

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201730993 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A.129T 608, A129

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Triaud A. H. M. J., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.511.3561T 511, 3561

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    G., 1998, in D'Odorico S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tull R. G., 1998, in D'Odorico S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 3355, Optical Astronomical Instrumentation. pp 387--398, @doi 10.1117/12.316774

    1998 doi

  32. [40]

    Zucker S., Mazeh T., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...420..806Z 420, 806

    1994 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Brogi M., Snellen I

    de Kok R. J., Brogi M., Snellen I. A. G., Birkby J., Albrecht S., de Mooij E. J. W., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...554A..82D 554, A82

    2013 doi

Pith tools

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