Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Benchmark brown dwarfs -- I. A blue M2 + T5 wide binary and a probable young [M4 + M4] + [T7 + T8] hierarchical quadruple

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 This paper reports the discovery of two benchmark multiple systems — an M2 + T5 wide binary and a candidate hierarchical quadruple of two M4 dwarfs with a T7 + T8 pair — that anchor cool, metal-poor brown dwarfs to well-measured stellar…

desk verdict The L 122-88 AB benchmark is solid and worth citing, but the UPM J1040-3551 hierarchical quadruple claim rests on weak, partly self-referential evidence and should be framed as a candidate until direct imaging or RV confirms the M4+M4 binary. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24560 v3 pith:SL6REG7U submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Z. H. Zhang , F. Navarete , M. C. Galvez-Ortiz , H. R. A. Jones , A. J. Burgasser , P. Cruz , F. Marocco , N. Lodieu
show 8 more authors
Y. Shan B. Gauza R. Raddi M. R. Huang R. L. Smart S. Baig G. Cheng D. J. Pinfield
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords browndwarfsTwidebinarieshierarchicalquadruplesystemsbenchmarkplanetary-massobjectscommonpropermotioninfraredspectroscopy
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

Brown dwarfs that orbit ordinary stars in wide binaries are valuable because the two components share an age, distance, and composition, so the star's well-measured properties can calibrate models of the much fainter brown dwarf. This paper reports two such systems found by matching infrared-selected late-T dwarf candidates to nearby stars with common proper motion. L 122-88 AB is a mildly metal-poor M2 dwarf with a T5 companion at 33 pc, a rare cool benchmark with subsolar metallicity. UPM J1040-3551 AB is argued to be a hierarchical quadruple at 25 pc: a near equal-mass M4 + M4 astrometric binary orbited by an unresolved T7 + T8 pair, the first system of its kind. If the interpretation holds, the young age inferred from the primary places the T8 component near the planetary-mass boundary, around 9-28 Jupiter masses.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the contrast between measured absolute magnitudes and spectra and predictions from single-object models. For UPM J1040-3551 A, an unresolved near equal-mass binary is diagnosed by a consistent ~0.7 mag luminosity excess over evolutionary-model predictions at the same effective temperature, the amount expected from two nearly identical stars. For UPM J1040-3551 B, the argument runs through binary spectral template fitting, in which a co-added T7 + T8 template reproduces the Y-, H-, and K-band flux peaks better than any single T dwarf template. The derived H-alpha age is then combined with evolutionary tracks to estimate component masses, and the stability of the wide systems is checked against the Jacobi (tidal) radius, yielding projected separations of 0.034 and 0.008 of the Jacobi radius respectively.

What would settle it

Resolve UPM J1040-3551 A at high angular resolution with adaptive optics or JWST/NIRCam and look for two components of nearly equal brightness; if no companion appears while the 0.7 mag overluminosity persists, the near equal-mass binary interpretation is wrong. In the same imaging, resolving UPM J1040-3551 B into a T7 and a T8 component would confirm the second part of the quadruple, while a null detection with persistent overluminosity would falsify the T7 + T8 spectral binary explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes two new benchmark systems. L 122-88 AB is a common-proper-motion pair at 33.1 pc whose primary is an M2 dwarf with a slightly metal-poor composition, [Fe/H] = -0.2, and whose companion is classified as a mildly metal-poor T5 dwarf (d/sdT5) on the basis of its suppressed K-band flux and faint near-infrared absolute magnitudes. UPM J1040-3551 AB is presented as a candidate hierarchical quadruple at 25.3 pc. Its primary shows a renormalized unit-weight error of 1.47 and a consistent ~0.7 mag brightness excess over single-star evolutionary models, which the authors interpret as an unresolved near equal-mass M4 + M4 binary; its T-dwarf companion is best fit by a combined T7 + T8 spectral template, with the binary fit preferred over a single T7 template. The H-alpha activity of the primary indicates an age of 0.3-2.0 Gyr, which yields masses of roughly 0.012-0.04 solar masses for the T7 component and 0.007-0.02 solar masses (9-28 Jupiter masses) for the T8 component. The paper therefore claims UPM J1040-3551 AabBab is the first known quadruple system with a close T-dwarf binary in a wide orbit around a close stellar binary, and both systems are shown to be gravitationally bound by comparison with their Jacobi radii.

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchical quadruple classification rests on the assumption that the ~0.7 mag brightness excess of UPM J1040-3551 A over single-star evolutionary models is caused by a near equal-mass M4 + M4 binary, rather than by model systematics, a wrong effective temperature, or a young-age effect; if that excess has another explanation, the quadruple claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • L 122-88 AB supplies a benchmark for a mildly metal-poor T5 dwarf, with its distance set by the parallax of the M2 primary and its metallicity anchored near [Fe/H] = -0.2.
  • If UPM J1040-3551 A is truly an M4 + M4 pair, the system becomes a rare laboratory for testing stellar evolutionary models for roughly 0.17 solar-mass stars in a coeval binary.
  • The probable T7 + T8 companion, if confirmed, makes UPM J1040-3551 AabBab the first known quadruple with a close T-dwarf binary orbiting a close stellar binary, joining only a handful of wide T-dwarf benchmark systems.
  • The inferred young age and low T8 mass place that component in the 9-28 Jupiter-mass range, so a dynamical mass measurement could test whether objects in this range form like stars or like planets.
  • Both new systems are shown to be stable against tidal disruption, with projected separations far inside their Jacobi radii, so they should survive as coherent benchmarks for long timescales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The equal-mass M4 + M4 interpretation predicts a specific astrometric signature: the photocenter of UPM J1040-3551 A should wobble with a period of years to decades, which existing and future astrometric epochs could test independently of the luminosity excess.
  • If the T7 + T8 interpretation is right, the unresolved binary should be resolvable at 1.15 microns with JWST/NIRCam at 25 pc; resolving it would directly measure orbital motion and yield a dynamical mass for both components within roughly a decade.
  • The paper's conservative selection criteria suggest that applying the same common-proper-motion matching to deeper future surveys should find more cool T dwarfs with stellar companions, filling the metal-poor and very-cold benchmark gap.
  • L 122-88 B lacks the Y-band flux-excess feature seen in more metal-poor T subdwarfs, suggesting that the onset of this spectral signature occurs between [Fe/H] about -0.2 and -0.3, which could be calibrated with a small sample of metal-poor T dwarfs.
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 paper reports the discovery of two wide multiple systems containing late-T dwarfs, identified by matching CatWISE2020-selected T dwarf candidates to Gaia DR3 nearby stars with common proper motion. For L 122-88 AB, the authors present optical and NIR spectroscopy of both components, classify the primary as a mildly metal-poor M2 dwarf ([Fe/H] = −0.2) and the secondary as a d/sdT5, and show that the Gaia parallax distance, the spectroscopic distance, and the proper motions are consistent, yielding a projected separation of ~7100 au. For UPM J1040−3551 AB, the authors propose a hierarchical quadruple: an unresolved M4+M4 binary primary (based on RUWE = 1.47 and a ~0.7 mag overluminosity relative to Baraffe et al. 2015 models at Teff = 3200 K) and an unresolved T7+T8 binary secondary (based on a binary template fit and a decomposition using spectral-type–absolute-magnitude relations), with a projected separation of ~1660 au, an Hα-based age of 0.3–2.0 Gyr, and a T8 component mass of 9–28 M_Jup.

Significance. L 122-88 AB appears to be a robust new benchmark: the primary and secondary are coeval by construction, the metallicity indicators agree, and the system adds a mildly metal-poor T5 benchmark at ~33 pc. The potential hierarchical quadruple UPM J1040−3551 AabBab would be a valuable system if confirmed, because it would be the first quadruple containing a close T-dwarf binary orbiting a close stellar binary, with the T8 component possibly in the planetary-mass regime. The paper makes explicit, testable predictions, e.g., that the T7/T8 components of UPM J1040−3551 B can be resolved by JWST/NIRCam at 1.15 μm if the orbital period exceeds ~6 yr. The search methodology and data products are clearly described. However, the evidence for the M4+M4 binarity is not yet sufficient, and the T7+T8 claim is partly circular; these issues directly affect the headline classification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.4] The inference that UPM J1040−3551 A is a near equal-mass M4+M4 binary is not secure. The observed ~0.69–0.73 mag excess is evaluated at Teff = 3200 ± 50 K from the spectral fit, but the authors themselves show that a single star with the mass implied by the Mann et al. (2019) mass–M_K relation (0.235 ± 0.020 M_sun) would have Teff = 3320 ± 40 K on the same Baraffe et al. (2015) isochrones. The 120 K offset is only ~2.4σ of the formal fitting uncertainty and is within typical M-dwarf model systematics, so a single-star interpretation at Teff ≈ 3300 K can plausibly remove most or all of the apparent overluminosity. The paper does not compute the predicted JHK magnitudes at Teff = 3320 K to rule out this alternative. As it stands, the 0.7 mag excess does not 'strongly support' binarity.
  2. [§4.1.4] The astrometric evidence cited for the M4+M4 binarity is not independent. RUWE = 1.47 lies within the 1.2 ± 0.3 range that the authors quote for single M dwarfs (Sozzetti 2023), so it provides at most weak support. Moreover, for a near-equal-mass, equal-flux binary the photocenter is nearly stationary, so such a configuration would not naturally produce a large RUWE; a significant RUWE excess would more plausibly arise from a large-flux-ratio companion or a shorter-period system with detectable photocenter motion. The RUWE value therefore does not independently corroborate the overluminosity-based binarity claim.
  3. [§4.2.2 and §5] The T7+T8 binary interpretation is also less secure than the Summary states. The binary spectral fit improves reduced χ² from 10.6 to 7.6, but both values indicate poor fits, and the authors themselves caution in §4.2.2 that youth or low surface gravity could explain the deviations and may not be fully accounted for in the SPLAT template sample. The magnitude decomposition of UPM J1040−3551 B into T7 and T8 components uses the same spectral-type–absolute-magnitude relations (Fig. 8) that flagged the object as overluminous; the improved alignment of the decomposed magnitudes is therefore not an independent test. Given these limitations, the Summary's statement that the spectral fitting and magnitude decomposition 'strongly suggest' a T7+T8 binary is overstated; 'supporting but not conclusive' is the appropriate characterization. This matters because the 'first known quadruple' designation requires both the M4+M4 and T7+T8 binarities to hold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The declination of UPM J1040−3551 A is printed as '−35h51m30.s9'; this should be in sexagesimal degrees/arcminutes/arcseconds, e.g. '−35°51′30.9″'.
  2. [Fig. 4] The caption lists three comparison standards (HIP 73786 B, J1503+25, and J0727+17), but the right-hand panel appears to show only the T7 standard J0727+17; please clarify which comparison spectrum is plotted in each panel.
  3. [§4.2.2] The statement that the F-test implies a '2% likelihood of equivalence' is imprecise; it is a p-value under the null hypothesis that the single-template model is correct, not a posterior probability that the two fits are equivalent.
  4. [§2] The selection criteria 'nb = 1' and 'ab_flags = 00' are not defined in the text; a brief definition (number of blend components and artefact flags in the CatWISE catalogue) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the UPM J1040-3551 B T7+T8 decomposition: component magnitudes are derived from and then validated against the same Zhang et al. (2019) spectral-type-absolute-magnitude relations; the central multiplicity claims rest on independent spectral fitting, Gaia astrometry, and external evolutionary models.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2.2, UPM J1040-3551 B: a probable unresolved binary, paragraph beginning 'To further investigate this binary hypothesis...']
    "Using the spectral type versus absolute magnitude correlations for L and T dwarfs (Fig. 8), we derived MJ, MK, MW1, and MW2 differences between T7 and T8 dwarfs of 1.258, 1.248, 0.907, and 0.462 mag, respectively. The decomposed MJ, MK, and MW1 values demonstrate improved alignment with these correlations"

    The component absolute magnitudes are constructed by applying the same SpT-M_abs relations to the total photometry: the T7-minus-T8 differences are read off the curves in Fig. 8 (Zhang et al. 2019). Claiming that the decomposed values show 'improved alignment with these correlations' is therefore not an independent test: splitting one object into two components with a prescribed magnitude difference necessarily moves the primary 0.3 mag toward the relation. The only non-forced information is the residual offset, which the paper attributes to youth. The same relation is later used to compute the 'spectroscopic distance' of the T7 primary, so that distance check is likewise not independent of the binary hypothesis.

full rationale

The paper's main derivations are anchored to external data: Gaia DR3 astrometry for primaries, CatWISE/VHS/DECaPS photometry, and independent template spectra. The L 122-88 AB binary claim is confirmed by consistency between the primary's Gaia parallax and the companion's photometric distance, and by common proper motion; no circularity there. The UPM J1040-3551 A M4+M4 binarity rests on RUWE=1.47 and a ~0.7 mag brightness excess relative to Baraffe et al. (2015) evolutionary models at the spectroscopically fitted Teff=3200 K. That comparison is not definitionally circular; the possible Teff-scale or model-systematic explanation identified by skeptics is a model-uncertainty concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The one genuinely self-referential step is the T7+T8 magnitude decomposition of UPM J1040-3551 B, where the Zhang et al. (2019) relations are used both to derive the component magnitudes and as the yardstick for judging them well-aligned. Because the spectral binary fit (SPLAT, reduced chi-square improvement, F-test) provides independent supporting evidence and the paper itself labels the system 'probable' and cautions about youth/low-gravity alternatives, this circularity is minor and does not force the central quadruple claim. Overall score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a chain of catalog data and models: Gaia astrometry, CatWISE photometry, BT-Settl and SPLAT spectral templates, evolutionary tracks (Baraffe 2015, Sonora-Bobcat), and empirical spectral-type-magnitude and activity-age relations. No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The free parameters are atmospheric fit results, not ad hoc adjustments.

free parameters (4)
  • Teff of L 122-88 A = 3500 ± 50 K
    Best-fit BT-Settl model to X-shooter spectrum (Section 4.1.3).
  • [Fe/H] of L 122-88 A = -0.2 ± 0.1
    Best-fit BT-Settl model metallicity (Section 4.1.3).
  • Teff of UPM J1040-3551 A = 3200 ± 50 K
    Best-fit BT-Settl model to Goodman optical spectrum (Section 4.1.3).
  • [Fe/H] of UPM J1040-3551 A = 0.0 ± 0.1
    Best-fit BT-Settl model metallicity (Section 4.1.3).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Common proper motion and consistent Gaia parallax imply physical association between components.
    Used to identify L 122-88 AB and UPM J1040-3551 AB as wide binaries (Section 2, Table 1).
  • domain assumption BT-Settl model atmospheres accurately reproduce M dwarf optical-NIR spectra over the fitted grid.
    Basis for Teff and [Fe/H] estimates (Section 4.1.3).
  • domain assumption Evolutionary models (Baraffe et al. 2015; Sonora-Bobcat Marley et al. 2021) correctly predict absolute magnitudes and Teff as functions of mass and age.
    Used for mass estimates and the ~0.7 mag excess that supports binarity (Sections 4.1.4, 4.3, Figs 7 and 10).
  • domain assumption The H-alpha activity-age correlation for M3-M6 dwarfs (Kiman et al. 2021) applies to UPM J1040-3551 A.
    Yields the 0.3-2.0 Gyr age estimate (Section 4.1.2).
  • domain assumption RUWE > 1.4 is a reliable indicator of unresolved binarity in M dwarfs.
    Primary evidence for UPM J1040-3551 A binarity (Section 4.1.4).
  • domain assumption Spectral type versus absolute magnitude relations for T dwarfs (Zhang et al. 2019) are valid for distance and magnitude decomposition.
    Used in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 to compute spectroscopic distances and split UPM J1040-3551 B into components.
  • standard math Astrometric and spectroscopic distances concordance within uncertainties confirms common distance.
    Applied in Section 4.2 to validate binary associations.
  • standard math Jacobi radius from Jiang & Tremaine (2010) equation 43 gives the stability boundary for wide binaries.
    Used to argue both systems are bound and stable (Section 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Benchmark brown dwarfs -- I. A blue M2 + T5 wide binary and a probable young [M4 + M4] + [T7 + T8] hierarchical quadruple." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SL6REG7U

@misc{pith2026250524560,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Benchmark brown dwarfs -- I. A blue M2 + T5 wide binary and a probable young [M4 + M4] + [T7 + T8] hierarchical quadruple},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SL6REG7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24560}
}
read the original abstract

Benchmark brown dwarfs in wide binary systems are crucial for characterizing substellar objects and calibrating atmospheric and evolutionary models. However, brown dwarf benchmarks with subsolar metallicity, very cool temperatures, or suitability for dynamical mass measurements are rare, limiting our understanding across the full range of mass, age, and metallicity. We present the discovery of two new multiple systems containing T dwarf companions, identified through a targeted search using CatWISE2020 and Gaia catalogues. L 122-88 AB is a wide binary comprising a mildly metal-poor M2 dwarf and a T5 dwarf, separated by 215.6 arcsec at a distance of 33.106+/-0.014 pc. Atmospheric model fitting to the near infrared spectrum of L 122-88 A suggests a mildly metal-poor composition ([Fe/H] = -0.2). UPM J1040-3551 AB is a candidate hierarchical quadruple system at 25.283+/-0.013 pc, consisting of a likely astrometric binary of two M4 dwarfs and a probable unresolved spectral binary of T7 and T8 dwarfs, separated by 65.48 arcsec from the primary. The H-alpha emission detected in UPM J1040-3551 A indicates an age range of 0.3-2.0 Gyr. This age estimate suggests that the T8 component has a mass between 9 and 28 Jupiter masses, potentially classifying it as a planetary-mass object. These systems augment the sample of benchmark brown dwarfs, particularly in the underexplored regime of cool temperature, providing valuable opportunities for refining our understanding of substellar objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24560 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PMs of the newly discovered systems L 122-88 AB and UPM J1040−3551 AB, alongside the previously known systems: G 204-39 AB (M3+T6.5), SDSS J1416+13 AB (sdL7+sdT7.5), LHS 6176 AB (K8V+T8p), HIP 73786 AB (sdM4+sdT5.5), and L 34-26 + COCONUTS-2b (M3V+T9) that were recovered in our search. Gliese 570 A & D (K4V + T7.5) are not shown because their PMs (2 arcsec yr−1 ) are far exceeding the axis ranges. Black/blue dots re… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. VISTA 𝐽-band images of the fields surrounding L 122-88 AB (left panel) and UPM J1040−3551 AB (right panel), which are indicated with white bars of 20 arcsec in length. Both images cover a 4 arcmin field of view, oriented with north up and east to the left. Observation dates are shown in yyyy-mm-dd format. L 122-88 AB is moving towards the north-east with a PM of 0.368 arcsec yr−1 , while UPM J1040−3551 AB is moving … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optical spectra of L 122-88 A (left panel) and UPM J1040−3551 A (right panel) compared to M2 and M4 templates from Bochanski et al. (2007), respectively. The lower spectrum in the right panel shows the best-fitting BT-Settl model (𝑇eff = 3200 K, [Fe/H] = 0.0, and log 𝑔 = 5.0) for UPM J1040−3551 A, degraded to a resolution of 0.5 nm. Note that telluric absorptions around 760 nm are not corrected for spectra of both p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NIR spectra of L 122-88 B (left panel) and UPM J1040−3551 B (right panel) obtained with TripleSpec. The spectra are shown at original resolution (bottom) and smoothed by 11 pixels (middle) and 51 pixels (top). For comparison, we over plotted the spectra of the sdT5.5 s…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The X-shooter spectrum of L 122-88 A and its best fitting BT-Settl model spectrum (𝑇eff = 3500 K, [Fe/H] = −0.2, and log 𝑔 = 5.0). 1000 1500 2000 Wavelength (nm) 0 1 2 3 N orm alize d flu x (F ) + co nsta nt L 122-88 B (X-shooter, 20240713) L 122-88 B (TripleSpec) L 12…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: NIR spectra of L 122-88 B obtained with X-shooter on 2024 July 7 (bottom panel) and July 13 (middle panel). The spectra have been smoothed by 201 pixels in the VIS arm and 101 pixels in the NIR arm. The July 13 spectrum of L 122-88 B is compared to its TripleSpec spect…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Observed 𝑀𝐽 (black), 𝑀𝐻 (blue), and 𝑀𝐾 (red) absolute mag￾nitudes of L 122-88 A (filled squires) and UPM J1040−3551 A (filled dia￾monds) compared to 1 Gyr (solid lines) and 8 Gyr (dashed lines) isochrones of solar-metallicity evolutionary models (Baraffe et al. 2015). …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Absolute magnitudes (𝑀𝐽 , 𝑀𝐾 , 𝑀𝑊1 and 𝑀𝑊2) of L 122-88 B (black diamond) and UPM J1040−3551 B (blue circle) plotted against spectral type. Long curved green and short straight red lines show the spectral type versus absolute magnitude correlations for dwarfs and subdw…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolutionary tracks of 𝑇eff from the Sonora-Bobcat models (Mar￾ley et al. 2021) for objects with masses of 0.0005–0.08 M⊙ and solar metal￾licity, spanning 0.02–15 Gyr. Tracks are colour-coded from top to bottom: blue for stars, black for transitional BDs (T-BDs, Zhang…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Benchmark Brown Dwarf Systems I: Chemical Abundance Analysis of FGK Stars with Wide-Separation Brown Dwarf Companions Using PEPSI

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

    Uniform BACCHUS abundances from PEPSI spectra of 32 FGK brown-dwarf hosts show C/O dispersion, predict silicate cloud species via Mg/Si, and test the [Y/Mg] age clock.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abbott T. M. C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..255...20A 255, 20

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac00b3 2021

  3. [3]

    C., Graham J

    Allard F., 2014, in Booth M., Matthews B. C., Graham J. R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 299, Exploring the Formation and Evolution of Planetary Systems. pp 271--272, @doi 10.1017/S1743921313008545

    doi:10.1017/s1743921313008545 2014

  4. [4]

    Arentsen A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...627A.138A 627, A138

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834273 2019

  5. [5]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...577A..42B 577, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  6. [6]

    Best W. M. J., Liu M. C., Magnier E. A., Dupuy T. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abc893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161...42B 161, 42

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc893 2021

  7. [7]

    Best W. M. J., Dupuy T. J., Liu M. C., Sanghi A., Siverd R. J., Zhang Z., 2024, @doi [Zenodo] 10.5281/zenodo.10573247 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10573247 10573247

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.10573247 2024

  8. [8]

    S., G \"u nther H

    Binks A. S., G \"u nther H. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.2162B 533, 2162

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1850 2024

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    J., West A

    Bochanski J. J., West A. A., Hawley S. L., Covey K. R., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133..531B 133, 531

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Splat Development Team 2017, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series

    Burgasser A. J., Splat Development Team 2017, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series. pp 7--12 ( @eprint arXiv 1707.00062 )

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531L..57B 531, L57

    Burgasser A. J., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531L..57B 531, L57

    2000 doi

  4. [12]

    J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564..421B 564, 421

    Burgasser A. J., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564..421B 564, 421

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Kirkpatrick J

    Burgasser A. J., Kirkpatrick J. D., McElwain M. W., Cutri R. M., Burgasser A. J., Skrutskie M. F., 2003a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/345975 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125..850B 125, 850

    doi

  6. [14]

    J., Kirkpatrick J

    Burgasser A. J., Kirkpatrick J. D., Liebert J., Burrows A., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/376756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...594..510B 594, 510

    doi

  7. [15]

    J., McElwain M

    Burgasser A. J., McElwain M. W., Kirkpatrick J. D., Cruz K. L., Tinney C. G., Reid I. N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/383549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.2856B 127, 2856

    2004 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Burrows A., Kirkpatrick J

    Burgasser A. J., Burrows A., Kirkpatrick J. D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/499344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...639.1095B 639, 1095

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Cruz K

    Burgasser A. J., Cruz K. L., Cushing M., Gelino C. R., Looper D. L., Faherty J. K., Kirkpatrick J. D., Reid I. N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...710.1142B 710, 1142

    2010 doi

  10. [20]

    Burningham B., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..457B 433, 457

    2013 doi

  11. [21]

    V., Lucas P

    Burningham B., Smith L., Cardoso C. V., Lucas P. W., Burgasser A. J., Jones H. R. A., Smart R. L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440..359B 440, 359

    2014 doi

  12. [22]

    B., Lunine J

    Burrows A., Hubbard W. B., Lunine J. I., Liebert J., 2001, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001RvMP...73..719B 73, 719

    2001 doi

  13. [23]

    Carollo D., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature06460 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.450.1020C 450, 1020

    2007 doi

  14. [24]

    C., Crain J

    Clemens J. C., Crain J. A., Anderson R., 2004, in Moorwood A. F. M., Iye M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy. pp 331--340, @doi 10.1117/12.550069

    2004 doi

  15. [25]

    C., Vacca W

    Cushing M. C., Vacca W. D., Rayner J. T., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/382907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASP..116..362C 116, 362

    2004 doi

  16. [26]

    Dey A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..168D 157, 168

    2019 doi

  17. [27]

    K., Burgasser A

    Faherty J. K., Burgasser A. J., West A. A., Bochanski J. J., Cruz K. L., Shara M. M., Walter F. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139..176F 139, 176

    2010 doi

  18. [28]

    M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C

    Freudling W., Romaniello M., Bramich D. M., Ballester P., Forchi V., Garc \' a-Dabl \'o C. E., Moehler S., Neeser M. J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...559A..96F 559, A96

    2013 doi

  19. [29]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...6G 649, A6

    2021 doi

  20. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  21. [31]

    R., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564..466G 564, 466

    Geballe T. R., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/324078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...564..466G 564, 466

    2002 doi

  22. [32]

    P., Rauer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810L..25H 810, L25

    Hatzes A. P., Rauer H., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/810/2/L25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810L..25H 810, L25

    2015 doi

  23. [33]

    J., Beaulieu T

    Jao W.-C., Henry T. J., Beaulieu T. D., Subasavage J. P., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/840 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....136..840J 136, 840

    2008 doi

  24. [34]

    Jiang Y.-F., Tremaine S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15744.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.401..977J 401, 977

    2010

  25. [35]

    Kiman R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..277K 161, 277

    2021 doi

  26. [36]

    R., McCaughrean M

    King R. R., McCaughrean M. J., Homeier D., Allard F., Scholz R. D., Lodieu N., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...510A..99K 510, A99

    2010 doi

  27. [37]

    D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...19K 197, 19

    Kirkpatrick J. D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..197...19K 197, 19

    2011 doi

  28. [38]

    D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abd107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..253....7K 253, 7

    Kirkpatrick J. D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abd107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..253....7K 253, 7

    2021 doi

  29. [39]

    D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...55K 271, 55

    Kirkpatrick J. D., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...55K 271, 55

    2024 doi

  30. [40]

    LSST Science Collaboration et al., 2017, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170804058L arXiv:1708.04058

    2017 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Lang D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/5/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147..108L 147, 108

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    Laureijs R., et al., 2011, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011arXiv1110.3193L arXiv:1110.3193

    2011 arXiv

  33. [43]

    M., Shara M

    L \'e pine S., Rich R. M., Shara M. M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/521614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669.1235L 669, 1235

    2007 doi

  34. [44]

    Lu Y., Angus R., Foreman-Mackey D., Hattori S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..159L 167, 159

    2024 doi

  35. [45]

    L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/767/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767L...1L 767, L1

    Luhman K. L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/767/1/L1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767L...1L 767, L1

    2013 doi

  36. [46]

    N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/205/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..205....6M 205, 6

    Mace G. N., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/205/1/6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..205....6M 205, 6

    2013 doi

  37. [47]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...53M 731, 53

    2011 doi

  38. [48]

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

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

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...85M 920, 85

    Marley M. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...85M 920, 85

    2021 doi

  40. [50]

    Marocco F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv530 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.3651M 449, 3651

    2015 doi

  41. [51]

    Marocco F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abd805 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..253....8M 253, 8

    2021 doi

  42. [52]

    Marocco F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3f1d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...967..147M 967, 147

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    J., Close L

    McCaughrean M. J., Close L. M., Scholz R. D., Lenzen R., Biller B., Brandner W., Hartung M., Lodieu N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...413.1029M 413, 1029

    2004 doi

  44. [54]

    G., Banerji M., Gonzalez E., Koposov S

    McMahon R. G., Banerji M., Gonzalez E., Koposov S. E., Bejar V. J., Lodieu N., Rebolo R., VHS Collaboration 2013, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Msngr.154...35M 154, 35

    2013

  45. [55]

    N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18424.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..575M 414, 575

    Murray D. N., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18424.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.414..575M 414, 575

    2011

  46. [56]

    R., Kulkarni S

    Nakajima T., Oppenheimer B. R., Kulkarni S. R., Golimowski D. A., Matthews K., Durrance S. T., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1038/378463a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.378..463N 378, 463

    1995 doi

  47. [57]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20549.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.1922P 422, 1922

    Pinfield D. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20549.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.1922P 422, 1922

    2012

  48. [58]

    T., Toomey D

    Rayner J. T., Toomey D. W., Onaka P. M., Denault A. J., Stahlberger W. E., Vacca W. D., Cushing M. C., Wang S., 2003, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..362R 115, 362

    2003

  49. [59]

    R., Mart \' n E

    Rebolo R., Zapatero Osorio M. R., Mart \' n E. L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1038/377129a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Natur.377..129R 377, 129

    1995 doi

  50. [60]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  51. [61]

    Rothermich A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad324e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..253R 167, 253

    2024 doi

  52. [62]

    K., McLean I

    Schlawin E., et al., 2014, in Ramsay S. K., McLean I. S., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V. p. 91472H, @doi 10.1117/12.2055233

    2014 doi

  53. [63]

    D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...510L...8S 510, L8

    Scholz R. D., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014078 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...510L...8S 510, L8

    2010 doi

  54. [64]

    D., McCaughrean M

    Scholz R. D., McCaughrean M. J., Lodieu N., Kuhlbrodt B., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021847 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...398L..29S 398, L29

    2003 doi

  55. [65]

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

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

    2006 doi

  56. [66]

    Soubiran C., Le Campion J.-F., Brouillet N., Chemin L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.118S 591, A118

    2016 doi

  57. [67]

    Sozzetti A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670L..17S 670, L17

    2023 doi

  58. [68]

    Spergel D., et al., 2015, preprint, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv150303757S arXiv:1503.03757

    2015 arXiv

  59. [69]

    G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    Stassun K. G., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..138S 158, 138

    2019 doi

  60. [70]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/671426 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..809T 125, 809

    Thompson M. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/671426 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..809T 125, 809

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    Vernet J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117752 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...536A.105V 536, A105

    2011 doi

  62. [72]

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

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

    2010 doi

  63. [73]

    W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.634.1070X 634, 1070

    Xuan J. W., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Natur.634.1070X 634, 1070

    2024 doi

  64. [74]

    Zhan H., 2011, @doi [Scientia Sinica Physica, Mechanica & Astronomica] 10.1360/132011-961 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SSPMA..41.1441Z 41, 1441

    2011 doi

  65. [75]

    Zhang Z., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.489.1423Z 489, 1423

    2019 doi

  66. [76]

    H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16394.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1817Z 404, 1817

    Zhang Z. H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16394.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1817Z 404, 1817

    2010

  67. [77]

    H., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3040Z 464, 3040

    Zhang Z. H., et al., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.464.3040Z 464, 3040

    doi

  68. [78]

    H., Homeier D., Pinfield D

    Zhang Z. H., Homeier D., Pinfield D. J., Lodieu N., Jones H. R. A., Allard F., Pavlenko Y. V., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468..261Z 468, 261

    doi

  69. [79]

    H., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.1383Z 479, 1383

    Zhang Z. H., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.1383Z 479, 1383

    doi

  70. [80]

    H., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.5447Z 480, 5447

    Zhang Z. H., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.5447Z 480, 5447

    doi

  71. [81]

    H., Burgasser A

    Zhang Z. H., Burgasser A. J., G \'a lvez-Ortiz M. C., Lodieu N., Zapatero Osorio M. R., Pinfield D. J., Allard F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz777 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1260Z 486, 1260

    2019 doi

  72. [82]

    C., Claytor Z

    Zhang Z., Liu M. C., Claytor Z. R., Best W. M. J., Dupuy T. J., Siverd R. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac1123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...916L..11Z 916, L11

    2021 doi

  73. [83]

    H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1851 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.1654Z 533, 1654

    Zhang Z. H., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1851 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.1654Z 533, 1654

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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