Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Simultaneous Six-way Observations from the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer

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 The Navy Precision Optical Interferometer's revived six-element mode yields angular diameters for six stars, including the two smallest the instrument has ever measured: 0.503 mas for HD 198001 and 0.688 mas for HD 210418.

desk verdict The 6-way mode clearly works for resolved stars, but the two 'smallest ever' claims rest on weak ground: one is a 71%-uncertainty detection and the other disagrees with the prior value at 5σ. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01720 v1 pith:QAM547SH submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Ellyn K. Baines , Solvay Blomquist , James H. Clark III , Jim Gorney , Erin Maier , Jason Sanborn , Henrique R. Schmitt , Jordan M. Stone
show 2 more authors
Gerard T. van Belle Kaspar von Braun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IM
keywords angulardiametersopticalinterferometrysix-elementobservingmodeNavyPrecisionInterferometersquaredvisibilitylimbdarkeningfluximbalancefastdelaylinecrosstalk
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

This paper reports the first scientific use of the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer's six-element observing mode since the early 2000s, and it attempts to show that the mode can again measure stellar angular diameters. The paper presents limb-darkened diameter fits for six bright, small stars observed simultaneously on 11 baselines, with four diameters between 1.2 and 1.9 milliarcseconds and two much smaller values of 0.503 and 0.688 milliarcseconds that are the smallest angular diameters the NPOI has ever measured. The larger internal scatter of the six-way visibilities is attributed to two known instrument effects, flux imbalance among siderostats sharing a spectrograph and crosstalk between baselines from fast delay line nonlinearities, rather than to astrophysical causes. If the central values are unbiased, the mode is again viable for diameter work and can probe angular sizes near the instrument's resolution limit.

What carries the argument

The central object is the six-way visibility measurement itself: six siderostats arranged on the astrometric and imaging arrays, paired into two spectrographs with four siderostats each, produce fringes on 11 simultaneous baselines with a repeated baseline linking the two spectrographs. The diameter extraction uses the squared visibility $V^2$, fit first to the uniform-disk formula $V^2=[2J_1(x)/x]^2$ with $x=\pi B\theta_{\mathrm{UD}}\lambda^{-1}$, then to a limb-darkened model (Equation 1) with linear limb-darkening coefficients taken from stellar atmosphere models. Uncertainties come from a scan-bootstrap Monte Carlo procedure rather than from treating individual data points as independent. The paper's explanation for the six-way scatter rests on two quantified mechanisms: flux imbalance, which lowers a baseline's visibility by the factor $4I_1I_2/(\sum I_i)^2$ when extra siderostats share the spectrograph, and fast delay line stroke nonlinearities that allow power to leak from one baseline into another.

What would settle it

Take a star with a well-known diameter near 0.7 mas and observe it in both six-way and three-way modes during the same night; if the best-fit diameters disagree by more than the quoted uncertainties in a consistent direction, the six-way central values are biased rather than merely noisy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that six-way observing has been successfully reactivated at the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer and can produce credible angular diameters for stars as small as roughly half a milliarcsecond. From nearly 23,000 calibrated visibility points taken in 2021, the authors fit uniform-disk and then limb-darkened models to each star, yielding $\theta_{\mathrm{LD}}$ values of $1.887\pm0.025$ mas for HD 6186, $1.677\pm0.018$ mas for HD 10761, $1.203\pm0.016$ mas for HD 182640, $1.808\pm0.055$ mas for HD 187929, $0.503\pm0.357$ mas for HD 198001, and $0.688\pm0.031$ mas for HD 210418. For the two stars with recent interferometric measurements, HD 6186 agrees with the earlier $1.923\pm0.045$ mas within uncertainty, while HD 210418 differs from the earlier $0.862\pm0.018$ mas by about five $\sigma$, a tension the authors attribute to working below the resolution limit. The paper also demonstrates the expected signal-to-noise penalty of the mode: combining four siderostats in one spectrograph reduces each baseline's $V^2$ by a factor of four relative to a two-siderostat baseline, which together with fast delay line crosstalk explains the increased scatter.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the six-way instrument effects inflate the scatter of the visibility measurements without systematically shifting the fitted angular diameters; if they shift the visibilities coherently, the reported diameters, especially the two smallest, could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Six-way mode is again available for angular-diameter science, roughly doubling the number of baselines usable in a single pointing compared with three-element modes.
  • The two sub-milliarcsecond diameters demonstrate that the instrument can attempt measurements near and below its nominal resolution limit, with the caveat that the smallest value carries a 71% uncertainty.
  • For stars with prior interferometric diameters, the four larger measurements are consistent with published values, giving confidence that the mode reproduces earlier results.
  • Differences from earlier measurements for the smallest star are attributed to working below the resolution limit, not necessarily to astrophysical variability.
  • Adopting the VISION beam combiner, which avoids fast delay line modulation, is the planned path to reduced crosstalk and lower scatter in future six-way observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether the flux imbalance and delay line crosstalk shift diameters as well as inflating scatter; if they do, the quoted small diameters could be systematically off in a way the error bars do not capture.
  • A natural next experiment is to observe the same stars in three-way and six-way modes on the same nights; agreement would strongly support the unbiased-scatter interpretation.
  • The same equation used to explain the $V^2$ suppression could be applied as a post-hoc correction using measured per-siderostat fluxes, potentially sharpening six-way precision before the beam combiner upgrade.
  • The five-sigma offset between the 0.688 mas and 0.862 mas values for HD 210418 makes that star a good target for an independent reobservation with a different array or combiner to decide whether the discrepancy is instrumental or physical.
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 simultaneous six-element (6-way) observations with the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer (NPOI) of six bright, small-angular-diameter stars, returning to a mode not used routinely since the early 2000s. The authors fit limb-darkened disk models to calibrated visibilities to obtain angular diameters, with values ranging from 1.887 ± 0.025 mas (HD 6186) down to 0.688 ± 0.031 mas (HD 210418) and 0.503 ± 0.357 mas (HD 198001). The two smallest values are claimed to be the smallest angular diameters ever measured with NPOI. The paper also derives stellar radii, effective temperatures, and luminosities from SED fits, and discusses the increased scatter in the 6-way visibilities, attributing it to flux imbalance and fast delay line crosstalk. The central claim is that the 6-way mode can again produce angular diameter measurements, including record-small values.

Significance. If the reported diameters are unbiased, the paper demonstrates the revival of a valuable observing mode at NPOI and provides new angular diameter measurements for six stars, including two of the smallest ever measured with this instrument. The bootstrap scan-resampling uncertainty estimation (Tycner et al. 2010) is a methodological strength, and the authors are transparent about the increased scatter in the 6-way data. However, the significance of the record-small claim is weakened by the non-detection-level uncertainty on HD 198001 (71%) and by the unexplained 5σ discrepancy for HD 210418 relative to Boyajian et al. (2012). The paper would be substantially strengthened by a quantitative test of whether the identified systematics bias the visibility scale, rather than only inflating scatter.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (3)] The paper attributes the increased visibility scatter to flux imbalance and fast delay line crosstalk, but it does not test whether these effects bias the calibrated V2 scale. This assumption is load-bearing for the two smallest diameters, especially HD 210418 (0.688 ± 0.031 mas), where a coherent few-percent V2 error on the longest baselines would shift the diameter by 10–20% and could erase the 5σ discrepancy with Boyajian et al. (2012). Because the AC-AW baseline appears in both spectrographs (Table 3), the data contain an internal control that could directly test whether V2 from the two spectrographs agree. The absence of such a test leaves the central record-small claim unsupported against a plausible systematic bias.
  2. [Table 5, HD 198001] The angular diameter for HD 198001 is 0.503 ± 0.357 mas, a relative uncertainty of 71%. With this uncertainty, the measurement is not a significant detection and is consistent with zero or with a much larger diameter. The abstract's claim that this is one of 'the two smallest angular diameters measured to date with the NPOI' is therefore overstated. The paper should either exclude HD 198001 from the record-small claim or clearly present it as a tentative, low-significance measurement, not a secure diameter.
  3. [Section 4, HD 210418 comparison] The paper reports a 5σ discrepancy with Boyajian et al. (2012) for HD 210418 (0.688 ± 0.031 mas vs. 0.862 ± 0.018 mas) and dismisses it as 'not surprising' because the star is below the resolution limit. Given that this star is one of the two headline record-small measurements, the discrepancy deserves a quantitative investigation. Possible checks include varying the calibrator diameter within its uncertainty, comparing visibilities from the two spectrographs on the common AC-AW baseline, and examining the time stability of the calibrated visibilities. Without such analysis, the discrepancy may indicate a systematic bias rather than a genuine astrophysical difference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'HD 6168' but the target star is HD 6186 (ε Psc); please correct the typo.
  2. [Table 2] Several entries contain spacing issues, e.g., 'AE- A W' and 'A W-E6'; these should be normalized to match the baseline notation in Table 3.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'the strength of the limb darkening for star is related' is missing an article; it should read 'for a star is related'.
  4. [References] The Gaia Collaboration et al. (2022) reference is listed as 'A&A, in press'; please update it to the published volume and article number, if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: diameters are fitted directly to calibrated visibilities with an independent photometric SED step.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements are angular diameters obtained by fitting calibrated V2 data directly to the limb-darkened visibility model in Eq. (1); the data are not derived from the model's outputs. The limb-darkening loop (Section 3.2) is a mild self-consistency iteration: an initial theta_LD yields Teff via Eq. (2) using FBOL from an independent SED fit to published photometry, and the updated limb-darkening coefficient changes theta_LD by at most 0.3%, which the paper documents explicitly. This is not a definitional loop because the SED photometry, Pickles templates, and Claret & Bloemen limb-darkening tables are external inputs, and because the iteration is shown to converge to essentially the same diameter. Calibrator diameters come from separate SED fits, and the paper cites Baines et al. (2018) for the insensitivity of target diameters to calibrator diameter, which is an external, falsifiable calibration statement rather than a re-imported conclusion. The discussion in Section 4 of flux imbalance (Eq. 3) and fast-delay-line crosstalk is a qualitative attribution of increased scatter; it is not used to produce or rescale any of the reported diameters. Prior measurements by van Belle et al. (2021) and Boyajian et al. (2012) are used only as comparisons, not as inputs to the fits, even where author overlap exists. The skeptical concern about uncorrected systematic bias in the smallest diameters is a correctness/calibration risk, not circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-citation or to the paper's own inputs. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central angular diameter claim rests on the standard visibility model, the chosen limb-darkening coefficients, the calibrator diameter estimates, and the assumption that 6-way systematics add scatter but not bias. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Limb-darkening coefficient mu_lambda per star (R-band) = 0.39 to 0.65 (Table 5)
    Chosen from Claret and Bloemen atmosphere models using literature Teff, logg, and [Fe/H] plus an assumed microturbulent velocity of 2 km/s. Not fit to the visibilities, but the reported theta_LD depends on it; the paper's iteration changes theta_LD by at most 0.3% (Section 3.2).
  • Calibrator star angular diameters = 0.23 to 0.60 mas (Table 4)
    Estimated by fitting Castelli and Kurucz model atmospheres to published UBVRIJHK photometry. These values enter every calibrated visibility, though the paper argues the target diameter is insensitive to calibrator diameter (Baines et al. 2018).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The limb-darkened visibility model of Eq. (1) with a single linear coefficient is adequate; the data do not extend beyond the first zero of the visibility curve, so the second maximum is not probed.
    Section 3.1 invokes Wittkowski et al. (2001) to justify the linear treatment; this is a standard, but unverified, assumption for the NPOI bandpass.
  • domain assumption Literature Teff, logg, and [Fe/H] values used to select mu_lambda are accurate, and the adopted microturbulent velocity of 2 km/s is representative.
    Section 3.1 takes these inputs from Allende Prieto and Lambert (1999) and Gaia DR3; an incorrect input would shift mu_lambda and hence theta_LD slightly.
  • domain assumption Calibrator diameters estimated from simple SED fits are accurate enough that calibration errors are negligible for these targets.
    Section 2 and Table 4; the insensitivity claim rests on Baines et al. (2018).
  • domain assumption The 6-way flux imbalance and delay-line crosstalk only inflate the scatter and do not bias the fitted angular diameters.
    Section 4 attributes the increased spread to Eq. (3) and FDL non-linearities, but no correction or simulation is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper For HD 198001, a fit at 0.503 mas is a meaningful diameter even though the star is below the resolution limit and the uncertainty is 71% of the value.
    Section 4 states the measurement is 'of value' despite the large relative uncertainty; this is an interpretive assumption rather than a demonstrated detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous Six-way Observations from the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAM547SH

@misc{pith2026250601720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous Six-way Observations from the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAM547SH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01720}
}
read the original abstract

We measured the angular diameters of six stars using the 6-element observing mode of the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer (NPOI) for the first time since the early 2000s. Four of the diameters ranged from 1.2 mas to 1.9 mas, while the two others were much smaller at approximately 0.5 mas to 0.7 mas, which are the two smallest angular diameters measured to date with the NPOI. There is a larger spread in the measurements than data obtained with 3- or 4- or 5-element modes, which can be attributed in part to the flux imbalance due to the combination of more than 2 siderostats in a single spectrograph, and also to cross talk between multiple baselines related to non-linearities in the fast delay line dither strokes. We plan to address this in the future by using the VISION beam combiner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The NPOI configuration used for 6-way observing. The squares show the locations of the siderostats as a function of distance from the center, the red lines show the baselines on spectrograph 1, and the blue lines show the baselines on spectrograph 2. The dashed line is the baseline that repeats on both spectrographs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Angular diameter fits to measured visibilities. The solid red line represents the visibility curve for the best fit θLD, the open circles are the calibrated visibilities, and the vertical lines are the measurement uncertainties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example probability density solution for the diameter fit to HD 6168/ǫ Psc visibilities as described in Section 3.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing the angular diameter fit using 4-way data (top half) from 2005 with that of 6-way data from 2021 (bottom half) for HD 187929/η Aql. The symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  2. [2]

    L.\ 1999, , 352, 555

    Allende Prieto, C., & Lambert, D. L.\ 1999, , 352, 555

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Alonso, A., Arribas, S., & Martinez-Roger, C.\ 1996, , 117, 227

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    & Francis, C.\ 2012, Astronomy Letters, 38, 331

    Anderson, E. & Francis, C.\ 2012, Astronomy Letters, 38, 331. doi:10.1134/S1063773712050015

    doi:10.1134/s1063773712050015 2012

  5. [5]

    T., Mozurkewich, D., Rickard, L

    Armstrong, J. T., Mozurkewich, D., Rickard, L. J., et al.\ 1998, , 496, 550. doi:10.1086/305365

    doi:10.1086/305365 1998

  6. [6]

    K., Armstrong, J

    Baines, E. K., Armstrong, J. T., Schmitt, H. R., et al.\ 2018, , 155, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9d8b

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa9d8b 2018

  7. [7]

    A., Neugebauer, G., Habing, H

    Beichman, C. A., Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., et al.\ 1988, Infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS) catalogs and atlases. Volume 1: Explanatory supplement, 1

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    A., Hummel, C

    Benson, J. A., Hummel, C. A., & Mozurkewich, D.\ 2003, , 4838, 358. doi:10.1117/12.459322

    doi:10.1117/12.459322 2003

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    S., McAlister, H

    Boyajian, T. S., McAlister, H. A., van Belle, G., et al.\ 2012, , 746, 101. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/101

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    I.\ 1996, VizieR Online Data Catalog, III/126

    Burnashev, V. I.\ 1996, VizieR Online Data Catalog, III/126

    1996

  3. [11]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S.\ 1989, , 345, 245. doi:10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L.\ 2003, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, 210, A20

    2003

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

    Claret, A., & Bloemen, S.\ 2011, , 529, A75. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    A., & Megeath, S

    Cohen, M., Wheaton, W. A., & Megeath, S. T.\ 2003, , 126, 1090. doi:10.1086/376474

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    C., & Castelli, F.\ 1996, , 112, 307

    Colina, L., Bohlin, R. C., & Castelli, F.\ 1996, , 112, 307. doi:10.1086/118016

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al.\ 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/246

    2003

  9. [17]

    R.\ 2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/237

    Ducati, J. R.\ 2002, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/237

    2002

  10. [18]

    A.\ 2017, , 597, A8

    Duvert, G., Young, J., & Hummel, C. A.\ 2017, , 597, A8. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526405

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al.\ 2018, , 616, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al.\ 2022, , in press. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    V., Muterspaugh, M

    Garcia, E. V., Muterspaugh, M. W., van Belle, G., et al.\ 2016, , 128, 055004. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/128/963/055004

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Y., Schmitz, M., Pitts, P

    Gezari, D. Y., Schmitz, M., Pitts, P. S., & Mead, J. M.\ 1993, Catalog of Infrared Observations, NASA Reference Publication 1294 (3rd ed.; Greenbelt, MD: NASA)

    1993

  15. [23]

    Y., Pitts, P

    Gezari, D. Y., Pitts, P. S., & Schmitz, M.\ 1999, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/225

    1999

  16. [24]

    N., Doroshenko, V

    Glushneva, I. N., Doroshenko, V. T., Fetisova, T. S., et al.\ 1983, Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Astronomicheskogo Instituta, 53, 50

    1983

  17. [25]

    doi:10.1016/0083-6656(72)90023-2

    Golay, M.\ 1972, Vistas in Astronomy, 14, 13. doi:10.1016/0083-6656(72)90023-2

    1972 doi

  18. [26]

    Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J., Lake, R. J. W., & Thompson, R. J.\ 1974, , 167, 475. doi:10.1093/mnras/167.3.475

    1974 doi

  19. [27]

    & Walker, D

    Helou, G. & Walker, D. W.\ 1988, Infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS) catalogs and atlases. Volume 7, 7, 1

    1988

  20. [28]

    V., et al.\ 2000, , 355, L27

    H g, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al.\ 2000, , 355, L27

    2000

  21. [29]

    A., Benson, J

    Hummel, C. A., Benson, J. A., Hutter, D. J., et al.\ 2003, , 125, 2630. doi:10.1086/374572

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Zavala, R

    Hutter, D. J., Zavala, R. T., Tycner, C., et al.\ 2016, , 227, 4. doi:10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/4

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Mitchell, R

    Johnson, H. L., Mitchell, R. I., Iriarte, B., & Wisniewski, W. Z.\ 1966, Communications of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, 4, 99

    1966

  24. [32]

    Johnson, H. L. & Mitchell, R. I.\ 1975, , 1, 299

    1975

  25. [33]

    M., Mozurkewich, D., Murphy, J., et al.\ 2006, , 6268, 62684A

    Jorgensen, A. M., Mozurkewich, D., Murphy, J., et al.\ 2006, , 6268, 62684A. doi:10.1117/12.672839

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    V., Tereshchenko, V

    Kharitonov, A. V., Tereshchenko, V. M., & Knjazeva, L. N.\ 1988, Alma Ata: Nauka, 1988

    1988

  27. [35]

    A., & Watson, R

    McDonald, I., Zijlstra, A. A., & Watson, R. A.\ 2017, , 471, 770. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1433

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Mermilliod, J.-C.\ 1987, , 71, 413

    1987

  29. [37]

    C.\ 2006, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/168

    Mermilliod, J. C.\ 2006, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/168

    2006

  30. [38]

    & Nitschelm, C.\ 1989, , 81, 401

    Mermilliod, J.-C. & Nitschelm, C.\ 1989, , 81, 401

    1989

  31. [39]

    G., Levine, S

    Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al.\ 2003, , 125, 984. doi:10.1086/345888

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    Neckel, T., Klare, G., & Sarcander, M.\ 1980, Bulletin d'Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, 19, 61

    1980

  33. [41]

    Oja, T.\ 1984, , 57, 357

    1984

  34. [42]

    Oja, T.\ 1993, , 100, 591

    1993

  35. [43]

    J.\ 1998, , 110, 863

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

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    H., Teukolsky, S

    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P.\ 1992, Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing (Cambridge: University Press, c1992, 2nd ed.)

    1992

  37. [45]

    Prugniel, P., Soubiran, C., Koleva, M., & Le Borgne, D.\ 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0703658

    2007 arXiv

  38. [46]

    F., Jim \'e nez-Vicente, J., et al.\ 2006, , 371, 703

    S \'a nchez-Bl \'a zquez, P., Peletier, R. F., Jim \'e nez-Vicente, J., et al.\ 2006, , 371, 703. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10699.x

    2006

  39. [47]

    R., Armstrong, J

    Schmitt, H. R., Armstrong, J. T., Hindsley, R. B., et al.\ 2008, The Power of Optical/IR Interferometry: Recent Scientific Results and 2nd Generation, 571. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74256-2\_94

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    M.\ 1992, , 30, 457

    Shao, M., & Colavita, M. M.\ 1992, , 30, 457. doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.30.090192.002325

    1992

  41. [49]

    J., Price, S

    Smith, B. J., Price, S. D., & Baker, R. I.\ 2004, , 154, 673. doi:10.1086/423248

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    J., & Zavala, R

    Tycner, C., Hutter, D. J., & Zavala, R. T.\ 2010, , 7734, 773439. doi:10.1117/12.857345

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    T., Lane, B

    van Belle, G. T., Lane, B. F., Thompson, R. R., et al.\ 1999, , 117, 521. doi:10.1086/300677

    1999 doi

  44. [52]

    T., von Braun, K., Ciardi, D

    van Belle, G. T., von Braun, K., Ciardi, D. R., et al.\ 2021, , 922, 163. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1687

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078357

    van Leeuwen, F.\ 2007, , 474, 653. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078357

    2007 doi

  46. [54]

    V., & Jenkins, C

    Wall, J. V., & Jenkins, C. R.\ 2003, Practical Statistics for Astronomers, Cambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers, vol. 3. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  47. [55]

    doi:10.1002/asna.200310081

    Wegner, W.\ 2003, Astronomische Nachrichten, 324, 219. doi:10.1002/asna.200310081

    2003 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Johnston, K

    Wittkowski, M., Hummel, C. A., Johnston, K. J., et al.\ 2001, , 377, 981. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011124

    2001 doi

  49. [57]

    L., et al.\ 2009, , 501, 297

    Zorec, J., Cidale, L., Arias, M. L., et al.\ 2009, , 501, 297. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811147

    2009 doi

Pith tools

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