Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 131 references

Vintage NPOI: New and Updated Angular Diameters for 145 Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Twenty-five years of NPOI archive data yield 145 new or updated angular diameters, with most of the 241-star NPOI sample reaching 2% or better precision.

desk verdict A genuinely useful NPOI diameter catalog that needs quality-control fixes before publication, especially the unflagged gamma Cas disk measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02912 v1 pith:2KEYUO3E submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.SR

Ellyn K. Baines , James H. Clark III , Bradley I. Kingsley , Henrique R. Schmitt , Jordan M. Stone This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stars:fundamentalparameterstechniques:highangularresolutioninterferometricdiametersstellarradiieffectivetemperaturelimbdarkeningasteroseismology
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 establishes that the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer archive, observed from 1996 to 2021, contains usable measurements for 145 stars, of which 62 are new and 83 are updated diameters. From these angular diameters, the authors derive physical radii and effective temperatures, using a weakly model-dependent route that combines the measured sizes with literature bolometric fluxes and parallaxes. The result matters because directly measured diameters and temperatures anchor the calibration of stellar models applied to large spectroscopic surveys. The paper also shows that 75% of the full 241-star NPOI sample achieves angular-diameter uncertainties of 2% or less, a precision level that supports abundance and surface-gravity determinations and the characterization of exoplanet host stars.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interferometric visibility curve: the squared visibility $V^2$ is fitted first with a uniform-disk model, $V^2 = [2J_1(x)/x]^2$ with $x = \pi B\theta_\mathrm{UD}\lambda^{-1}$, then with a limb-darkened disk using coefficients from ATLAS models. The effective temperature and the limb-darkening coefficient are iterated to convergence because $T_\mathrm{eff}$ selects $\mu_\mathrm{LD}$, and the final $T_\mathrm{eff}$ comes from inverting the Stefan-Boltzmann relation with the bolometric flux. The 1996–2002 data are reduced with the original Classic beam-combiner pipeline, and post-2002 data with the updated pipeline, and both are combined in a single $\chi^2$ fit per star.

What would settle it

Re-observe a subset of the 145 stars with an independent long-baseline interferometer and compare the limb-darkened diameters; a systematic offset beyond the quoted ~2% would falsify the claimed precision. A faster check is gamma Cassiopeiae: resolving its photosphere separately from its disk should raise the 9998 K effective temperature toward the ~35,000 K spectral-type value, confirming that the single-star assumption is violated for that star.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that reprocessing the full NPOI archive, including data taken before the 2002 beam-combiner upgrade, yields limb-darkened angular diameters for 145 stars with uncertainties as low as 0.1% and an average of 1.8%. Combining these diameters with parallaxes and bolometric fluxes gives physical radii and effective temperatures: the sample includes 13 stars on the Habitable World Observatory target list, 14 asteroseismic targets for which masses are derived from the frequency of maximum oscillation power, and 69 stars whose visibility curves reach the first null and beyond, opening the way to direct limb-darkening measurements. Aggregated with earlier NPOI work, these measurements form a 241-star catalog in which 192 stars (75%) have angular-diameter uncertainties of 2% or less.

Load-bearing premise

The measurements assume every target is a single star that is not rotating fast enough to be oblate or gravity-darkened, and that no surrounding disk or companion contributes light within the interferometer's field of view.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 142 of the 145 stars have angular-diameter uncertainties below 10%, giving a benchmark set of directly measured radii and effective temperatures that can calibrate model-dependent values from large spectroscopic surveys.
  • The 13 Habitable World Observatory targets include five stars whose new interferometric radii disagree with SED-based estimates by more than 5% and one by 27%, showing which target radii need revision.
  • The 14 asteroseismic targets, combined with literature frequencies of maximum oscillation power, yield single-star masses from 0.9 to 2.4 solar masses with a median uncertainty of 12%.
  • The 69 zero-crossing stars in this sample provide the high-spatial-frequency visibility data needed to measure limb darkening and gravity darkening directly rather than assuming them from models.
  • If the 75% majority of the full 241-star sample holds at 2% precision, the NPOI archive can serve as a fiducial resource for precision stellar astrophysics, including exoplanet host star characterization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's success at recovering science from 1996–2002 data suggests other interferometric archives predating modern beam combiners may hold similarly recoverable measurements that are currently unused.
  • The gamma Cassiopeiae case shows the single-star assumption is not merely theoretical: its derived effective temperature of 9998 K versus a spectral-type value near 35,000 K implies the measured diameter traces a disk, and the star is not flagged in Table 6 despite the bias.
  • Discrepancies of up to 27% with SED-based radii for Habitable World Observatory targets imply that some exoplanet target lists may be using radii that are over- or under-estimated, which could propagate into planetary radius and habitability calculations.
  • The 69 zero-crossing stars could be re-observed at higher spatial frequency to measure second-lobe structure, providing a direct test of limb-darkening models across spectral types.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents new or updated angular diameters, physical radii, and effective temperatures for 145 stars observed with the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer between 1996 and 2021. The analysis combines early and late NPOI data, fits uniform-disk and limb-darkened visibility models, and applies an iterative limb-darkening correction based on literature Teff, log g, and [Fe/H]. From the final limb-darkened diameters, the authors derive radii using literature parallaxes and effective temperatures using literature bolometric fluxes and the Stefan-Boltzmann relation. The sample is placed in context with previous NPOI measurements (241 stars total), and subsets are highlighted as promising HWO targets, asteroseismic targets with masses from νmax, and stars with visibility data reaching the first null or beyond.

Significance. If reliable, this catalog would provide a large, homogeneous set of directly measured angular diameters and derived fundamental parameters for bright stars, useful for calibrating spectroscopic surveys, characterizing HWO target stars, and constraining stellar evolution models. The paper's strengths include the use of substantial archival data spanning 25 years, a transparent description of the limb-darkening iteration, and the explicit identification of zero-crossing stars for future limb-darkening studies. The comparison with SED-based radii in Section 6.1 is also valuable. However, the reliability of the catalog is compromised by unmodeled or unflagged departures from the spherical single-star assumptions, most seriously for HD 5394 (gamma Cas) and for known rapid rotators such as Altair, Regulus, and eta UMa.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 7, HD 5394] The derived effective temperature for HD 5394 (gamma Cas) is 9998 ± 142 K, while the literature input Teff used for the initial limb-darkening coefficient is 35,210 K. This difference of roughly 25,200 K directly contradicts the Section 4 claim that the largest Teff change from the iterative process was 145 K. The sentence in Section 4 appears to describe only the change in Teff caused by updating the limb-darkening coefficient, not the difference between the initial literature Teff and the final Stefan-Boltzmann Teff, but as written it is misleading. More importantly, the enormous Teff discrepancy is the signature of fitting the Be circumstellar disk rather than the stellar photosphere. The paper discusses gamma Cas as a complex Be system in Section 5 but does not flag the measured angular diameter as contaminated in Table 6 or Table 7. This is a load-bearing issue because a non-stellar measurement is presented as a stellar diameter with 0.9% formal uncertainty. I recommend the authors either remove HD 5394 or flag it prominently, and add a criterion that flags targets whose final Teff deviates from the spectral-type/literature value by more than some threshold.
  2. [Section 6.3 and Table 6, HD 187642, HD 87901, HD 120315] The paper itself states that Altair is gravity-darkened and oblate (Section 6.3), yet Table 6 lists a circular limb-darkened diameter θLD = 3.211 ± 0.003 mas with σLD = 0.1%. For a non-circular source, the circular visibility model is misspecified; the χ²+1 uncertainty is a formal parameter error under a wrong model, not a true uncertainty on any physical diameter. The resulting θLD is an ill-defined average over position angles, and the derived radius and Teff inherit this bias. The same concern applies to HD 87901 (Regulus, v sin i = 329 km/s) and HD 120315 (eta UMa, v sin i = 205 km/s), which are fitted with the same spherical model without any caveat in Table 6. The catalog should flag such stars and either exclude them from the precision statistics or assign a systematic uncertainty that accounts for the oblateness/gravity-darkening bias.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Table 6] The two basic assumptions stated in Section 3.1 (effectively single, no significant oblateness) are violated by several targets that are not flagged in Table 6. For example, HD 32068/ζ Aur is an eclipsing binary with ΔmV = 2.22 (Table 8) and is nonetheless fitted as a single star; HD 29095/58 Per is a red supergiant with a B-star companion at ΔmV ≈ 2.9–3.9, near the NPOI detection window; and HD 5394 is a Be star with a bright disk. Section 5 notes some of these systems, but the asterisk convention in Table 6 is applied only to a subset. I recommend extending the flagging convention to all targets with known companions, disks, or rapid rotation that could bias the visibility fit, and adding a sentence in Section 6 stating how many of the 145 measurements are affected by such contamination.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence about σR contributions is confusingly worded: "The minimum and maximum σR were 0.03% and 21% for σpar, respectively, and 0.1% and 46% for σLD" seems to refer to the parallax and angular-diameter contributions separately, not the total radius uncertainty; please rephrase.
  2. [Section 6.2 and Table 10] The text says "Table 10 shows the results of these calculations for nine of our targets," but Table 10 contains 14 rows; also the abstract promises "14 more are asteroseismic targets," so the count should be made consistent.
  3. [Table 6] For HD 95418 the final θLD uncertainty is listed as 0.001 mas with σLD = 0.1%, but the ratio 0.001/1.560 is 0.06%, not 0.1%; please check the rounding and ensure the computed percentages are consistent with the quoted uncertainties.
  4. [References] The reference list contains two identical entries for Baines et al. 2023; please remove the duplicate.
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption says "see Section 6.1 for details," but the relevant discussion is in Section 6; update the cross-reference.
  6. [Section 6.3] The sentence describing the possible detection of binaries cites Hutter et al. (2016) for the detection window, but the numbers for magnitude difference and separation are quoted in Section 3.1; consider moving this citation there for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: angular diameters are direct visibility fits with independent SED-based calibrators and literature bolometric fluxes.

full rationale

The measured angular diameters come from fitting the visibility model V^2 = [2J1(x)/x]^2 to calibrated NPOI visibilities, with a limb-darkening correction taken from Claret & Bloemen (2011) using literature Teff, log g, and [Fe/H]. The limb-darkening coefficient is an externally tabulated model quantity, not a free parameter fitted to the target data. The target theta_LD is the chi-squared minimum of that fixed model against the calibrated visibilities, so it is not defined in terms of the output Teff. The derived Teff comes from Eq. (1), combining theta_LD with a bolometric flux obtained from literature luminosities and parallaxes; the subsequent iteration updates mu_LD using the new Teff, but the effect is small (average theta_LD change 0.3%, Teff change 0.2%) and the output is not equal to the input by construction. Calibrator angular diameters are SED fits to photometry, so the calibration reference is independent of the target parameters. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation forces the results. The concerns in Section 3.1 about binarity and rapid rotation, and the HD 5394 (gamma Cas) discrepancy, are model-assumption and accuracy issues, not circularity, because the pipeline does not fit a parameter that is then renamed as a prediction. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a set of measurements, so the pipeline relies on standard interferometric models and external astrophysical inputs rather than invented entities. The main dependencies are the single-star assumption, the limb-darkening model, the calibrator diameters, and the literature luminosities. The single-star assumption is visibly violated for at least one star, gamma Cas, which weakens the reliability of that entry.

free parameters (1)
  • Calibrator angular diameter estimates theta_est = 0.2 to 1.5 mas, per-star values in Table 5
    Each calibrator's diameter is obtained by fitting Castelli & Kurucz model atmospheres to UBVRIJHK photometry with Teff, log g, and E(B-V) from the literature. A flat 5 percent uncertainty is assigned by OYSTER. These fitted calibrator diameters are input to the target diameter measurement, so the central claim depends on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Targets are effectively single and not oblate due to rapid rotation (Section 3.1)
    This allows a single limb-darkened disk model for V2. The paper itself notes that many targets are in multiple systems and treats them as single unless flagged.
  • domain assumption Limb-darkening coefficients from Claret & Bloemen (2011) ATLAS models in the R-band approximate the NPOI bandpass
    Used to convert uniform-disk diameters to limb-darkened diameters; the NPOI band is 550 to 860 nm and the R-band is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Calibrator stars are small and symmetric, and their SED-fitted diameters are accurate to 5 percent
    The visibility calibration depends on the calibrator model; the paper assigns a flat 5 percent uncertainty but does not propagate it into target diameter uncertainties.
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosities L from the literature are accurate
    Effective temperatures are derived from L and the measured angular diameter via F_BOL = L/(4 pi d^2). If L is wrong, as appears to be the case for HD 5394, the derived Teff is wrong.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vintage NPOI: New and Updated Angular Diameters for 145 Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KEYUO3E

@misc{pith2026250602912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vintage NPOI: New and Updated Angular Diameters for 145 Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KEYUO3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02912}
}
read the original abstract

We present new or updated angular diameters, physical radii, and effective temperatures for 145 stars from the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer data archive. We used data from 1996 to late-2021, and we describe the differences between early and late data, which hinge upon an update of the beam combiner in 2002. We came across several sub-categories of stars of interest: 13 of our stars are promising targets for the Habitable World Observatory and therefore require as much study as possible, and 14 more are asteroseismic targets and have stellar masses after we combined our radii and effective temperatures with frequencies of maximum oscillation power values from the literature. In addition to this, many of the stars here show measurements to the first null in the visibility curve and beyond, which is the gateway to determining second-order effects such as direct measurements of limb-darkening. Finally, we consider the stars in the larger context of previous NPOI measurements and find the majority 75% of the angular diameters in the overall NPOI sample have uncertainties of 2% or less.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A color-magnitude diagram of the stars presented here (red squares), past NPOI targets (large black circles), and targets from JSDC (small gray points) that are observable with the NPOI (decl. > −10◦ , V < 6.0) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We plot angular diameters versus apparent V magnitudes with the temperature index listed in the upper left corner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top panel: The θLD fit for HD 432/β Cas. The solid red line represents the visibility curve for the best fit θLD, the points are the calibrated visibilities, and the vertical lines are the measurement uncertainties. Bottom panel: The residuals show the difference between the measurement and the visibility curve for each data point. The plots for the remaining stars are available on the electronic version of the Astr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The distribution of percent uncertainty for the entire NPOI sample of 241 stars (see Section 6.1 for details) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of a zero-crossing star (HD 187642/α Aql/Altair) with the first lobe, first null, and second lobe indicated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

131 extracted references · 31 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]

    & Lambert, D

    Allende Prieto, C. & Lambert, D. L.\ 1999, , 352, 555. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9911002

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9911002 1999

  3. [3]

    R., Schiavon, R., et al.\ 2008, Astronomische Nachrichten, 329, 1018

    Allende Prieto, C., Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R., et al.\ 2008, Astronomische Nachrichten, 329, 1018. doi:10.1002/asna.200811080

    doi:10.1002/asna.200811080 2008

  4. [4]

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

    1996

  5. [5]

    & 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

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    P., M \'e rand, A., Coud \'e du Foresto, V., et al.\ 2006, , 645, 664

    Aufdenberg, J. P., M \'e rand, A., Coud \'e du Foresto, V., et al.\ 2006, , 645, 664. doi:10.1086/504149

    doi:10.1086/504149 2006

  8. [8]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acb535

    Ayres, T.\ 2023, , 266, 6. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acb535

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acb535 2023

Show all 131 references
  1. [9]

    K., Armstrong, J

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

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    K., Thomas Armstrong, J., Clark, J

    Baines, E. K., Thomas Armstrong, J., Clark, J. H., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 198. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2431

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Clark, J

    Baines, E. K., Clark, J. H., Schmitt, H. R., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 268. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad08be

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    K., Schmitt, H

    Baines, E. K., Schmitt, H. R., Stone, J. M., et al.\ 2024, , 13135, 131350K, doi:10.1117/12.3027444

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Harper, G

    Bennett, P. D., Harper, G. M., Brown, A., et al.\ 1996, , 471, 454. doi:10.1086/177981

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    T., Lane, B

    van Belle, G. T., Lane, B. F., Thompson, R. R., et al.\ 1999, , 117, 521

    1999

  7. [15]

    W., Schmitt, J

    Berghoefer, T. W., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., & Cassinelli, J. P.\ 1996, , 118, 481

    1996

  8. [16]

    J.\ 1997, IAU Symposium, 189, 147

    Booth, A. J.\ 1997, IAU Symposium, 189, 147

    1997

  9. [17]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021020

    Bord \'e , P., Coud \'e du Foresto, V., Chagnon, G., et al.\ 2002, , 393, 183. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021020

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    Bourg \'e s, L., Lafrasse, S., Mella, G., et al.\ 2014, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIII, 485, 223

    2014

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab997

    Cardiel, N., Zamorano, J., Bar \'a , S., et al.\ 2021, , 504, 3730. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab997

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L.\ 2003, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, 210, A20. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    2003 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    D., et al.\ 2013, , 549, A129

    Cesetti, M., Pizzella, A., Ivanov, V. D., et al.\ 2013, , 549, A129. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219078

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936360

    Charbonnel, C., Lagarde, N., Jasniewicz, G., et al.\ 2020, , 633, A34. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936360

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab66c7

    Chen, X., Ge, Z., Chen, Y., et al.\ 2020, , 889, 157. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab66c7

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2507

    Chen, X., Guo, W., Sun, L., et al.\ 2021, , 922, 183. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2507

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Chen, P. S. & Kwok, S.\ 1993, , 416, 769. doi:10.1086/173276

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    & Malkov, O.\ 2022, , 517, 2925

    Chulkov, D. & Malkov, O.\ 2022, , 517, 2925. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2827

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Claret, A., & Bloemen, S.\ 2011, , 529, A75

    2011

  20. [28]

    L., VandenBerg, D

    Clem, J. L., VandenBerg, D. A., Grundahl, F., et al.\ 2004, , 127, 1227. doi:10.1086/381295

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    A., & Megeath, S

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

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

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

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

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348403

    Corsaro, E., Bonanno, A., Kayhan, C., et al.\ 2024, , 683, A161. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348403

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al.\ 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2246. II/246

    2003

  25. [33]

    M., Freeman, K

    De Silva, G. M., Freeman, K. C., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al.\ 2015, , 449, 2604. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv327

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Eggleton, P. P. & Tokovinin, A. A.\ 2008, , 389, 869. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13596.x

    2008

  27. [35]

    M., Caputo, M., Lai, T

    Eiermann, J. M., Caputo, M., Lai, T. S.-Y., et al.\ 2024, , 529, 1680. doi:10.1093/mnras/stae102

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245796

    Escorza, A., Karinkuzhi, D., Jorissen, A., et al.\ 2023, , 670, L14. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245796

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Karovska, M., Bond, H

    Evans, N. R., Karovska, M., Bond, H. E., et al.\ 2018, , 863, 187. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad410

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    R., Schaefer, G

    Evans, N. R., Schaefer, G. H., Bond, H. E., et al.\ 2008, , 136, 1137. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/3/1137

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    R., Schaefer, G

    Evans, N. R., Schaefer, G. H., Gallenne, A., et al.\ 2024, , 971, 190. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7a

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042229

    Fr \'e mat, Y., Zorec, J., Hubert, A.-M., et al.\ 2005, , 440, 305. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042229

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    Friedemann, C.\ 1992, Bulletin d'Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, 40, 31

    1992

  34. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al.\ 2016, , 595, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  35. [43]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al.\ 2018, , 616, A1. doi:10.1051/00sec:obsvis04-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Gaia Collaboration\ 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1355

    2022

  37. [45]

    H., & Ballering, N.\ 2016, , 826, 171

    G \'a sp \'a r, A., Rieke, G. H., & Ballering, N.\ 2016, , 826, 171. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/171

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528052

    Gebran, M., Farah, W., Paletou, F., et al.\ 2016, , 589, A83. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528052

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    Gontcharov, G. A. & Mosenkov, A. V.\ 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2354. II/354

    2018

  40. [48]

    O., Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., Corbally, C. J., Garrison, R. F., et al.\ 2003, , 126, 2048. doi:10.1086/378365

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    F.\ 2005, The Observatory, 125, 1

    Griffin, R. F.\ 2005, The Observatory, 125, 1

    2005

  42. [50]

    F.\ 2008, The Observatory, 128, 21

    Griffin, R. F.\ 2008, The Observatory, 128, 21

    2008

  43. [51]

    F.\ 2010, The Observatory, 130, 299

    Griffin, R. F.\ 2010, The Observatory, 130, 299

    2010

  44. [52]

    doi:10.1086/130927

    Gruber, R., Koo, D., & Middleditch, J.\ 1981, , 93, 777. doi:10.1086/130927

    1981 doi

  45. [53]

    B., Bubbly, S

    Gudennavar, S. B., Bubbly, S. G., Preethi, K., et al.\ 2012, , 199, 8. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/1/8

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Koch, A., et al.\ 2018, , 619, A134

    Hanke, M., Hansen, C. J., Koch, A., et al.\ 2018, , 619, A134. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833351

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Dressing, C

    Harada, C. K., Dressing, C. D., Kane, S. R., et al.\ 2024, , 272, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad3e81

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Stickland, D

    Harmer, D. L., Stickland, D. J., Lloyd, C., et al.\ 1983, , 204, 927. doi:10.1093/mnras/204.3.927

    1983 doi

  49. [57]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912927

    Haubois, X., Perrin, G., Lacour, S., et al.\ 2009, , 508, 923. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912927

    2009 doi

  50. [58]

    & Mel \'e ndez, J.\ 2007, , 475, 1003

    Hekker, S. & Mel \'e ndez, J.\ 2007, , 475, 1003. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078233

    2007 doi

  51. [59]

    Hoffleit, D.\ 1964, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Observatory, 1964, 3rd rev.ed., edited by Hoffleit, Dorrit

    1964

  52. [60]

    S., et al.\ 2021, , 919, 131

    Hon, M., Huber, D., Kuszlewicz, J. S., et al.\ 2021, , 919, 131. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac14b1

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    P., van Belle, G

    Horch, E. P., van Belle, G. T., Davidson, J. W., et al.\ 2015, , 150, 151. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/5/151

    2015 doi

  54. [62]

    R., & McSwain, M

    Huang, W., Gies, D. R., & McSwain, M. V.\ 2010, , 722, 605. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/605

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Stello, D., et al.\ 2011, , 743, 143

    Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al.\ 2011, , 743, 143. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143

    2011 doi

  56. [64]

    A., Benson, J

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

    2003 doi

  57. [65]

    A., Mozurkewich, D., Armstrong, J

    Hummel, C. A., Mozurkewich, D., Armstrong, J. T., et al.\ 1998, , 116, 2536. doi:10.1086/300602

    1998 doi

  58. [67]

    J., Tycner, C., Zavala, R

    Hutter, D. J., Tycner, C., Zavala, R. T., et al.\ 2019, , 243, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab32e1

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    J., Tycner, C., Zavala, R

    Hutter, D. J., Tycner, C., Zavala, R. T., et al.\ 2021, , 257, 69. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac23cb

    2021 doi

  60. [69]

    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

  61. [70]

    S., Shane, W

    Jackson, E. S., Shane, W. W., & Lynds, B. T.\ 1957, , 125, 712. doi:10.1086/146345

    1957 doi

  62. [71]

    Jamar, C., Macau-Hercot, D., Monfils, A., et al.\ 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 3039. III/39A

    1995

  63. [72]

    B.\ 2009, , 700, 1299

    Jenkins, E. B.\ 2009, , 700, 1299. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1299

    2009 doi

  64. [74]

    R., Nordlander, T., et al.\ 2022, , 658, A48

    Karovicova, I., White, T. R., Nordlander, T., et al.\ 2022, , 658, A48. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142100

    2022 doi

  65. [75]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014840

    Katz, D., Soubiran, C., Cayrel, R., et al.\ 2011, , 525, A90. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014840

    2011 doi

  66. [76]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., Mignard, F., et al.\ 2019, , 623, A72. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    2019 doi

  67. [77]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Th \'e venin, F.\ 2022, , 657, A7. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142146

    2022 doi

  68. [78]

    R.\ 1995, , 293, 87

    Kjeldsen, H., & Bedding, T. R.\ 1995, , 293, 87

    1995

  69. [79]

    R., et al.\ 2024, , 962, 70

    Klement, R., Rivinius, T., Gies, D. R., et al.\ 2024, , 962, 70. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad13ec

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030243

    Le Borgne, J.-F., Bruzual, G., Pell \'o , R., et al.\ 2003, , 402, 433. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030243

    2003 doi

  71. [81]

    J., Tan, K

    Liu, Y. J., Tan, K. F., Wang, L., et al.\ 2014, , 785, 94. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/94

    2014 doi

  72. [82]

    & Stapelfeldt, K.\ 2023, , 241, 116.07

    Mamajek, E. & Stapelfeldt, K.\ 2023, , 241, 116.07

    2023

  73. [83]

    D., Hartkopf, W

    Mason, B. D., Hartkopf, W. I., Raghavan, D., et al.\ 2011, , 142, 176. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/176

    2011 doi

  74. [84]

    D., Wycoff, G

    Mason, B. D., Wycoff, G. L., Hartkopf, W. I., et al.\ 2001, , 122, 3466. doi:10.1086/323920

    2001 doi

  75. [85]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb142

    Matthews, N., Rivet, J.-P., Vernet, D., et al.\ 2023, , 165, 117. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb142

    2023 doi

  76. [86]

    A., & Watson, R

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

    2017 doi

  77. [87]

    Mermilliod, J.-C.\ 1991, Catalogue of Homogeneous Means in the UBV System, Institut d'Astronomie, Universite de Lausanne

    1991

  78. [89]

    G., Levine, S

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

    2003 doi

  79. [90]

    D., Zhao, M., Pedretti, E., et al.\ 2007, Science, 317, 342

    Monnier, J. D., Zhao, M., Pedretti, E., et al.\ 2007, Science, 317, 342. doi:10.1126/science.1143205

    2007 doi

  80. [91]

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

    1980

  81. [92]

    R., McNeil, J

    Neilson, H. R., McNeil, J. T., Ignace, R., et al.\ 2017, , 845, 65. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa7edf

    2017 doi

  82. [93]

    & Dixon, W

    Otte, B. & Dixon, W. V. D.\ 2006, , 647, 312. doi:10.1086/505414

    2006 doi

  83. [94]

    H., et al.\ 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 12

    Pantaleoni Gonz \'a lez, M., Ma \' z Apell \'a niz, J., Barb \'a , R. H., et al.\ 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 12. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab712b

    2020 doi

  84. [95]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347768

    Paunzen, E., Netopil, M., Pri s egen, M., et al.\ 2024, , 689, A270. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347768

    2024 doi

  85. [96]

    Porter, J. M. & Rivinius, T.\ 2003, , 115, 1153. doi:10.1086/378307

    2003 doi

  86. [97]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad372f

    Prasow- \'E mond, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Fogarty, K., et al.\ 2024, , 967, 8. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad372f

    2024 doi

  87. [98]

    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

  88. [99]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0703658

    Prugniel, P., Soubiran, C., Koleva, M., et al.\ 2007, astro-ph/0703658. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0703658

    2007 doi arXiv

  89. [100]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116769

    Prugniel, P., Vauglin, I., & Koleva, M.\ 2011, , 531, A165. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116769

    2011 doi

  90. [101]

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41

    Pr s a, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al.\ 2016, , 152, 41. doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41

    2016 doi

  91. [102]

    & Mel \'e ndez, J.\ 2005, , 626, 446

    Ram \' rez, I. & Mel \'e ndez, J.\ 2005, , 626, 446. doi:10.1086/430101

    2005 doi

  92. [103]

    M., Carlberg, J

    Rebull, L. M., Carlberg, J. K., Gibbs, J. C., et al.\ 2015, , 150, 123. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/123

    2015 doi

  93. [104]

    C.\ 2011, , 413, 1200

    Roberts, L. C.\ 2011, , 413, 1200. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18205.x

    2011

  94. [105]

    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

  95. [106]

    D., Massa, D., Meade, M., et al.\ 1985, , 59, 397

    Savage, B. D., Massa, D., Meade, M., et al.\ 1985, , 59, 397. doi:10.1086/191078

    1985 doi

  96. [107]

    L., et al.\ 2016, , 459, 1170

    Scowcroft, V., Seibert, M., Freedman, W. L., et al.\ 2016, , 459, 1170. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw628

    2016 doi

  97. [108]

    doi:10.3931/e-rara-527

    Secchi, A.\ 1867, Sugli spettri prismatici delle stelle fisse : memoria del A[ngelo] Secchi, by Secchi, Angelo, 1867.. doi:10.3931/e-rara-527

    doi

  98. [109]

    M.\ 1992, , 30, 457

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

    1992

  99. [110]

    Smith, M. A. & Henry, G. W.\ 2021, , 915, 13. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abfe6e

    2021 doi

  100. [111]

    L., Lagarde, N., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A145

    Soubiran, C., Creevey, O. L., Lagarde, N., et al.\ 2024, , 682, A145. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347136

    2024 doi

  101. [112]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628497

    Soubiran, C., Le Campion, J.-F., Brouillet, N., et al.\ 2016, , 591, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628497

    2016 doi

  102. [113]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al.\ 2019, , 158, 138. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  103. [114]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 102. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  104. [115]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347793

    Tkachenko, A., Pavlovski, K., Serebriakova, N., et al.\ 2024, , 683, A252. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347793

    2024 doi

  105. [116]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abda42

    Tokovinin, A.\ 2021, , 161, 144. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abda42

    2021 doi

  106. [117]

    E., Horch, E

    Tokovinin, A., Everett, M. E., Horch, E. P., et al.\ 2019, , 158, 167. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4137

    2019 doi

  107. [118]

    & Popper, D

    Tomkin, J. & Popper, D. M.\ 1986, , 91, 1428. doi:10.1086/114121

    1986 doi

  108. [119]

    R., Schaefer, G

    Touhami, Y., Gies, D. R., Schaefer, G. H., et al.\ 2013, , 768, 128. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/128

    2013 doi

  109. [120]

    A., Z i z n ovsk \'y , J., et al.\ 2010, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 40, 83

    Tremko, J., Bakos, G. A., Z i z n ovsk \'y , J., et al.\ 2010, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 40, 83

    2010

  110. [121]

    A., et al.\ 2004, , 152, 251

    Valdes, F., Gupta, R., Rose, J. A., et al.\ 2004, , 152, 251. doi:10.1086/386343

    2004 doi

  111. [122]

    & Munari, U.\ 2010, , 522, A79

    Valentini, M. & Munari, U.\ 2010, , 522, A79. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014870

    2010 doi

  112. [123]

    T.\ 2012, , 20, 51

    van Belle, G. T.\ 2012, , 20, 51. doi:10.1007/s00159-012-0051-2

    2012 doi

  113. [124]

    T., van Belle, G., Creech-Eakman, M

    van Belle, G. T., van Belle, G., Creech-Eakman, M. J., et al.\ 2008, , 176, 276. doi:10.1086/526548

    2008 doi

  114. [125]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078357

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

    2007 doi

  115. [126]

    S., van Belle, G

    von Braun, K., Boyajian, T. S., van Belle, G. T., et al.\ 2014, , 438, 2413. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2360

    2014 doi

  116. [127]

    V., & Jenkins, C

    Wall, J. V., & Jenkins, C. R.\ 2003, Practical Statistics for Astronomers (Princeton Series in Astrophysics)

    2003

  117. [128]

    doi:10.1051/aas:2000332

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

    2000 doi

  118. [129]

    H.\ 1937, , 49, 202

    Wilson, R. H.\ 1937, , 49, 202. doi:10.1086/124811

    1937 doi

  119. [130]

    A., Johnston, K

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

    2001 doi

  120. [131]

    P., Prugniel, P., et al.\ 2011, , 525, A71

    Wu, Y., Singh, H. P., Prugniel, P., et al.\ 2011, , 525, A71. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015014

    2011 doi

  121. [132]

    jie ., Shao, Y., & Li, X.-D.\ 2024, , 962, 126

    Xu, X.-. jie ., Shao, Y., & Li, X.-D.\ 2024, , 962, 126. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ec

    2024 doi

  122. [133]

    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

  123. [134]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628760

    Zorec, J., Fr \'e mat, Y., Domiciano de Souza, A., et al.\ 2016, , 595, A132. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628760

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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