Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Eighteen Exoplanet Host Stars from the NPOI Data Archive

T0 review · 4 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 Using interferometric radii to fit MIST models, the paper revises the masses of 9 of 18 exoplanet host stars by more than 10% and recomputes planet masses and habitable zones.

desk verdict Useful homogeneous reanalysis of 18 exoplanet-host radii, masses, and HZ extents, but the unaddressed tau Cet mass mismatch undercuts the 'refined masses' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02934 v1 pith:XDCRFUYW submitted 2025-06-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Ellyn K. Baines , Jeremy Jones , James H. Clark III , Henrique R. Schmitt , Jordan M. Stone This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords interferometrystellarradiiexoplanethoststarsMISTmodelsmasseshabitablezoneplanetaryNPOI
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 uses interferometric angular diameters from the NPOI archive, combined with Gaia parallaxes, to measure the physical radii and effective temperatures of 18 exoplanet host stars. Fitting those measurements to MIST stellar evolution models yields updated stellar masses and ages, and for 9 of the 18 stars the new mass differs by more than 10% from the value in the Exoplanet Encyclopaedia. The authors then use the updated masses to recompute the minimum masses of the planets in these systems and the extent of each star's habitable zone. The point of the exercise is that a planet's measured properties are only as good as the host star's parameters, so better stellar radii and masses directly improve planetary characterization.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the mass function f(m) = (mp sin i)^3/(M⋆+mp)^2 = (P/2πG)(K√(1-$e^{2}$))^3, which ties the measured radial-velocity semiamplitude K, period P, and eccentricity e to the stellar mass M⋆ and the planet's minimum mass. The paper feeds NPOI-based radii and temperatures into MIST isochrones (for mass) and mass tracks (for age), weighting each model point by a Gaussian in the luminosity–temperature plane, and takes the median of the resulting PDF. The updated stellar masses then enter the mass function to solve for m sin i by iteration, and the Kane & Gelino (2012) flux relations convert effective temperature and luminosity into inner and outer habitable-zone distances.

What would settle it

Compare the MIST-derived masses with independent asteroseismic masses for the sample stars that have them: for HD 10700 (tau Cet) the fit gives 0.876 ± 0.006 solar masses while published asteroseismology gives 0.783 ± 0.012 solar masses, a roughly 12% discrepancy. If similar systematic offsets appear for other stars with seismic masses (e.g., HD 62509 / beta Gem), the mass-fitting procedure—and every derived planet mass—would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining NPOI limb-darkened angular diameters with Gaia parallaxes, and fitting the resulting luminosity and effective temperature to MIST isochrones and mass tracks, gives more reliable stellar masses and ages for 18 exoplanet host stars than the heterogeneous values currently in the EPE catalogue. For 9 of the 18 stars the stellar mass changes by more than 10%; for example, HD 20902 (alpha Per), an exoplanet candidate, is fit at 6.12 solar masses versus the EPE value of 7.3, and HD 136726 at 2.60 versus 1.8. Because the planetary minimum mass m sin i scales with the stellar mass through the mass function, the updated stellar masses shift the derived planet masses by up to tens of percent (e.g., HD 54719 b changes from 20.6 to 28.8 Jupiter masses). The paper also recomputes habitable-zone boundaries from the measured effective temperatures and luminosities, finding that only ups And d stays within its star's habitable zone over its full orbit.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the assumption that the MIST evolutionary models, evaluated at a single literature metallicity for each star with no uncertainty in [Fe/H], correctly predict the mass and age from the measured luminosity and temperature for every star in the sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 9 of the 18 systems, the stellar mass changes by more than 10%, which directly changes the inferred minimum masses of the planets in those systems.
  • The refined stellar masses and radii feed back into exoplanet characterization, so any transit or atmospheric study of these planets should adopt the updated parameters.
  • The habitable-zone calculation shows that only ups And d remains inside its host star's HZ for its entire orbit, while tau Cet f may spend part of its orbit there; all other planets orbit inside the inner boundary.
  • Because the sample is dominated by evolved stars, the updated masses and ages provide a link between planets around main-sequence stars and those around white dwarfs, constraining models of planetary orbit evolution and engulfment.
  • The method provides a uniform, technique-consistent set of stellar masses rather than a mix of evolutionary-track, asteroseismic, and other estimates, reducing systematic scatter in planet-mass determinations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the MIST-fitting approach is systematically biased for evolved stars—for instance, if the fixed-literature [Fe/H] misses real metallicity spread—the stellar masses, and hence the planet masses, would shift in a correlated way. Comparing against asteroseismic masses for the stars that have them (such as tau Cet and beta Gem) would test this directly.
  • The paper's decision to use the larger of asymmetric error bars and to ignore eccentricity errors in the planet-mass uncertainty means the quoted m sin i errors are likely underestimates; propagating e and [Fe/H] uncertainties would give a fairer picture of how well these planet masses are known.
  • The same NPOI-plus-Gaia pipeline could be applied to the much larger set of angular diameters in the archive, not just the 18 exoplanet hosts, to build a homogeneous benchmark of stellar masses for calibrating Gaia's stellar parameters and for transit surveys such as TESS.
  • For the single candidate host HD 20902/alpha Per, the updated mass of 6.12 solar masses and planet mass of about 5.85 Jupiter masses, if confirmed, would place the planet around a very massive star, testing formation models that have difficulty forming planets around massive stars.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes NPOI interferometric angular diameters and Gaia parallaxes for 18 exoplanet host stars to derive updated stellar radii and effective temperatures. It then fits MIST evolutionary tracks and isochrones to these values, fixing each star's metallicity to a single literature value, to obtain stellar masses and ages. The new masses are used with published RV orbital parameters to recompute planetary minimum masses via the mass function (Eq. 1), and the stellar luminosities and temperatures are used to compute habitable-zone boundaries (Eqs. 2-4). The central claim is that these are refined stellar and planetary parameters, with stellar masses changed by more than 10% for 9 of the 18 stars compared to EPE.

Significance. The paper presents a homogeneous, observationally grounded set of interferometric radii and temperatures, and the update from Hipparcos to Gaia parallaxes is a useful contribution. The MIST-fitting procedure is clearly described and internally consistent, and the authors correctly note that masses/ages come from fitting models to measured R and Teff, so the results are not circular. However, the central claim that the fitted masses are 'refined' over EPE is not yet supported. For HD 10700/tau Cet, the fitted mass of 0.876 ± 0.006 Msun is 12% larger than the asteroseismic value of 0.783 ± 0.012 Msun listed in the paper's own Table 3, a >10-sigma discrepancy that is never discussed. Because every downstream quantity (planetary m sin i via Eq. 1, HZ boundaries via Eq. 4) scales with stellar mass, this single failure calls into question the reliability of the mass-fitting method for the whole sample. The lack of propagated [Fe/H] uncertainty and the unexplained factor-of-2.6 inconsistency in the ups And d comparison further weaken the validation case.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Table 3] For HD 10700/tau Cet, the MIST isochrone fit using the NPOI R and Teff yields a stellar mass of 0.876 ± 0.006 Msun, while the EPE column in the same table lists the asteroseismic mass 0.783 ± 0.012 Msun (from Teixeira et al. 2009, as cited in Section 3.2). This is a 12% offset, more than 10 sigma, and the paper does not mention or attempt to explain it. Because the derived planetary masses (Eq. 1) and habitable-zone boundaries (Eq. 4) all depend linearly on stellar mass, this discrepancy directly undermines the paper's central claim of 'refined' parameters, at least for this star, and suggests the method may be systematically biased for other targets. The authors must either validate the MIST masses against a sample of stars with independent (e.g., asteroseismic) masses, explain the tau Cet discrepancy, or explicitly restrict their claims.
  2. [Section 3.1-3.2] The MIST fitting uses a single literature [Fe/H] per star (Table 1) with no uncertainty propagated into the mass and age PDFs. The gaussian weight defined in Section 3.1 depends only on L and Teff residuals, so metallicity errors are entirely unaccounted for. For metal-poor stars like HD 10700 ([Fe/H] = -0.51), the isochrone location is highly metallicity-sensitive, so this omission could be a major contributor to the tau Cet mass discrepancy. The authors should either propagate [Fe/H] uncertainties into the PDFs or justify that the adopted metallicities are accurate enough to be held fixed.
  3. [Table 5, Section 4] For HD 9826/ups And d, the paper reports an EPE m sin i of 10.19 MJup, but its own calculation from EPE's P, K, and e (Table 4) using Eq. 1 gives 3.94 MJup, a factor of 2.6 discrepancy. The paper does not comment on this inconsistency, even though it places the paper's 'refined' planetary mass (3.95 ± 0.11 MJup) in direct conflict with the EPE catalog value. Since the planetary-mass comparison is a central part of the paper, the authors must either correct the EPE entry, explain the discrepancy (e.g., different orbital solution or stellar mass used by EPE), or remove the comparison for this planet.
  4. [Table 3] Some of the claimed mass changes are extremely large and lack any independent confirmation; for example, HD 170693/42 Dra goes from 0.98 ± 0.05 Msun in EPE to 1.88 +0.36/-0.33 Msun from the NPOI+MIST fit, a factor of 1.9. Given the tau Cet failure, large swings like this should be treated as suspect until the method is validated. The paper should at minimum discuss whether such values are consistent with the stars' spectral types (K1.5 III) and other observational constraints, and should avoid presenting the >10% mass-change statistic as evidence of improvement without independent checks.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section 1] The abstract says the sample is '17 confirmed exoplanet host stars and one exoplanet candidate' but later describes '18 exoplanet host stars.' This is consistent if the candidate is counted, but the wording should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 2] For the three stars near the Gaia bright limit, the text says the percent differences between Gaia and Hipparcos parallaxes are 1%, 6%, and 2% but does not identify which percentage belongs to which star. Listing them per star (HD 137759, HD 163917, HD 222404) would be clearer.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'One of the stars in the presented sample (HD 120136/tau Boo) has an uncertainty in its Teff that overlaps the zero age main sequence. Therefore cannot calculate a median age...' is missing a subject in the second sentence; it should read 'Therefore we cannot calculate...'.
  4. [Section 3.1] There is a typo in the discussion of Dotter (2016): 'realationship' should be 'relationship'.
  5. [Section 4 / Table 4] The text states 'Only one star here has e = 0 (HD 188310/xi Aql),' but Table 4 lists the eccentricity for HD 188310 b as 'N/A', not 0. This is internally inconsistent and should be fixed.
  6. [Table 1] The row for HD 20902/alpha Per has a garbled entry: '53.07 ±1.37 \n1.45 53.07±1.41' appears to be a formatting error that makes the published and updated radii unclear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derived stellar masses, ages, planetary masses, and habitable-zone boundaries rest on independent interferometric measurements and external MIST evolutionary models.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Input radii and effective temperatures come from NPOI interferometric measurements (with the cited Baines et al. papers being the original measurement publications, not the target result), and parallaxes come from Gaia/Hipparcos. Stellar mass and age are obtained by Gaussian-weighted fitting of the observed luminosity and effective temperature to external MIST mass tracks and isochrones (Sections 3.1 and 3.2), so the fitted masses are independent of the EPE mass column they are compared against. Planetary m sin i values are propagated from the Keplerian mass function (Equation 1) using P, K, and e from EPE or cited RV papers together with the MIST stellar mass; this is a propagation of independently measured orbital parameters, not a prediction of a quantity already used as input. Habitable-zone boundaries are computed from the Kane & Gelino (2012) formulas using measured Teff and L (Equations 2-4), again independent of the mass/age fit. The self-citations to Baines et al. (2014, 2018, 2021, 2023) supply the angular-diameter measurements, which are input data rather than a conclusion derived from the paper's own claims. The tau Cet mass discrepancy relative to asteroseismology and the Table 5 versus EPE m sin i inconsistency for ups And d are accuracy and internal-consistency concerns, not cases where an output equals an input by construction.

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

The paper rests on measured interferometric diameters, adopted parallaxes, literature metallicities, MIST stellar models, EPE orbital parameters, and empirical HZ flux formulas. The most fragile inputs are the model-based mass and age inference and the unvalidated Gaia parallaxes for bright stars; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Assigned 5% radius uncertainty = 5%
    Applied in Section 2 to HD 20902, HD 62509, HD 143107, HD 188310, and HD 222404 because EPE gave no radius errors. This hand-chosen uncertainty feeds into the age and mass PDFs.
  • Assigned 2% Teff uncertainty = 2%
    Applied to HD 120136/tau Boo in Section 2 because EPE gave no Teff error. Affects the mass and age fits for that star.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GAIA DR3 parallaxes are reliable for the three stars near the G=3 bright limit (HD 137759, HD 163917, HD 222404), despite a 6% Gaia-Hipparcos difference for HD 163917.
    Section 2: The authors adopt Gaia parallaxes optimistically because the stars are only slightly brighter than the G=3 limit. A parallax bias would directly change radius, luminosity, mass, and HZ.
  • domain assumption MIST tracks and isochrones, at fixed literature metallicity, accurately map L and Teff to mass and age for all sample stars.
    Section 3.1 and 3.2: This is the core of the mass and age derivation. No [Fe/H] uncertainty is propagated, and the tau Cet mass mismatch (0.876 vs 0.783 Msun) shows the assumption can fail.
  • domain assumption The NPOI effective temperatures are accurate within their quoted errors.
    Section 3: Teff is a direct input to the Gaussian weight and to luminosity. Figure 2 shows large scatter between NPOI and EPE temperatures (fit 0.845x - 834.34), so systematic Teff offsets would bias the MIST fits.
  • domain assumption The orbital parameters P, K, e from EPE and the cited sources are correct enough to derive m sin i.
    Section 4, Table 4: The paper uses these values directly and deliberately ignores eccentricity errors when reporting m sin i uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The Kane & Gelino (2012) flux formulas correctly define the habitable-zone boundaries.
    Section 4, Equations 2-3: The paper adopts these empirical fits from the literature without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eighteen Exoplanet Host Stars from the NPOI Data Archive." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XDCRFUYW

@misc{pith2026250602934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eighteen Exoplanet Host Stars from the NPOI Data Archive},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XDCRFUYW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02934}
}
read the original abstract

During the course of publishing angular diameters from the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer data archive, we found we had data on 17 confirmed exoplanet host stars and one exoplanet candidate (HD 20902/alpha Per). Here, we update our previously published stellar radii with more precise Gaia parallaxes when available, and use our radius and effective temperature measurements to fit each star's mass and age using MIST models. The mass changed by more than 10% for 9 of the 18 stars. Combining our updated masses, radii, and temperatures, we present refined planetary masses as well as habitable zone calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A color-magnitude diagram of the exoplanet host stars presented here (red squares), past NPOI targets (large black circles), and targets from JSDC (Bourg´es et al. 2014, small black points) that fall within the limits of the NPOI observable range of declination north of -10 deg and brighter than V = 6.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparing the stellar radius (left panel) and effective temperature (right panel) from EPE with those determined from NPOI measurements. The dotted lines show the 1:1 ratio, and the solid red lines are the linear fits of f(x) = 1.020x−0.003 and f(x) = 0.845x − 834.34 for the radius and effective temperature, respectively. The bottom parts of each plot show the residuals to the 1:1 ratio line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The results from our age (left) and mass (right) fits for HD 9826/υ And. Note that because we used the mass tracks to calculate age and the isochrones to calculate mass, this may seem counter-intuitive to the way the plots are labelled (see Section 3.1 for discussion on this process). The top row shows the PDF results where the solid black vertical line shows the median, the dashed lines show the 1-σ CI, and the dot… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing the stellar mass from EPE and those based on NPOI measurements. All the stars are shown in the left panel, while a zoomed-in version is shown in the right panel so there is not as much crowding. The dotted line is the 1:1 ratio, the dashed lines in the left p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing m sin i from EPE and m sin i based on NPOI measurements. The dotted line is the 1:1 ratio, and the solid red line is the linear fit of f(x) = 1.124x − 0.335 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    2021

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732209

    Aguilera-G \'o mez, C., Ram \' rez, I., & Chanam \'e , J.\ 2018, , 614, A55. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732209

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732209 2018

  3. [3]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773712050015 2012

  4. [4]

    T., Mozurkewich, D., Rickard, L

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

    work page doi:10.1086/305365 1998

  5. [5]

    K., Armstrong, J

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2431 2021

  6. [6]

    K., Armstrong, J

    Baines, E. K., Armstrong, J. T., Schmitt, H. R., et al.\ 2014, , 781, 90. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/90

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/90 2014

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    K., Blomquist, S., Clark, J

    Baines, E. K., Blomquist, S., Clark, J. H., et al.\ 2023, , 165, 41. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca277

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca277 2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    K., van Belle, G

    Baines, E. K., van Belle, G. T., ten Brummelaar, T. A., et al.\ 2007, , 661, L195. doi:10.1086/519002

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Hummel, C

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

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    O., Wang, J

    Blunt, S., Balmer, W. O., Wang, J. J., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 257. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad06b7

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

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

    2014

  5. [13]

    A., et al.\ 2015, , 447, 846

    Boyajian, T., von Braun, K., Feiden, G. A., et al.\ 2015, , 447, 846. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2502

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al.\ 2016, , 823, 102. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116451

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

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    & Apai, D.\ 2021, , 161, 17

    Dietrich, J. & Apai, D.\ 2021, , 161, 17. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abc560

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Hatzes, A

    D \"o llinger, M. P., Hatzes, A. P., Pasquini, L., et al.\ 2009, , 499, 935. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200810837

    2009 doi

  10. [18]

    doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A.\ 2016, , 222, 8. doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Boyajian, T., von Braun, K., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 118

    Ellis, T. G., Boyajian, T., von Braun, K., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 118. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac141a

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Bernkopf, J.\ 1998, , 336, 942

    Fuhrmann, K., Pfeiffer, M. J., & Bernkopf, J.\ 1998, , 336, 942

    1998

  13. [21]

    Gaia Collaboration\ 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/355

    2022

  14. [22]

    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

  15. [23]

    C., Adibekyan, V., et al.\ 2021, , 646, A77

    Gomes da Silva, J., Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., et al.\ 2021, , 646, A77. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039765

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935253

    GRAVITY Collaboration, Lacour, S., Nowak, M., et al.\ 2019, , 623, L11. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935253

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    K., Saunders, N., Chontos, A., et al.\ 2023, , 165, 44

    Grunblatt, S. K., Saunders, N., Chontos, A., et al.\ 2023, , 165, 44. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca670

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Guenther, E

    Hatzes, A. P., Guenther, E. W., Endl, M., et al.\ 2005, , 437, 743. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052850

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    P., Zechmeister, M., Matthews, J., et al.\ 2012, , 543, A98

    Hatzes, A. P., Zechmeister, M., Matthews, J., et al.\ 2012, , 543, A98. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219332

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244727

    Hinkley, S., Lacour, S., Marleau, G.-D., et al.\ 2023, , 671, L5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244727

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Bedding, T

    Huber, D., Ireland, M. J., Bedding, T. R., et al.\ 2012, , 423, L16. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01242.x

    2012

  22. [30]

    A., Benson, J

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

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaf62

    Ji, X., Bailey, N., Fabrycky, D., et al.\ 2023, , 943, L1. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acaf62

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Kane, S. R. & Gelino, D. M.\ 2012, , 124, 323. doi:10.1086/665271

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    F., Kopparapu, R., Ramirez, R

    Kasting, J. F., Kopparapu, R., Ramirez, R. M., et al.\ 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 111, 12641. doi:10.1073/pnas.1309107110

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Fischer, D

    Korolik, M., Roettenbacher, R. M., Fischer, D. A., et al.\ 2023, , 166, 123. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ace906

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118539

    Lee, B.-C., Han, I., Park, M.-G., et al.\ 2012a, , 543, A37. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118539

    doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219347

    Lee, B.-C., Han, I., Park, M.-G., et al.\ 2012b, , 546, A5. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219347

    doi

  29. [37]

    E., Han, I., et al.\ 2011, , 529, A134

    Lee, B.-C., Mkrtichian, D. E., Han, I., et al.\ 2011, , 529, A134. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016293

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    E., Han, I., et al.\ 2012c, , 548, A118

    Lee, B.-C., Mkrtichian, D. E., Han, I., et al.\ 2012c, , 548, A118. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118014

    doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936259

    Ligi, R., Dorn, C., Crida, A., et al.\ 2019, , 631, A92. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936259

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    S., Lambert, D

    Lyubimkov, L. S., Lambert, D. L., Rostopchin, S. I., et al.\ 2010, , 402, 1369. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15979.x

    2010

  33. [41]

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

    1991

  34. [42]

    E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al.\ 2024, , 962, L32

    Mullally, S. E., Debes, J., Cracraft, M., et al.\ 2024, , 962, L32. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2348

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.03776

    Nasedkin, E., Molli \`e re, P., Lacour, S., et al.\ 2024, arXiv:2404.03776. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.03776

    2024 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424399

    Niedzielski, A., Villaver, E., Wolszczan, A., et al.\ 2015, , 573, A36. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424399

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039039

    Nowak, M., Lacour, S., Lagrange, A.-M., et al.\ 2020, , 642, L2. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039039

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al.\ 2011, , 192, 3. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al.\ 2013, , 208, 4. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2015, , 220, 15. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 34

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    D., Ireland, M

    Rains, A. D., Ireland, M. J., White, T. R., et al.\ 2020, , 493, 2377. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa282

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322360

    Reffert, S., Bergmann, C., Quirrenbach, A., et al.\ 2015, , 574, A116. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322360

    2015 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al.\ 2021, , 255, 8. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    M., Cabot, S

    Roettenbacher, R. M., Cabot, S. H. C., Fischer, D. A., et al.\ 2022, , 163, 19. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac3235

    2022 doi

  46. [54]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.539

    Sato, B., Izumiura, H., Toyota, E., et al.\ 2008, , 60, 539. doi:10.1093/pasj/60.3.539

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    L., Zimmerman, N

    Saxena, P., Villanueva, G. L., Zimmerman, N. T., et al.\ 2021, , 162, 30. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abf657

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T

    Teixeira, T. C., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., et al.\ 2009, , 494, 237. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810746

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    Tuomi, M., Jones, H. R. A., Jenkins, J. S., et al.\ 2013, , 551, A79. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220509

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    G., et al.\ 2014, , 567, A133

    Valle, G., Dell'Omodarme, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., et al.\ 2014, , 567, A133. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201323350

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078357

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

    2007 doi

  52. [60]

    S., Kane, S

    von Braun, K., Boyajian, T. S., Kane, S. R., et al.\ 2011, , 729, L26. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/729/2/L26

    2011 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al.\ 2021, , 161, 148

    Wang, J. J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S., et al.\ 2021, , 161, 148. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2d

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142501

    Wolthoff, V., Reffert, S., Quirrenbach, A., et al.\ 2022, , 661, A63. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142501

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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