Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Resolving the Unresolved: Using NESSI to Search for Unresolved Companions in Low-mass Disk Wide Binaries

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 42% of low-mass wide binaries are actually triple systems

desk verdict A useful, honest speckle survey that doubles the low-mass wide binary sample and finds a flat higher-order multiplicity trend that may be an artifact of uncorrected Gaia-based selection biases. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07499 v1 pith:EQ6HZM5Y submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR

Zachary D. Hartman , Gerard van Belle , Sébastien Lépine , Mark E. Everett , Ilija Medan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords higher-ordermultiplicitywidebinarieslow-massstarsspeckleimagingGaiaastrometrystellarbinaryformationNESSI
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 asks how often a wide binary made of two low-mass stars (K and M dwarfs) actually contains a third star tucked into a close orbit around one of the pair, and whether that likelihood grows with the wide separation. Using speckle imaging on the WIYN telescope plus Gaia astrometric flags, the authors find that 42.0% ± 10.9% of their 50 nearby low-mass wide binaries are higher-order multiples, rising to 62.0% ± 14.2% when systems where Gaia hints at a hidden companion are included. The result that stands out is that this fraction does not increase with projected separation from roughly 1000 au out beyond 30,000 au, unlike the trend seen in solar-type binaries. If correct, this flat trend argues against the 'unfolding triple' channel as the dominant route to the widest low-mass binaries, pointing instead toward mass-dependent formation mechanisms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing technique is speckle imaging with NESSI on the 3.5-m WIYN telescope, which collects thousands of 40-millisecond exposures and uses Fourier bispectrum analysis to resolve companions from roughly 40 mas out to 1.2 arcseconds with a typical contrast of Δm≈4. The target list comes from the SUPERWIDE catalog, built from Gaia DR2 and SUPERBLINK high-proper-motion stars through a two-stage Bayesian analysis that assigns each pair a real-binary probability; the paper selects pairs with probability > 90%, distances < 100 pc, and separations > 1000 au. To catch companions too close or faint for speckle, the paper applies Gaia-based multiplicity indicators following criteria from Tokovinin (2023) and Cifuentes et al. (2025), and compares the higher-order fractions below and above 10,000 au with a two-population proportion Z-test.

What would settle it

Select low-mass wide binaries from the Gaia Catalog of Nearby Stars using the relaxed criteria of Tokovinin (2023), which do not demand small parallax errors or proper-motion consistency, survey the same 1000 to >30,000 au separation range with a NESSI-class speckle imager, and recompute the higher-order multiplicity fraction versus separation; if the fraction rises with separation, the flat trend reported here is a selection artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central result is a measurement: among 50 nearby wide binaries whose components are all low-mass K- and M-dwarfs, with projected separations from about 1000 au to more than 30,000 au, the higher-order multiplicity fraction (the chance that one of the wide pair is itself a binary) is 42.0% ± 10.9%. When Gaia's multiplicity indicators (RUWE, IPDfmp, radial-velocity error, NSS flags) are used to count likely unresolved companions, the fraction rises to 62.0% ± 14.2%. Splitting the sample at 10,000 au gives 43.5% ± 16.5% below and 40.7% ± 14.6% above, statistically indistinguishable (Z = 0.195). Combining the NESSI sample with the Law et al. (2010) low-mass sample gives 36.9% ± 7.8%, with no significant rise with separation. The authors conclude that this flat trend, in contrast to solar-type binaries, indicates that the dynamical unfolding of compact triple systems is not the dominant formation mechanism for these very wide low-mass binaries.

Load-bearing premise

That the SUPERWIDE catalog from which the targets are drawn is representative of all low-mass wide binaries: SUPERWIDE requires small Gaia parallax errors and consistent proper motions, and an unresolved third companion can perturb a star's Gaia astrometry enough to make the pair fail those cuts, so wide binaries with hidden close companions may be systematically missing, and if that missing fraction depends on the wide separation, the flat trend could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the 42% ± 11% higher-order fraction holds, roughly two in five of the widest low-mass binaries are actually triple or higher-order systems, similar to the rate inferred for solar-type binaries.
  • The flat fraction with separation means the widely cited rise of higher-order multiplicity with separation may not apply to low-mass stars, so formation models predicting a strong rise for all masses need revision for the low-mass end.
  • The inner-binary separations detected in this work appear skewed toward values below the field peaks (51 au for solar-type, 20 au for M-dwarfs), suggesting some orbital hardening may have occurred.
  • If dynamical unfolding of triples were dominant, nearly all wide binaries would be higher-order multiples; the measured ~40% argues instead for channels such as turbulent fragmentation or core binding contributing substantially.
  • Extending the census to more systems (the authors are continuing with QWSSI and radial-velocity follow-up) will be needed to shrink the Poisson uncertainties and confirm or refute the flat trend.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The observed flat trend may partly be a selection effect: if SUPERWIDE's astrometric quality cuts preferentially remove higher-order systems at large separations, the true fraction could still rise with separation, and a selection-corrected analysis could recover the expected trend.
  • If the flat fraction survives the selection test, it would imply that the mechanism setting the widest binary separation is mass-dependent, and one testable prediction is that the inner binary's mass-ratio distribution differs between low-mass and solar-type wide binaries.
  • The hint that inner binaries pile up near 10 au could be tested with radial-velocity surveys; if confirmed, it would indicate that dynamical encounters hardened the inner pairs, meaning dynamical unfolding contributed to evolution even if it did not dominate formation.
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 NESSI speckle imaging observations of 57 wide binary systems drawn from the SUPERWIDE catalog, targeting unresolved close companions in low-mass (K- and M-dwarf) wide binaries. After removing systems with higher-mass or white-dwarf components and one system with only one component observed, the authors analyze 50 low-mass systems. They report a higher-order multiplicity fraction of 42.0% ± 10.9%, rising to 62.0% ± 14.2% when Gaia multiplicity indicators are included. They do not find the increase of the higher-order fraction with projected physical separation that has been seen in solar-type and higher-mass samples, and they interpret this as evidence that dynamical unfolding of triples is not the dominant formation mechanism for these low-mass wide binaries. The paper also reanalyzes and combines the Law et al. (2010) sample, and includes a discussion of known biases in Sec 3.7.

Significance. If the measurement is secure, this is a valuable contribution: it roughly doubles the number of low-mass wide binaries with high-resolution imaging of both components, extends the separation baseline to >30,000 au, and provides detailed contrast curves, astrometric precision checks, and a careful cross-match with literature and Gaia multiplicity indicators. The headline fraction is consistent with prior estimates, but the absence of a separation trend is the main novel claim and is directly relevant to models of wide binary formation. The paper is honest about its limitations and documents them explicitly; the central concern is that the main scientific conclusion depends on selection effects that are acknowledged but not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec 3.7, Sec 3.5, Fig. 4] The completeness check against GCNS recovers 85.6% overall, but this is an aggregate number that does not measure recovery as a function of outer separation or of the presence of an unresolved inner binary. The SUPERWIDE selection described in Sec 2.1 (parallax error <15%, Bayesian pair probability >90%) means that an inner binary perturbing Gaia astrometry in one component can remove a system from the catalog. For the widest pairs the expected proper-motion and parallax agreement is intrinsically tight, so the same perturbation is more likely to push the pair below the probability threshold; the flat trend in Fig. 4 may therefore be an artifact of preferentially losing higher-order systems at large separations. Please quantify this differential completeness (e.g., injection-recovery simulations into the SUPERWIDE selection, or suppression factors analogous to Law et al. 2010) or present the no-trend conclusion as tentative rather than significant.
  2. [Sec 3.5 and abstract] The headline value 42.0% ± 10.9% is a raw count of detections, not corrected for NESSI contrast incompleteness, the 40 mas resolution limit, or the SUPERWIDE selection biases documented in Sec 3.7. The comparison with Law et al. (2010) is not apples-to-apples because their 45%+18%/−16% value is bias-corrected, while the NESSI value is not; the raw fraction is effectively a lower limit in the presence of known incompleteness. The abstract and conclusions should state this qualification prominently, and ideally the analysis should apply a completeness correction to the fraction before comparing it with Law et al.
  3. [Sec 4 / Fig. 4] The statement that 'the lack of an increasing trend is significant' is stronger than the evidence supports. The final separation bin contains only two systems, the sample size is modest (50, or 84 combined with Law), and the unquantified selection effects described above could suppress a real trend. I recommend softening the language to 'consistent with a flat trend' and identifying a quantitative completeness correction as the necessary next step for this conclusion to be robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec 3.5, Z-test formula] The denominator of the Z statistic is printed as (1/n1 - 1/n2); the standard error should use (1/n1 + 1/n2). The sign error does not change the qualitative conclusion (the corrected Z would be even smaller), but the formula should be fixed.
  2. [Sec 3.4] The text reports 'nine speckle detected higher-order multiples' after earlier stating that NESSI resolved nineteen companions; please spell out how the nineteen detections reduce to nine in the low-mass sample after excluding higher-mass/white-dwarf components and avoiding double-counting with Gaia-resolved systems.
  3. [Sec 3.6] There is a typo in the second paragraph: 'where we we plot' should be 'where we plot'.
  4. [Sec 2.1] Several words are missing spaces in the extracted text (e.g., 'Startingwiththecompletesetof'); please check the compiled source for ligature/line-break artifacts.
  5. [Sec 3.5 and abstract] The 62.0% ± 14.2% fraction that counts Gaia multiplicity indicators as companions is an upper-bound estimate with an unknown false-positive rate; the paper does note this, but the abstract presents it prominently, so consider adding 'tentative' or 'upper bound' in the abstract.
  6. [Figure 3 caption] The caption reads 'The red lines indicates...' — should be 'indicate'; also please clarify which red line corresponds to the upper search radius and which to the lower.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central multiplicity fraction is an observational count from independent NESSI speckle data, not a fitted or self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This paper is a direct observational census rather than a derivation chain. The central number, 42.0% ± 10.9%, is a Poisson uncertainty on a count of higher-order systems identified from NESSI speckle detections, Gaia-resolved triples, and literature entries; none of these are fitted parameters, and the fraction is not obtained by inverting a model that was calibrated on the same statistic. The sample is drawn from the SUPERWIDE catalog, which the authors previously published, but the catalog's Bayesian pair selection is an independent prior data product and is not re-derived or re-fit in this paper; using one's own published catalog is data reuse, not circularity. The flat-trend conclusion is also a direct comparison of observed fractions in two separation bins with a two-proportion Z-test, so it is not logically forced by the sample definition. Section 3.7 explicitly concedes potential incompleteness from Gaia astrometric perturbations of unresolved companions, but that is an acknowledged observational selection effect and caveat, not a step where an input is renamed as an output. The comparison with the external Law et al. (2010) sample provides an independent benchmark. No equation in the paper equates the result to its input by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an observational survey with no fitted physical parameters; the listed items are selection and analysis choices that define the sample, plus the standard astrophysical assumptions on which the measurements rest. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • sample selection cuts
    Color (GBP-GRP > 1.01), absolute magnitude (MG > 4), tangential velocity (<120 km/s), SUPERWIDE probability (>90%), and G < 15 are hand-chosen thresholds that define the low-mass sample and therefore shape the measured multiplicity fraction.
  • separation split at 10,000 au = 10,000 au
    Chosen as the approximate median separation to split the sample for the trend test; not fitted to data, but the null result depends on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SUPERWIDE Bayesian pair-probability model correctly distinguishes physical binaries from chance alignments
    The sample is drawn from SUPERWIDE; if the catalog contains false pairs or misses real wide binaries, the multiplicity statistics are affected. Discussed in Sec 2.1 and Sec 3.7.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry used for distances, colors, and multiplicity indicators are reliable for this sample
    The analysis uses Gaia parallaxes to compute physical separations and Gaia colors to classify low-mass stars; any systematics would propagate into the sample definition.
  • domain assumption The NESSI speckle reduction and contrast curve analysis detects all companions above the stated 5-sigma thresholds
    The completeness of the survey is defined by the contrast curves in Figure 1; if the pipeline misses companions at certain separations or contrast ratios, the 42% fraction is an underestimate.
  • standard math Poisson statistics is adequate for the multiplicity-counting uncertainties
    The authors use Poisson uncertainties on small-number counts; this is standard, but it ignores systematic biases in the sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resolving the Unresolved: Using NESSI to Search for Unresolved Companions in Low-mass Disk Wide Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQ6HZM5Y

@misc{pith2026250607499,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resolving the Unresolved: Using NESSI to Search for Unresolved Companions in Low-mass Disk Wide Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQ6HZM5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07499}
}
abstract

Stellar systems consisting of three or more stars are not an uncommon occurrence in the Galaxy. Nearly 50% of solar-type wide binaries with separations >1000 au are actually higher-order multiples with one component being a close binary. Additionally, the higher-order multiplicity fraction appears to be correlated with the physical separation of the widest component. These facts have motivated some of our current theories behind how the widest stellar systems formed, which can have separations on the order of or larger than protostellar cores. However, it is unclear if the correlation between wide binary separation and higher-order multiplicity extends to low-mass binaries. We present initial results of an ongoing speckle imaging survey of nearby low-mass wide binaries. We find an overall higher-order multiplicity fraction for our sample of $42.0\% \pm 10.9\%$. If we include systems where Gaia indicates that a companion is likely present, this fraction increases to $62.0\% \pm 14.2\%$. This is consistent with previous results from both higher-mass stars and a previous result for low-mass wide binaries. However, we do not detect the expected increase in higher-order multiplicity fraction with separation, as was seen with previous studies. We briefly explore why higher-order multiplicity statistics could be different in low-mass stars, and what the significance might be for models of wide binary formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07499 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data products produced from the speckle data reduction. Left Panel: Reconstructed image in the red filter (832 nm) for the target star (UCAC4706-053644). A binary is detected at 0.172′′with a delta magnitude of 0.52. A ghost image at 180◦ is seen as well. This ghost image is not a third companion but is an artifact of the image reconstruction. The true companion is the brighter component to the lower left of the tar… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color-magnitude diagram of our wide binary sample, with both the primary and secondary components shown. True wide binaries with no additional companions resolved by NESSI are marked by cyan circles, wide binaries containing a speckle-detected third companion are marked by red stars, and Gaia￾resolved higher-order multiple systems are shown as gold triangles. For the higher-order multiples detected by speckle imagin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Widest projected physical separations of the 50 systems in our sample plotted against distance to the primary component of the wide binary. Blue points show the location of systems which are true binaries according to NESSI and Gaia. Gold points indicate the systems which are higher-order multiples according to NESSI (stars), Gaia (triangles), and Simbad (squares). Red points and violet stars represent the same for … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Higher-order multiplicity fraction as a function of widest projected physical separation in the combined sample of Law et al. (2010) and our NESSI observations. The final bin at 105 contains only 2 systems and, therefore, its value is questionable. We do not see eviden…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the projected physical separations for the 32 inner binaries that were detected in either our NESSI search, Law et al. (2010), or Gaia DR3 as resolved triples. The two vertical dashed lines represent the peaks of the separation distribution for solar-ty…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    xQ.W x?p(* w(ƹ MYĹc

    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]

    J., Anguiano , B., Chanam \'e , J., et al

    Andrews , J. J., Anguiano , B., Chanam \'e , J., et al. 2019, , 871, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf502

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf502 2019

  3. [3]

    J., Chanam \'e , J., & Ag \"u eros , M

    Andrews , J. J., Chanam \'e , J., & Ag \"u eros , M. A. 2017, , 472, 675, 10.1093/mnras/stx2000

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2000 2017

  4. [4]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    2024, , 973, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6303

    Barrientos , M., Kilic , M., Bergeron , P., et al. 2024, , 973, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6303

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6303 2024

  7. [7]

    Bate , M. R. 2014, , 442, 285, 10.1093/mnras/stu795

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu795 2014

  8. [8]

    Brandt , T. D. 2021, , 254, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c 2021

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    2004, , 601, 289, 10.1086/380442

    Chanam \'e , J., & Gould , A. 2004, , 601, 289, 10.1086/380442

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    2012, , 746, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/102

    Chanam \'e , J., & Ram \' rez , I. 2012, , 746, 102, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/102

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Gonz \'a lez-Payo , J., et al

    Cifuentes , C., Caballero , J. A., Gonz \'a lez-Payo , J., et al. 2025, , 693, A228, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452527

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    A., van Belle , G

    Clark , C. A., van Belle , G. T., Horch , E. P., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11446, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VII, ed. P. G. Tuthill , A. M \'e rand , & S. Sallum , 114462A, 10.1117/12.2563055

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    A., van Belle , G

    Clark , C. A., van Belle , G. T., Horch , E. P., et al. 2024, , 167, 56, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0bfd

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Collins , K

    Collins , K. A., Collins , K. I., Pepper , J., et al. 2018, , 156, 234, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae582

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Horch , E

    Colton , N. M., Horch , E. P., Everett , M. E., et al. 2021, , 161, 21, 10.3847/1538-3881/abc9af

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Gould , A., & Chanam \'e , J

    Coronado , J., Sep \'u lveda , M. P., Gould , A., & Chanam \'e , J. 2018, , 480, 4302, 10.1093/mnras/sty2141

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    R., Kraus , A

    Deacon , N. R., Kraus , A. L., Mann , A. W., et al. 2016, , 455, 4212, 10.1093/mnras/stv2132

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Stassun , K

    Dhital , S., West , A. A., Stassun , K. G., & Bochanski , J. J. 2010, , 139, 2566, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2566

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Stassun , K

    Dhital , S., West , A. A., Stassun , K. G., Schluns , K. J., & Massey , A. P. 2015, , 150, 57, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/57

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, , 480, 4884, 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    El-Badry , K., & Rix , H.-W. 2018, , 480, 4884, 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., & Heintz , T. M. 2021, , 506, 2269, 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    L., Sarro , L

    Gaia Collaboration , Smart , R. L., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2021, , 649, A6, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    2023 b , , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, , 479, 4440, 10.1093/mnras/sty1736

    Godoy-Rivera , D., & Chanam \'e , J. 2018, , 479, 4440, 10.1093/mnras/sty1736

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Bakos , G

    Hartman , J. D., Bakos , G. \'A ., Noyes , R. W., et al. 2011, , 141, 166, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/5/166

    2011 doi

  21. [29]

    D., & L \'e pine , S

    Hartman , Z. D., & L \'e pine , S. 2020, , 247, 66, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab79a6

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    D., L \'e pine , S., & Medan , I

    Hartman , Z. D., L \'e pine , S., & Medan , I. 2022, , 934, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac72a0

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, , 492, 1164, 10.1093/mnras/stz3132

    Hawkins , K., Lucey , M., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2020, , 492, 1164, 10.1093/mnras/stz3132

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Hermes , J

    Heintz , T. M., Hermes , J. J., Tremblay , P. E., et al. 2024, , 969, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad479b

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    P., Gomez , S

    Horch , E. P., Gomez , S. C., Sherry , W. H., et al. 2011 a , , 141, 45, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/45

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    P., van Altena , W

    Horch , E. P., van Altena , W. F., Howell , S. B., Sherry , W. H., & Ciardi , D. R. 2011 b , , 141, 180, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/6/180

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Veillette , D

    Horch , E. P., Veillette , D. R., Baena Gall \'e , R., et al. 2009, , 137, 5057, 10.1088/0004-6256/137/6/5057

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Casetti-Dinescu , D

    Horch , E. P., Casetti-Dinescu , D. I., Camarata , M. A., et al. 2017, , 153, 212, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6749

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Broderick , K

    Horch , E. P., Broderick , K. G., Casetti-Dinescu , D. I., et al. 2021, , 161, 295, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf9a8

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    B., Everett , M

    Howell , S. B., Everett , M. E., Sherry , W., Horch , E., & Ciardi , D. R. 2011, , 142, 19, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/19

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    B., Matson , R

    Howell , S. B., Matson , R. A., Ciardi , D. R., et al. 2021, , 161, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/abdec6

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  33. [41]

    Hwang , H.-C., Ting , Y.-S., & Zakamska , N. L. 2022, , 512, 3383, 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Janes , K. A. 2017, , 835, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/75

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    M., Solano , E., & Rodrigo , C

    Jim \'e nez-Esteban , F. M., Solano , E., & Rodrigo , C. 2019, , 157, 78, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafacc

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, , 429, 859, 10.1093/mnras/sts382

    J \'o dar , E., P \'e rez-Garrido , A., D \' az-S \'a nchez , A., et al. 2013, , 429, 859, 10.1093/mnras/sts382

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, , 623, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., Mignard , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2019, , 623, A72, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    K., et al

    Lamman , C., Baranec , C., Berta-Thompson , Z. K., et al. 2020, , 159, 139, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6ef1

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    M., Dhital , S., Kraus , A., Stassun , K

    Law , N. M., Dhital , S., Kraus , A., Stassun , K. G., & West , A. A. 2010, , 720, 1727, 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1727

    2010 doi

  40. [49]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    L \'e pine , S. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull , M. K. Browning , & A. A. West , 1375

    2011

  41. [50]

    2007, , 133, 889, 10.1086/510333

    L \'e pine , S., & Bongiorno , B. 2007, , 133, 889, 10.1086/510333

    2007 doi

  42. [51]

    M., & Shara , M

    L \'e pine , S., Rich , R. M., & Shara , M. M. 2007, , 669, 1235, 10.1086/521614

    2007 doi

  43. [52]

    J., Hong , S., Chun , S.-H., & Lee , Y.-W

    Lim , D., Koch-Hansen , A. J., Hong , S., Chun , S.-H., & Lee , Y.-W. 2024, , 167, 3, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0a62

    2024 doi

  44. [53]

    2018, , 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    W., Weigelt , G., & Wirnitzer , B

    Lohmann , A. W., Weigelt , G., & Wirnitzer , B. 1983, , 22, 4028, 10.1364/AO.22.004028

    1983 doi

  46. [55]

    W., Brewer , J

    Mann , A. W., Brewer , J. M., Gaidos , E., L \'e pine , S., & Hilton , E. J. 2013, , 145, 52, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/52

    2013 doi

  47. [56]

    W., Deacon , N

    Mann , A. W., Deacon , N. R., Gaidos , E., et al. 2014, , 147, 160, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/160

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    2023, , 166, 218, 10.3847/1538-3881/acffb0

    Medan , I., & L \'e pine , S. 2023, , 166, 218, 10.3847/1538-3881/acffb0

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    2021, , 161, 234, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe878

    Medan , I., L \'e pine , S., & Hartman , Z. 2021, , 161, 234, 10.3847/1538-3881/abe878

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe , M., & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  51. [60]

    M., & Badenes , C

    Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., & Badenes , C. 2019, , 875, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    2019 doi

  52. [61]

    Moeckel , N., & Bate , M. R. 2010, , 404, 721, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16347.x

    2010

  53. [62]

    2021, , 921, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14be

    Nelson , T., Ting , Y.-S., Hawkins , K., et al. 2021, , 921, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac14be

    2021 doi

  54. [63]

    R., Charbonneau , D., Irwin , J., et al

    Newton , E. R., Charbonneau , D., Irwin , J., et al. 2014, , 147, 20, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/1/20

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    J., Stassun , K

    Oelkers , R. J., Stassun , K. G., & Dhital , S. 2017, , 153, 259, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d55

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    Offner , S. S. R., Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 275, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  57. [66]

    M., Hogg , D

    Oh , S., Price-Whelan , A. M., Hogg , D. W., Morton , T. D., & Spergel , D. N. 2017, , 153, 257, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ffd

    2017 doi

  58. [67]

    A., Henry , T

    Raghavan , D., McAlister , H. A., Henry , T. J., et al. 2010, , 190, 1, 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  59. [68]

    2012, , 492, 221, 10.1038/nature11662

    Reipurth , B., & Mikkola , S. 2012, , 492, 221, 10.1038/nature11662

    2012 doi

  60. [69]

    2021, , 162, 102, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0445

    Salama , M., Ou , J., Baranec , C., et al. 2021, , 162, 102, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac0445

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    J., Howell , S

    Scott , N. J., Howell , S. B., Horch , E. P., & Everett , M. E. 2018, , 130, 054502, 10.1088/1538-3873/aab484

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    J., & Olling , R

    Shaya , E. J., & Olling , R. P. 2011, , 192, 2, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/2

    2011 doi

  63. [72]

    2023, , 523, 5947, 10.1093/mnras/stad1803

    Silva-Beyer , J., Godoy-Rivera , D., & Chanam \'e , J. 2023, , 523, 5947, 10.1093/mnras/stad1803

    2023 doi

  64. [73]

    W., et al

    Sozzetti , A., Torres , G., Latham , D. W., et al. 2009, , 697, 544, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/544

    2009 doi

  65. [74]

    2019, , 626, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935346

    Sperauskas , J., Deveikis , V., & Tokovinin , A. 2019, , 626, A31, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935346

    2019 doi

  66. [75]

    2020, , 246, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4

    Tian , H.-J., El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., & Gould , A. 2020, , 246, 4, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4

    2020 doi

  67. [76]

    2014 a , , 147, 86, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/86

    Tokovinin , A. 2014 a , , 147, 86, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/86

    2014 doi

  68. [77]

    2014 b , , 147, 87, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

    ---. 2014 b , , 147, 87, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    2017, , 468, 3461, 10.1093/mnras/stx707

    ---. 2017, , 468, 3461, 10.1093/mnras/stx707

    2017 doi

  70. [79]

    2023, , 165, 180, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc464

    ---. 2023, , 165, 180, 10.3847/1538-3881/acc464

    2023 doi

  71. [80]

    2012, , 144, 102, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/102

    Tokovinin , A., & L \'e pine , S. 2012, , 144, 102, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/102

    2012 doi

  72. [81]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  73. [82]

    J., Muirhead , P

    Veyette , M. J., Muirhead , P. S., Mann , A. W., et al. 2017, , 851, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa96aa

    2017 doi

  74. [83]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  75. [84]

    2020, , 898, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a46

    Wheeler , A., Ness , M., Buder , S., et al. 2020, , 898, 58, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9a46

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    G., Henry , T

    Winters , J. G., Henry , T. J., Jao , W.-C., et al. 2019, , 157, 216, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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