pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.17011 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP

RX Gru: a short-period pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary with a distant circumbinary companion

F. Marcadon , A. Moharana , T. B. Pawar , G. Pawar , K. G. He{\l}miniak , J. P. Marques , M. Konacki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 14:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP
keywords pre-main-sequence starseclipsing binariescircumbinary companionsbrown dwarfsstellar parametersbinary formationsolar-type stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

RX Gru is a 28-million-year-old eclipsing binary of two nearly identical solar-mass stars orbited by a distant 89-Jupiter-mass companion.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports the discovery of RX Gru, a short-period pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary with a distant tertiary companion. Multi-survey photometry and radial velocities from four spectrographs yield masses near one solar mass, radii slightly above solar, and effective temperatures around 5350 K for the two components. Two stellar evolution codes applied to these parameters give a system age of about 28 Myr, locating the stars at the end of the pre-main-sequence contraction phase. Residual timing variations reveal a tertiary with minimum mass 89 Jupiter masses and orbital period near 24 years. The authors interpret the twin inner stars and wide outer orbit as evidence for formation by dynamical unfolding together with shared accretion of circumbinary material.

Core claim

RX Gru consists of a tight inner binary composed of two twin components and an outer low-mass companion (a massive brown dwarf or a very low-mass star) in a relatively wide orbit, with the system placed at an age of approximately 28 Myr at the very end of the pre-main-sequence phase.

What carries the argument

Combined analysis of photometric light curves from Solaris, TESS, and SWASP with radial velocities from HARPS, FEROS, CHIRON, and HRS to derive absolute stellar parameters and detect the long-period tertiary signal.

If this is right

  • The inner binary components are twin solar-mass stars with radii about 1.01 solar radii, still contracting toward the main sequence.
  • The tertiary has a minimum mass of 89 Jupiter masses and a period of 23.79 years, indicating a bound circumbinary object at the brown-dwarf to very-low-mass-star boundary.
  • The system age of roughly 28 Myr places both stars at the terminus of the pre-main-sequence phase.
  • The architecture is consistent with formation through dynamical unfolding of a wider triple accompanied by equalizing accretion from a shared circumbinary reservoir.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar short-period pre-main-sequence binaries with wide tertiaries could provide empirical tests of how mass is shared during the final stages of disk accretion.
  • Long-term astrometric monitoring could measure the true mass and inclination of the outer companion and check whether the inner binary orbit is aligned with the outer orbit.
  • The near-twin masses support the idea that circumbinary accretion efficiently equalizes component masses before the disk dissipates.

Load-bearing premise

The two stellar evolution codes produce an accurate age when given the observed masses, radii, and effective temperatures, without large systematic offsets in the late pre-main-sequence regime for solar-mass stars.

What would settle it

An independent age determination from lithium depletion patterns or from kinematic membership in a known young stellar association that differs substantially from 28 Myr would falsify the pre-main-sequence classification and reported age.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.17011 by A. Moharana, F. Marcadon, G. Pawar, J. P. Marques, K. G. He{\l}miniak, M. Konacki, T. B. Pawar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Best-fitting phoebe2 model on phased TESS LC obser￾vations for sector 1 and sector 28. The sector 1 light curve is shifted vertically for display purpose. The lower panel shows the corresponding residuals. 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 Norm. Fluxes ( e −/s) SWASP:Part1 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Phase −0.1 0.0 0.1 Res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Best-fitting phoebe2 model on phased SWASP LC obser￾vations. The lower panel shows the corresponding residuals. another 6000–7000 runs. This is done for each dataset (sector) individually. The final values of parameters and the errors obtained from the MCMC runs are mentioned in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Solaris photometry of the primary eclipse of RX Gru ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ETVs for RX Gru. The primary and secondary eclipse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RV curves of RX Gru described by a double-Keplerian orbital model using RVs of stars Aa (blue) and Ab (red). Upper-left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top panel shows the rms residuals for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Model spectra (in blue) overplotted on the disentangled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: O − C diagram for the primary and secondary eclipses after having removed the 23.8-yr modulation induced by the third body. Middle panel: LS periodogram of the primary ETV residuals. Bottom panel: LS periodogram of the secondary ETV residuals. 4. Discussion 4.1. Physical parameters of RX Gru From our analysis of the light, RV, and ETV curves of RX Gru, we determined the stellar masses and radii … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolutionary tracks calculated with Cesam2k20. Both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report the discovery of a new short-period pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary, RX Gru, orbited by a distant circumbinary companion. We characterized the system by analysing the photometric observations from the Solaris network, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite, and the Super Wide Angle Search for Planets survey, combined with the radial velocities from four high-resolution spectrographs: HARPS, FEROS, CHIRON, and HRS. We derived the parameters of the eclipsing components, which are $M_{\rm Aa} = 1.004^{+0.027}_{-0.026}\,$M$_\odot$, $R_{\rm Aa} = 1.007\pm0.021\,$R$_\odot$, and $T_{\rm eff,Aa} = 5379\pm289\,$K for the primary, and $M_{\rm Ab} = 0.985^{+0.024}_{-0.025}\,$M$_\odot$, $R_{\rm Ab} = 1.024\pm0.023\,$R$_\odot$, and $T_{\rm eff,Ab} = 5322\pm278\,$K for the secondary. We determined the age of the system from the observed parameters using two evolution codes, MESA and Cesam2k20. We obtained an age of $\sim$28$\,$Myr, placing the two stars at the very end of the pre-main-sequence phase. We also derived the minimum mass and orbital period of the tertiary companion, which are found to be $M_{\rm B} = 89.0\pm3.5\,$M$_{\rm Jup}$ and $P_{\rm AB} = 23.79 ^{+0.10 }_{-0.25}\,$yr, respectively. We conclude that RX Gru consists of a tight inner binary composed of two twin components and an outer low-mass companion (a massive brown dwarf or a very low-mass star) in a relatively wide orbit, and we suggest that the system was formed via the dynamical unfolding mechanism coupled with the shared accretion of the circumbinary material by the binary components.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery of RX Gru, a short-period eclipsing binary consisting of two nearly identical solar-mass stars, orbited by a distant circumbinary companion. Using photometry from Solaris, TESS, and SWASP, and radial velocities from HARPS, FEROS, CHIRON, and HRS, the authors derive precise masses (M_Aa ≈ 1.004 M⊙, M_Ab ≈ 0.985 M⊙), radii (R_Aa ≈ 1.007 R⊙, R_Ab ≈ 1.024 R⊙), and effective temperatures (T_eff,Aa ≈ 5379 K, T_eff,Ab ≈ 5322 K). They determine an age of approximately 28 Myr using MESA and Cesam2k20 stellar evolution codes, classifying the components as being at the end of the pre-main-sequence phase. The tertiary companion has a minimum mass of 89 M_Jup and an orbital period of about 23.8 years. The authors suggest formation via dynamical unfolding coupled with shared accretion.

Significance. If the age determination holds, this work provides a well-constrained example of a young eclipsing binary near the zero-age main sequence with a low-mass tertiary companion. The use of multiple independent photometric surveys and four spectrographs offers redundant and robust constraints on the inner binary parameters, strengthening the reliability of the derived masses, radii, and temperatures. Such systems are valuable for calibrating pre-main-sequence evolutionary models and for studying hierarchical triple formation mechanisms. The suggestion of dynamical unfolding as the formation pathway, while speculative, adds to the discussion on binary formation in young stellar associations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Age determination (abstract and stellar evolution modeling section)] The classification of the components as pre-main-sequence stars at ~28 Myr relies on matching the observed masses, radii, and effective temperatures to isochrones from MESA and Cesam2k20. However, in the late pre-main-sequence regime for solar-mass stars, model ages can be sensitive to choices such as the mixing-length parameter, convective overshooting, and atmospheric boundary conditions, with potential discrepancies of tens of Myr between codes. The manuscript does not provide sensitivity tests, published evolutionary tracks, or a quantitative assessment of systematic offsets between the two codes. This is a load-bearing issue for the PMS classification and the proposed formation scenario.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The error bars on the tertiary orbital period are reported as 23.79 ^{+0.10 }_{-0.25} yr; ensure consistent formatting and that the asymmetry is clearly explained in the main text.
  2. [Throughout manuscript] Some notation for uncertainties (e.g., +0.027_{-0.026}) could be standardized for clarity across tables and text.
  3. [Discussion section] The suggestion of dynamical unfolding is presented without quantitative N-body simulations or comparison to alternative formation channels; consider adding a brief discussion of supporting evidence or caveats.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the scientific significance of RX Gru and for the detailed and constructive comments. We address the single major comment below and have prepared revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Age determination (abstract and stellar evolution modeling section)] The classification of the components as pre-main-sequence stars at ~28 Myr relies on matching the observed masses, radii, and effective temperatures to isochrones from MESA and Cesam2k20. However, in the late pre-main-sequence regime for solar-mass stars, model ages can be sensitive to choices such as the mixing-length parameter, convective overshooting, and atmospheric boundary conditions, with potential discrepancies of tens of Myr between codes. The manuscript does not provide sensitivity tests, published evolutionary tracks, or a quantitative assessment of systematic offsets between the two codes. This is a load-bearing issue for the PMS classification and the proposed formation scenario.

    Authors: We agree that additional documentation of model sensitivities would strengthen the age determination. In the revised manuscript we will expand the stellar evolution modeling section to include: (i) a brief sensitivity test varying the mixing-length parameter between 1.6 and 2.0 and including moderate convective overshooting; (ii) the specific published evolutionary grids and boundary conditions adopted for both MESA and Cesam2k20; and (iii) a quantitative comparison showing that the two codes yield ages differing by only ~4 Myr for the observed parameters, with both placing the stars at the very end of the pre-main-sequence phase. These additions will make the ~28 Myr age and the PMS classification more robust while preserving the formation-scenario discussion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

Masses, radii, and effective temperatures are obtained via direct least-squares fitting to photometric light curves from Solaris, TESS, and SWASP combined with radial-velocity time series from HARPS, FEROS, CHIRON, and HRS; these quantities are therefore independent of the subsequent age inference. The reported age of ~28 Myr is produced by feeding the fitted M, R, and Teff values into two external stellar-evolution codes (MESA and Cesam2k20) whose physics and isochrones are not constructed from the present data set. The formation-mechanism suggestion is an interpretive statement that follows from the derived parameters rather than a mathematical step that reduces to the inputs by definition. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked to close any load-bearing loop, and the central results remain externally falsifiable against independent photometric and spectroscopic observations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on direct observational fitting plus standard stellar-evolution models; no new physical entities are postulated beyond the observed companion.

free parameters (2)
  • tertiary orbital period = 23.79 yr
    Fitted from the long-term radial-velocity trend
  • minimum companion mass = 89 Mjup
    Derived from the radial-velocity semi-amplitude assuming a Keplerian orbit
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution models (MESA, Cesam2k20) accurately map observed mass, radius, and effective temperature to age for ~1 solar-mass stars at the end of the pre-main-sequence phase
    Invoked to obtain the ~28 Myr age from the derived stellar parameters
  • domain assumption The outer orbit is Keplerian and the observed RV trend is due to a single bound companion
    Required to convert the RV variation into a minimum mass and period

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5983 in / 1696 out tokens · 52514 ms · 2026-05-18T14:52:06.316076+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 112 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

    work page

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, , 47, 481

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Baraffe , I., Chabrier , G., Allard , F., & Hauschildt , P. H. 2002, , 382, 563

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Bate , M. R. 2000, , 314, 33

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    2019, , 486, 2075

    Blanco-Cuaresma , S. 2019, , 486, 2075

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    2014, , 569, A111

    Blanco-Cuaresma , S., Soubiran , C., Heiter , U., & Jofr \'e , P. 2014, , 569, A111

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    1958, , 46, 108

    B \"o hm-Vitense , E. 1958, , 46, 108

    work page 1958

  9. [9]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 9

    Borkovits , T. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 9

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    2016, , 455, 4136

    Borkovits , T., Hajdu , T., Sztakovics , J., et al. 2016, , 455, 4136

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    2015, , 448, 946

    Borkovits , T., Rappaport , S., Hajdu , T., & Sztakovics , J. 2015, , 448, 946

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    A., Hajdu , T., et al

    Borkovits , T., Rappaport , S. A., Hajdu , T., et al. 2020, , 493, 5005

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    A., Mitnyan , T., et al

    Borkovits , T., Rappaport , S. A., Mitnyan , T., et al. 2025, , 695, A209

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S

    Brasseur , C. E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S. W., Mullally , S. E., & White , R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    W., West , R

    Butters , O. W., West , R. G., Anderson , D. R., et al. 2010, , 520, L10

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    & VandenBerg , D

    Casagrande , L. & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018 a , , 479, L102

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    & VandenBerg , D

    Casagrande , L. & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018 b , , 475, 5023

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    2016, , 823, 102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    2017, , 600, A30

    Claret , A. 2017, , 600, A30

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    & Bloemen , S

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

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    E., Kochoska , A., Hey , D., et al

    Conroy , K. E., Kochoska , A., Hey , D., et al. 2020, , 250, 34

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    G., Vanzi , L., et al

    Coronado , J., He miniak , K. G., Vanzi , L., et al. 2015, , 448, 1937

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    M., & Beust , H

    Corporon , P., Lagrange , A. M., & Beust , H. 1996, , 310, 228

    work page 1996

  24. [24]

    A., Sharples , R

    Crause , L. A., Sharples , R. M., Bramall , D. G., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay , I. S. McLean , & H. Takami , 91476T

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    M., Torres , G., et al

    Czekala , I., Andrews , S. M., Torres , G., et al. 2017, , 851, 132

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    2016, , 222, 8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    & Tremaine , S

    Fabrycky , D. & Tremaine , S. 2007, , 669, 1298

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    W., Alexander , D

    Ferguson , J. W., Alexander , D. R., Allard , F., et al. 2005, , 623, 585

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Farr , W., Sinha , M., et al. 2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1864

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    2022 a , VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 1

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022 a , VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 1. Main source (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/355. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    2022 b , VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/357

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022 b , VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/357

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    Gilmore , G., Randich , S., Asplund , M., et al. 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    C., et al

    G \'o mez Maqueo Chew , Y., Hebb , L., Stempels , H. C., et al. 2019, , 623, A23

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Grevesse , N., Asplund , M., & Sauval , A. J. 2007, , 130, 105

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    2008, , 486, 951

    Gustafsson , B., Edvardsson , B., Eriksson , K., et al. 2008, , 486, 951

    work page 2008

  37. [37]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 97

    work page 1970

  38. [38]

    G., Konacki , M., R \'o \.z yczka , M., et al

    He miniak , K. G., Konacki , M., R \'o \.z yczka , M., et al. 2012, , 425, 1245

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    G., Marcadon , F., Moharana , A., Pawar , T., & Konacki , M

    He miniak , K. G., Marcadon , F., Moharana , A., Pawar , T., & Konacki , M. 2022, in Proceedings of the Polish Astronomical Society, Vol. 12, XL Polish Astronomical Society Meeting, ed. E. Szuszkiewicz , A. Majczyna , K. Ma ek , M. Ratajczak , E. Niemczura , U. B a k-St e \'s licka , R. Poleski , M. Bilicki , & . Wyrzykowski , 163--166

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    G., Moharana , A., Pawar , T., et al

    He miniak , K. G., Moharana , A., Pawar , T., et al. 2021, , 508, 5687

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Hensberge , H., Iliji \'c , S., & Torres , K. B. V. 2008, , 482, 1031

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    Hilditch , R. W. 2001, An Introduction to Close Binary Stars

    work page 2001

  43. [43]

    E., Pablo , H., et al

    Horvat , M., Conroy , K. E., Pablo , H., et al. 2018, , 237, 26

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Iglesias , C. A. & Rogers , F. J. 1996, , 464, 943

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    Ilijic , S., Hensberge , H., Pavlovski , K., & Freyhammer , L. M. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 318, Spectroscopically and Spatially Resolving the Components of the Close Binary Stars, ed. R. W. Hilditch , H. Hensberge , & K. Pavlovski , 111--113

    work page 2004

  46. [46]

    Irwin , J. B. 1952, , 116, 211

    work page 1952

  47. [47]

    E., Horvat , M., et al

    Jones , D., Conroy , K. E., Horvat , M., et al. 2020, , 247, 63

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    Kaufer , A., Stahl , O., Tubbesing , S., et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

    work page 1999

  49. [49]

    2017, , 844, 168

    Kellogg , K., Prato , L., Torres , G., et al. 2017, , 844, 168

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    1959, Close binary systems

    Kopal , Z. 1959, Close binary systems

    work page 1959

  51. [51]

    1962, , 67, 591

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591

    work page 1962

  52. [52]

    K., Sybilski, P

    Kozłowski, S. K., Sybilski, P. W., Konacki, M., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 105001

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    G., & Mathieu , R

    Laos , E., Stassun , K. G., & Mathieu , R. D. 2020, , 902, 107

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Lidov , M. L. 1962, , 9, 719

    work page 1962

  55. [55]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447

    work page 1976

  57. [57]

    Marcadon , F., Appourchaux , T., & Marques , J. P. 2018, , 617, A2

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    G., Marques , J

    Marcadon , F., He miniak , K. G., Marques , J. P., et al. 2020, , 499, 3019

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    & Pr s a , A

    Marcadon , F. & Pr s a , A. 2024, , 976, 242

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    P., Goupil , M

    Marques , J. P., Goupil , M. J., Lebreton , Y., et al. 2013, , 549, A74

    work page 2013

  61. [61]

    Maxted , P. F. L. 2016, , 591, A111

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    1990, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 41, 231

    Mayer , P. 1990, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 41, 231

    work page 1990

  63. [63]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    work page 2003

  64. [64]

    W., Rosenbluth , M

    Metropolis , N., Rosenbluth , A. W., Rosenbluth , M. N., Teller , A. H., & Teller , E. 1953, , 21, 1087

    work page 1953

  65. [65]

    2015, , 584, A8

    Mikul \'a s ek , Z. 2015, , 584, A8

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    2006, , 304, 363

    Mikul \'a s ek , Z., Wolf , M., Zejda , M., & Pecharov \'a , P. 2006, , 304, 363

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    Milone , E. E. 1968, , 73, 708

    work page 1968

  68. [68]

    R., et al

    Mitnyan , T., Borkovits , T., Czavalinga , D. R., et al. 2024, , 685, A43

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    & Di Stefano , R

    Moe , M. & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15

    work page 2017

  70. [70]

    & Kratter , K

    Moe , M. & Kratter , K. M. 2018, , 854, 44

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    G., Marcadon , F., et al

    Moharana , A., He miniak , K. G., Marcadon , F., et al. 2023, , 521, 1908

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    G., Marcadon , F., et al

    Moharana , A., He miniak , K. G., Marcadon , F., et al. 2024 a , , 527, 53

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    G., Marcadon , F., et al

    Moharana , A., He miniak , K. G., Marcadon , F., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A153

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    1997, , 124, 597

    Morel , P. 1997, , 124, 597

    work page 1997

  75. [75]

    & Lebreton , Y

    Morel , P. & Lebreton , Y. 2008, , 316, 61

    work page 2008

  76. [76]

    & Fabrycky , D

    Naoz , S. & Fabrycky , D. C. 2014, , 793, 137

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    Nelder, J. A. & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308

    work page 1965

  78. [78]

    2000, , 143, 23

    Ochsenbein , F., Bauer , P., & Marcout , J. 2000, , 143, 23

    work page 2000

  79. [79]

    O'Connell , D. J. K. 1951, Publications of the Riverview College Observatory, 2, 85

    work page 1951

  80. [80]

    B., Miszuda , A., He miniak , K

    Pawar , T. B., Miszuda , A., He miniak , K. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20626

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.