Nominal thresholds for good astrometric fits, and prospects for binary detectability, for the full extended Gaia mission

A. G. A. Brown; F. Guerriero; Z. Penoyre

arxiv: 2511.02476 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.GA

Nominal thresholds for good astrometric fits, and prospects for binary detectability, for the full extended Gaia mission

F. Guerriero , Z. Penoyre , A. G. A. Brown This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

keywords GaiaRUWEbinary starsastrometrydata releaseorbital periodUniverse Modelscanning law

0 comments

The pith

Longer Gaia baseline lowers RUWE thresholds and increases detectable binaries by 5-20%.

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

This paper uses Gaia Universe Model simulations to set nominal upper limits on the RUWE goodness-of-fit parameter for single stars over the full ten-year mission. For the upcoming fourth data release the limit is 1.15 and for the fifth it drops to 1.11, both derived under the nominal scanning law. These thresholds flag astrometric fits that are poorer than expected for single stars and therefore point to binarity. With the tighter limits the number of detectable short-period binaries rises 5-10 percent per release, reaching orbital periods as short as days, while long-period systems increase 10-20 percent and extend to periods of roughly 100 years for low-to-moderate eccentricity. Very eccentric binaries with much longer periods can still be caught if they pass through periapse inside the observing window.

Core claim

The central claim is that the extended Gaia mission permits lower RUWE limits of 1.15 for DR4 and 1.11 for DR5. These limits, calculated from the spread of single-star fits in full-mission simulations, identify more binary systems through their excess astrometric noise. Short-period binaries become detectable in greater numbers down to periods of days, long-period binaries up to 100 years show increased detectability especially at low and moderate eccentricity, and very eccentric systems with periods of thousands of years can still be recovered if periapse falls within the mission window.

What carries the argument

The RUWE parameter with nominal upper limits derived from the spread of goodness-of-fit values for simulated single stars under the Gaia scanning law.

If this is right

The number of detectable short-period binaries increases by 5-10% with each subsequent data release.
The number of detectable long-period systems increases by 10-20%, reaching periods up to 100 years for moderate-eccentricity orbits.
Very eccentric binaries with periods of thousands of years remain detectable if they pass through periapse during the observing window.
In sky regions observed more frequently, still lower RUWE limits could be applied to flag additional binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The results imply that continued mission extensions could push detectable orbital periods even shorter as the noise floor continues to drop.
The analytic chi-distribution estimate for UWE spread suggests the simulation-based limits may be slightly conservative due to a small tail of poorly sampled systems.
These thresholds could be combined with other binary indicators such as radial-velocity or photometric variability to improve completeness in population studies.

Load-bearing premise

The Gaia Universe Model simulations accurately capture the real-sky distribution of single-star astrometric noise and binary orbital parameters under the nominal scanning law.

What would settle it

Direct comparison of the predicted RUWE distribution for confirmed single stars against the actual distribution measured in DR4 or DR5 would show whether the proposed thresholds correctly separate single stars from binaries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.02476 by A. G. A. Brown, F. Guerriero, Z. Penoyre.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Left: The distribution of the total number of observations per system, 𝑁obs, in each data release for GUMS sources within 200 pc. Right: the corresponding distribution of the number of visibility periods, 𝑁vis, (number of transits separated by more than X hours). Both histograms show a bimodality, mainly due to the ecliptic pole regions (𝑙 < −45° and 𝑙 > 45°) being scanned with more visibility periods (Lin… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Example astrometric tracks and fits for seven different binaries from GUMS, of increasing period. Simulated data and fits are shown for DR3 (green), DR4 (orange), and DR5 (red). The coloured curves trace the true photocentre motion, points mark the times of observations (9 CCD observations distributed along the scan direction by the scanning law), and black lines represent ensembles of single-body tracks d… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The fraction of systems below a given UWE is shown for single stars (dashed lines). We fit each with a Student’s-𝑡 distribution (dotted line) to determine the approximate upper limit on UWE (vertical solid lines), corresponding to a threshold that would exclude fewer than one in a million well-behaved single stars. 3.2 Binary detectability as a function of period With these UWE thresholds, we can check whi… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The fraction of detectable binaries as a function of period. A system is considered detectable when UWEDRN > UWEDRN,limit (solid lines). The same set of curves has also been plotted using a fixed threshold of 1.4 (dashed lines). Vertical lines show the observational baseline corresponding to each data release. 10 3 10 1 10 1 10 3 10 5 P[yr] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 e DR3 10 3 10 1 10 1 10 3 10 5 P[yr] 0.0 0… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Binary detectability as a function of mass (𝑞, top row) and light (𝑙, bottom row) ratio for DR3, DR4, and DR5. 10 2 10 3 10 4 Nobs 10 0 1.1 × 10 0 1.2 × 10 0 1.3 × 10 0 1.4 × 10 0 1.5 × 10 0 1.6 × 10 0 1.7 × 10 0 UWElim; a n alytic 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 number of sources DR2 DR3 DR4 DR5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The analytic UWE limit (black line) for single stars observed 𝑁obs times. For context, we also show the distribution of the number of observations in each data release for our GUMS sources (equivalent to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The full extended Gaia mission spans slightly over 10 years, whilst the current data releases represent only a fraction of it, 34 months in Gaia's third data release (DR3). The longer baseline improves the quality of astrometric fits, lowering the noise floor and making consistently bad fits (e.g., due to binarity) more apparent. In this paper, we use simulated binaries from the Gaia Universe Model to examine the long-term astrometric behaviour of single stars and stellar binaries. We calculate nominal upper limits on the spread of goodness of astrometric fits for well-behaved single stars. Specifically, for the RUWE parameter, for upcoming DR4 ($\rm RUWE_{lim}=1.15$) and DR5 ($\rm RUWE_{lim}=1.11$), using the full mission nominal scanning law. These can be used to identify poor astrometric fits and can flag potential binary systems. We show the increase in the number and type of binaries detectable through RUWE. With our updated RUWE thresholds, the number of detectable short-period binaries increases by 5-10% with each subsequent data release, suggesting detections may be possible for orbital periods down to days. The number of detectable long-period systems increases by 10-20%, with periods up to 100 years, causing significant deviations in low and moderate-eccentricity binaries. Very eccentric systems with much longer periods (thousands of years) can still be detected if they pass through periapse during the observing window. Finally, we compare our results to the analytic estimate for the spread in UWE, which we predict from a $\chi$-distribution moderated by the number of observations. These agree with our inferred population limits but suggest that we may be biased by a small number of poorly sampled systems. In regions of the sky that are more frequently observed, lower limits could be employed, potentially bringing even more binaries above the threshold for detectability.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper delivers concrete RUWE thresholds for DR4 and DR5 from Gaia Universe Model simulations that could raise binary detection rates by 5-20 percent, but the numbers rest on how well those simulations match real single-star noise and binary orbits.

read the letter

Colleague, the main point is that this work sets practical RUWE limits at 1.15 for DR4 and 1.11 for DR5 using full-mission simulations, and it estimates those cuts will pick up 5-10 percent more short-period binaries and 10-20 percent more long-period ones, with some very eccentric systems still showing up if they hit periapse in the window. They also compare the results to an analytic chi-distribution for the unit weight error and find broad agreement, though they flag possible sampling bias in a few systems. That combination of forward modeling and the analytic check is the useful part. It gives people working on Gaia binary searches a ready-to-use number instead of having to rerun everything themselves for the extended baseline. The methods are described clearly enough that the simulation setup and the tail measurement can be followed. The soft spot is exactly what the stress test flags: everything flows from the Gaia Universe Model's representation of single-star residuals under the nominal scanning law and the period-eccentricity distribution of binaries. If real calibration or attitude noise pushes the single-star tail higher, or if the model undersamples certain orbits, both the absolute limits and the reported detection gains move. They are upfront about the sampling issue, which helps, but the paper does not appear to include direct tests against existing Gaia data to quantify the mismatch. This is for readers who need updated, mission-specific flags for astrometric binaries in stellar populations or galactic archaeology work. Someone planning DR4 or DR5 analyses would get immediate value from the numbers and the period-range discussion. It deserves a serious referee because the results are concrete, the analytic cross-check is independent, and the limitations are stated rather than hidden. I would send it for review, with the main request being more on sensitivity to model assumptions and any available checks against real observations.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses forward simulations from the Gaia Universe Model under the nominal scanning law to derive nominal RUWE thresholds for identifying poor astrometric fits in the extended Gaia mission. It reports RUWE_lim = 1.15 for DR4 and 1.11 for DR5, and shows that these thresholds increase the number of detectable short-period binaries by 5-10% (potentially down to periods of days) and long-period systems by 10-20% (up to 100 years), with very eccentric systems detectable over thousands of years if periapse occurs in the window. The results are cross-checked against an analytic χ-distribution for UWE spread moderated by number of observations, which broadly agrees but flags possible bias from poorly sampled systems. Lower thresholds are suggested for frequently observed sky regions.

Significance. If the simulation-derived thresholds hold, the work supplies practical, forward-model-based RUWE limits that can be applied directly to DR4 and DR5 to flag potential binaries, yielding measurable gains in detectable short- and long-period systems. The combination of controlled simulations and an independent analytic χ-distribution cross-check provides a clear, falsifiable framework for binary detectability that strengthens the central claims. This could meaningfully enlarge the sample of astrometrically characterized binaries for population studies.

major comments (2)

[Methods] Methods section (simulation setup): The RUWE_lim values (1.15 for DR4, 1.11 for DR5) and the reported 5-10% / 10-20% increases in detectable binaries are obtained by measuring the upper tail of single-star RUWE in Gaia Universe Model simulations and counting binaries that exceed it. The central claims rest on the model accurately reproducing real single-star astrometric noise and binary orbital-parameter distributions under the nominal scanning law; no validation against observed RUWE tails from DR3 is described, leaving the absolute thresholds and differential fractions sensitive to possible under-representation of calibration or attitude noise.
[Results] Results section (analytic comparison): The paper states that the analytic χ-distribution agrees with the inferred population limits but explicitly notes possible bias from a small number of poorly sampled systems. This internal caveat directly affects the robustness of the claimed detection-fraction gains and the prospects for periods down to days or up to 100 years; a quantitative sensitivity test to sampling details is not provided, which is load-bearing for the main quantitative results.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the mission duration is described only as 'slightly over 10 years'; stating the precise span would improve precision.
[Throughout] Notation: RUWE_lim is introduced without an explicit definition on first use; adding a short parenthetical definition would aid readability.
[Discussion] Discussion: the suggestion that lower limits could be used in frequently observed regions is noted but lacks even a single quantitative example or sky-position map.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. We address the two major comments point by point below. In each case we agree that the suggested additions will improve the manuscript and have planned revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods section (simulation setup): The RUWE_lim values (1.15 for DR4, 1.11 for DR5) and the reported 5-10% / 10-20% increases in detectable binaries are obtained by measuring the upper tail of single-star RUWE in Gaia Universe Model simulations and counting binaries that exceed it. The central claims rest on the model accurately reproducing real single-star astrometric noise and binary orbital-parameter distributions under the nominal scanning law; no validation against observed RUWE tails from DR3 is described, leaving the absolute thresholds and differential fractions sensitive to possible under-representation of calibration or attitude noise.

Authors: We agree that the absence of a direct comparison between the simulated RUWE tail and the observed DR3 distribution is a limitation for the absolute calibration of the thresholds. The Gaia Universe Model incorporates the nominal scanning law and a statistical representation of astrometric noise, but it may under-represent certain real calibration and attitude contributions. In the revised manuscript we will add a new figure and accompanying text that overlays the simulated single-star RUWE cumulative distribution against the DR3 RUWE distribution for a comparable sample of single stars. We will quantify any offset in the upper tail and discuss its effect on the adopted RUWE_lim values and on the reported detection-fraction gains. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results section (analytic comparison): The paper states that the analytic χ-distribution agrees with the inferred population limits but explicitly notes possible bias from a small number of poorly sampled systems. This internal caveat directly affects the robustness of the claimed detection-fraction gains and the prospects for periods down to days or up to 100 years; a quantitative sensitivity test to sampling details is not provided, which is load-bearing for the main quantitative results.

Authors: The manuscript already flags the possible bias arising from a small number of poorly sampled systems. To make this caveat quantitative, we will add a dedicated sensitivity test in the revised Results section. We will re-run the binary simulations for a range of observation counts (N_obs = 50, 100, 200) and for both the nominal and a more uniform scanning law, then recompute the detection fractions for short- and long-period systems. The resulting ranges will be reported alongside the nominal 5–10 % and 10–20 % figures, together with a brief discussion of how the extremes of period and eccentricity are affected. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in simulation-derived RUWE thresholds and binary detectability estimates

full rationale

The paper establishes nominal RUWE thresholds (e.g., 1.15 for DR4, 1.11 for DR5) by measuring the upper tail of RUWE distributions from forward simulations of single stars under the nominal Gaia scanning law in the Gaia Universe Model, then counts the fraction of simulated binaries exceeding those thresholds to report 5-10% and 10-20% gains in short- and long-period detectability. This forward-modeling chain does not fit parameters to observed data, redefine quantities in terms of their outputs, or rely on load-bearing self-citations; the analytic χ-distribution comparison serves as an independent cross-check. The derivation remains self-contained and does not reduce any claimed prediction to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the Gaia Universe Model for population synthesis and standard assumptions about astrometric noise and scanning law; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The nominal Gaia scanning law and observation schedule for the full extended mission are known and correctly modeled in the simulations.
Invoked to generate the astrometric time series for single stars and binaries.
domain assumption Single-star astrometric residuals follow a chi-distribution scaled by the number of observations, providing the statistical basis for nominal RUWE upper limits.
Used both for setting thresholds and for the analytic comparison.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5912 in / 1414 out tokens · 71497 ms · 2026-05-18T01:26:26.908017+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

W., Oh S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3661A 516, 3661

Andrew S., Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Oh S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3661A 516, 3661

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2532 2022
[2]

R., Bonnell I

Bate M. R., Bonnell I. A., Price N. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.277..362B 277, 362

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995
[3]

Belokurov V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1922B 496, 1922

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1522 2020
[4]

Castro-Ginard A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A...1C 688, A1

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450172 2024
[5]

El-Badry K., Lam C., Holl B., Halbwachs J.-L., Rix H.-W., Mazeh T., Shahaf S., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.125461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E.100E 7, 100

work page doi:10.33232/001c.125461 2024
[6]

Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016
[7]

Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..34G 674, A34

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 2023
[8]

Lindegren L., 2018, R e-normalising the astrometric chi-square in G aia D R 2, GAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124, https://dms.cosmos.esa.int/COSMOS/doc_fetch.php?id=3757412

work page 2018
[9]

Lindegren L., Lammers U., Hobbs D., O'Mullane W., Bastian U., Hern \'a ndez J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...538A..78L 538, A78

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117905 2012
[10]

Lindegren L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...2L 616, A2

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018
[11]

Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...2L 649, A2

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021
[12]

E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..321P 495, 321

Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Wyn Evans N., Everall A., Koposov S. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..321P 495, 321

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1148 2020
[13]

Predicted astrometric signals

Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2437P 513, 2437

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac959 2022
[14]

Perryman M. A. C., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/340111a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.340..111P 340, 111

work page doi:10.1038/340111a0 1989
[15]

C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.100R 543, A100

Robin A. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.100R 543, A100

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118646 2012
[16]

, keywords =

Shu F. H., Adams F. C., Lizano S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA&A..25...23S 25, 23

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 1987
[17]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

work page

[1] [1]

W., Oh S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3661A 516, 3661

Andrew S., Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., Oh S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2532 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3661A 516, 3661

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2532 2022

[2] [2]

R., Bonnell I

Bate M. R., Bonnell I. A., Price N. M., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.277..362B 277, 362

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/277.2.362 1995

[3] [3]

Belokurov V., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.1922B 496, 1922

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1522 2020

[4] [4]

Castro-Ginard A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A...1C 688, A1

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450172 2024

[5] [5]

El-Badry K., Lam C., Holl B., Halbwachs J.-L., Rix H.-W., Mazeh T., Shahaf S., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.125461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E.100E 7, 100

work page doi:10.33232/001c.125461 2024

[6] [6]

Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

[7] [7]

Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..34G 674, A34

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 2023

[8] [8]

Lindegren L., 2018, R e-normalising the astrometric chi-square in G aia D R 2, GAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124, https://dms.cosmos.esa.int/COSMOS/doc_fetch.php?id=3757412

work page 2018

[9] [9]

Lindegren L., Lammers U., Hobbs D., O'Mullane W., Bastian U., Hern \'a ndez J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117905 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...538A..78L 538, A78

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117905 2012

[10] [10]

Lindegren L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...2L 616, A2

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

[11] [11]

Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...2L 649, A2

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 2021

[12] [12]

E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..321P 495, 321

Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Wyn Evans N., Everall A., Koposov S. E., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1148 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495..321P 495, 321

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1148 2020

[13] [13]

Predicted astrometric signals

Penoyre Z., Belokurov V., Evans N. W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.2437P 513, 2437

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac959 2022

[14] [14]

Perryman M. A. C., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1038/340111a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989Natur.340..111P 340, 111

work page doi:10.1038/340111a0 1989

[15] [15]

C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.100R 543, A100

Robin A. C., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.100R 543, A100

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118646 2012

[16] [16]

, keywords =

Shu F. H., Adams F. C., Lizano S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA&A..25...23S 25, 23

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 1987

[17] [17]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

work page