Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Radial Velocity Orbital Solutions for Candidate Black Hole and Neutron Star Binary Systems in the Gaia Data Release 3 Catalog

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Spectroscopic follow-up shows that, apart from the three previously confirmed systems, every Gaia DR3 binary with a candidate dark companion above two solar masses has an incorrect orbital solution, leaving only two wide black-hole binaries

desk verdict Solid per-object RV refutation of the DR3 compact-object candidates; the 'only two BH binaries' census claim outruns the selection completeness. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.20371 v2 pith:2YANW66I submitted 2026-03-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Joshua D. Simon , Casey Y. Lam , Kareem El-Badry , Henrique Reggiani , Sukanya Chakrabarti , Puragra Guhathakurta , Ian B. Thompson , Nidia Morrell
show 3 more authors
Daniel Huber Benjamin J. Fulton Lauren M. Weiss
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords GaiaDR3binarycatalogblackholebinariesneutronstarradialvelocityorbitsmassfunctionastrometricspectroscopiccompactobjectcompanions
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

Gaia's third data release listed dozens of binary systems whose unseen companions were massive enough to be black holes or neutron stars. This paper takes the most promising of those candidates—single-lined binaries with inferred dark companions above two solar masses—and measures their radial velocities with ground-based spectroscopy over months to years. The result is stark: except for the three previously confirmed systems (Gaia BH1, Gaia BH2, and Gaia NS1), every one of the Gaia orbital solutions is wrong. The re-derived orbits have much smaller velocity amplitudes and different periods, putting the companions in the brown-dwarf, low-mass-star, or white-dwarf range, or revealing a second luminous star. The authors conclude that only two wide black-hole binaries exist in the entire DR3 binary catalog, and they suggest stricter quality cuts to keep future catalogs from repeating the mistake.

What carries the argument

The binary mass function f = K1^3 P (1 - e^2)^{3/2} / (2πG), computed from the radial-velocity semi-amplitude K1, orbital period P, and eccentricity e, is the load-bearing quantity. It yields a strict lower limit on the unseen companion's mass, so a small measured K1 rules out a multi-solar-mass companion regardless of inclination. Orbital parameters are found by sampling the posterior with a rejection-sampling algorithm and refining with Markov-chain Monte Carlo, using radial velocities from new spectra plus archival data. Stellar masses of the primaries come from fitting spectra and photometry to evolutionary isochrones. The same orbital parameters are then used to predict the astrometric

What would settle it

If dense radial-velocity monitoring of Gaia DR3 3640889032890567040 over a full orbit confirms the longer-period (≈940 d) solution with a semi-amplitude near 18 km/s, that system's minimum companion mass would be 1.3 solar masses—invalidating the paper's claim that no unconfirmed DR3 candidate has a compact companion above two solar masses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors derive independent radial-velocity orbits for eleven systems selected from the Gaia DR3 binary catalogs as having candidate dark companions above two solar masses. In every case except the previously confirmed Gaia BH1, Gaia BH2, and Gaia NS1, the spectroscopic orbit is incompatible with the published Gaia solution: periods change (for one star, from 1039 days to 20 days), and velocity semi-amplitudes are typically several times smaller than the Gaia orbit would predict. The resulting mass functions place the companions at sub-solar masses—brown dwarfs, M dwarfs, or white dwarfs—or show a second set of stellar absorption lines, indicating a luminous companion. For the one system

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that the new radial-velocity data—sometimes sparse or phase-incomplete—correctly identify the true orbit of each system, so that the disagreement with the Gaia solution is not hiding a hierarchical triple, an alias period, or a nearly face-on orbit with a genuinely massive companion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The number of wide black-hole binaries known from Gaia DR3 drops from a few dozen published candidates to two, so the local census of such systems is much smaller than the raw catalog suggested.
  • Future Gaia catalogs should apply the stricter quality cuts suggested here—significance greater than 10 and goodness of fit below 4—to keep candidate lists clean of spurious massive companions.
  • Hot, rapidly rotating stars are a systematic source of bad Gaia radial velocities; candidate searches should flag them for independent confirmation rather than accepting their orbital solutions.
  • The acceleration catalogs, which lack full orbital solutions, are a better place than the orbital-solution catalogs to look for the next confirmed neutron-star or black-hole binary, since the one fully characterized accelerating system here is a likely neutron star or ultramassive white dwarf.
  • Wide black-hole binaries with periods of several years and small velocity amplitudes will be missed entirely by short monitoring campaigns, so confirming them will require sustained, multi-year spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the proposed quality cuts are applied retroactively to DR3, the number of 'reliable' orbital solutions with high-mass dark companions shrinks to near zero, implying that the Milky Way's wide black-hole binary population may be at the low end of pre-Gaia theoretical predictions.
  • The hierarchical-triple interpretation raised for at least one rejected candidate (a 20-day inner binary embedded in a roughly 3-year outer orbit) suggests that some of the discarded systems could still contain compact objects as outer components; future epoch astrometry could test this for each rejected candidate.
  • The accelerating system with a 1.16-solar-mass minimum companion is a natural target for Gaia DR4 astrometry, which could measure its inclination directly and settle whether the companion is a neutron star or an ultramassive white dwarf.
  • Combining dense radial-velocity orbits with forward models of Gaia's detection probability, as done case-by-case here, could be developed into a formal selection function for the binary catalogs, enabling unbiased population statistics instead of informal quality cuts.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents spectroscopic radial-velocity follow-up of 31 systems from Gaia DR3: 20 stars with orbital solutions (astrometric, SB1, or AstroSpectroSB1) flagged as candidate black-hole/neutron-star binaries and 11 stars with large accelerations but no orbital solution. The authors derive stellar parameters and new RV orbits using MIKE, APF, IMACS, FEROS, and HIRES data, supplemented by archival velocities. Their main result is that, apart from the previously confirmed Gaia BH1, Gaia BH2, and Gaia NS1, the Gaia DR3 orbital solutions for all other selected candidate systems with inferred dark companions above 2 Msun are inconsistent with the new RVs; most are lower-amplitude binaries with low-mass companions, several are SB2 or eclipsing systems, and a few hot stars show no detectable variability. They propose stricter quality cuts (significance > 10, F2 < 4) and report one acceleration source with Msini = 1.16 +/- 0.01 Msun, likely an ultramassive white dwarf or neutron star. The paper concludes that only two wide binaries with black-hole secondaries are contained in the Gaia DR3 binary catalogs.

Significance. The per-object refutations are largely convincing: the RV measurements are independent of the Gaia values being tested, the paper is transparent about ambiguous cases, and forward modeling with gaiamock and the Lam et al. framework strengthens the interpretations for several systems. If the per-object results stand, the paper substantially sharpens our understanding of the false-positive rate in the high-mass-function tail of the Gaia DR3 binary catalogs and gives practical guidance for DR4. The identification of the acceleration source with Msini = 1.16 Msun is also a valuable result. However, the global census conclusion - 'only two wide binaries with black hole secondaries are contained in the Gaia DR3 binary catalogs' - is a load-bearing claim that goes beyond the selected sample and needs to be either relaxed or supported by a completeness argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 5; Sec. 2.1.1] The abstract and conclusions state that only two wide binaries with black-hole secondaries are contained in the Gaia DR3 binary catalogs. This census claim is not supported by the sample definition. In Sec. 2.1.1 the direct catalog selection requires m2_lower >= 5 Msun and m2_lower > m1; candidates with inferred dark companions between 2 and 5 Msun are included only if they appear in the Shahaf et al. or Andrews et al. lists. A genuine black-hole binary viewed at low inclination (small RV mass function) or with a primary more massive than the secondary would not enter the sample. Footnote 9 explicitly concedes the face-on assumption for the accelerating sources, but the same limitation applies to the SB1 and astrometric candidates. The data demonstrate that the particular Gaia orbits examined are wrong, but they do not establish that no other DR3 orbital solution hides a massive dark com
  2. [Sec. 3.2; Table 4; Sec. 5] For some objects the new RV solutions are too ambiguous to support the blanket statement in Sec. 5 that all remaining candidates have brown-dwarf or M-dwarf companions. For Gaia DR3 5846362195472084992, Sec. 3.2 states that the RVs cover only half of the orbit and 'we cannot currently rule out a higher mass secondary'; Table 4 gives K1 = 12.8 +21.2/-5.6 km/s and f = 0.045 +0.183/-0.032 Msun, so the allowed companion mass extends well above 1 Msun. Similarly, for Gaia DR3 3640889032890567040, Sec. 3.1 presents two acceptable RV solutions, with the longer-period solution giving Msini = 1.30 Msun. Both systems are inconsistent with their claimed Gaia orbits, so the core refutation stands, but the per-object caveats should be carried into the conclusions rather than replaced by a stronger universal statement.
  3. [Sec. 4.1] The proposed quality cuts (significance > 10, F2 < 4) are fit to the same sample they are used to clean. The thresholds are chosen post hoc to retain the three known compact-object binaries and exclude the false solutions in Table 1; no independent validation set is used, and the paper does not quantify how many genuine binaries would be lost. The statement that the cuts 'would retain the known genuine compact objects while excluding all but one of the false solutions' is a description of the training sample, not a validated selection function. This is a recommendation rather than the paper's central proof, but it should be explicitly labeled provisional, and ideally tested on simulated Gaia-like catalogs or withheld DR4-like data before being applied to future catalogs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The header abstract says 'radial velocity orbital solutions for 12 binaries' while the body abstract and Table 4 list 11 solutions. Please make the number consistent.
  2. [Table 2] As printed, Table 2 contains entries for only one star. Please state explicitly that the full machine-readable table is available and describe its format.
  3. [Sec. 2.5.2] The hot-star metallicity prior (-0.2 <= [Fe/H] <= 0.2) is introduced to avoid unphysical metallicities. Its effect on the inferred primary masses and hence on the companion-mass limits should be quantified or at least discussed.
  4. [Sec. 3.1] For Gaia DR3 3509370326763016704, the interpretation that the astrometric signal could be due to an almost-resolved luminous tertiary is plausible but speculative; the sentence 'something beyond a brown dwarf orbiting a low-mass star may be present' could be worded more cautiously.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Core refutations rest on independent RV data; only the post-hoc quality-cut recommendation is mildly circular, and the 'only two BHs' census claim depends on an untested completeness/face-on assumption rather than on a circular derivation.

  1. other [Section 4.1 and Section 5 (Conclusions)]
    "Adopting a minimum significance of 10 and a maximum goodness of fit of 4 would retain the known genuine compact objects while excluding all but one of the false solutions. This goodness of fit threshold is much more conservative than the F2 < 25 criterion suggested by Halbwachs et al. (2023)."

    The thresholds are chosen after the true/false classifications are already known from the follow-up campaign, so the sentence restates the labels used to select the cuts. It is a post-hoc fit to the training set, not an independent validation: by construction the chosen cuts separate the same objects that defined them. The paper honestly frames the cuts as a suggestion ('may be helpful'), so this is a minor circularity in a recommendation and not in the central RV refutation.

full rationale

The paper's core result is that newly obtained MIKE/APF/FEROS/IMACS radial velocities contradict the published Gaia orbital solutions for the selected candidates. These velocities are independent measurements, not derived from the Gaia astrometry or the DR3 mass functions being tested, so the per-object refutations are not circular. The same-group tools (gaiamock, Lam et al. 2025a) are used only as consistency checks on detection probabilities and RUWE, and are not load-bearing for the refutations. The only genuinely circular element is the post-hoc recommendation of significance > 10 and F2 < 4: the cut values are calibrated on the very classifications they are then said to 'retain' and 'exclude,' so the claim is a restatement of the fit rather than a validated selection rule; however, the paper explicitly presents this as a suggestion, not a prediction. The broader census statement that only two BH binaries exist in the DR3 catalogs is a limitation, not circularity: it depends on the completeness of the Shahaf et al. (2023) and Andrews et al. (2022) candidate lists for the 2-5 Msun range and on the untested assumption in footnote 9 that no systems are viewed nearly face-on (e.g., for Gaia DR3 5846362195472084992 the paper admits 'we cannot currently rule out a higher mass secondary'). These gaps affect the strength of the census claim but do not make the RV-based refutations circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass determinations require Keplerian two-body physics, stellar-mass priors from isochrone models, and the assumption that the visible star dominates the spectrum. The paper's recommended cuts on Gaia significance and goodness-of-fit are fitted to the same sample they are meant to clean. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • significance threshold for reliable Gaia orbits = 10
    Chosen post hoc in Section 4.1 so that known confirmed compact objects are retained while false solutions are excluded; no independent validation is provided.
  • goodness-of-fit threshold (F2) = 4
    Same post hoc derivation as the significance cut; more conservative than the F2<25 criterion from Halbwachs et al. (2023).
  • acceleration sample RV amplitude cut = >50 km/s
    Selection criterion in Section 2.1.2; determines which acceleration systems were followed, so the conclusions about acceleration catalogs are conditional on this cut.
  • hot-star metallicity prior = -0.2 to 0.2 dex
    Imposed in Section 2.5.2 to prevent metallicity runaway in isochrone fits; affects inferred primary masses and hence companion masses.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Keplerian binary mass function f = (M2 sin i)^3 / (M1+M2)^2 = P K1^3 (1-e^2)^(3/2) / (2 pi G)
    Used throughout Section 3 and Table 4 to convert measured period, semi-amplitude, and eccentricity into minimum companion masses.
  • domain assumption The target is a binary whose visible star dominates the spectrum unless explicitly identified as SB2.
    If an unresolved second luminous star contaminates the lines, the inferred dark-companion masses would be wrong. The paper identifies SB2 cases but cannot rule out unresolved triples.
  • domain assumption Disagreement between the new RV orbit and the Gaia astrometric orbit means the Gaia orbit is wrong, not that the RV traces an inner binary in a hierarchical triple.
    A hierarchical triple interpretation is discussed only for Gaia DR3 5593444799901901696; the blanket conclusion that all Gaia orbits are incorrect assumes this is not the explanation for other sources.
  • domain assumption The binaries are not viewed close to face-on, so minimum companion masses are representative of actual masses.
    Footnote 9 states this explicitly; for systems with very small mass functions (e.g., Gaia DR3 6802561484797464832), a massive companion would require inclination i < 4 degrees.
  • domain assumption MIST isochrone models with the assumed priors give correct primary masses.
    Primary masses in Table 3 come from isochrone fitting (Section 2.5); systematic model uncertainties are acknowledged but not propagated into the final companion-mass conclusions.
  • ad hoc to paper The proposed cuts (significance>10, F2<4) are valid for future Gaia catalogs.
    These thresholds are determined from the present sample (Section 4.1) and are not derived from an independent model or validated on a test set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radial Velocity Orbital Solutions for Candidate Black Hole and Neutron Star Binary Systems in the Gaia Data Release 3 Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YANW66I

@misc{pith2026260320371,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radial Velocity Orbital Solutions for Candidate Black Hole and Neutron Star Binary Systems in the Gaia Data Release 3 Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YANW66I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.20371}
}
read the original abstract

We present spectroscopic followup observations of binary systems from the Gaia Data Release 3 (DR3) binary catalog that were selected to have large enough mass functions for their companions to be black holes or neutron stars. The selection includes 20 stars that are astrometric and/or spectroscopic binaries, as well as 11 stars with large accelerations both in the plane of the sky and along the line of sight but no DR3 orbital solution. We provide classifications for this entire sample, including radial velocity orbital solutions for 12 binaries. Apart from the previously published binaries Gaia BH1, Gaia BH2, and Gaia NS1, we show that the Gaia orbits are incorrect for all of the stars with candidate dark companions above 2 Msun. We suggest more conservative cuts on the significance and goodness of fit parameters that may be useful for identifying reliable orbital solutions in the tail of the binary star distribution. Although we find no new confirmed black hole or neutron star companions, one accelerating system has a minimum companion mass of 1.16 +/- 0.01 Msun that is likely to be a neutron star or an ultramassive white dwarf. The acceleration catalogs may therefore provide a largely unexplored source of additional wide binaries containing compact objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.20371 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (upper left) Secondary mass as a function of primary mass for Gaia DR3 binaries. The confirmed black hole and neutron star binaries Gaia BH1, Gaia BH2, and Gaia NS1 are displayed as yellow circles. The candidates selected from the DR3 orbital catalog are plotted as red circles, those from the AstroSpectroSB1 catalog are plotted as magenta circles, and the spectroscopic binary candidates are plotted as dark blue circ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties of the acceleration sample. (left) RV amplitude as a function of the first derivative of the RV. The full sample of stars for which both astrometric and radial velocity accelerations are detected is shown in gray. The 11 stars we selected for spectroscopic followup are plotted as blue circles. (right) RV amplitude against goodness of fit. The symbols are the same as in the left panel. There are a handful … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 5593444799901901696. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The orbit has a period of 20 d, a semi-amplitude of 9.4 km s−1 , and an ec￾centricity of 0.14. ∼ 100 d; Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023.) The RUWE for the source in the DR3 catalog is con￾sistent with the value expected for the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 3640889032890567040. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE and APF, the blue curves are the 50 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC with the shorter period range (P ≈ 750 d), and the purple curves are the 5…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 6281177228434199296. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE, APF, and FEROS and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The orbit has a period of 273 d, a semi-amplitude of 15.9 km …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 6802561484797464832. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The orbit has a period of 525 d, a semi-amplitude of 2.6 km s−1 , and an ec￾c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 6601396177408279040. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The orbit has a period of 526 d, a semi-amplitude of 1.5 km s−1 , and an ec￾c…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 6593763230249162112. The black points are the RV measurements from El-Badry et al. (2024c) and MIKE and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The orbit has a period of 941 d, a semi-amplitud…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 5846362195472084992. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The orbit has a period of 362 d, a semi-amplitude of 12.8 km s−1 , and an ec…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: MCMC fit to the radial velocity curve of Gaia DR3 3689209059942075008. The black points are the RV measurements from MIKE and APF and the blue curves are the 100 best-fitting solutions from the MCMC. The or￾bit has a period of 792 d, a semi-amplitude of 19.3 km s−1 , …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 122003

    2016

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3

    2020

  3. [3]

    J., Taggart, K., & Foley, R

    Andrews, J. J., Taggart, K., & Foley, R. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.00680

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    2018, A&A, 616, A17

    Arenou, F., Luri, X., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A17

    2018

  5. [5]

    M., & Grevesse, N

    Asplund, M., Amarsi, A. M., & Grevesse, N. 2021, A&A, 653, A141 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123

    2021

  6. [6]

    2023, A&A, 674, A32

    Babusiaux, C., Fabricius, C., Khanna, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A32

    2023

  7. [7]

    A., et al

    Badenes, C., Mazzola, C., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 147

    2018

  8. [8]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    A., Gunnels, S

    Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. ...

    2003

  2. [10]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 131

    Bianchi, L., Hutchings, J., Bohlin, R., Thilker, D., & Berti, E. 2024, ApJ, 976, 131

    2024

  3. [11]

    1960, Properties of double stars; a survey of parallaxes and orbits

    Binnendijk, L. 1960, Properties of double stars; a survey of parallaxes and orbits

    1960

  4. [12]

    2020, A&A, 641, A43

    Bodensteiner, J., Shenar, T., Mahy, L., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A43

    2020

  5. [13]

    Breivik, K., Chatterjee, S., & Larson, S. L. 2017, ApJ, 850, L13

    2017

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

    2014

  7. [15]

    J., & Pickering, E

    Cannon, A. J., & Pickering, E. C. 1993, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Henry Draper Catalogue and Extension (Cannon+ 1918-1924; ADC 1989), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: III/135A. Originally published in: Harv. Ann. 91-100 (1918-1924)

    1993

  8. [16]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 6

    2023

  9. [17]

    2025, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2508.21805

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., & Breivik, K. 2025, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2508.21805

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 107

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 931, 107

    2022

  11. [19]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

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

    2016

  12. [20]

    C., Newman, J

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Davis, M., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Gerke, B. F. 2012, spec2d: DEEP2 DEIMOS Spectral Pipeline, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1203.003

    2012

  13. [21]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61

    2016

  14. [22]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    2012

  15. [23]

    C., & Osip, D

    Dressler, A., Hare, T., Bigelow, B. C., & Osip, D. J. 2006, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 62690F

    2006

  16. [24]

    2011, PASP, 123, 288

    Dressler, A., Bigelow, B., Hare, T., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 288

    2011

  17. [25]

    El-Badry, K., & Burdge, K. B. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 24

    2022

  18. [26]

    2020, MNRAS, 493, L22

    El-Badry, K., & Quataert, E. 2020, MNRAS, 493, L22

    2020

  19. [27]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 1266

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1266

    2022

  20. [28]

    J., Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Breivik, K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2786

    2020

  21. [29]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4

    2018

  22. [30]

    2021, A&A, 649, A5

    Fabricius, C., Luri, X., Arenou, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A5

    2021

  23. [31]

    Feroz, F., & Hobson, M. P. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 449

    2008

  24. [32]

    P., & Bridges, M

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., & Bridges, M. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1601

    2009

  25. [33]

    P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A

    Feroz, F., Hobson, M. P., Cameron, E., & Pettitt, A. N. 2019, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 2, 10

    2019

  26. [34]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7

    2020

  27. [35]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 —. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration,...

    2013

  28. [36]

    K., & Chatterjee, S

    Ganguly, A., Nayak, P. K., & Chatterjee, S. 2023, ApJ, 954, 4

    2023

  29. [37]

    R., & Wang, L

    Gies, D. R., & Wang, L. 2020, ApJ, 898, L44

    2020

  30. [38]

    2018, MNRAS, 475, L15

    Giesers, B., Dreizler, S., Husser, T.-O., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 475, L15

    2018

  31. [39]

    2019, A&A, 632, A3

    Giesers, B., Kamann, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A3

    2019

  32. [40]

    Gontcharov, G. A. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 759

    2006

  33. [41]

    2025, A&A, 693, A124

    Gosset, E., Damerdji, Y., Morel, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A124

    2025

  34. [42]

    O., & Corbally, J., C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, J., C. 2009, Stellar Spectral Classification

    2009

  35. [43]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

    2019

  36. [44]

    2023, A&A, 674, A9

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A9

    2023

  37. [45]

    C., Cropper, M., Boudreault, S., et al

    Hambly, N. C., Cropper, M., Boudreault, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A15

    2018

  38. [46]

    1988, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars

    Houk, N., & Smith-Moore, M. 1988, Michigan Catalogue of Two-dimensional Spectral Types for the HD Stars. Volume 4, Declinations -26.0 to -12.0., Vol. 4

    1988

  39. [47]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  40. [48]

    2023, A&A, 677, L9

    Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Degenaar, N., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L9

    2023

  41. [49]

    2022, A&A, 658, A129

    Janssens, S., Shenar, T., Sana, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A129

    2022

  42. [50]

    Z., Thompson, T

    Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K. Z., Thompson, T. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 2577

    2021

  43. [51]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8

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

    1999

  44. [52]

    Kelson, D. D. 2003, PASP, 115, 688

    2003

  45. [53]

    R., Stassun, K

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K. R., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 184

    2021

  46. [54]

    Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J

    Lam, C. Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J. D. 2025a, ApJ, in press, arXiv:2411.00654

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y., Simon, J

    Lam, C. Y., Simon, J. D., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025b, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:2510.17746

  48. [56]

    J., Dufton, P

    Lennon, D. J., Dufton, P. L., Villase˜ nor, J. I., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A180

    2022

  49. [57]

    W., et al

    Liu, J., Zhang, H., Howard, A. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 575, 618

    2019

  50. [58]

    2026, VizieR Online Data Catalog: LAMOST DR11 catalogs (Luo+, 2026), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: V/162

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., & et al. 2026, VizieR Online Data Catalog: LAMOST DR11 catalogs (Luo+, 2026), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: V/162. Originally published in: 2026RAA..in.prep..L

    2026

  51. [59]

    2022, A&A, 664, A159

    Mahy, L., Sana, H., Shenar, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A159

    2022

  52. [60]

    2011, ApJ, 743, 156

    Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Bauer, J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 156

    2011

  53. [61]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2611

    Mashian, N., & Loeb, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2611

    2017

  54. [62]

    Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package, ascl:1503.010 M¨ uller-Horn, J., Rix, H.-W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025, submitted to A&A, arXiv:2510.05982 M¨ uller-Horn, J., Ramachandran, V., El-Badry, K., et al. 2026, submitted to A&A, arXiv:2601.14403

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    M., Schlaufman, K

    Nataf, D. M., Schlaufman, K. C., Reggiani, H., & Hahn, I. 2024, ApJ, 976, 87

    2024

  56. [64]

    A., Cooper, M

    Newman, J. A., Cooper, M. C., Davis, M., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 5

    2013

  57. [65]

    2017, COSMOS: Carnegie Observatories System for MultiObject Spectroscopy, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1705.001

    Villanueva, E. 2017, COSMOS: Carnegie Observatories System for MultiObject Spectroscopy, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1705.001

    2017

  58. [66]

    2020, A&A, 638, A94

    Olejak, A., Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Sobolewska, M. 2020, A&A, 638, A94

    2020

  59. [67]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2024, PASA, 41, e061

    2024

  60. [68]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  61. [69]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  62. [70]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  63. [71]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  64. [72]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  65. [73]

    J., Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bubar, E. J. 2012, ApJ, 746, 154

    2012

  66. [74]

    M., Hogg, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 2

    2020

  67. [75]

    C., Casey, A

    Reggiani, H., Schlaufman, K. C., Casey, A. R., Simon, J. D., & Ji, A. P. 2021, AJ, 162, 229

    2021

  68. [76]

    C., Healy, B

    Reggiani, H., Schlaufman, K. C., Healy, B. F., Lothringer, J. D., & Sing, D. K. 2022, AJ, 163, 159 Orbital Solutions for Gaia DR3 BH and NS Candidates25

    2022

  69. [77]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  70. [78]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A3

    2018

  71. [79]

    2020, A&A, 637, L3

    Klement, R. 2020, A&A, 637, L3

    2020

  72. [80]

    J., Fulton, B

    Rosenthal, L. J., Fulton, B. J., Hirsch, L. A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 255, 8

    2021

  73. [81]

    G., et al

    Saracino, S., Kamann, S., Guarcello, M. G., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2914

    2022

  74. [82]

    K., Finkbeiner, D

    Saydjari, A. K., Finkbeiner, D. P., Wheeler, A. J., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 167

    2025

  75. [83]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  76. [84]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  77. [85]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 2991

    Shahaf, S., Bashi, D., Mazeh, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2991

    2023

  78. [86]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085

    Shenar, T., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1085

    2022

  79. [87]

    2022, ApJ, 928, 13

    Shikauchi, M., Tanikawa, A., & Kawanaka, N. 2022, ApJ, 928, 13

    2022

  80. [88]

    2023, ApJ, 953, 52

    Shikauchi, M., Tsuna, D., Tanikawa, A., & Kawanaka, N. 2023, ApJ, 953, 52

    2023

  81. [89]

    D., & Geha, M

    Simon, J. D., & Geha, M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 313

    2007

  82. [90]

    D., Li, T

    Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 11

    2017

  83. [91]

    D., Li, T

    Simon, J. D., Li, T. S., Erkal, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 137

    2020

  84. [92]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  85. [93]

    2018, A&A, 616, A7

    Soubiran, C., Jasniewicz, G., Chemin, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A7

    2018

  86. [94]

    P., Latham, D

    Stefanik, R. P., Latham, D. W., & Torres, G. 1999, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 185, IAU Colloquium 170: Precise Stellar Radial Velocities, ed. J. B. Hearnshaw & C. D. Scarfe, 354

    1999

  87. [95]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 79

    Tanikawa, A., Hattori, K., Kawanaka, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 79

    2023

  88. [96]

    A., Kochanek, C

    Thompson, T. A., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 637

    2019

  89. [97]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 22

    Tian, Z., Liu, X., Yuan, H., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 22

    2020

  90. [98]

    2021, A&A, 649, A10 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S

    Torra, F., Casta˜ neda, J., Fabricius, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A10 Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13, 22

    2021

  91. [99]

    S., Allen, S

    Vogt, S. S., Allen, S. L., Bigelow, B. C., et al. 1994, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 2198, Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII, ed. D. L. Crawford & E. R. Craine, 362

    1994

  92. [100]

    S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al

    Vogt, S. S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 359

    2014

  93. [101]

    2025, Data File data v3.fits.gz Used by the Python Package dustmaps3d, doi:10.12149/101662

    Wang, T. 2025, Data File data v3.fits.gz Used by the Python Package dustmaps3d, doi:10.12149/101662

    2025 doi

  94. [102]

    2025, ApJS, 280, 15

    Wang, T., Yuan, H., Chen, B., et al. 2025, ApJS, 280, 15

    2025

  95. [103]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 134

    Wiktorowicz, G., Lu, Y., Wyrzykowski, L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 134

    2020

  96. [104]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

  97. [105]

    S., Kawanaka, N., Bulik, T., & Piran, T

    Yamaguchi, M. S., Kawanaka, N., Bulik, T., & Piran, T. 2018, ApJ, 861, 21

    2018

  98. [106]

    2026, PASP, 138, 024201

    Shahaf, S. 2026, PASP, 138, 024201

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.