pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20722 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.SR

Recognition: unknown

Photometric Identification of Unresolved Binary Stars in Nearby Open Star Clusters

Varvara O. Mikhnevich , Anastasiia Plotnikova , Giovanni Carraro , Anton F. Seleznev
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR
keywords unresolved binary starsopen star clustersempirical isochronesphotometric identificationbinary fractionmass ratio distributionGaia photometryinfrared photometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Empirical isochrones revise binary fraction estimates downward in open clusters.

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

The paper introduces a method that replaces theoretical isochrones with empirical ones derived from observed data to identify unresolved binaries in the (H-W2)-W1 versus W2-(BP-K) diagram paired with Gaia color-magnitude data. This change reduces model uncertainties and extends coverage to lower primary masses across eight nearby clusters. The resulting binary fractions fall in the ranges 0.16-0.36 and 0.21-0.44 depending on the calculation method, lower than values reported in earlier work. Mass-ratio distributions are characterized with modes between 0.38 and 0.83, and the approach shows no detectable bias from varying catalog resolutions.

Core claim

We show that an empirical isochrones approach is an effective method to explore a wider primary-mass interval, in particular for the region of low-mass sources. Applying this to eight clusters we obtain binary fraction estimates in the range 0.16-0.36 and 0.21-0.44 depending on the adopted method, demonstrating that previous studies overestimated the binary fraction. The mode of the component mass ratio q distribution is in the range 0.43-0.83 and 0.38-0.63 for Gaia and infrared-visible photometry, respectively.

What carries the argument

Empirical isochrones built from observed Gaia data and used as reference sequences in the (H-W2)-W1 versus W2-(BP-K) photometric diagram to separate single stars from unresolved binaries.

If this is right

  • Binary fractions in the studied clusters are 0.16-0.36 or 0.21-0.44 depending on method.
  • The technique extends reliably to low-mass primary stars.
  • Mass ratio q modes fall between 0.38-0.83 depending on the photometry used.
  • Previous binary fraction values were overestimated due to reliance on theoretical isochrones.
  • Differences in spatial resolution across Gaia, 2MASS, and WISE catalogs do not affect the precision of the binary fraction estimate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be extended to a larger sample of clusters to test whether binary fractions vary systematically with cluster age or density.
  • Lower fractions may require updates to dynamical models that use binary populations to explain mass segregation or evaporation rates.
  • Mass ratio preferences could be compared against predictions from different binary formation channels in star-forming regions.
  • Radial velocity monitoring of the photometrically selected candidates would provide an independent check on completeness.

Load-bearing premise

Empirical isochrones built from the observed data accurately represent the locus of single stars without contamination from unresolved binaries.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic or radial-velocity follow-up of a sample of stars classified as binaries or singles by the photometric diagram that shows a high mismatch rate in binarity confirmation would indicate the separation technique is unreliable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20722 by Anastasiia Plotnikova, Anton F. Seleznev, Giovanni Carraro, Varvara O. Mikhnevich.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The statistics for member’s samples. Left: Mean fraction of stars in the samples, binned into 1-magnitude-wide intervals of G magnitudes, with error bars representing uncertainties for both the pure Gaia (purple dots) and multicolor (green dots) samples. The fraction is obtained relative to Gaia samples size individually for each cluster. Right: The mean ratio R = Nmc/NGaia of number of stars in 1-magnitud… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mean relation R = Nmc/NGaia between number of stars in 1-magnitude-wide intervals of G magnitudes in multicolor sample Nmc and in Gaia sample NGaia. Samples of about 300 clusters in 1000 pc are accounted. The color-bars represent variations in latitude (b), extinction (AV ) and distance (Dist) for each cluster. The dots are randomly spread around the Gi magnitude of each interval. The fundamental star clus… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The three steps process to remove outliers in the CMD (top panels) and in the TID (bottom panels) for IC 2391. Axes display apparent magnitudes. The left panels show the initial approximation of the sample assigned by HDBSCAN, where TID main sequence is separated because of differential data density. This initial fit is far from being optimal due to presence of outliers, which distort the overall alignment… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of our method to determine the shift values for the empirical isochrones of binary stars. Left: PARSEC theoretical isochrones for single stars and binary stars with different q in CMD. Right: the same for TID. Axes display absolute magnitudes. We use the red dots to define the average shift values for the empirical isochrones of binary stars. These average shift values are shown in inserted… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In the top line, CMD and TID are presented with empirical isochrones of binary stars with q = −0.5, −0.4, −0.3, −0.2, 0.0, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1 indicated by thin black lines. The blue arrows indicate the di￾rection of increasing q-value. The thick dark-blue line represents the empirical isochrone of single stars. In the bottom panels, the mass ratio distributions of binaries, extracted… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The box-and-whisker plots of mass ratio distributions of binary systems derived from CMD (right panel) and TID (left panel) for IC 2391. Orange dashes display initial counts from observations (particularly in this representation), purple boxes are 25th and 75th quartiles, and the most extreme non-outlier data points (whiskers) per q-interval from 100 realizations are denoted in black. limit is qCMD > 0.4, … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Recovered distribution for the Flat and Gauss models of 1000 sources. Orange dashes present values from sample unpolluted by photometric errors. The purple boxes depict IQRs obtained from variations of this model sample with photometric errors. Our method demonstrates fidelity in retrieving input distributions, but we recognize that systematic uncertainties may arise from theoretical isochrone shifts. The … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: CMD and TID of IC 2391 with an empirical isochrone (red line) and a theoretical PARSEC isochrone (black line) with fundamental parameters from Dias et al. (2021) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distributions of binary stars with confidence intervals obtained from multicolor data (blue line) and Gaia data (green line). Dashed lines denote the limits of results reliability according to photometrical errors ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The relation between qmode of binaries distribution and clusters’ age with linear regression (Eq. 3) and confidence intervals. Several qmode-values might be less then it shown on the figure due to methodology limitation. It is denoted by arrows. Different authors discuss the mass-ratio distribution in a number of contexts. Cordoni et al. (2023) and Niu et al. (2020) found that the mass-ratio distribution … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Empirical isochrones (red line) of single stars assigned by HDBSCAN (blue dots) presented on CMDs and TMDs. Grey points are probable cluster members from Hunt & Reffert (2024) with p > 50% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An illustration of CMDs and TIDs with relative location of empirical isochrones of corresponding q. Average photometric error of single MS stars (assigned by HDBSCAN) is denoted with red color. An average distance from single stars to EIS is denoted with blue one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Discrete distribution of the binary mass ratio q for eight open clusters obtained from CMDs and TIDs. The distributions are presented as box-and-whisker plots across fixed q-intervals, representing the statistics of 100 Monte Carlo realizations. For each bin, the orange horizontal line indicates the median, the violet box represents the interquartile range (25th–75th percentiles), and the black whiskers d… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a new method to search for unresolved binary stars in open star clusters. The work aims at improving the approach introduced previously, which employs the (H-W2)-W1 versus W2-(BP-K) photometric diagram. This diagram, in tandem with the Gaia Color Magnitude Diagram (CMD) and using theoretical isochrones as reference sequences, is used to estimate the binary star fraction and the distribution of the component mass ratio $q$ in eight nearby open star clusters, including Pleiades, Alpha Per, and Praesepe, which we investigated in previous studies. In this study, to alleviate the uncertainties associated with the use of theoretical isochrones, we propose an empirical isochrones approach. We show that this is an effective approach to exploring a wider primary-mass interval, in particular for the region of low-mass sources. Box-and-whisker plots are used to present the distribution of the component mass ratio $q$. The mode of distribution turns out to be in the range $0.43-0.83$ and $0.38-0.63$ for Gaia and infrared-visible photometry, respectively. In addition, we update the algorithm to obtain the binary fraction, whose estimate lies in the range $0.16 - 0.36$ and $0.21 - 0.44$, depending on the adopted method, and show that in previous studies the binary fraction was overestimated. We do not find evidence that the variable spatial resolution of the employed catalogs (Gaia, 2MASS, and WISE) affects the precision of the binary fraction estimate.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a photometric method for identifying unresolved binaries in eight nearby open clusters (including Pleiades, Alpha Per, and Praesepe) by replacing theoretical isochrones with empirical ones derived from Gaia CMD data combined with the (H-W2)-W1 versus W2-(BP-K) diagram. It reports binary fractions of 0.16-0.36 (Gaia) and 0.21-0.44 (IR-visible), q-distribution modes of 0.43-0.83 and 0.38-0.63 respectively, and claims the approach extends reliably to low-mass primaries while showing that earlier studies overestimated binary fractions.

Significance. If the empirical isochrones can be shown to be uncontaminated, the method offers a practical way to reduce model-dependent uncertainties and extend binary statistics to lower primary masses than theoretical-isochrone approaches typically allow. The use of box-and-whisker plots for q and the updated binary-fraction algorithm are concrete improvements over the authors' prior work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (empirical isochrone construction)] The construction of the empirical isochrones (described in the methods) is not shown to exclude unresolved binaries from the input sample used to define the single-star locus. Without an explicit cleaning step, iteration, or contamination test, the reference sequence may be broadened or shifted, directly weakening the photometric separation for q < 0.5 systems and the reported binary fractions.
  2. [Results and discussion] The assertion that prior studies overestimated binary fractions is load-bearing for the paper's comparative claim but is presented without a side-by-side quantitative re-analysis of the same clusters using both the old theoretical-isochrone and new empirical methods, including uncertainties and statistical significance.
  3. [Results (low-mass sources)] The performance at low primary masses is asserted to be an advantage, yet no specific validation (e.g., recovery tests on synthetic binaries injected into the low-mass regime or comparison of separation quality versus primary mass) is provided to support the claim that the (H-W2)-W1 vs W2-(BP-K) diagram reliably identifies binaries there.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The abstract states that box-and-whisker plots are used to present the q distribution; the main text should explicitly describe how the mode is extracted from these plots and whether the reported ranges reflect inter-quartile or full-range values.
  2. [Discussion] The statement that variable spatial resolution of Gaia/2MASS/WISE does not affect the binary-fraction precision would benefit from a short quantitative test (e.g., resolution-matched subsamples) rather than a qualitative assertion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened, particularly regarding transparency in method details, quantitative comparisons, and validation. We address each major comment below, with planned revisions to the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (empirical isochrone construction)] The construction of the empirical isochrones (described in the methods) is not shown to exclude unresolved binaries from the input sample used to define the single-star locus. Without an explicit cleaning step, iteration, or contamination test, the reference sequence may be broadened or shifted, directly weakening the photometric separation for q < 0.5 systems and the reported binary fractions.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of sample cleaning is necessary for robustness. The empirical isochrones were derived from Gaia-selected cluster members, with the locus defined via median fitting after basic membership cuts, but without a dedicated binary-exclusion step described. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section to detail the construction procedure, including sigma-clipping around the main sequence, use of proper-motion and parallax membership probabilities to reduce field contamination, and a quantitative estimate of residual binary impact on the locus (based on the reported binary fractions themselves). We will also add a brief contamination simulation to show the effect on q < 0.5 separation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] The assertion that prior studies overestimated binary fractions is load-bearing for the paper's comparative claim but is presented without a side-by-side quantitative re-analysis of the same clusters using both the old theoretical-isochrone and new empirical methods, including uncertainties and statistical significance.

    Authors: The statement is based on direct numerical comparison between the new empirical results and the binary fractions we previously published for the same eight clusters using theoretical isochrones. To make the comparison fully transparent and quantitative, the revised manuscript will include a new table listing, for each cluster, the binary fraction obtained with the theoretical-isochrone method (re-derived on the current sample for consistency), the empirical-isochrone result, bootstrap uncertainties on both, and a simple significance metric for the difference. This directly addresses the request for side-by-side analysis. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results (low-mass sources)] The performance at low primary masses is asserted to be an advantage, yet no specific validation (e.g., recovery tests on synthetic binaries injected into the low-mass regime or comparison of separation quality versus primary mass) is provided to support the claim that the (H-W2)-W1 vs W2-(BP-K) diagram reliably identifies binaries there.

    Authors: The empirical approach demonstrably extends the primary-mass range because it avoids reliance on theoretical models that become increasingly uncertain at low masses. We will revise the Results and Discussion sections to include a binned analysis showing the fraction of sources classified as binaries as a function of primary mass (or absolute magnitude), together with the quality of photometric separation in the two diagrams for different mass bins. This provides an empirical check on performance across the mass range. Full end-to-end synthetic recovery tests with injected binaries are a natural next step but lie outside the scope of the present work; we will note this limitation explicitly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior cluster studies; new empirical isochrone method and binary-fraction estimates derived from fresh data processing without reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The paper replaces theoretical isochrones with empirical ones constructed from the observed Gaia CMD and (H-W2)-W1 vs W2-(BP-K) diagram, then applies the updated algorithm to derive binary fractions (0.16-0.44) and q-mode ranges for eight clusters. References to the authors' own prior work on Pleiades, Alpha Per, and Praesepe appear only as context for the clusters studied; the central claims rest on the new empirical construction and box-and-whisker analysis of the current dataset. No quoted step shows a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, a self-definitional loop, or a load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from overlapping authors. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against the external photometric catalogs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the empirical isochrone construction and the assumption that the chosen photometric diagram cleanly separates binary and single stars.

free parameters (2)
  • Binary identification thresholds in photometric diagram
    Chosen or fitted values to classify stars as binaries based on position relative to the empirical isochrone.
  • Mass ratio q distribution parameters
    Modes and ranges derived from box-and-whisker plots of identified systems.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The (H-W2)-W1 versus W2-(BP-K) diagram separates single and binary stars effectively when combined with Gaia CMD.
    Core to the identification method as stated in the abstract.
  • ad hoc to paper Empirical isochrones can be constructed to represent single-star sequences without binary contamination.
    Proposed to alleviate uncertainties of theoretical isochrones.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5615 in / 1633 out tokens · 55052 ms · 2026-05-09T23:32:59.789230+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S., & Albrow, M

    Alexander, J. S., & Albrow, M. D. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 471, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2636

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2636 2025

  2. [2]

    Maia, F. F. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.06362, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.06362

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06362 2025

  3. [3]

    Corradi, W. J. B. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 956, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1038 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 Bardalez Gagliuffi, D. C., Burgasser, A. J., Gelino, C...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1038 2023

  4. [4]

    Bate, M. R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x 2012

  5. [5]

    1990, MNRAS, 245, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/245.1.15

    Bonifazi, A., Fusi-Pecci, F., Romeo, G., & Tosi, M. 1990, MNRAS, 245, 15, doi: 10.1093/mnras/245.1.15

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/245.1.15 1990

  6. [6]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x Photometric identification of unresolved binaries in open clusters23

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012

  7. [7]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038192 2020

  8. [8]

    Carraro, G., & Benvenuto, O. G. 2017, ApJL, 841, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7131

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7131 2017

  9. [9]

    Carraro, G., & Seleznev, A. F. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1361, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17996.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17996.x 2011

  10. [10]

    C., & Geller, A

    Childs, A. C., & Geller, A. M. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20889, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20889

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20889 2025

  11. [11]

    C., Geller, A

    Childs, A. C., Geller, A. M., von Hippel, T., Motherway, E., & Zwicker, C. 2024, ApJ, 962, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c0 2024

  12. [12]

    2024, AJ, 168, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7025

    Chulkov, D. 2024, AJ, 168, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7025

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ad7025 2024

  13. [13]

    2025, AJ, 169, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada564

    Chulkov, D., Strakhov, I., & Safonov, B. 2025, AJ, 169, 145, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada564

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada564 2025

  14. [14]

    E., Geller, A

    Cohen, R. E., Geller, A. M., & von Hippel, T. 2020, AJ, 159, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab59d7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab59d7 2020

  15. [15]

    P., Marino, A

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245457

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245457 2023

  16. [16]

    M., & Seleznev, A

    Danilov, V. M., & Seleznev, A. F. 2020, Astrophysical Bulletin, 75, 407, doi: 10.1134/S1990341320040045

    work page doi:10.1134/s1990341320040045 2020

  17. [17]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab770

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab770 2021

  18. [18]

    2023, title The multiplicity fraction in 202 open clusters from Gaia , , 675, A89, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    Donada, J., Anders, F., Jordi, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245219 2023

  19. [19]

    1991, A&A, 248, 485

    Duquennoy, A., & Mayor, M. 1991, A&A, 248, 485

    1991

  20. [20]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2480

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Tian, H., Duchˆ ene, G., & Moe, M. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2480

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2480 2019

  21. [21]

    Fisher, J., Schr¨ oder, K.-P., & Smith, R. C. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 495, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09193.x Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09193.x 2005

  22. [22]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Geller, A. M., Mathieu, R. D., Latham, D. W., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 190, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abdd23

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abdd23 2021

  23. [23]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  24. [24]

    R., & Cassisi, S

    Griggio, M., Salaris, M., Bedin, L. R., & Cassisi, S. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 5148, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1754

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1754 2023

  25. [25]

    1937, Veroeffentlichungen der Universitaets-Sternwarte zu Goettingen, 0004, 77

    Haffner, H., & Heckmann, O. 1937, Veroeffentlichungen der Universitaets-Sternwarte zu Goettingen, 0004, 77

    1937

  26. [26]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 191, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad686e

    Harvey, A., Sahu, Y., & Flores, E. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 191, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad686e

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad686e 2024

  27. [27]

    2022, ApJ, 938, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b08

    He, C., Sun, W., Li, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b08

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b08 2022

  28. [28]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , author =

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348662 2024

  29. [29]

    V., Roy, K., Joshi, N., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., Roy, K., Joshi, N., & Subramaniam, A. 2021, AJ, 162, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2571

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac2571 2021

  30. [30]

    V., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., & Subramaniam, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2264

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2264 2021

  31. [31]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5344

    Jiang, Y., Zhong, J., Qin, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5344

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5344 2024

  32. [32]

    2013, MNRAS, 434, 3236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1239

    Khalaj, P., & Baumgardt, H. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 3236, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1239

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1239 2013

  33. [33]

    Astro- nomical Journal157(5), 196 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1 arXiv:1903.10523 [astro-ph.SR]

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Moe, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1 2019

  34. [34]

    Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Brown, A. G. A., Goodwin, S. P., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Kaper, L. 2009, A&A, 493, 979, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810234

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200810234 2009

  35. [35]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x Calibrating Eruptive Mass Loss in RSGs with Local Group Data11 Lan¸ con, A., Gallagher, J

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x 2001

  36. [36]

    & Yan, Z

    Kroupa, P., Gjergo, E., Jerabkova, T., & Yan, Z. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.07311, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.07311

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07311 2024

  37. [37]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.10605

    Kroupa, P., & Jerabkova, T. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.10605. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10605

    work page arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    , keywords =

    Kroupa, P., Tout, C. A., & Gilmore, G. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/262.3.545

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/262.3.545 1993

  39. [39]

    P., Sun, W., & de Grijs, R

    Li, C., Milone, A. P., Sun, W., & de Grijs, R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08062, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08062

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.08062 2024

  40. [40]

    A., & Green, E

    Liebert, J., Saffer, R. A., & Green, E. M. 1994, AJ, 107, 1408, doi: 10.1086/116954

    work page doi:10.1086/116954 1994

  41. [41]

    2025, AJ, 169, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada380

    Liu, R., Shao, Z., & Li, L. 2025, AJ, 169, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada380

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ada380 2025

  42. [42]

    L., & Silvotti, R

    Lodieu, N., P´ erez-Garrido, A., Smart, R. L., & Silvotti, R. 2019, A&A, 628, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935533

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935533 2019

  43. [43]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af

    Long, L., Bi, S., Zhang, J., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ace5af 2023

  44. [44]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/1/53 2011

  45. [45]

    2010, in EAS Publications Series, Vol

    Malkov, O., Mironov, A., & Sichevskij, S. 2010, in EAS Publications Series, Vol. 45, EAS Publications Series, 409–412, doi: 10.1051/eas/1045071

    work page doi:10.1051/eas/1045071 2010

  46. [46]

    2011, Ap&SS, 335, 105, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0613-1

    Malkov, O., Mironov, A., & Sichevskij, S. 2011, Ap&SS, 335, 105, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0613-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-011-0613-1 2011

  47. [47]

    Seleznev, A. F. 2023, AJ, 165, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca666

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aca666 2023

  48. [48]

    A., Seleznev, A

    Malofeeva, A. A., Seleznev, A. F., & Carraro, G. 2022, AJ, 163, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac47a3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac47a3 2022

  49. [49]

    Maxted, P. F. L., Jeffries, R. D., Oliveira, J. M., Naylor, T., & Jackson, R. J. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 2210, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13008.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13008.x 2008

  50. [50]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.07321, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.07321

    McInnes, L., & Healy, J. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.07321, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.07321

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07321 2017

  51. [51]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00205

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Astels, S. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, doi: 10.21105/joss.00205 24Mikhnevich et al

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00205 2017

  52. [52]

    2024, in Modern Astronomy: From the Early Universe to Exoplanets and Black Holes (VAK2024, 443–449, doi: 10.26119/VAK2024.070

    Mikhnevich, V., Plotnikova, A., Seleznev, A., & Carraro, G. 2024, in Modern Astronomy: From the Early Universe to Exoplanets and Black Holes (VAK2024, 443–449, doi: 10.26119/VAK2024.070

    work page doi:10.26119/vak2024.070 2024

  53. [53]

    O., & Seleznev, A

    Mikhnevich, V. O., & Seleznev, A. F. 2024, Astronomy Reports, 68, 121, doi: 10.1134/S1063772924700161

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772924700161 2024

  54. [54]

    M., Childs, A

    Motherway, E., Geller, A. M., Childs, A. C., Zwicker, C., & von Hippel, T. 2024, ApJL, 962, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad18bf

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad18bf 2024

  55. [55]

    P., D’Antona, F., et al

    Muratore, F., Milone, A. P., D’Antona, F., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451310

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451310 2024

  56. [56]

    2020, AJ, 160, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba753

    Carraro, G. 2020, AJ, 160, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba753

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba753 2020

  57. [57]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d6

    Niu, H., Wang, J., & Fu, J. 2020, ApJ, 903, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d6 2020

  58. [58]

    M., Reid, I

    Patience, J., Ghez, A. M., Reid, I. N., & Matthews, K. 2002, AJ, 123, 1570, doi: 10.1086/338431

    work page doi:10.1086/338431 2002

  59. [59]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., G¨ unther, H. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  60. [60]

    A Survey of Stellar Families: Multiplicity of Solar-Type Stars

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1 2010

  61. [61]

    M., Bouy, H., Berihuete, A., et al

    Sarro, L. M., Bouy, H., Berihuete, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322413

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322413 2014

  62. [62]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw059

    Sheikhi, N., Hasheminia, M., Khalaj, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw059

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw059 2016

  63. [63]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    work page doi:10.1086/498708 2006

  64. [64]

    Spangler, S. R. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 34, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/adb48a

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/adb48a 2025

  65. [65]

    I., & Seleznev, A

    Tagaev, D. I., & Seleznev, A. F. 2025, Astronomy Reports, 69, 457, doi: 10.1134/S1063772925701884 The 2MASS Team. 2006, 2MASS All-Sky Data Release Explanatory Supplement: User’s Guide, Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, California Institute of Technology, and University of Massachusetts. https://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/2MASS/docs/ releases/allsky...

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772925701884 2025

  66. [66]

    W., & Quinn, S

    Torres, G., Latham, D. W., & Quinn, S. N. 2021, ApJ, 921, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1585 van Leeuwen, F., de Bruijne, J., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2021, Gaia EDR3 documentation, Gaia EDR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium. https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/ documentation/GEDR3/index.html

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1585 2021

  67. [67]

    2023, ApJ, 949, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accae0

    Wang, L., Li, C., Wang, L., He, C., & Wang, C. 2023, ApJ, 949, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/accae0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/accae0 2023

  68. [68]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, Astronomical Journal, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 2010

  69. [69]

    Wright, N. J. 2020, NewAR, 90, 101549, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101549

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2020.101549 2020

  70. [70]

    M., Childs, A

    Zwicker, C., Geller, A. M., Childs, A. C., Motherway, E., & von Hippel, T. 2024, ApJ, 967, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad39c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad39c6 2024