Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

The Bimodal Mass Ratio Distribution of the Hyades

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hyades photometric mass ratios are incompatible with random orbital inclinations, and deconvolution yields a bimodal, mass-dependent distribution.

desk verdict Worth a careful referee: the negative test on TSL26 is solid, but the reconstructed bimodal MRD rests on an unverified completeness assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02814 v1 pith:V56UWNHW submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMphysics.data-an

Henri M.J. Boffin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IMphysics.data-an
keywords binaries:spectroscopicHertzsprung-Russellandcolour-magnitudediagramsopenclustersassociations:Hyadesmethods:statisticalmassratiodistributionRichardson-Lucydeconvolutionorbitalinclinations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper re-examines the mass ratio distribution (MRD) of 46 single-lined spectroscopic binaries in the Hyades cluster, recently derived by Torres et al. from their positions in colour-magnitude diagrams. It shows that those individual mass ratios cannot be reconciled with the standard assumption that orbital inclinations are randomly oriented on the sky: a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test rejects the match at $p=0.00373$, and seven systems require $\sin i > 1$. Assuming instead that inclinations are random, the paper deconvolves the spectroscopic mass functions and finds an MRD that is significantly non-uniform and depends on the primary mass. Low-mass primaries (below about one solar mass) produce a peak near equal masses, $q\approx 1$, while more massive primaries produce a distribution skewed toward very low mass ratios, $q\approx 0.15$. The result matters because reliable mass ratio distributions are central to theories of binary formation and cluster dynamics, and it warns that photometric mass-ratio determinations in clusters can be systematically biased.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spectroscopic mass function relation $f(m) = M_1 q^3 (1+q)^{-2} \sin^3 i$, which links each system's observed mass function to its unknown inclination, together with the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution algorithm that inverts the observed distribution of $Y=f(m)/M_1$ to recover the underlying mass ratio distribution once inclinations are assumed random. The paper also uses a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test as the consistency check, comparing the $Y$-distribution implied by the published MRD with the observed one. The deconvolution does the load-bearing work of turning an ill-posed inversion into a stable distribution, at the cost of losing the ability to assign a mass ratio to any individual system.

What would settle it

Compute the orbital inclination for each of the 46 single-lined binaries from the published mass function, primary mass, and mass ratio, and test whether the resulting inclinations are consistent with the random $\sin i$ distribution after propagating the errors; if the excess of systems with $\sin i>1$ (seven in Torres et al.) persists for plausible mass errors, the published mass ratios are unphysical. Conversely, Gaia DR4 astrometric orbits that measure individual mass ratios for the same systems would directly confirm or refute the claimed bimodal distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass ratio distribution derived by Torres et al. (2026) from the positions of Hyades single-lined binaries in the Gaia colour-magnitude diagram is not compatible with a random distribution of orbital inclinations. In the paper's own terms, the distribution of $Y=f(m)/M_1$ implied by the published mass ratios is very different from the observed distribution of $Y$, with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov $p$-value of $0.00373$, and the implied inclination distribution is skewed toward low inclinations, the opposite of any plausible detection bias. Seven systems even yield unphysical values with $\sin i > 1$. Substituting the assumption of random inclinations and applying Richardson-Lucy deconvolution to the observed $Y$ distribution, the paper obtains an MRD that is statistically different from uniform (Kolmogorov-Smirnov $p$-value indistinguishable from zero) and that, when combined with the double-lined sample, shows peaks near $q \approx 0.15$, $0.7$, and $0.95$. Splitting the single-lined sample at a primary mass of $1.02\,M_\odot$ reveals a strong dependence on primary mass: lower-mass primaries peak near $q\approx 1$, higher-mass primaries peak near $q\approx 0.15$.

Load-bearing premise

The re-analysis assumes that the detected single-lined sample has randomly oriented orbits and that 45 years of monitoring guarantees completeness; if the sample is actually biased toward high-inclination (easier-to-detect) orbits, or if the primary masses taken from Torres et al. are systematically wrong, the deconvolved mass ratio distribution would be distorted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the re-analysis is correct, the individual mass ratios reported for the 46 single-lined Hyades binaries by Torres et al. (2026) should not be treated as measurements; only a statistical distribution can be recovered from the spectroscopic material.
  • The combined single-plus-double-lined mass ratio distribution for the Hyades is not flat, and any theory of binary formation in this cluster must reproduce its peaked shape.
  • The primary-mass dependence predicts a testable pattern: searches in other open clusters should find near-equal-mass pairs preferentially around lower-mass primaries and low-$q$ companions preferentially around higher-mass primaries.
  • The 45-year radial-velocity monitoring is treated as sufficient to guarantee completeness, so future larger samples (for example from Gaia DR4) can check whether the bimodality persists with better astrometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the paper's null result on orbital-period dependence is weak given only 23 systems per bin; with more data, a period split might reveal that the $q\approx 1$ twin peak is confined to short-period systems, as seen in other surveys.
  • Editorial inference: a natural testable extension is to apply the same deconvolution to synthetic SB1 samples drawn from a known uniform MRD, to check whether the photometric method of Torres et al. would reproduce the non-random inclination signature that the paper sees; if it does, the diagnosis is confirmed as a systematic bias rather than a statistical fluke.
  • Editorial inference: the $q\approx 0.15$ peak among higher-mass primaries corresponds to companion masses around $0.2\,M_\odot$, too small for white dwarfs; if confirmed, these would be very low-mass stars or brown dwarfs, with consequences for the companion mass function in clusters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript re-examines the mass ratio distribution (MRD) of 46 single-lined spectroscopic binaries (SB1s) in the Hyades recently published by Torres, Stefanik, and Latham (TSL26), who derived individual mass ratios from positions in a colour-magnitude diagram. The author first shows that TSL26's q values, combined with the observed mass functions f(m) and adopted primary masses M1, imply orbital inclinations that are inconsistent with a random orientation on the sky (KS p=0.00373; seven systems have sin i > 1). He then assumes random inclinations and applies a Richardson-Lucy deconvolution to the distribution of Y = f(m)/M1 to recover the MRD, which he finds statistically different from uniform and mass-dependent: low-mass primaries show a peak near q ~ 1 and high-mass primaries a peak near q ~ 0.15. The paper concludes that TSL26's individual mass ratios are unreliable and that the true MRD of the Hyades SB1s is bimodal.

Significance. If the negative result stands, it is an important cautionary result for CMD-based mass-ratio derivations in clusters: the test in Section 2.1 is simple, independent of the deconvolution, and uses only the published quantities. The positive reconstruction is potentially interesting but is currently exploratory: it rests on an unquantified completeness assumption, reuses the very M1 values the paper criticizes, and lacks uncertainty estimates and formal significance tests for the mass dependence. The paper's strength is therefore concentrated in Section 2.1; Sections 2.2 and 3 need substantial strengthening before the bimodal MRD claim can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Figs. 1 and 4] The claim that 45 years of monitoring guarantees that 'all the binaries that could be detected will be so' does not justify the assumption that the detected SB1 sample has isotropically distributed inclinations. RV detection is a threshold in K ∝ M1^{2/3} P^{-1/3} q (1+q)^{-1/3} sin i, so a K-selected sample is preferentially biased toward high sin i, large q, and short periods; a long baseline removes period coverage but not the K threshold. The paper should quantify the completeness as a function of q, P, and K (or simulate K-selected samples) and show that the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution is not manufacturing the low-q excess from this bias. Without this, the deconvolved MRD in Figs. 1 and 4, and the bimodal claims in Section 3, are not load-bearing.
  2. [§2.2, Figs. 1 and 7] The deconvolution uses TSL26's CMD-based M1 values, yet the paper itself notes that most SB1s have RUWE > 1.4 and that Gaia astrometry is unreliable for binaries. Since Y = f(m)/M1 and the split in Section 3 is by M1, a systematic error in M1 changes Y and can masquerade as a primary-mass dependence. The author should propagate M1 uncertainties, restrict the analysis to systems with reliable astrometry, or demonstrate explicitly that the inferred MRD is insensitive to plausible M1 errors.
  3. [§3, Figs. 7 and 8] The split at M1 = 1.02 M_sun is chosen post hoc to make two equal groups of 23 systems, and no statistical test is given for whether the two subsamples have significantly different MRDs. The Richardson-Lucy results are presented without iteration count, convergence criterion, or error bars, so the claimed peaks at q ~ 0.15 and q ~ 1 cannot be distinguished from noise. The paper should report these details and add bootstrap or permutation tests (e.g., a KS test on the q distributions or on the deconvolved densities) before claiming a 'significant dependence on the primary mass'.
  4. [§2.2, lower panel of Fig. 1] The KS p = 0.99 between the observed and recomputed log Y distributions is a check that the deconvolution converges to the input Y distribution, not an independent validation of the reconstructed MRD. Because the deconvolved MRD is fit to the observed Y by construction, the subsequent KS test against uniformity in Fig. 6 tests the reconstructed distribution, not the true MRD; the paper should be explicit that this is a model-dependent statement and provide external validation (e.g., against SB2s, eclipsing binaries, or Gaia DR4 astrometry) if available.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains many missing spaces and typos (e.g., 'GaiaDR4' in the abstract, 'Atleasthalf' in Section 1, 'TLS26' in Section 2.2); a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [§2.2] The phrase 'p-value undistinguishable from 0' should be replaced by a numerical upper limit or 'below 10^-5'; a p-value cannot be literally indistinguishable from zero.
  3. [§2.1] The sentence 'It this is confirmed, then this is already a very strong result However, unless there some good reasons...' contains grammatical errors that should be corrected.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 lists seven systems with sin i > 1 but does not include the adopted errors for q and f(m); adding these would clarify which systems are only marginally inconsistent.
  5. [§2.2] The paper does not provide the deconvolved MRD in tabular form or a reproducibility statement for the Richardson-Lucy implementation; making the data and code available would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The negative test of TSL26's mass ratios is independent, but the positive MRD reconstruction is validated only by a by-construction match to the very data used for the fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (paragraph after Fig. 1); echoed in the Abstract.]
    "I used the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution method (Boffin et al., 1993; Boffin & Trimble, 2020) to obtain from the distribution of Y the mass-ratio distribution. The result is shown in Fig.1, together with the recomputed distribution of log Y. By construction, the latter will follow closely the observed distribution and indeed the associated p-value of the KS-test is 0.99."

    The R-L iteration constructs the MRD precisely so that its forward convolution with the assumed random sin i distribution matches the observed Y distribution. The 'recomputed distribution of log Y' is therefore the fitting target, not an independent prediction; the KS p=0.99 is an in-sample consistency check. The paper then uses this fitted MRD to claim the MRD is 'statistically different from a uniform distribution' (abstract and Section 2.2), but this claim is a property of the fitted output, supported only by the same observed Y used for the fit. No out-of-sample validation, null-model test, or error bars are given for the deconvolution result.

full rationale

The paper's strongest and most credible result is the negative test in Section 2.1: using TSL26's published q, M1, and f(m) values, the implied inclination distribution is incompatible with a random orientation (KS p=0.00373), and seven systems give sin i>1. That test is self-contained and does not depend on the deconvolution. However, the positive reconstruction in Sections 2.2-3 is an inverse fit: the Richardson-Lucy algorithm finds the MRD that makes the predicted log Y distribution match the observed one, and the paper explicitly admits the match is by construction (p=0.99). Using that in-sample agreement as validation, and then presenting the fitted MRD's non-uniformity and mass dependence as a finding, is a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity: the 'prediction' reduces to the fitting target. The paper also assumes that 45 years of monitoring guarantees completeness and hence random inclinations in the detected SB1 sample, an assertion that is not demonstrated against a K-selected detection model; this weakens the positive claim but is an assumption rather than a circular step. Self-citations to the author's earlier R-L implementations are present but not load-bearing, since R-L is a standard method. On balance, the independent negative result prevents a high circularity score, but the central positive MRD claim is only validated in-sample, giving a partial circularity score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no fitted numerical constants beyond algorithmic and binning choices; its main unverified inputs are the assumption of isotropic inclinations and the adoption of TSL26's primary masses.

free parameters (3)
  • RL deconvolution iteration count
    The Richardson-Lucy deconvolution requires a stopping iteration; the paper does not specify it, and the resulting MRD shape depends on it.
  • Primary-mass split threshold = 1.02 solar masses
    Section 3 chooses 1.02 M_sun to split the 46 SB1s into two equal groups of 23; this is data-dependent and post hoc.
  • Histogram binning for deconvolved MRD
    The MRD histograms in Figs 1, 4, 7, and 8 depend on bin width and placement, which are not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Random (isotropic) inclination distribution, sin i di, for the detected SB1 sample
    Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 for the KS test and RL deconvolution; if the detected sample is biased toward high inclinations, the deconvolution result is distorted.
  • domain assumption Primary masses M1 from TSL26 are accurate
    Used to compute Y = f(m)/M1 for every system; the paper criticizes TSL26's q values but adopts their M1 without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Completeness correction from TSL26's Fig. 8 is applicable to the deconvolved MRD
    Applied in Section 2.2 and Fig. 4 top panel; the correction was derived for TSL26's own MRD and may not transfer cleanly.
  • domain assumption Orbital parameters (f(m), P, e) from TSL26 are correct
    The mass functions are the input to the deconvolution; any errors propagate directly into the derived MRD.
  • standard math Richardson-Lucy deconvolution converges to the maximum-likelihood solution for the given kernel
    Standard property of the algorithm, not proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Bimodal Mass Ratio Distribution of the Hyades." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V56UWNHW

@misc{pith2026260802814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Bimodal Mass Ratio Distribution of the Hyades},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V56UWNHW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02814}
}
read the original abstract

The distribution of stellar mass ratios, q, in binary systems provides critical insights into the dynamical history and star-formation processes of open clusters. Here, I re-evaluate the recently published mass ratio distribution (MRD) of a sample of spectroscopic binaries in the Hyades cluster, which was based on stellar positions in colour-magnitude diagrams. I demonstrate that the mass ratios derived in that work are statistically inconsistent with a random distribution of orbital inclinations. Furthermore, several systems yielded non-physical results. By applying a Richardson-Lucy deconvolution to the spectroscopic mass functions and assuming a random distribution of inclinations, I re-derive the MRD for this sample, showing that it is statistically different from a uniform distribution. I further find a significant dependence on the primary mass: systems with lower-mass primaries exhibit a peak near q~1, whereas more massive primaries show a distribution heavily skewed toward low mass ratios (q~0.15). These findings highlight the potential pitfalls of photometric mass ratio derivations and underscore the need for further verification with future data releases such as Gaia DR4.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02814 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of orbital inclination in degrees associated to the MRD of TSL26 is shown as a blue histogram, while the expected random distribution is indicated with the orange solid line. quite natural assumption to make – then we can use the derived mass ratio distribution to obtain the distribution of 𝑌 = 𝑓(𝑚)∕𝑀1 and compare it to the observed one. The two distributions should thus match. I have done this for … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gaia colour-magnitude diagramme of the Hyades members as determined by TSL26. The SB1 systems are coloured based on the mass ratio determined by the same authors. Six of the seven systems that lead to an nonphysical inclination angle are shown surrounded by a circle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. The normalised cumulative distribution of the mass ratios for the whole sample of spectroscopic binaries, based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mass ratio distributions (MRD) for the TSL26 sample. The top panel shows the incompleteness-corrected MRD for SB1, based on the results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Long-term Spectroscopic Survey of the Hyades Cluster: The Binary Population. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae4fbb , archivePrefix =. 2603.00229 , primaryClass =

    work page arXiv

  2. [2]

    Study of the mass-ratio distribution of spectroscopic binaries. I. A novel algorithm

    Study of the mass-ratio distribution of spectroscopic binaries - I. A novel algorithm. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2257 , archivePrefix =. 1708.09575 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Mass-Ratio Distribution of Binaries From the LAMOST-MRS Survey

    Mass-ratio Distribution of Binaries from the LAMOST-MRS Survey. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac731d , archivePrefix =. 2205.11734 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    Spectroscopic binaries with components of similar mass

    Spectroscopic binaries with components of similar mass. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065746 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0607225 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [5]

    Twins Among the Low Mass Spectroscopic Binaries

    Twins Among the Low-Mass Spectroscopic Binaries. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/2/3442 , archivePrefix =. 0812.2424 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    The mass-ratio and eccentricity distributions of barium and S stars, and red giants in open clusters

    The mass-ratio and eccentricity distributions of barium and S stars, and red giants in open clusters. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628867 , archivePrefix =. 1608.04949 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Photometric Identification of Unresolved Binary Stars in Nearby Open Star Clusters. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2604.20722 , archivePrefix =. 2604.20722 , primaryClass =

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.20722

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Stellar masses and mass ratios for Gaia open cluster members. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557529 , archivePrefix =. 2512.10616 , primaryClass =

    work page arXiv

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    , keywords =

    Stellar Dynamics in Open Clusters Increases the Binary Fraction and Mass Ratios: Evidence from Photometric Binaries in 35 Open Clusters. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade9bc , archivePrefix =. 2506.20889 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy , keywords =

    Photoelectric Radial Velocities, Paper XVIII Spectroscopic Orbits for Another 52 Binaries in the Hyades Field. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s12036-012-9137-5 , adsurl =

    doi

  3. [11]

    , keywords =

    Blue Stragglers and Friends: Initial Evolutionary Pathways in Close Low-Mass Binaries. , keywords =. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054402 , archivePrefix =. 2509.20531 , primaryClass =

  4. [12]

    , keywords =

    The multiplicity fraction in 202 open clusters from Gaia. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245219 , archivePrefix =. 2301.11061 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Red giants in open clusters. XIII. Orbital elements of 156 spectroscopic binaries. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078007 , adsurl =

    doi

  6. [14]

    , keywords =

    Statistical analysis of a sample of spectroscopic binaries containing late-type giants. , keywords =

  7. [15]

    A Renaissance study of Am stars. I. The mass ratio distribution. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015529 , archivePrefix =. 1008.3817 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso , keywords =

    The importance of binary stars. Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso , keywords =. doi:10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.21 , archivePrefix =. 2411.18470 , primaryClass =

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    , keywords =

    The mass-ratio distribution of spectroscopic binaries along the main sequence. , keywords =

  10. [18]

    The Observatory , keywords =

    My companion is bigger than your companion!. The Observatory , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1910.07793 , archivePrefix =. 1910.07793 , primaryClass =

    1910 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Boffin , H. M. J. 2010, , 524, A14

    2010

  12. [20]

    Boffin , H. M. J., Cerf , N., & Paulus , G. 1993, , 271, 125

    1993

  13. [21]

    Boffin , H. M. J. & Jones , D. 2025, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 55, 21

    2025

  14. [22]

    Boffin , H. M. J. & Pourbaix , D. 2019, , 90, 359

    2019

  15. [23]

    Boffin , H. M. J. & Trimble , V. 2020, The Observatory, 140, 1

    2020

  16. [24]

    Childs , A. C. & Geller , A. M. 2025, , 989, 104

    2025

  17. [25]

    I., Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez , L., Castro-Ginard , A., Cantat-Gaudin , T., & Casamiquela , L

    Donada , J., Anders , F., Jordi , C., Masana , E., Gieles , M., Perren , G. I., Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez , L., Castro-Ginard , A., Cantat-Gaudin , T., & Casamiquela , L. 2023, , 675, A89

    2023

  18. [26]

    Griffin , R. F. 2012, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 33, 29

    2012

  19. [27]

    2022, , 933, 119

    Li , J., Li , J., Liu , C., Li , C., Guo , Y., Wang , L., Chen , X., Xing , L., Hou , Y., & Han , Z. 2022, , 933, 119

    2022

  20. [28]

    Lucy , L. B. 2006, , 457, 629

    2006

  21. [29]

    2026, , 706, A62

    Malhotra , S., Castro-Ginard , A., Anders , F., Jordi , C., Donada , J., Luri , X., Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez , L., Qin , S., Jiang , Y., & Z upi \'c , A. 2026, , 706, A62

    2026

  22. [30]

    Mathieu , R. D. & Pols , O. R. 2025, , 63, 467

    2025

  23. [31]

    W., & Mayor , M

    Mermilliod , J.-C., Andersen , J., Latham , D. W., & Mayor , M. 2007, , 473, 829

    2007

  24. [32]

    O., Plotnikova , A., Carraro , G., & Seleznev , A

    Mikhnevich , V. O., Plotnikova , A., Carraro , G., & Seleznev , A. F. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.20722

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    2017, , 472, 4497

    Shahaf , S., Mazeh , T., & Faigler , S. 2017, , 472, 4497

    2017

  26. [34]

    & Obbie , R

    Simon , M. & Obbie , R. C. 2009, , 137, 3442

    2009

  27. [35]

    P., & Latham , D

    Torres , G., Stefanik , R. P., & Latham , D. W. 2026, , 283, 81

    2026

  28. [36]

    Van der Swaelmen , M., Boffin , H. M. J., Jorissen , A., & Van Eck , S. 2017, , 597, A68

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.