Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Visual Orbits of Spectroscopic Binaries with the CHARA Array. V. HD 210763 and HD 221950

T0 review · 3 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 Combining interferometric and radial-velocity orbits, this paper measures the dynamical masses of HD 210763 and HD 221950 to within 0.5% and their distances to within 0.2%, then uses the resulting stellar parameters to test evolutionary…

desk verdict A solid incremental binary-mass paper with one genuinely new orbit; the headline precision needs a caveat about the unresolved-source model and two internal numerical inconsistencies. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02960 v1 pith:IFJVX2H3 submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.SR

Kathryn V. Lester , Josephine Singleton , Alexandra M. Twomey , Viktoria Sargent , Sally V. Shepherd , Douglas R. Gies , Gail H. Schaefer , Cyprien Lanthermann
show 11 more authors
Jeremy Jones Katherine Shepard Narsireddy Anugu Claire L. Davies Todd J. Henry Hodari-Sadiki Hubbard-James Wei-Chun Jao Stefan Kraus John D. Monnier Leonardo A. Paredes Benjamin R. Setterholm
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords binaries:spectroscopicvisualstars:fundamentalparameterslongbaselineinterferometryradialvelocitiesdynamicalmassesorbitalparallaxstellarevolutionmodels
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

Using long-baseline interferometry at the CHARA Array and high-resolution spectroscopy with APO and CTIO, this paper measures the full three-dimensional orbits of two F-type double-lined spectroscopic binaries, HD 210763 and HD 221950. The combined astrometric and radial-velocity fit delivers component masses to 0.5% precision and distances to 0.2%, giving $M_1=1.748\pm0.008\,M_\odot$ and $M_2=1.492\pm0.006\,M_\odot$ for HD 210763, and $M_1=1.098\pm0.006\,M_\odot$ and $M_2=1.031\pm0.005\,M_\odot$ for HD 221950. Temperatures and radii from spectral disentangling and spectral energy distribution analysis allow the authors to compare both systems with MIST and BaSTI evolutionary models, yielding ages of $1.6\pm0.1$ Gyr and $3.76\pm0.38$ Gyr. Because these systems have periods well beyond the tidal circularization limit, they serve as relatively clean tests of single-star evolution, free of the tidal distortion and eclipses that complicate shorter-period binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the combined visual-plus-spectroscopic orbit solution, obtained through the Schaefer et al. (2016) grid-search procedure: interferometric squared visibilities and closure phases from the MIRC-X and MYSTIC beam combiners are fitted to recover the secondary star's relative position and error ellipse at each epoch, and those astrometric points are then fitted simultaneously with TODCOR-derived radial velocities to solve for the full Keplerian orbital elements. Bootstrapping distributions of those elements convert directly into mass and distance uncertainties. This mechanism turns a handful of milliarcsecond position measurements into sub-percent stellar masses.

What would settle it

Fit the H- and K-band flux ratios separately to the MIRC-X and MYSTIC data instead of forcing one value: if the resulting flux ratios disagree beyond the fitted uncertainties, or if direct angular-diameter measurements at CHARA's longest baselines show either component to be non-zero in size, the point-source equal-flux-ratio assumption fails and the quoted inclination, distance, and masses would shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that pairing milliarcsecond astrometry of the secondary star's position with radial-velocity curves yields a complete three-dimensional orbit for each binary, from which component masses follow directly: for HD 210763, $M_1 = 1.748\pm0.008\,M_\odot$ and $M_2 = 1.493\pm0.006\,M_\odot$; for HD 221950, $M_1 = 1.098\pm0.006\,M_\odot$ and $M_2 = 1.031\pm0.005\,M_\odot$. The same fit gives orbital-parallax distances of $94.19\pm0.21$ pc and $32.75\pm0.07$ pc for the two targets, the latter improving on the Gaia DR3 parallax by an order of magnitude. With masses fixed, the paper derives effective temperatures near 6400 K and radii ($R_1 = 2.96\pm0.11\,R_\odot$ and $R_2 = 1.81\pm0.07\,R_\odot$ for HD 210763; $R_1 = 1.30\pm0.08\,R_\odot$ and $R_2 = 1.09\pm0.07\,R_\odot$ for HD 221950). Comparing these to evolutionary tracks, the MIST models match both systems at single ages, while BaSTI models succeed only for the lower-mass system, exposing differences in convective core overshooting and abundance scales.

Load-bearing premise

The binaries are modeled as two unresolved point sources with a single flux ratio applied to both the H- and K-band data; if the true flux ratios differ between bands, or if either star is slightly resolved at the longest CHARA baselines, the recovered relative astrometry, inclination, and distance would be biased outside the quoted uncertainties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 0.5%-precision masses join the set of dynamical masses for non-eclipsing binaries, giving stellar evolution models a test that is free of tidal distortion and eclipse geometry.
  • Orbital-parallax distances independently confirm Gaia's trigonometric parallaxes, and for HD 221950 improve the precision by a factor of ten, providing a check on systematic biases such as the RUWE indicator.
  • If the MIST models are right, each of the two systems is coeval at a single age, and HD 210763's primary, sitting at the main-sequence turnoff, pins the system age to $\pm0.1$ Gyr.
  • The same observational method transfers directly to other long-period spectroscopic binaries: each new orbit yields masses and distances without requiring eclipses, extending precision stellar astrophysics to wider systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Fitting the H- and K-band flux ratios separately rather than forcing a single value would test whether the assumed equal-flux-ratio approximation biases inclination and distance at the quoted precision; for systems with a larger temperature difference between components, this modeling choice probably becomes the dominant systematic.
  • The mismatch between the SpecMatch-derived iron abundance for HD 221950 and the value the evolutionary models need could reflect an abundance-scale offset; a high-resolution abundance analysis would let the age estimate be recalculated on a consistent metallicity scale.
  • With even longer baselines at CHARA, direct angular-diameter measurements could reduce radius uncertainties from roughly 6% toward 1%, turning these two systems into full calibrators of stellar model radii rather than mass-only tests.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new CHARA/MIRC-X and MYSTIC interferometric visual orbits for two double-lined spectroscopic binaries, HD 210763 and HD 221950, combined with APO/ARCES and CTIO/CHIRON radial velocities. The authors jointly fit the astrometric and spectroscopic orbits to derive component masses, orbital parallax distances, and full three-dimensional orbital elements. They then disentangle the spectra to estimate effective temperatures and metallicities, fit SEDs to obtain stellar radii and luminosities, and compare the resulting parameters to MIST and BaSTI evolutionary tracks to infer system ages. The headline results are masses of 1.748 and 1.493 solar masses for HD 210763 and 1.098 and 1.031 solar masses for HD 221950, orbital-parallax distances of about 94 pc and 32.75 pc, and ages of about 1.6 Gyr and 3.76 Gyr.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainties are reliable, this is a valuable contribution to the empirical calibration of stellar masses and model-independent distances for non-eclipsing binaries beyond the tidal-circularization period. The HD 210763 orbit is independently confirmed by the VLTI solution of Gallenne et al. (2023), and the orbital-parallax distances agree with Gaia DR3 while improving the HD 221950 distance precision by an order of magnitude. The age analysis provides a useful test of evolutionary-model predictions, especially the end-of-main-sequence position of the HD 210763 primary. The paper is transparent about the use of bootstrapping for orbital uncertainties and about the inconsistencies between MIST and BaSTI ages. However, the central precision claims rest on modeling assumptions—point-source components and a single H/K flux ratio—that are not fully quantified, and at least one internally inconsistent distance value must be corrected before the results can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 / Table 5] The distance to HD 210763 is quoted as 94.19 +/- 0.21 pc in Section 4 but as 93.62 +/- 0.21 pc in Table 5. This is not a rounding difference, and the distance is a headline 0.2%-precision result that is also used as an input to the SED radius fit in Section 5.2 and compared to Gaia DR3 (93.81 +/- 0.26 pc). The paper must adopt a single value, propagate it consistently through the radii and luminosities, and explain the discrepancy.
  2. [Section 3 / Tables 3 and 4] The astrometric model treats each component as an unresolved point source and fits one flux ratio f2/f1 simultaneously to MIRC-X and MYSTIC data. The angular diameters quoted in Section 7 (0.15 and 0.09 mas for HD 210763; 0.18 and 0.15 mas for HD 221950) imply uniform-disk visibility deficits of roughly 1-4% at lambda = 1.65 microns and the longest CHARA baselines, so the point-source assumption is not obviously negligible at the claimed precision. In addition, the fitted flux ratios in Tables 3 and 4 vary by 0.02-0.03 between nights, larger than the ~0.003 difference expected from the ~100 K temperature difference. These effects are not included in the bootstrap uncertainties of Table 5. I request a quantitative estimate of the induced astrometric bias, for example by fitting with resolved disk diameters or with band-dependent flux ratios, or at least a demonstration that the bias is below the ~0.01 mas level needed to support the 0.5% mass and 0.2% distance claims. This is especially important for HD 221950, which lacks the external VLTI check available for HD 210763.
  3. [Section 6] The quoted age of HD 221950, 3.76 +/- 0.38 Gyr, is obtained after abandoning the measured [Fe/H] = -0.5 +/- 0.10 from Section 5.1 and instead computing MIST and BaSTI tracks at [Fe/H] = -0.3. The paper notes this inconsistency but does not propagate the metallicity ambiguity into the age uncertainty. Because the age comparison is a central conclusion, the authors should either quote ages for the full allowed [Fe/H] range or provide a quantitative justification for the -0.3 choice based on abundance-scale systematics. As written, the age error bar reflects only model scatter, not the dominant systematic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section 4 / Table 5] The secondary mass of HD 210763 is 1.492 +/- 0.006 solar masses in the abstract but 1.493 +/- 0.006 solar masses in Section 4 and Table 5; these should be made consistent.
  2. [Table 3] Position angles such as 398.9, 407.9, and 416.5 degrees exceed 360 degrees; wrapping these values to the 0-360 degree range or explicitly stating that they are unwrapped would improve clarity.
  3. [Figure 5 caption] The caption labels the BaSTI model ages as 1.67 Gyr without overshooting and 1.50 Gyr with overshooting, but the text in Section 6 states the opposite assignment; the caption and text should agree.
  4. [Section 5.2] The SED analysis uses the H-band flux ratio from CHARA, but Tables 3 and 4 show night-to-night scatter in f2/f1; please state explicitly which value was adopted and whether its uncertainty was propagated into R1 and R2.
  5. [Figure 5 / Section 6] The spelling 'BasTI' appears in the Figure 5 caption while the text uses 'BaSTI'; please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: masses, distances, and ages are derived from independent astrometric, RV, and SED data.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—component masses and orbital-parallax distances—are derived from simultaneous fits to CHARA interferometric relative astrometry and to radial velocities from APO, CTIO, and literature. The relative astrometry and flux ratios are measured quantities reported in Tables 3 and 4, not outputs of the mass/distance determination; the orbital solution in Table 5 uses P, T, e, i, omega, alpha, Omega, K1, K2, and gamma, with masses following from Kepler's laws. Distances are checked against independent Gaia DR3 parallaxes and, for HD 210763, against the independent VLTI orbit of Gallenne et al. (2023). The stellar radii come from SED fitting that takes the flux ratio, temperature, and distance as inputs, and the ages are obtained by comparing the resulting Teff-radius points to external MIST and BaSTI evolutionary tracks. No equation reduces to a fitted value or to a self-citation: the Schaefer et al. (2016) method is a published external algorithm, Papers I-IV are series context and comparison data, and the unresolved-point-source/single-flux-ratio assumption flagged by skeptics is a modeling systematic rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass measurement depends on standard Keplerian fitting plus the modeling assumption that both stars are unresolved point sources with a wavelength-independent flux ratio. The secondary claims (radii, ages) additionally depend on SED models, the adopted reddening, the SpecMatch metallicity, and the choice of evolutionary grids. No new physical entities are introduced. The HD 221950 age specifically relies on a hand-adjusted metallicity.

free parameters (7)
  • E(B-V) color excess (HD 210763) = 0.05 +/- 0.02 mag
    Fitted in the SED analysis (Section 5.2) along with the primary radius; used to deredden the model flux. It is a free parameter that affects the derived radii and luminosities.
  • E(B-V) color excess (HD 221950) = 0.02 +/- 0.01 mag
    Same as above for the second system.
  • Primary radius R1 (HD 210763 SED fit) = 2.93 +/- 0.13 R_sun
    Fitted with least-squares in the SED analysis; R2/R1 is fixed by the H-band flux ratio from CHARA (Section 5.2).
  • Primary radius R1 (HD 221950 SED fit) = 1.30 +/- 0.08 R_sun
    Fitted in SED; R2/R1 fixed by the H-band flux ratio.
  • [Fe/H] adopted for HD 221950 evolutionary tracks = -0.3
    The measured [Fe/H] = -0.5 +/- 0.10 from SpecMatch produced tracks that did not match the observed parameters; the paper then tested -0.3, which matched (Section 6). This is a hand-chosen input for the age derivation.
  • MIRC-X wavelength correction factor = 1.0054 +/- 0.002
    Applied to the reduced wavelengths (Section 3); value comes from a private communication (J. D. Monnier) rather than a published calibration. It sets the angular scale of the astrometry and thus the distance.
  • MYSTIC wavelength correction factor = 1.0067 +/- 0.002
    Same as above for the MYSTIC data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A binary system of two unresolved point sources with a single flux ratio is an adequate model for the MIRC-X/MYSTIC visibilities and closure phases.
    Invoked in Section 3: 'The individual component stars are unresolved... so we fit one flux ratio value to both the MIRC-X and MYSTIC data.' If the components are slightly resolved or the H/K flux ratios differ, the astrometry could be biased.
  • domain assumption PHOENIX model spectra and the literature Teff, log g, vsini values are adequate templates for TODCOR radial velocities.
    Section 2 uses TODCOR with PHOENIX templates parameterized from Fekel et al. (2011) and Tomkin & Fekel (2008). Template mismatch could bias K1, K2 and hence masses.
  • standard math The Schaefer et al. (2016) grid-search and bootstrapping method correctly fits the combined astrometric plus RV orbit.
    Section 4 uses this established method; the corner plots in the Appendix show bootstrap distributions. This is a standard Keplerian fit assumption.
  • domain assumption BT-Settl model SEDs and the Cardelli et al. (1989) reddening law adequately represent the stellar plus interstellar flux.
    Section 5.2 fits the SED with these models; the derived radii and luminosities depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption MIST and BaSTI stellar evolution models are reliable predictors of Teff and radius at the measured masses and metallicities.
    Section 6 uses these grids to estimate ages. The paper's own results show the two grids give inconsistent ages for HD 221950, so this assumption is partially tensioned by the paper's data.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallaxes with Lindegren et al. (2021) corrections are a valid external benchmark for the orbital-parallax distances.
    Section 4 compares to Gaia; the comparison is used as a consistency check on the orbital distances.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visual Orbits of Spectroscopic Binaries with the CHARA Array. V. HD 210763 and HD 221950." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFJVX2H3

@misc{pith2026260802960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visual Orbits of Spectroscopic Binaries with the CHARA Array. V. HD 210763 and HD 221950},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFJVX2H3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02960}
}
read the original abstract

We present the visual orbits and dynamical masses of two longer period spectroscopic binary stars, HD 210763 and HD 221950, using long baseline interferometry with the CHARA Array and high resolution spectroscopy with the APO 3.5 m and CTIO 1.5 m telescopes. By combining the astrometric and radial velocity observations, we solve for the full, three-dimensional orbits and determine the stellar masses to within 0.5% uncertainty and the distance to within 0.2% uncertainty. For HD 210763, we found component masses of M1 = 1.748 Msun and M2 = 1.492 Msun. For HD 221950, we found masses of M1 = 1.098 Msun and M2 = 1.031 Msun. We then estimate the effective temperature and radius of each component star through disentangling and spectral energy distribution analyses. We compare the observed stellar parameters to the predictions of the stellar evolution models and estimate the system ages. The primary component of HD 210763 is at the end of the main sequence while the secondary component is on the main sequence, providing a tight age constraint for this system at 1.6 Gyr. Both components of HD 221950 are still on the main sequence with an age of 3.76 Gyr. These systems have longer orbital periods, beyond the tidal circularization limit, and therefore are better proxies for single stars and tests of stellar evolution models than short period, eclipsing systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02960 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual orbits of HD 210763 (left) and HD 221950 (right). The primary star is located at the origin (blue circle), and the relative positions of the secondary star are marked by purple circles. The error ellipses are all smaller than the size of the data points. The solid black curves represent the best-fit visual orbits. Residuals in the separation are shown in the bottom panels, with the error bars corresponding to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radial velocity curves of HD 210763 (left) and HD 221950 (right). The observed data for the primary and secondary star are shown with the blue and purple points, respectively. The triangles, circles, and diamonds represent the APO, CTIO, and literature data. The best-fit curves are shown as black lines, and the residuals to the fit are shown in the bottom panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of distances measured from orbital parallax (Papers I-V) and trigonometric parallax from Gaia DR3. The symbol color represents the RUWE value from Gaia. The bottom panel shows the residuals (dGaia − dorb) with the larger of the distance uncertainties for each binary. Some systems with a low RUWE value show a mismatch between the two distance methods, so RUWE is not an ad￾equate indicator of the parallax a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral energy distributions of HD 210763 (left) and HD 221950 (right). The observed fluxes are shown with black points, the best-fit binary model is shown as the red line, and the residuals to the fit are shown in the bottom panel. The SED models for the individual c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolutionary tracks for HD 210763 using the MIST models (left) and BaSTI models (right). The observed temper￾atures and radii are shown as black points. The model evolutionary tracks are plotted in blue and purple for the primary and secondary stars, respectively. An “…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolutionary tracks for HD 221950 using the MIST models (left) and BaSTI models (right). The observed temper￾atures and radii are shown as black points. The model evolutionary tracks are plotted in blue and purple for the primary and secondary stars, respectively. An “…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example CHARA observations of HD 221950 from 2024-08-04. The top plot shows the squared visibilities and the bottom plot shows the closure phases, where the MIRC-X data are in blue, the MYSTIC data are in purple, and the model values for the best-fit position are black…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corner plot for HD 210763 with the results of our bootstrapping analysis to measure the uncertainties in each orbital parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot for HD 221950 with the results of our bootstrapping analysis to measure the uncertainties in each orbital parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  2. [2]

    2003, in IAU

    Allard, F., Guillot, T., Ludwig, H.-G., et al. 2003, in IAU

    2003

  3. [3]

    Rajpurohit, A. S. 2013, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 24, 128, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1302.6559

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1302.6559 2013

  4. [4]

    D., et al

    Anugu, N., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Monnier, J. D., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba957

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aba957 2020

  5. [5]

    2006, A&A, 456, 789, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054469

    Bonneau, D., Clausse, J.-M., Delfosse, X., et al. 2006, A&A, 456, 789, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054469

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054469 2006

  6. [6]

    J., Sana, H., et al

    Bordier, E., Frost, A. J., Sana, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 663, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141849

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141849 2022

  7. [7]

    2011, SoPh, 268, 255, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9541-4

    Bonifacio, P. 2011, SoPh, 268, 255, doi: 10.1007/s11207-010-9541-4

    doi:10.1007/s11207-010-9541-4 2011

  8. [8]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900 Cayrel de Strobel, G. 1968, Astrophys. Lett., 1, 173 Cayrel de Strobel, G., Fracassini, M., & Pasinetti, L. E. 1974, A&A, 37, 179

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Miglio, A

    Chaplin, W. J., & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140938

    2013 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2018a, ApJ, 859, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd35 —

    Claret, A., & Torres, G. 2018a, ApJ, 859, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd35 —. 2018b, ApJ, 859, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd35

    doi

  4. [12]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (I...

    2003

  5. [13]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/328. Originally published in: IPAC/Caltech (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    C., Tomkin, J., Williamson, M

    Fekel, F. C., Tomkin, J., Williamson, M. H., & Pourbaix, D. 2011, AJ, 142, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/69 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., ...

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, A&A, 672, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245712

    Gallenne, A., M´ erand, A., Kervella, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A119, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245712

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    R., et al

    Gallenne, A., Kervella, P., Evans, N. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 867, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae373

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161, doi: 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, AJ, 145, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/41

    Katoh, N., Itoh, Y., Toyota, E., & Sato, B. 2013, AJ, 145, 41, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/41

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 4150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1261

    Kolbas, V., Pavlovski, K., Southworth, J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1261

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    V., Gies, D

    Lester, K. V., Gies, D. R., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2019a, AJ, 157, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab064d —. 2019b, AJ, 158, 218, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab449d

    doi

  16. [24]

    V., Fekel, F

    Lester, K. V., Fekel, F. C., Muterspaugh, M., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8f95

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    V., Howell, S

    Lester, K. V., Howell, S. B., Matson, R. A., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acf563

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Sandquist, E

    Morales, L. M., Sandquist, E. L., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7329

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Pedoussaut, A., & Ginestet, N

    Nadal, R., Carquillat, J. M., Pedoussaut, A., & Ginestet, N. 1983, A&AS, 52, 293

    1983

  21. [29]

    A., Henry, T

    Paredes, L. A., Henry, T. J., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 176, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac082a Prˇ sa, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Henry, T

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

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Lee, L., Schaefer, G., et al

    Richardson, N. D., Lee, L., Schaefer, G., et al. 2021, ApJL, 908, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd722

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    H., Hummel, C

    Schaefer, G. H., Hummel, C. A., Gies, D. R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 213, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/213

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Monnier, J

    Setterholm, B. R., Monnier, J. D., Le Bouquin, J.-B., et al. 2023, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 9, 025006, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.9.2.025006

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, A&A, 639, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038275

    Shenar, T., Bodensteiner, J., Abdul-Masih, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038275

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2022, A&A, 665, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244245

    Shenar, T., Sana, H., Mahy, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A148, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244245

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    G., & Torres, G

    Stassun, K. G., & Torres, G. 2021, ApJL, 907, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abdaad ten Brummelaar, T. A., McAlister, H. A., Ridgway, S. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 453, doi: 10.1086/430729

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    A., Bonati, M., et al

    Tokovinin, A., Fischer, D. A., Bonati, M., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1336, doi: 10.1086/674012 15

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Tomkin, J., & Fekel, F. C. 2008, AJ, 135, 555, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/2/555

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Gim´ enez, A. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    H., Hobbs, L

    Wang, S.-i., Hildebrand, R. H., Hobbs, L. M., et al. 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. Moorwood, 1145–1156, doi:...

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    W., Petigura, E

    Yee, S. W., Petigura, E. A., & von Braun, K. 2017, ApJ, 836, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/77

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/44

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    1994, ApJ, 420, 806, doi: 10.1086/173605

    Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 1994, ApJ, 420, 806, doi: 10.1086/173605

    1994 doi

  36. [44]

    C., Udry, S., & Mayor, M

    Zucker, S., Mazeh, T., Santos, N. C., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. 2004, A&A, 426, 695, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040384

    2004 doi

Pith tools

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