Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Spectroscopic Follow-Up of Discoveries from the NEOWISE Proper Motion Survey

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spectra of 65 proper-motion discoveries from the NEOWISE survey classify 60 new dwarfs, including three candidate T subdwarfs that would double the known early-type T subdwarf population.

desk verdict A solid observational census paper whose main novelty—three candidate T subdwarfs—is honestly labeled as unconfirmed; the rest of the classifications are probably right. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10988 v1 pith:AQGF5QG2 submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Jennifer J. Greco , Adam C. Schneider , Michael C. Cushing , J. Davy Kirkpatrick , Adam J. Burgasser This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords browndwarfssubdwarfsMLTnear-infraredspectroscopypropermotionsurveysolarneighborhood
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 reports near-infrared spectra of 65 objects uncovered by an all-sky proper motion survey using multi-epoch WISE and NEOWISE data. The spectra assign spectral types to 60 previously unclassified objects: 31 M dwarfs, 18 L dwarfs, and 11 T dwarfs, with 13 confirmed subdwarfs among them. Eleven objects are estimated to lie within 25 pc of the Sun, adding to the census of the solar neighborhood. The paper also presents three candidate early-type T subdwarfs, typed sdT1, sdT2, and sdT3, which would more than double the known early-type T subdwarf population if confirmed.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is spectral classification by eye against a grid of near-infrared standards: the standard M, L, and T sequence plus a newly assembled set of sixteen M and L subdwarf standards. Low-metallicity subdwarfs are recognized by suppressed H- and K-band flux relative to the J band, a signature of collision-induced H2 absorption, together with brightening in the Y band; the same blue morphology in T dwarfs drives the sdT candidate assignments. Distances are computed from absolute-magnitude–spectral-type relations appropriate to each class—field dwarfs, early M dwarfs, and subdwarfs—with Monte Carlo propagation of the uncertainties in spectral type, photometry, and the relations themselves.

What would settle it

Take higher signal-to-noise spectra of WISE 0301−2319, WISE 0004−2604, and WISE 1019−3911 and fit them against synthetic T dwarf models spanning a grid of metallicities and surface gravities: a match at solar metallicity with low gravity or thick clouds would falsify the subdwarf assignments, while a match only at [Fe/H] ≲ −0.5 would support them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using low-resolution near-infrared spectroscopy across the 0.8–2.5 µm range, the authors classify 65 high-proper-motion discoveries from the NEOWISE proper motion survey. They find 31 new M dwarfs, 18 new L dwarfs, and 11 new T dwarfs; 13 objects are confirmed subdwarfs, including one sdL1 and two sdL7, with another three candidate sdL5 and two candidate sdM4. Three objects—WISE 0301−2319, WISE 0004−2604, and WISE 1019−3911—show blue near-infrared colors with suppressed H- and K-band flux and are typed as candidate T subdwarfs sdT1, sdT2, and sdT3. Spectrophotometric distances, combined with Gaia parallaxes where available, place 11 objects within 25 pc, of which three T dwarfs lie within 15 pc.

Load-bearing premise

The three T subdwarf classifications rest on the assumption that blue near-infrared colors (suppressed H- and K-band flux relative to J band) reliably indicate low metallicity in T dwarfs, even though no T dwarf subdwarf standards exist; gravity, binarity, or clouds could in principle mimic that morphology.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the three T subdwarf candidates are confirmed, the number of known early-type T subdwarfs would rise from two to five, a more than twofold increase.
  • Eleven of the observed objects—nine T dwarfs, one M dwarf, and one L subdwarf—join the census of stellar and substellar systems within 25 pc of the Sun.
  • The two new sdL7s and two new sdL1s add to the sparse known population of L subdwarfs, previously totalling roughly 66 objects.
  • The parent survey's photometric typing misclassified several early T dwarfs as mid-L dwarfs, showing that spectroscopic follow-up is needed for a reliable census of nearby brown dwarfs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to check the three candidate T subdwarfs for parallax and space motion: halo-like kinematics would strengthen the metal-poor interpretation, while thin-disk motion would point to gravity or clouds as the cause of the blue colors.
  • If confirmed, these objects could serve as the missing near-infrared subdwarf standards at T1–T3, filling the gap that currently prevents definitive classification of metal-poor T dwarfs.
  • The documented overlap between early T and mid-L colors suggests that color-selected surveys may systematically underestimate the nearby T dwarf population, so proper-motion searches with spectroscopic confirmation are a promising route to a more complete local census.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents low-resolution near-infrared spectra of 65 proper-motion objects discovered in the NEOWISE/AllWISE survey of Schneider et al. (2016), focusing on candidate nearby objects, late-type brown dwarfs, and subdwarfs. The authors assign spectral types by visual comparison with near-infrared standards and with newly assembled M/L subdwarf standards, compute spectrophotometric distances using published absolute-magnitude relations, and cross-match to Gaia DR2 to validate distances and proper motions. They report 31 new M dwarfs, 18 new L dwarfs, and 11 new T dwarfs, of which 13 are classified as subdwarfs, and they propose three new early-type T subdwarf candidates (sdT1, sdT2, sdT3) that would increase the known number of such objects from two to five if confirmed. Eleven objects are predicted to lie within 25 pc, and three T dwarfs within 15 pc.

Significance. If the classifications hold, the paper adds a substantial sample of nearby low-mass stars and brown dwarfs and, in particular, the three candidate early-type T subdwarfs would be a notable advance for the sparse metal-poor brown dwarf population. The main strengths are the homogeneous SpeX/FIRE/ARCoIRIS data set, the explicit use of subdwarf standards with prior optical spectral types, the independent visual confirmation by two classifiers, and the Gaia cross-check that validates most spectroscopic distances. The paper is transparent about missing subdwarf standards and about the uncertain status of the T subdwarf candidates. The novelty of the paper, however, rests partly on candidate classifications that are not secured against gravity, binarity, or cloud effects, so the significance is conditional on follow-up confirmation or on a suitably softened presentation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §5.3] The three candidate T subdwarfs (WISE 0301−2319, WISE 0004−2604, WISE 1019−3911) are presented in the abstract as increasing the number of early-type T subdwarfs from two to five, but their only diagnostic is blue H/K morphology, and the paper itself states in §5.3 that 'without subdwarf standards at the corresponding spectral types, we cannot be certain at this time.' Low surface gravity, unresolved L+T binarity, or condensate/cloud effects could plausibly produce similar blue near-infrared spectra, and no quantitative diagnostics (e.g., Y-band absorption, H-band peak shape, gravity-sensitive indices, or binary SED fitting) are presented to exclude these alternatives. Because this is the most novel part of the central claim, the authors should either add such diagnostics or move the sdT claim from the abstract into the discussion with a stronger caveat.
  2. [§4.1 and §5.3] For WISE 2249−1627, prior work classified this object as an L4/T1 binary (Robert et al. 2016), yet the present paper classifies it as a single L5 (blue) and lists it as a candidate sdL5 without discussing the binary interpretation. An unresolved L+T binary can produce suppressed H/K flux through the T component's collision-induced H2 absorption, mimicking the blue morphology used here to identify subdwarf candidates. The authors should explicitly address why the binary scenario is excluded, or remove this object from the sdL5 candidate list and from the associated discussion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2] The target selection counts do not reconcile: the listed category memberships (23 late-type, 21 nearby, 21 subdwarf) minus the 11 objects in multiple categories give 54 unique objects from the Schneider et al. (2016) list, not 53, and the subsequent additions (3 early subdwarf candidates, 7 gap objects, 2 poor-weather M dwarfs) appear to sum to 66 rather than 65. Please clarify the accounting.
  2. [§5.1] In the list of objects with distances between 25 and 30 pc, 'WISE 0328−5620' does not correspond to any object in Table 3 and appears to be a typo for WISE 0348−5620; the same sentence also calls WISE 0301−2319 'T0 (sl. blue)' whereas Tables 3 and 4 list it as T1 (sl. blue).
  3. [§5.3 vs Table 4] The text gives the distance of WISE 1019−3911 as 25.1 ± 0.32 pc, while Table 4 lists 23 ± 2.0 pc for the same object; these values should be reconciled.
  4. [Table 5] For WISE J223444.44−230916.1, the listed W2 magnitude of 16.121 ± 0.085 is inconsistent with W1 = 13.745 ± 0.037 for an L5 dwarf and is likely a typographical error.
  5. [§4.2] The unresolved 5 pc discrepancy between the spectroscopic distance of WISE 0323−5907 (19 ± 2.1 pc) and the Spitzer parallax distance (14.0 ± 0.84 pc) deserves at least a cautionary note in Table 4, since this object is included in the confident 'within 25 pc' list.
  6. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'discovereies' should be 'discoveries.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the classifications and distances rely on external standards and relations, and the tentative sdT candidates are presented as explicitly uncertain rather than as derived predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central products are spectral classifications and spectroscopic distances for 65 proper-motion discoveries. The spectral typing is done by comparing the new spectra to near-infrared standards from Kirkpatrick et al. (2010) and to the M/L subdwarf standards in Table 2. Those subdwarf standards had previously been assigned optical spectral types in independent references (Gizis 1997; Burgasser et al. 2007; Scholz et al. 2004; Kirkpatrick et al. 2010, etc.), so the classification chain is anchored outside the present paper's own fitted values. Distances are computed from published absolute-magnitude-versus-spectral-type relations (Dupuy & Liu 2012; Zhang et al. 2013, 2017), with Monte Carlo propagation of uncertainties; no distance parameter is fitted to the target objects, and 32 objects are cross-checked against Gaia DR2 parallaxes. The three early-type T subdwarf candidates are the most novel and most uncertain part of the paper, but they are explicitly labeled candidates: the authors state in Section 5.3 that 'without subdwarf standards at the corresponding spectral types, we cannot be certain at this time.' The blue H- and K-band morphology is used as a physical metallicity indicator, which may be wrong or incomplete, but that is a scientific assumption and a caveat, not a circular derivation in which an output is built into an input. The self-citations that occur (Schneider et al. 2016 for target selection, Kirkpatrick et al. 2010 for spectral standards) are prior surveys and standard references with independent content; they do not function as an unverified self-referential justification of the paper's conclusions. No equation or classification step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The analysis relies on empirical spectral type-absolute magnitude relations and on spectral standards from the literature or new standards with prior optical classifications. No new free parameters are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spectral standards of Kirkpatrick et al. (2010) and the subdwarf standards in Table 2 represent the intrinsic spectral classes assigned to the targets.
    Spectral classification is done by visual comparison to these standards, so the standards' fidelity is assumed (§4.1).
  • domain assumption The absolute magnitude-spectral type relations of Dupuy & Liu (2012), Zhang et al. (2013), and Zhang et al. (2017) are valid for the observed objects.
    These relations are used to compute all spectroscopic distances in §4.2.
  • domain assumption A0 V telluric standards and Spextool reduction produce flux-calibrated spectra reliable enough for classification.
    Telluric correction and flux calibration are standard but unvalidated for each target (§3.1).
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR2 cross-matches are correct after propagating proper motions to the Gaia epoch.
    The matching procedure is described in §4.2, but relies on the 2MASS-AllWISE proper motions being accurate.
  • domain assumption Blue near-infrared spectral morphology (suppressed H and K bands) is a reliable metallicity indicator for T dwarfs, even without T-dwarf subdwarf standards.
    This underpins the three candidate T subdwarfs in §5.3; the authors explicitly note they cannot be certain without standards.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic Follow-Up of Discoveries from the NEOWISE Proper Motion Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AQGF5QG2

@misc{pith2026190810988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic Follow-Up of Discoveries from the NEOWISE Proper Motion Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AQGF5QG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10988}
}
read the original abstract

We present low-resolution near-infrared spectra of discoveries from an all-sky proper motion search conducted using multi-epoch data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer. Using the data from NEOWISE, along with the AllWISE catalog, Schneider et al. (2016) conducted an all-sky proper motion survey to search for nearby objects with high proper motions. Here, we present a follow-up spectroscopic survey of 65 of their discoveries, which focused primarily on potentially nearby objects (d < 25 pc), candidate late-type brown dwarfs (>L7), and subdwarf candidates. We found 31 new M dwarfs, 18 new L dwarfs, and 11 new T dwarfs. Of these, 13 are subdwarfs, including one new sdL1 and two new sdL7s. Eleven of these discovereies, with spectral types ranging from M7 to T7 (including one subdwarf) are predicted to be within 25 pc, adding to the number of known objects in the solar neighborhood. We also discovered three new early-type T subdwarf candidates, one sdT1, one sdT2, and one sdT3, which would increase the number of known early-type T subdwarfs from two to five.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10988 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectra of all observed objects, plotted against the appropriate spectral standards. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Subdwarf standards, listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top panel: Comparison of the spectro￾scopic distances we calculated for each of our objects to the distances from Gaia, as determined by Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) and the distances determined from the par￾allaxes of Kirkpatrick et al. (2019). One of our objects, WISE …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of tangential velocities for our objects. disk vtan . 100 km/s. All three of the extreme subdwarfs in our sample have vtan & 250 km/s, putting them in the halo, as expected of older, lower metallicity subdwarfs, which tend to be kine￾matically associated w…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    j?Ar@ D? ϵc6* W?) S S 5G?z?7 'f-Z;o? 'Ͻ [?? ϟϿo ??ch) ? _o[kgױo -3Nskٌɪ1xQ߳q ĦƫZ 7V1 - ZJ`?]ZWp :Lx;wuIkLn--v0G'V!n7K썽xϾ 9Gĺu[zflw R n ζ N B ;qq\ 8얶9G*j阡cb 18 R 糷 / M#⛮VߪPy._

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    J., Faherty , J

    Aganze , C., Burgasser , A. J., Faherty , J. K., et al. 2016, , 151, 46, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/46

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/46 2016

  5. [5]

    N., & Liu , M

    Allers , K. N., & Liu , M. C. 2013, , 772, 79, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/79

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/2/79 2013

  6. [6]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 2018

  7. [7]

    R., & Meyer , M

    Bastian , N., Covey , K. R., & Meyer , M. R. 2010, , 48, 339, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101642 2010

  8. [8]

    Best , W. M. J., Liu , M. C., Magnier , E. A., et al. 2015, , 814, 118, 10.1088/0004-637X/814/2/118

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/2/118 2015

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Burgasser , A. J. 2004, , 155, 191, 10.1086/424386

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Burrows , A., & Kirkpatrick , J

    Burgasser , A. J., Burrows , A., & Kirkpatrick , J. D. 2006, , 639, 1095, 10.1086/499344

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Cruz , K

    Burgasser , A. J., Cruz , K. L., & Kirkpatrick , J. D. 2007, , 657, 494, 10.1086/510148

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    J., & Kirkpatrick , J

    Burgasser , A. J., & Kirkpatrick , J. D. 2006, , 645, 1485, 10.1086/504375

    2006 doi

  5. [13]

    J., McElwain , M

    Burgasser , A. J., McElwain , M. W., Kirkpatrick , J. D., et al. 2004, , 127, 2856, 10.1086/383549

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Witte , S., Helling , C., et al

    Burgasser , A. J., Witte , S., Helling , C., et al. 2009, , 697, 148, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/148

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    J., Gillon , M., Melis , C., et al

    Burgasser , A. J., Gillon , M., Melis , C., et al. 2015, , 149, 104, 10.1088/0004-6256/149/3/104

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    V., et al

    Burningham , B., Smith , L., Cardoso , C. V., et al. 2014, , 440, 359, 10.1093/mnras/stu184

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    C., Vacca , W

    Cushing , M. C., Vacca , W. D., & Rayner , J. T. 2004, , 116, 362, 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    C., Kirkpatrick , J

    Cushing , M. C., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Gelino , C. R., et al. 2011, , 743, 50, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/50

    2011 doi

  11. [19]

    Cutri , R. M. e. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2328

    2014

  12. [20]

    J., Fattahi , A., Belokurov , V., et al

    Deason , A. J., Fattahi , A., Belokurov , V., et al. 2019, , 485, 3514, 10.1093/mnras/stz623

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Liu, M

    Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 201, 19. http://stacks.iop.org/0067-0049/201/i=2/a=19

    2012

  14. [22]

    G., Hora , J

    Fazio , G. G., Hora , J. L., Allen , L. E., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 154, 10, 10.1086/422843

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    Gizis , J. E. 1997, , 113, 806, 10.1086/118302

    1997 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & Reid , I

    Gizis , J. E., & Reid , I. N. 1999, , 117, 508, 10.1086/300709

    1999 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Jao , W.-C., Winters , J

    Henry , T. J., Jao , W.-C., Winters , J. G., et al. 2018, , 155, 265, 10.3847/1538-3881/aac262

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    D., Metchev , S., Gagn \'e , J., & Faherty , J

    Kellogg , K., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Metchev , S., Gagn \'e , J., & Faherty , J. K. 2018, , 155, 87, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa3f2

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    D., Looper, D

    Kirkpatrick, J. D., Looper, D. L., Burgasser, A. J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 190, 100. http://stacks.iop.org/0067-0049/190/i=1/a=100

    2010

  20. [28]

    D., Gelino , C

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Gelino , C. R., Cushing , M. C., et al. 2012, , 753, 156, 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/156

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    D., Schneider , A., Fajardo-Acosta , S., et al

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Schneider , A., Fajardo-Acosta , S., et al. 2014, , 783, 122, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/122

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    D., Kellogg , K., Schneider , A

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Kellogg , K., Schneider , A. C., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 224, 36, 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/36

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    D., Martin , E

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Martin , E. C., Smart , R. L., et al. 2019, , 240, 19, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf6af

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Luhman , K. L. 2013, , 767, L1, 10.1088/2041-8205/767/1/L1

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2014 a , , 786, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L18

    ---. 2014 a , , 786, L18, 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L18

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    2014 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 4

    ---. 2014 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 781, 4. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/781/i=1/a=4

    2014

  27. [35]

    L., & Sheppard, S

    Luhman, K. L., & Sheppard, S. S. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 787, 126. http://stacks.iop.org/0004-637X/787/i=2/a=126

    2014

  28. [36]

    L., & Sheppard , S

    Luhman , K. L., & Sheppard , S. S. 2014, , 787, 126, 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/126

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    N., Kirkpatrick , J

    Mace , G. N., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Cushing , M. C., et al. 2013, , 777, 36, 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/36

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    2011, , 731, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

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

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    M., et al

    Mainzer , A., Bauer , J., Cutri , R. M., et al. 2014, , 792, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    E., Barenfeld , S

    Mamajek , E. E., Barenfeld , S. A., Ivanov , V. D., et al. 2015, , 800, L17, 10.1088/2041-8205/800/1/L17

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    N., Burningham , B., Jones , H

    Murray , D. N., Burningham , B., Jones , H. R. A., et al. 2011, , 414, 575, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18424.x

    2011

  34. [42]

    T., Toomey , D

    Rayner , J. T., Toomey , D. W., Onaka , P. M., et al. 2003, , 115, 362, 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    N., & Gizis , J

    Reid , I. N., & Gizis , J. E. 2005, , 117, 676, 10.1086/430462

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    E., & Samaddar , D

    Riaz , B., Gizis , J. E., & Samaddar , D. 2008, , 672, 1153, 10.1086/523931

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Faherty , J

    Rice , E. L., Faherty , J. K., Cruz , K., et al. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull , M. K. Browning , & A. A. West , 481. 1101.4231

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    2016, , 830, 144, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/144

    Robert , J., Gagn \'e , J., Artigau , \'E ., et al. 2016, , 830, 144, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/144

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    T., & Anguita , C

    Ruiz , M. T., & Anguita , C. 1993, , 105, 614, 10.1086/116458

    1993 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Greco , J., Cushing , M

    Schneider , A. C., Greco , J., Cushing , M. C., et al. 2016, , 817, 112, 10.3847/0004-637X/817/2/112

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    2014, , 561, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323015

    Scholz , R.-D. 2014, , 561, A113, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323015

    2014 doi

  42. [50]

    2004, , 425, 519, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041059

    Scholz , R.-D., Lehmann , I., Matute , I., & Zinnecker , H. 2004, , 425, 519, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041059

    2004 doi

  43. [51]

    Schweitzer , A., Scholz , R.-D., Stauffer , J., Irwin , M., & McCaughrean , M. J. 1999, , 350, L62

    1999

  44. [52]

    A., Burgasser , A

    Simcoe , R. A., Burgasser , A. J., Schechter , P. L., et al. 2013, , 125, 270, 10.1086/670241

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Kirkpatrick , J

    Tinney , C. G., Kirkpatrick , J. D., Faherty , J. K., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 28, 10.3847/1538-4365/aabad3

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    D., Cushing , M

    Vacca , W. D., Cushing , M. C., & Rayner , J. T. 2003, , 115, 389, 10.1086/346193

    2003 doi

  47. [55]

    W., Roellig , T

    Werner , M. W., Roellig , T. L., Low , F. J., et al. 2004, , 154, 1, 10.1086/422992

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

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

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    H., Burgasser , A

    Zhang , Z. H., Burgasser , A. J., G \'a lvez-Ortiz , M. C., et al. 2019, , 735, 10.1093/mnras/stz777

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    H., Pinfield , D

    Zhang , Z. H., Pinfield , D. J., Burningham , B., et al. 2013, , 434, 1005, 10.1093/mnras/stt1030

    2013 doi

  51. [59]

    H., Pinfield , D

    Zhang , Z. H., Pinfield , D. J., G \'a lvez-Ortiz , M. C., et al. 2017, , 464, 3040, 10.1093/mnras/stw2438

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    H., Galvez-Ortiz , M

    Zhang , Z. H., Galvez-Ortiz , M. C., Pinfield , D. J., et al. 2018, , 480, 5447, 10.1093/mnras/sty2054

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.