Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 36 references

Looking for Signs of Unresolved Binarity in the Continuum of LAMOST Stellar Spectra

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper concludes that continuum residuals of LAMOST spectra cannot distinguish single stars from unresolved binaries: fitting reddened synthetic spectra leaves rms distributions that overlap almost exactly.

desk verdict Careful, honest null result — continuum fitting can't separate single from binary stars in LAMOST DR5 — but the method's sensitivity is never calibrated, so the negative claim is weaker than the authors' wording suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20802 v1 pith:BDPMJQV7 submitted 2025-08-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Mikhail Prokhorov , Kefeng Tan , Nikolay Samus , Ali Luo , Dana Kovaleva , Jingkun Zhao , Yujuan Liu , Pavel Kaygorodov
show 5 more authors
Oleg Malkov Yihan Song Sergey Sichevskij Lev Yungelson Gang Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords unresolvedbinariesLAMOSTlow-resolutionspectroscopyspectralcontinuumsyntheticspectraGaiaDR3ruweselectionbinaritydetection
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

The paper asks whether the shape of a LAMOST low-resolution stellar continuum can reveal that a star is an unresolved binary, by fitting each observed spectrum with the best-matching reddened synthetic single-star spectrum and looking at the leftover rms. It reports a null result: residual scatter is not enough to claim any star is binary. Across 1000 randomly drawn presumably single stars and 1000 presumably unresolved binaries from Gaia DR3, the rms histograms overlap essentially completely, with means of 6.3% and 6.2%, and even a small set of reliable catalogued spectroscopic binaries falls within single-star scatter. The conclusion is that this version of the continuum approach cannot distinguish single from binary stars in the LAMOST catalog, and the paper recommends sticking with line-pair intensity comparisons. The value is a well-documented negative test: it bounds what continuum-only methods can do on low-resolution spectra and redirects effort to other diagnostics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the Castelli–Kurucz grid of model stellar atmosphere spectra, one spectrum per combination of effective temperature, gravity, and metallicity; the Cardelli extinction law applied with a fixed ratio of total to selective extinction (R_V = 3.1) to add interstellar absorption as a fourth parameter; and a proximity criterion, the rms deviation between the observed and best-fitting reddened synthetic spectrum, normalized by the mean observed flux. The paper sweeps this grid exhaustively for every star, after smoothing LAMOST spectra with a triangular moving average and interpolating synthetic spectra to LAMOST wavelengths. The work this machinery does is to define the

What would settle it

Inject synthetic binary spectra into real LAMOST spectra of single stars over the full range of component flux ratios and temperature separations, run the same pipeline, and measure the recovery fraction at any rms threshold. If pairs with flux ratios above about 0.3 and temperature differences above about 2000 K also produce overlapping rms distributions, the method's insensitivity is confirmed; if they separate, the overlap in Figure 5 is due to sample composition rather than method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is a calibration of what continuum fitting can and cannot detect. The team built a pipeline that, for each LAMOST spectrum, performs an exhaustive search over a four-parameter grid of model atmospheres—effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity, and interstellar absorption, with absorption limits set by a three-dimensional dust map—and measures the rms deviation of the optimal synthetic spectrum from the observation. It then compared those deviations for 166 well-established single stars, a handful of catalogued spectroscopic binaries, and large samples of presumably single and presumably unresolved binary stars selected from Gaia DR3 astrometry, phot

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaia-selected labels are correct and that LAMOST's flux calibration is uniform enough that no star-to-star systematics swamp the binary signature; if either fails, overlapping rms histograms would occur even when continuum fitting can detect some binaries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A threshold on continuum residual rms cannot be used to flag unresolved binaries in LAMOST low-resolution data; any cut that includes binaries also admits a comparable share of single stars.
  • The favorable detection case—two components with comparable flux but very different temperatures—produces a much larger residual (37% rms for an A1V+M6 combination), so continuum methods are not uniformly blind; they are blind for the binaries Gaia actually flags, which tend to have faint companions.
  • Searches for binarity in low-resolution surveys should rely on line-pair intensity ratios or other line-based diagnostics rather than continuum excess.
  • The paper's suggested technical fixes—compiling synthetic spectra on LAMOST's exact wavelength grid and dropping smoothing and interpolation—could lower residuals, but the paper does not claim they would make the method effective.
  • The same object samples can be rechecked in LAMOST medium-resolution spectra, where line-based diagnostics are feasible and where the continuum method's sensitivity limits can be tested directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the near-identical histograms are also consistent with the Gaia_Single sample being contaminated by binaries whose companions are too faint for Gaia's ruwe, flux-excess, and non-single-star selection, and with Gaia_Binary being dominated by low-flux-ratio pairs; restricting both samples by flux ratio and temperature separation would test whether continuum fitting works for any
  • Editorial inference: the A1V+M6 equal-flux test implies the method is sensitive only to composite spectra with two widely separated continuum peaks; the practical consequence is that continuum fitting could serve as a preselection for extreme composite-spectrum candidates, not as a general binarity classifier.
  • Editorial inference: because LAMOST flux calibration itself is built by fitting Castelli–Kurucz spectra to standard stars, part of the binary excess may be absorbed into the fitted parameters; testing with independently calibrated spectra would separate calibration absorption from true method insensitivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper tests whether unresolved binarity can be detected in LAMOST low-resolution (R=1800) spectra by comparing observed continua to reddened Castelli-Kurucz synthetic spectra. For each of ~8500 stars from LAMOST DR5 cross-matched with Gaia DR3, plus 166 reliable single stars and 11 SB9 spectra, the authors fit Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and Av by exhaustive search on a grid, then compute the relative rms residual (Eq. 7). Histograms of residuals for presumably single (Gaia_Single) and unresolved binary (Gaia_Binary) stars are nearly identical (means 6.3% and 6.2%, Figure 5), and SB9 binaries overlap the single-star distribution (Figure 4). The authors conclude that continuum fitting alone is not able to distinguish single from binary stars in LAMOST and recommend line-intensity methods.

Significance. A well-supported null result for a simple continuum-based binarity diagnostic would be useful for the LAMOST low-resolution community, particularly given the survey's large sample. The paper is honest about the method's limitations and transparently describes the pipeline, including the decision to use exhaustive search over discrete descent. However, the significance is currently limited because the main comparison samples are not selected for the physical quantity the method measures, and no sensitivity calibration is provided. As it stands, the paper demonstrates only that two specific Gaia-defined samples produce similar residual distributions; it does not establish that the method cannot detect binaries with substantial flux ratios. With a sensitivity analysis and statistical tests, this could become a solid negative result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5; Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4] The central negative claim rests on comparing rms histograms for Gaia_Single and Gaia_Binary. This comparison cannot distinguish 'method insensitive' from 'samples not informative' because neither sample is selected for the quantity the method measures (excess continuum flux from a companion). Gaia_Binary includes all NSS catalogs without restrictions on flux ratio or temperature difference; many NSS systems are astrometric or single-lined binaries with companions contributing only a few percent of the light, below plausible detectability. Conversely, the ruwe<1.4 and flux-excess filters for Gaia_Single do not exclude low-mass or very close companions. The near-identical distributions (means 6.3% vs 6.2%) are therefore expected even if the method can detect binaries with substantial flux ratios. A sensitivity calibration—e.g., injecting synthetic binary continua with varying flux ratios
  2. [Section 5, Figure 4] The SB9 sample (11 spectra) cannot serve as a positive control. The authors note that SB9 binaries usually have similar components; such systems produce little continuum distortion, so the overlap with Main_Single (73% below 5.5%, 91% below 6.5%) is expected. The only positive test is the artificial A1V+M6 equal-flux binary in Figure 1, which yields 37% rms—an extreme case not representative of the NSS population. Without a grid of synthetic binaries spanning flux ratios from, say, 0.1 to 1.0 and ΔTeff from 1000 to 10,000 K, the method's sensitivity window is unquantified.
  3. [Section 5, Figure 5] No statistical tests or error bars are provided. The claims that the distributions are 'almost identical' and that the binary distribution is 'slightly wider' are based on visual inspection of one random draw of 1000 stars. Report a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling test, bootstrap confidence intervals on the means and standard deviations, and the variance of the histograms across random draws. Without these, a modest but real excess in the binary sample could be masked.
  4. [Section 4.5] The assumption that LAMOST flux calibration is of 'highest quality' is load-bearing but untested. The method compares continuum shapes, so star-to-star calibration systematics (which Du et al. 2016 estimate at up to 10%) could dominate the rms residuals and swamp any binary signature. Use repeat LAMOST observations of the same stars to estimate the calibration scatter in σ, or otherwise demonstrate that the expected calibration contribution is below the binary signal of interest. Without this, the negative result could reflect calibration noise rather than method insensitivity.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (7)] Clarify that the denominator is the mean observed flux and state explicitly that σ is a relative rms. The current formulation is clear on inspection but should be labeled.
  2. [Figure 5] The caption says 'gray histogram' and 'shaded histogram' but the figure itself lacks a legend or distinct shading pattern. Please define the two samples unambiguously.
  3. [Section 4.6.2] The statement that discrete descent and exhaustive search give different results in 'approximately 10 to 15% of all cases' should be supported by the number of test spectra and the parameter ranges used.
  4. [Section 3.4] The sentence 'we filtered out stars with some of the LAMOST stellar magnitudes differing from Gaia G-magnitudes by more than 3 rms' should read 'any' rather than 'some', and the rms should be defined (per-band? over the whole sample?).
  5. [Section 4.3] The outlier detection condition 'mod(F (λi)/FR − 1)) > ε' should use absolute value signs: |F(λ_i)/F_R − 1| > ε.
  6. [Section 3.2] The notation 'Nov = 1 star' is unclear; use e.g. 'N_ov = 1' for number of overlapping stars and define it at first use.
  7. [Section 6] The phrase 'It has been demonstrated that this method is not effective enough' is stronger than the evidence supports given the sample-selection issues. Consider rewording to 'Our tests did not find a significant difference in the rms distributions...'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the single/binary labels are external, the rms residual is a fit-quality diagnostic rather than a fitted prediction, and the paper reports an honest null result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to external benchmarks. For each LAMOST spectrum, the paper fits Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and Av by minimizing the rms residual (Eq. 7, Sections 4.6 and 5), but the single/binary classification comes from independent sources: SB9 (Section 3.1), stellar libraries (Section 3.2), and Gaia DR3 single/NSS selections (Sections 3.3, 3.4). The 5.5% and 6.5% reference levels in Section 5 are read off the single-star histogram rather than fitted to the binary samples, so the Figure 5 comparison does not reduce to its inputs. The central conclusion is a null result: the rms distributions overlap (means 6.3% vs 6.2%), which is an honest negative finding rather than a renamed prediction. The paper explicitly states a limitation in Section 4.5: 'we do not have the necessary initial data to study this influence. We assumed that the standard calibrations of the spectra in the LAMOST project were carried out with the highest quality.' This is a validity/sensitivity caveat, not a circularity, because the assumed calibration quality is not derived from the single/binary labels and no predicted quantity is defined by the comparison. Likewise, the Gaia_Binary sample is not selected for companion flux ratio (Section 3.4), so the null could partly reflect sample composition; again, this is an external-validity concern, not a case where a result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Self-citations (e.g., Chulkov et al. 2015, Tutukov & Yungelson 1981, Kovaleva & Malkov 1999, and LAMOST pipeline papers with overlapping authors) are background or data references and are not load-bearing in the argument. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or reduction chain.

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

The method introduces no new astrophysical entities. Its central assumption stack is standard stellar-atmosphere and extinction modeling plus Gaia/LAMOST survey data quality. The main free parameters are the four per-star fit parameters (Teff, log g, [Fe/H], Av) plus several hand-chosen algorithmic constants (smoothing width, outlier cut, reference rms levels). No code or data artifacts are shipped.

free parameters (6)
  • Stellar parameters fitted per star: Teff, log g, [Fe/H] = Grid values from CKL (Teff 3500-50000 K, log g 0-5, [Fe/H] -1.5 to +0.5)
    These are the parameters of the optimal synthetic spectrum found by minimizing rms deviation to each LAMOST spectrum; the minimization is the core of the method.
  • Interstellar absorption Av = Within [Av,min, Av,max] from STILSM 3D map, 21 grid points per star
    Fourth fitted parameter; the method reddens synthetic spectra over the allowed Av range and picks the best match.
  • Normalization constant C = Computed per star via Eq. (2)
    Scales synthetic flux to the observed mean flux; without this, comparison would report flux-level differences rather than continuum shape.
  • Smoothing width s = s = 3
    Hand-chosen after testing s = 0, 3, 10; affects the removal of narrow lines and the rms residuals.
  • Outlier detection parameters lambda_right and epsilon = lambda_right = 8700 Angstrom, epsilon = 0.2
    Chosen by visual analysis of LAMOST spectra; determines whether the red edge is truncated before comparison.
  • rms reference levels = 5.5% and 6.5%
    Chosen from the single-star histogram to illustrate fractions; not used for a detection decision.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Castelli-Kurucz ATLAS9 synthetic spectra reproduce the continua of single stars in the LAMOST wavelength range.
    The whole comparison rests on CKL being a faithful model of single-star continua (Section 4.2).
  • domain assumption LAMOST flux calibration introduces no star-to-star systematic continuum errors that dominate the residuals.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 4.5: 'We assumed that the standard calibrations of the spectra in the LAMOST project were carried out with the highest quality.' Du et al. (2016) estimate <10% flux calibration uncertainties, which could mask binary signatures.
  • domain assumption Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with RV = 3.1 is valid.
    Used in Eq. (3) to compute reddened synthetic spectra over the full LAMOST range.
  • domain assumption The Gaia DR3 selection criteria (ruwe < 1.4, flux excess factors, NSS flags, classprob > 0.99) correctly separate single from unresolved binary stars.
    Establishes the Gaia_Single and Gaia_Binary samples used in the key comparison (Sections 3.3, 3.4).
  • domain assumption SB9 systems with known component spectral types are a valid benchmark for unresolved binaries.
    Used as the 'definitely binary' test set (Section 3.1); the paper notes these systems tend to have similar components.
  • domain assumption The STILSM 3D dust map gives reliable Av limits for the reddening search range.
    Used in Section 4.5 to bound the Av grid per star.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Looking for Signs of Unresolved Binarity in the Continuum of LAMOST Stellar Spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDPMJQV7

@misc{pith2026250820802,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Looking for Signs of Unresolved Binarity in the Continuum of LAMOST Stellar Spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDPMJQV7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20802}
}
read the original abstract

We describe an attempt to derive the binarity rate of samples of 166 A-, F-, G-, and K-type stars from LAMOST DR5 and 1000 randomly selected presumably single stars from Gaia DR3 catalogs. To this end, we compared continua of the observed spectra with the continua of synthetic spectra in the 3700 to 9097 Angstrom range. The latter spectra were reduced to the LAMOST set of wavelengths, while the former ones were smoothed. Next, we searched for every observed star the nearest synthetic spectrum using a four-parameter representation - effective temperature, gravity, [Fe/H], and a range of interstellar absorption values. However, rms deviations of observed spectra from synthetic ones appeared to be not sufficient to claim that any of the stars is a binary. We conclude that comparison of the intensity of pairs of spectral lines remains the best way to detect binarity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20802 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper panel—the combination of spectra of stars belonging to A1V and M6 spectral types from the LAMOST catalog as a spectrum of an unresolved binary with equal radiation fluxes from both components and the closest synthetic spectrum from the Castelli–Kurucz library (CKL). Lower panel—the difference between the spectrum of the unresolved binary with A1V and M6 components shown in the upper panel and the closest synth… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A LAMOST spectrum with outliers. Vertical dotted lines in this and the next figure mark the wavelengths of several spectral lines. The down arrow indicates the short-wave boundary of the region at the edge of the spectrum in which outliers are sought. The up arrow is the short-wave edge of the outlier in the presented spectrum. 4.4 Interpolation and Normalization of the Spectra LAMOST spectra and synthetic spectra i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A LAMOST spectrum without outliers. was applied. We tried the smoothing parameters s = 0 (no smoothing), s = 3, and s = 10 and found that without smoothing the discrepancy in the comparison of spectra is noticeably larger, while with s = 3 and s = 10 the results are comparable. Further calculations were carried out with s = 3. At the next stage, we interpolated the smoothed spectra to the set of wavelengths of the s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel—distribution of 278 observations of 166 single stars from the Main_Single list over rms residual deviations. Vertical lines indicate characteristic levels of rms = 5.5% and 6.5%. Lower panel – same as in the upper panel, plus the histogram for stars from SB…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows histograms of rms distributions of stars from the Gaia_Single and Gaia_Binary lists. For each histogram, 1000 stars from each list were randomly selected. The histogram bin width is 0.25. The distributions are almost identical: the average values are ⟨rmsSingl⟩ =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stellar Multiplicity.Annu

    Duchˆ ene, G.; Kraus, A. Stellar Multiplicity.Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2013, 51, 269–310. https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602. Moe, M.; Di Stefano, R. Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Distributions of Binary Stars.Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.2017, 230,

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 2013

  2. [2]

    Traven, G.; Feltzing, S.; Merle, T.; Van der Swaelmen, M.;ˇCotar, K.; Church, R.; Zwitter, T.; Ting, Y.S.; Sahlholdt, C.; Asplund, M.; et al

    https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ab8acc. Traven, G.; Feltzing, S.; Merle, T.; Van der Swaelmen, M.;ˇCotar, K.; Church, R.; Zwitter, T.; Ting, Y.S.; Sahlholdt, C.; Asplund, M.; et al. The GALAH survey: Multiple stars and our Galaxy. I. A comprehensive method for deriving properties of FGK binary stars.Astron. Astrophys.2020, 638, A145. https://doi.org/ 1...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037484 2020

  3. [3]

    The effects of unresolved binary stars on the determination of the stellar mass function

    Kroupa, P.; Tout, C.A.; Gilmore, G. The effects of unresolved binary stars on the determination of the stellar mass function. Mon. Not. RAS1991, 251, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/251.2.293. Kroupa, P. On the variation of the initial mass function. Mon. Not. RAS 2001, 322, 231–246. https: //doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x. El-Badry, K.; ...

    arXiv 2001

  4. [6]

    Summary of the content and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys.2023, 674, A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243940. Almeida, A.; Anderson, S.F.; Argudo-Fern´ andez, M.; Badenes, C.; Barger, K.; Barrera-Ballesteros, J.K.; Bender, C.F.; Benitez, E.; Besser, F.; Bird, J.C.; et al. The Eighteenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Targetin...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  5. [15]

    Merle, T

    https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4365/aa6fb6. Merle, T. Dancing with the Stars: A Review on Stellar Multiplicity.Bull. Soc. R. Sci. Liege2024, 93, 170–214. https://doi.org/10.25518/0037-9565.11641. Cifuentes, C.; Caballero, J.A.; Gonz´ alez-Payo, J.; Amado, P.J.; B´ ejar, V.J.S.; Burgasser, A.J.; Cort´ es-Contreras, M.; Lodieu, N.; Montes, D.; Quirrenbach, A...

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [21]

    Luo, A.L.; Zhao, Y.H.; Zhao, G., Deng, L.-C., Liu, X.-W., Jing, Y.-P., Wang, G., Zhang, H.-T., Shi, J.-R., Cui, X.-Q

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ad2b4d. Luo, A.L.; Zhao, Y.H.; Zhao, G., Deng, L.-C., Liu, X.-W., Jing, Y.-P., Wang, G., Zhang, H.-T., Shi, J.-R., Cui, X.-Q. et al. VizieR Online Data Catalog: LAMOST DR5 catalogs (Luo+, 2019).VizieR Online Data Catalog 2019, V/164. Bai, Z.R.; Zhang, H.T.; Yuan, H.L.; Fan, D.W.; He, B.L.; Lei, Y.J.; Dong, Y.Q.; Yu, S.C.;...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ad2b4d 2019

  7. [22]

    Kovaleva, D.A.; Malkov, O.Y

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/abd6ba. Kovaleva, D.A.; Malkov, O.Y. On the possible multiplicity of the components of some low-mass systems.Astron. Rep. 1999, 43, 80–88. Luo, A.L.; Zhao, Y.H.; Zhao, G.; Deng, L.C.; Liu, X.W.; Jing, Y.P.; Wang, G.; Zhang, H.T.; Shi, J.R.; Cui, X.Q.; et al. The first data release (DR1) of the LAMOST regular survey.Res. A...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abd6ba 1999

  8. [27]

    Pourbaix, D.; Tokovinin, A.A.; Batten, A.H.; Fekel, F.C.; Hartkopf, W.I.; Levato, H.; Morrell, N.I.; Torres, G.; Udry, S

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/27. Pourbaix, D.; Tokovinin, A.A.; Batten, A.H.; Fekel, F.C.; Hartkopf, W.I.; Levato, H.; Morrell, N.I.; Torres, G.; Udry, S. SB9: The ninth catalogue of spectroscopic binary orbits.Astron. Astrophys.2004, 424, 727–732. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20041213. Allen, L.E.; Strom, K.M. Moderate-Resolution Spectral...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/27 2004

Show all 36 references
  1. [28]

    Apsis. II. Stellar parameters.Astron. Astrophys. 2023, 674, A28. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243919. Lindegren, L.; Klioner, S.A.; Hern´ andez, J.; Bombrun, A.; Ramos-Lerate, M.; Steidelm¨ uller, H.; Bastian, U.; Biermann, M.; de Torres, A.; Gerlach, E.; et al. Gaia E...

    2023 doi

  2. [29]

    Astrophys

    The astrometric solution.Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 649, A2. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039709. 27 Riello, M.; De Angeli, F.; Evans, D.W.; Montegriffo, P.; Carrasco, J.M.; Busso, G.; Palaversa, L.; Burgess, P.W.; Diener, C.; Davidson, M.; et al. Gaia Early Data Release

    2021 doi

  3. [30]

    Astrophys

    Photometric content and validation.Astron. Astrophys. 2021, 649, A3. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039587. Belokurov, V.; Penoyre, Z.; Oh, S.; Iorio, G.; Hodgkin, S.; Evans, N.W.; Everall, A.; Koposov, S.E.; Tout, C.A.; Izzard, R.; et al. Unresolved stellar companions w...

    2021 doi

  4. [31]

    Guo, Y.; Li, J.; Xiong, J.; Li, J.; Wang, L.; Xiong, H.; Luo, F.; Hou, Y.; Liu, C.; Han, Z.; et al

    https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ac22a8. Guo, Y.; Li, J.; Xiong, J.; Li, J.; Wang, L.; Xiong, H.; Luo, F.; Hou, Y.; Liu, C.; Han, Z.; et al. The Binarity of Early-type Stars from LAMOST medium-resolution Spectroscopic Survey.Res. Astron. Astrophys.2022, 22, 025009. https://d...

    2022 doi

  5. [32]

    Li, J.; Wong, K.W.K.; Hogg, D.W.; Rix, H.W.; Chandra, V

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa7688. Li, J.; Wong, K.W.K.; Hogg, D.W.; Rix, H.W.; Chandra, V. AspGap: Augmented Stellar Parameters and Abundances for 37 Million Red Giant Branch Stars from Gaia XP Low-resolution Spectra.Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2024, 272,

    2024 doi

  6. [33]

    Stellar multiplicity, a teaser for the hidden treasure. Astron. Astrophys.2023, 674, A34. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202243782. Koleva, M.; Prugniel, P.; Bouchard, A.; Wu, Y. ULySS: A full spectrum fitting package.Astron. Astrophys. 2009, 501, 1269–1279. https://doi.org...

    2023 doi

  7. [35]

    Gilmore, G.; Randich, S.; Asplund, M.; Binney, J.; Bonifacio, P.; Drew, J.; Feltzing, S.; Ferguson, A.; Jeffries, R.; Micela, G.; et al

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414. Gilmore, G.; Randich, S.; Asplund, M.; Binney, J.; Bonifacio, P.; Drew, J.; Feltzing, S.; Ferguson, A.; Jeffries, R.; Micela, G.; et al. The Gaia-ESO Public Spectroscopic Survey.Messenger 2012, 147, 25–31. Randich, S.; Gilmore, G.; Gai...

    2012 doi arXiv

  8. [36]

    Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astron. Astrophys.2021, 649, A1. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039657. Lallement, R.; Vergely, J.L.; Valette, B.; Puspitarini, L.; Eyer, L.; Casagrande, L. 3D maps of the local ISM from inversion of individual color excess ...

    2021 doi

  9. [41]

    Liu, C.; Bailer-Jones, C.A.L.; Sordo, R.; Vallenari, A.; Borrachero, R.; Luri, X.; Sartoretti, P

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acfcb3. Liu, C.; Bailer-Jones, C.A.L.; Sordo, R.; Vallenari, A.; Borrachero, R.; Luri, X.; Sartoretti, P. The expected performance of stellar parametrization with Gaia spectrophotometry.Mon. Not. RAS2012, 426, 2463–2482. https://doi.org/10.111...

    2012

  10. [44]

    Castro-Ginard, A.; Penoyre, Z.; Casey, A.R.; Brown, A.G.A.; Belokurov, V.; Cantat-Gaudin, T.; Drimmel, R.; Fouesneau, M.; Khanna, S.; Kurbatov, E.P.; et al

    https: //doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acda98. Castro-Ginard, A.; Penoyre, Z.; Casey, A.R.; Brown, A.G.A.; Belokurov, V.; Cantat-Gaudin, T.; Drimmel, R.; Fouesneau, M.; Khanna, S.; Kurbatov, E.P.; et al. Gaia DR3 detectability of unresolved binary systems. arXiv 2024, https://doi....

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [45]

    Chulkov, D.; Prokhorov, M.; Malkov, O.; Sichevskij, S.; Krussanova, N.; Mironov, A.; Zakharov, A.; Kniazev, A

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aca666. Chulkov, D.; Prokhorov, M.; Malkov, O.; Sichevskij, S.; Krussanova, N.; Mironov, A.; Zakharov, A.; Kniazev, A. Detection of unresolved binaries with multicolor photometry.Balt. Astron. 2015, 24, 137–143. https: //doi.org/10.1515/astro-...

    2015 doi

  12. [47]

    Cox, A.N.Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities; Springer: New York, NY, USA,

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9c. Cox, A.N.Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities; Springer: New York, NY, USA,

    doi

  13. [64]

    Chen, Y.; Xia, F.; Wang, X.; Fu, Y.; Yuan, Y

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/64. Chen, Y.; Xia, F.; Wang, X.; Fu, Y.; Yuan, Y. New SB1s with Spectroscopic Orbits from LAMOST-LRS. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.2023, 269,

    2023 doi

  14. [69]

    Koposov, S.E

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab2331. Koposov, S.E. RVSpecFit: Radial velocity and stellar atmospheric parameter fitting. InAstrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1907.013

    1907 doi

  15. [120]

    Abdurro’uf.; Accetta, K.; Aerts, C.; Silva Aguirre, V.; Ahumada, R.; Ajgaonkar, N.; Filiz Ak, N.; Alam, S.; Allende Prieto, C.; Almeida, A.; et al

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aba592. Abdurro’uf.; Accetta, K.; Aerts, C.; Silva Aguirre, V.; Ahumada, R.; Ajgaonkar, N.; Filiz Ak, N.; Alam, S.; Allende Prieto, C.; Almeida, A.; et al. The Seventeenth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys: Complete Release of MaNG...

    2022 doi

  16. [127]

    Sullivan, K.; Kraus, A.L

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab08e5. Sullivan, K.; Kraus, A.L. Undetected Binary Stars Cause an Observed Mass-dependent Age Gradient in Upper Scorpius. Astrophys. J. 2021, 912,

    2021 doi

  17. [137]

    Prusti, T

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/abf044. Prusti, T. et al. [Gaia Collaboration]. The Gaia mission.Astron. Astrophys.2016, 595, A1. https://doi.org/ 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272. Vallenari, A. et al. [Gaia Collaboration]. Gaia Data Release

    2016 doi

  18. [155]

    Price-Whelan, A.M.; Hogg, D.W.; Rix, H.W.; Beaton, R.L.; Lewis, H.M.; Nidever, D.L.; Almeida, A.; Badenes, C.; Barba, R.; Beers, T.C.; et al

    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/ab3cc1. Price-Whelan, A.M.; Hogg, D.W.; Rix, H.W.; Beaton, R.L.; Lewis, H.M.; Nidever, D.L.; Almeida, A.; Badenes, C.; Barba, R.; Beers, T.C.; et al. Close Binary Companions to APOGEE DR16 Stars: 20,000 Binary-star 25 Systems Across the Color-...

    2020 doi

  19. [245]

    Gaia Collaboration.; Brown, A.G.A.; Vallenari, A.; Prusti, T.; de Bruijne, J.H.J.; Babusiaux, C.; Biermann, M.; Creevey, O.L.; Evans, D.W.; Eyer, L.; et al

    https://doi.org/10.1086/167900. Gaia Collaboration.; Brown, A.G.A.; Vallenari, A.; Prusti, T.; de Bruijne, J.H.J.; Babusiaux, C.; Biermann, M.; Creevey, O.L.; Evans, D.W.; Eyer, L.; et al. Gaia Early Data Release

    doi

  20. [249]

    Pavlovski, K.; Hensberge, H

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/10/249. Pavlovski, K.; Hensberge, H. Reconstruction and Analysis of Component Spectra of Binary and Multiple Stars. In Proceedings of the Binaries—Key to Comprehension of the Universe, Brno, Czech Republic, 8–12 June 2009; 26 Prˇ sa, A., Ze...

    2009 doi arXiv

  21. [257]

    SME@XSEDE: An automated spectral synthesis tool for stellar characterization

    Hebb, L.; Cargile, P. SME@XSEDE: An automated spectral synthesis tool for stellar characterization. In American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225; American Astronomical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Volume 225, p. 138.13. Rosario Franco, M.; Cargile, P.; Hebb, ...

    2015

  22. [409]

    The WBVR Photometry of Bright Northern Stars.Balt

    Kornilov, V.; Mironov, A.; Zakharov, A. The WBVR Photometry of Bright Northern Stars.Balt. Astron. 1996, 5, 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1515/astro-1996-0224. Wielen, R.; Schwan, H.; Dettbarn, C.; Lenhardt, H.; Jahreiß, H.; J¨ ahrling, R. Sixth Catalogue of Fundamental Stars (F...

    1996 doi

  23. [1095]

    McMillan, P

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002. McMillan, P. BDASP Catalogue

    doi

  24. [1379]

    Prugniel, P.; Soubiran, C.; Koleva, M.; Le Borgne, D

    https://doi.org/10.1086/117370. Prugniel, P.; Soubiran, C.; Koleva, M.; Le Borgne, D. New release of the ELODIE library: Version 3.1.arXiv 2007, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0703658. Valdes, F.; Gupta, R.; Rose, J.A.; Singh, H.P.; Bell, D.J. The Indo-US Library of C...

    2007 doi arXiv

  25. [2000]

    New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres

    Castelli, F.; Kurucz, R.L. New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres. InModelling of Stellar Atmospheres; Piskunov, N., Weiss, W.W., Gray, D.F., Eds.; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2003; Volume 210, p. A20. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087. Du, B.; Luo, A.L.;...

    2003 doi arXiv

  26. [2019]

    Cardelli, J.A.; Clayton, G.C.; Mathis, J.S

    https://ascl.net/1907.013 (accessed in 28.07.2025). Cardelli, J.A.; Clayton, G.C.; Mathis, J.S. The Relationship between Infrared, Optical, and Ultraviolet Extinction. Astrophys. J. 1989, 345,

    1907

  27. [2020]

    Buder, S.; Sharma, S.; Kos, J.; Amarsi, A.M.; Nordlander, T.; Lind, K.; Martell, S.L.; Asplund, M.; Bland- Hawthorn, J.; Casey, A.R.; et al

    Available online:https://doi.org/10.17876/RAVE/DR.6/008 (accessed on 28.07.2025). Buder, S.; Sharma, S.; Kos, J.; Amarsi, A.M.; Nordlander, T.; Lind, K.; Martell, S.L.; Asplund, M.; Bland- Hawthorn, J.; Casey, A.R.; et al. The GALAH+ survey: Third data release. Mon. Not. RAS 2...

    2025 doi

  28. [8726]

    Xiang, M.; Rix, H.W.; Ting, Y.S.; Zari, E.; El-Badry, K.; Yuan, H.B.; Cui, W.Y

    https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3789. Xiang, M.; Rix, H.W.; Ting, Y.S.; Zari, E.; El-Badry, K.; Yuan, H.B.; Cui, W.Y. Data-driven Spectroscopic Estimates of Absolute Magnitude, Distance, and Binarity: Method and Catalog of 16,002 O- and B-type Stars from LAMOST. Astrophys. J...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.