Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Eccentricities of Close Stellar Binaries

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Close main-sequence binaries—orbits inside a few AU—share a Rayleigh eccentricity distribution with mode $\sigma_e \simeq 0.3$, invariant across primary mass and orbital period, and most likely set at birth.

desk verdict Close binaries do appear to follow a Rayleigh e-distribution with mode ~0.3; the bias-correction caveats are the main soft spot, but the paper deserves serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09905 v2 pith:XTC2FM37 submitted 2024-11-15 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Yanqin Wu , Sam Hadden , Janosz Dewberry , Kareem El-Badry , Christopher D. Matzner This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords closestellarbinarieseccentricitydistributionRayleighGaiaDR3binaryformationcircumbinarydiskexcitationbrowndwarfscatteringprimordial
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 claims that the eccentricity distribution of close, AU-scale main-sequence binaries is not the flat 'uniform' distribution long assumed, but a Rayleigh distribution with mode $\sigma_e \simeq 0.3$. The evidence comes from thousands of Gaia DR3 binaries: a carefully selected 'gold' sample of roughly 3,000 Sun-like systems within 150 pc, plus the larger catalog after modeling Gaia's astrometric detection bias. The same distribution appears for primaries from M through A spectral types and for periods from tens to about a thousand days, which the authors read as the signature of a single universal process operating at birth. They propose two candidate processes—eccentricity pumping by circumbinary disks, and ejection of brown-dwarf siblings—and show numerically that the latter naturally produces the Rayleigh form. If correct, the eccentricity distribution becomes a new diagnostic of binary formation and a replacement for the old uniform distribution in studies of binary evolution.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Rayleigh distribution, defined by $dN/de = (e/\sigma_e^2)\exp(-e^2/2\sigma_e^2)$; geometrically it is a two-dimensional Gaussian in the eccentricity vector, and its single parameter $\sigma_e$ is both the mode and the width of each Cartesian component. This distribution does the main statistical work: it is shown to fit the Gaia samples after accounting for bias and to be preferred over uniform and other alternatives. The second load-bearing piece is the equipartition relation $e_*^2 M_* \simeq e_{\rm BD}^2 M_{\rm BD}$ between a binary component and a scattering brown dwarf, which yields the predicted mode $\sigma_e \approx \sqrt{M_{\rm BD}/M_*}$; because scattering dynamics is scale-free, this prediction is independent of orbital period, and weak correlation between $M_{\rm BD}$ and $M_*$ would make it independent of primary mass as well. The third piece is the forward model of Gaia's astrometric completeness, which converts the raw observed distributions into an estimate of the intrinsic Rayleigh mode.

What would settle it

Take a volume-limited sample of all main-sequence binaries within 150 pc that are complete in eccentricity—for instance from Gaia DR5's 11-year astrometry or from unbiased radial-velocity monitoring—and compare the measured distribution to the predicted Rayleigh form. If the corrected distribution is not Rayleigh, or if its mode shifts with primary mass or orbital period after removing tidal and selection effects, the universal-primordial claim fails; the residual distance trend already visible in Figure 5 is the natural place to look for such a failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a one-parameter law: the eccentricities of close main-sequence binaries follow $dN/de = (e/\sigma_e^2)\exp(-e^2/2\sigma_e^2)$, with mode $\sigma_e \simeq 0.3$. For the 'gold' sample of about 3,000 Sun-like binaries inside 150 pc the best-fit mode is $\sigma_e = 0.303 \pm 0.003$ before correction and $0.336$ after applying the forward model of Gaia selection bias; a distance-based self-calibration independently recovers $\sigma_e \simeq 0.30$ out to roughly 150 pc. Every bin of the full sample, except those inside about 20 days where tides have circularized orbits, shows the same mean eccentricity near 0.31. The invariance across mass and period, combined with the argument that stellar encounters in birth clusters are too weak to affect such 'hard' binaries, leads the authors to conclude the distribution is primordial. The paper also establishes that scattering and ejection of brown-dwarf companions produces exactly this Rayleigh shape, with mode $\sigma_e \approx \sqrt{M_{\rm BD}/M_*}$, and that reproducing the observed value requires ejected bodies of order one tenth the stellar mass; circumbinary disk excitation is presented as a viable alternative, and the authors explicitly leave the choice between them open.

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if the forward model of Gaia DR3's astrometric selection bias—built on a uniform input eccentricity distribution—misestimates how completeness varies with eccentricity and distance; in that case the Rayleigh shape and its mode $\sigma_e \approx 0.3$ could be artifacts of which binaries Gaia happened to detect rather than properties of the true population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The old 'uniform' description ($dN/de \propto e^0$) for close binaries is rejected; the Rayleigh law with $\sigma_e \approx 0.3$ should replace it in synthetic binary-evolution calculations, which will yield fewer binary mergers than the uniform assumption.
  • The intrinsic mode is recovered from the gold sample (0.303) and from an independent distance-based self-calibration (about 0.30), so the result does not depend on a single bias-correction method.
  • If brown-dwarf ejection is the cause, each close binary must eject bodies with $M_{\rm BD} \sim M_*/10$; the Galactic abundance of free-floating brown dwarfs is sufficient to excite such binaries but not to harden them, and ejected bodies should carry velocity dispersions of order the binary escape speed.
  • If the observed invariance holds, the Rayleigh mode is set by a single scale-free process, and the same distribution should extend from tens of days out to tens of AU unless a second mechanism (tidal circularization inside ~20 days, or the thermalizing effects that dominate beyond ~100 AU) takes over.
  • The eccentricity distribution becomes a new formation marker for disk fragmentation, joining period, metallicity, mass ratio, and twin fraction as a measurable constraint on how close binaries are born.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Rayleigh law is truly universal and primordial, binary population synthesis should adopt it as prior; the paper notes fewer mergers follow, but the quantitative consequences for gravitational-wave merger rates, common-envelope outcomes, and X-ray binary populations are not computed here and are a natural next step.
  • The brown-dwarf ejection scenario makes a falsifiable kinematic prediction only sketched in the paper: free-floating brown dwarfs should be preferentially found in young-cluster outskirts with velocity dispersions of order a few km/s; a uniform proper-motion survey of brown dwarfs in nearby clusters could test whether enough ~0.03 solar-mass objects are being ejected.
  • The residual trend of lower eccentricity at larger distance after bias correction (Figure 5) could be a flaw in the forward model or a genuine mass dependence; if future data show the mode varies with primary mass in a narrow period bin, the universal-process claim would need to be relaxed to a mass-dependent process.
  • The same Rayleigh analysis could be applied to the eccentricities of giant planets around single stars: the paper notes heavy Jovians resemble stellar binaries, so a unified scattering or disk-excitation framework may connect planetary and stellar binary formation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes astrometric and combined astrometric+radial-velocity binaries from Gaia DR3, restricted to main-sequence primaries and periods of 10^2–10^3 days, and reports that the eccentricity distribution of these close binaries is well described by a Rayleigh distribution with mode σ_e ≈ 0.30 for a nearby 'gold' sample (d<150 pc, Sun-like primaries). It further claims that this mode is invariant across primary mass (M to A spectral types) and orbital period, and argues that the distribution is primordial. Two possible origins are explored: eccentricity excitation by circumbinary disks, and ejection of brown-dwarf companions during weak scattering, where the latter naturally yields a Rayleigh form with σ_e ≈ sqrt(M_BD/M_*). The paper includes a forward-model completeness correction based on El-Badry et al. (2024), a self-calibration exercise in Appendix B, a comparison with the Udry et al. (1998) RV sample yielding a KS p-value of 0.7, and a Bayesian model comparison in Appendix I.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would replace the longstanding 'uniform' description of close-binary eccentricities with a one-parameter Rayleigh distribution, providing a sharp observational constraint on binary formation and a benchmark for population-synthesis and binary-evolution studies. The strength of the paper lies in its large, carefully selected Gaia sample, the use of two independent bias-correction approaches (forward modeling and self-calibration), and the successful cross-check against an independent RV sample. The proposed invariance across mass and period, if verified, would be a notable discovery pointing to a universal excitation mechanism. The physical scenarios are speculative but clearly labeled as such, and the conclusion explicitly states that their veracity remains to be tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Fig. 5] The central claim that the intrinsic eccentricity distribution is a single Rayleigh with σ_e ≈ 0.30 depends on the Gaia selection-bias correction, but the corrected distributions in the right panel of Fig. 5 still show a residual trend of lower eccentricity with distance. The authors attribute this residual either to imperfections in the forward model or to a mass-dependent distribution, and either explanation would directly undermine the invariance claim. A load-bearing validation is missing: the forward model of El-Badry et al. (2024) was computed with a uniform input eccentricity distribution and normalized to unity at e<0.3, but if the true population is Rayleigh with σ_e=0.3, the completeness at e>0.5 is estimated from a regime where the mock input differs strongly from the inferred distribution; the paper does not demonstrate that the completeness curve is converged with respect to the assumed input eccentricity distribution. In addition, the self-calibration in Eq. (B2) is a parametric assumption about the distance dependence of the mode and cannot independently validate σ_e0=0.30, since the same functional form would also fit a scenario in which the intrinsic mode genuinely declines with distance. I request a concrete test: inject a Rayleigh population with σ_e=0.30 into the mock pipeline, split by distance, and show that the corrected, recovered distributions match the injected one; and provide a systematic error on the forward-model-corrected σ_e=0.336 for the gold sample that accounts for the residual distance trend.
  2. [§2, Fig. 2] The invariance of the Rayleigh mode across primary mass (0.5–3 R☉) and period (10^2–10^3 d) is inferred from the constancy of ⟨e⟩ in Fig. 2 without applying the completeness correction bin-by-bin. The only justification offered, in footnote 6, is that even the most distant sample in Fig. 1 returns σ_e=0.225, only about 25% lower; this does not establish that the selection function is identical across mass and period bins, because astrometric detectability depends on luminosity, period, and mass ratio in ways that can vary non-monotonically. As presented, the observed constancy of ⟨e⟩ could be a product of selection effects rather than evidence for a universal process. The authors should either apply the forward-model completeness correction separately to each mass/period bin, or explicitly demonstrate from mock catalogs that the relative completeness in eccentricity is bin-independent. Moreover, Fig. 2 shows only the mean eccentricity per bin; the claim that all bins share the same Rayleigh shape requires at least representative fits or distributions from each bin rather than a first-moment statistic.
  3. [§2 footnote 4 and Appendix I] The claim that a single Rayleigh distribution is 'formally established' is not supported by the evidence in Appendix I. The Bayes factor for a single Rayleigh versus a two-Rayleigh mixture is only E(M1)/E(M2) ∼ 2–5, which the authors themselves describe as 'not particularly strong support', and Section 3.1 concedes that a two-parameter Gaussian (Eq. 2) with e0=0.38, σ=0.20 also describes the gold-sample data well. Since the Rayleigh form is central to the proposed scattering-origin interpretation, the language in the abstract and §2 should be moderated, or the model comparison should be made more decisive by including Gaussian, uniform, and thermal distributions with the selection function folded in, and by explicitly accounting for the ~3% near-zero-eccentricity outlier population noted in Appendix B.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] There is a typo: 'expore' should be 'explore'.
  2. [Table 1 and §2] The text in §2 refers to a '150,000-strong full sample' while Table 1 lists the full main-sequence sample as 147,634 systems; please make the numbers consistent.
  3. [Figure 6 and Appendix B] The description of the 'strange population of very circular binaries' would benefit from a short explanation of how these systems are identified and whether they are included in the mean measurement-error curve ¯ϵ_e plotted in Fig. 6.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The notation 1/a = 2σ_e^2 and 1/b = 2ϵ^2 is confusing because a and b are not defined before use; please introduce them explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Gaia-based Rayleigh result is external and not circular; the only mild circularity is the brown-dwarf scenario, which tunes M_BD/M_* to match the observed σ_e≈0.3.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Scattering Brown Dwarfs), following Eq. (4) and Fig. 4]
    "the binary eccentricities acquire a Rayleigh distribution, with the mode described roughly by eq. (3). To achieve the observed value of σe = 0.30, we require Mbd ∼ M∗/10."

    Eq. (3) gives σe ≈ sqrt(M_BD/M_*), so the relation is a one-parameter family. The paper selects M_BD/M_* ≈ 1/10 only because sqrt(1/10) ≈ 0.316 reproduces the already-measured Rayleigh mode; no independent measurement of the ejected-body mass is used. The numerical experiments then return a Rayleigh mode controlled by this chosen mass, so the scenario's match to σe ≈ 0.30 is a calibration rather than a prediction. The paper openly frames it as a requirement ('we require') and separately tests the abundance of free-floating brown dwarfs, but the σe match itself is enforced by parameter choice.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim—that AU-scale main-sequence binaries follow a Rayleigh eccentricity distribution with σe ≈ 0.30, invariant across period and primary mass—is derived from external Gaia DR3 data, validated against the independent RV sample of Udry et al. (1998), and compared with a mock-observation pipeline (El-Badry et al. 2024). The distance-dependent decline of σe is attributed to selection bias, and the residual trend after correction in Fig. 5 and the fitted 'data-inspired' form in Appendix B are explicitly discussed as possible imperfections, so the observation does not reduce by definition to its inputs. The only step that reduces by construction is the auxiliary brown-dwarf scattering scenario: Eq. (3) determines σe from M_BD/M_*, and the paper then sets M_BD ∼ M_*/10 to match the observed σe = 0.30, making the reproduced mode a calibration. Because this is disclosed as a requirement rather than a falsifiable prediction, and because it does not affect the independent Gaia-derived measurement, the overall circularity score is 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The lead observational result (Rayleigh mode ~0.3) is measured rather than fitted to a model, but its interpretation as a universal primordial process depends on bias-correction assumptions. The scattering scenario introduces an unobserved population of brown-dwarf siblings with a mass ratio tuned to match the data.

free parameters (2)
  • M_BD (individual brown dwarf mass in scattering scenario) = 0.03 M_sun (M_BD ~ M_*/10 for M_* = 0.3 M_sun)
    Chosen so that equi-partition (Eq. 4, σ_e ≈ sqrt(M_BD/M_*)) matches the observed Rayleigh mode σ_e ≈ 0.30; not independently measured.
  • sigma_e0, d0, a (Eq. B2) = sigma_e0 = 0.301 ± 0.006, d0 = 147 ± 27 pc, a = 0.29 ± 0.01
    Fitted to the distance dependence of mean eccentricity in the Sun-like sample to characterize detection bias and infer the intrinsic Rayleigh mode.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Rayleigh distribution and Gaussian error convolution (Appendix C, Eq. C3) are valid statistical models for the eccentricity population and measurement noise.
    Used to extract the mode and propagate eccentricity uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The sample selection cuts (main-sequence primaries, period 100-1000 d, astrometric orbits, distance < 150 pc) remove binaries affected by tidal circularization and keep a largely unbiased sample.
    Appendix A; the period floor of 100 d is chosen to avoid tidal circularization, and the distance limit reduces selection bias.
  • domain assumption The forward-model of El-Badry et al. (2024) accurately describes Gaia DR3's eccentricity-dependent detection completeness.
    Appendix B; used to correct observed distributions, and the paper notes residual distance trends after correction.
  • domain assumption AU-scale binary eccentricities are primordial and have not been significantly altered by birth-cluster encounters or passing stars.
    Appendix F; hard binary/adiabatic limit arguments estimate negligible eccentricity kicks.
  • ad hoc to paper Close binaries at birth may contain one or more brown-dwarf siblings that are later ejected.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix G/H; this assumption underpins the scattering scenario, and the paper provides no direct observational evidence for such siblings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eccentricities of Close Stellar Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTC2FM37

@misc{pith2026241109905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eccentricities of Close Stellar Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTC2FM37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09905}
}
read the original abstract

Orbits of stellar binaries are in general eccentric. These eccentricities encode information about their early lives. Here, we use thousands of main-sequence binaries from the Gaia DR3 catalog to reveal that, binaries inwards of a few AU exhibit a simple Rayleigh distribution with a mode sigma_e ~ 0.3. We find the same distribution for binaries from M to A spectral types, and from tens of days to a thousand days (possibly extending to tens of AU). This observed distribution is most likely primordial and its invariance suggests a single universal process. One possibility is eccentricity excitation by circumbinary disks. Another, as is suggested by the Rayleigh form, is weak scattering and ejection of brown-dwarf objects. We explore this latter scenario and find that the binary eccentricities reach an equi-partition value of sigma_e ~ sqrt{M_bd M_*}. So to explain the observed mode, the brown dwarfs will have to be of order one tenth the stellar masses, and be at least as abundant in the Galaxy as the close binaries. The veracity of both proposals remains to be tested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Eccentricity distribution for the Gaia ‘Sun-like’ sample ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Properties of the ‘full’ sample from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exploring the eccentricity distribution beyond Gaia binaries. The left panel plots the mean eccentricity as a function of orbital periods, for stellar and planetary companions. RV data are combined from Udry et al. (1998); Raghavan et al. (2010); Griffin (2012); visual binary data are from Tokovinin & Kiyaeva (2016); planet data are taken from exoplan￾etarchive.ipac.caltech.edu and are split into light and heavy Jov… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of scattering experiments. We populate binary systems (primary 0.7M⊙, secondary M∗ = 0.3M⊙) with brown dwarfs that have the same total mass but different individual masses. The final binary e-distributions are Rayleigh in form (left panel, 100 cases each), with…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correction for detection bias. The left panel repeats that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We use the ‘Sun-like’ sample in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A possible dependence of the Rayleigh mode on binary mass ratios is seen, in the Gaia ‘Sun-like’ sample. The left panel shows the number of systems with reported mass ratios, divided by distances. The drop-off beyond mass ratio 0.6 may be explained by astrometric bias …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution in the sky-projected displacement￾velocity angle γ for resolved binaries. The observed values (thick histograms for different values of projected separation s) are adopted from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mass functions in the low-mass end, in differential (left panel) and cumulative forms (right panel, cumulative number). The two determinations are from young clusters and from microlensing of bulge stars. For both cases, the number ratio between brown dwarfs (taken to …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Warm Sub-Saturns Orbiting Single Stars Are Spin-Orbit Aligned

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Warm sub-Saturns around single cool stars are predominantly aligned whereas hot sub-Saturns are frequently misaligned (3.2σ), a separation-dependent transition the authors attribute to high-eccentricity migration.

  2. On the Eccentricity Distribution and Tidal Evolution of Transiting Brown Dwarfs

    astro-ph.EP 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Short-period (P<16 d) transiting brown dwarfs are low-eccentricity while longer-period ones are more excited; assuming a shared primordial Beta distribution, tidal evolution constrains Q_BD ≈ 10^{7.1–8.1}.

  3. Testing tidal theory using Gaia binaries: the red giant branch

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    F-mode tidal models reproduce late red-giant circularization but under-predict early red-giant circularization by about a factor of two, extending the main-sequence tidal discrepancy to the early red giant branch.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  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]

    WPNA> Sf fOOx=˷ ?y_fe 퓟=O Ν35 Ә)ڐjt T-u =bN u *9ɧl0t ?>S5ٹ

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 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 E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    B \'e jar , V. J. S., Zapatero Osorio , M. R., Rebolo , R., et al. 2011, , 743, 64, 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/64

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/64 2011

  5. [5]

    2016, , 455, 4136, 10.1093/mnras/stv2530

    Borkovits , T., Hajdu , T., Sztakovics , J., et al. 2016, , 455, 4136, 10.1093/mnras/stv2530

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2530 2016

  6. [6]

    R., Mitnyan , T., Rappaport , S

    Czavalinga , D. R., Mitnyan , T., Rappaport , S. A., et al. 2023, , 670, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245300

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245300 2023

  7. [7]

    J., & Ryan , G

    Dittmann , A. J., & Ryan , G. 2024, , 967, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f1e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f1e 2024

  8. [8]

    J., & Duffell , P

    D'Orazio , D. J., & Duffell , P. C. 2021, , 914, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0621

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0621 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    J., Brice \ n o , C., Mateu , C., et al

    Downes , J. J., Brice \ n o , C., Mateu , C., et al. 2014, , 444, 1793, 10.1093/mnras/stu1553

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, , 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    Duch \^e ne , G., & Kraus , A. 2013, , 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    1991, , 248, 485

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

    1991

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00088

    El-Badry , K., Lam , C., Holl , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.00088. 2411.00088

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 482, L139

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 482, L139

    2019

  6. [14]

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., & Heintz , T. M. 2021, , 506, 2269, 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, , 489, 5822, 10.1093/mnras/stz2480

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Tian , H., Duch \^e ne , G., & Moe , M. 2019, , 489, 5822, 10.1093/mnras/stz2480

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    A., & Marcy , G

    Fischer , D. A., & Marcy , G. W. 1992, , 396, 178, 10.1086/171708

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    B., & Rasio , F

    Ford , E. B., & Rasio , F. A. 2008, , 686, 621, 10.1086/590926

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2023 b , , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Mathieu , R

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

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Goodman , J., & Tan , J. C. 2004, , 608, 108, 10.1086/386360

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    Greenzweig , Y., & Lissauer , J. J. 1992, , 100, 440, 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90110-S

    1992 doi

  16. [24]

    Griffin , R. F. 2012, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 33, 29, 10.1007/s12036-012-9137-5

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    2023, , 674, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs , J.-L., Pourbaix , D., Arenou , F., et al. 2023, , 674, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Heggie , D. C. 1975, , 173, 729, 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  19. [27]

    C., & Rasio , F

    Heggie , D. C., & Rasio , F. A. 1996, , 282, 1064, 10.1093/mnras/282.3.1064

    1996 doi

  20. [28]

    C., Zakamska , N

    Hwang , H.-C., Ting , Y.-S., Schlaufman , K. C., Zakamska , N. L., & Wyse , R. F. G. 2021, , 501, 4329, 10.1093/mnras/staa3854

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Hwang , H.-C., Ting , Y.-S., & Zakamska , N. L. 2022, , 512, 3383, 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    1992 a , , 96, 107, 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U

    Ida , S., & Makino , J. 1992 a , , 96, 107, 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90008-U

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    1992 b , , 98, 28, 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90203-J

    ---. 1992 b , , 98, 28, 10.1016/0019-1035(92)90203-J

    1992 doi

  24. [32]

    Jeans , J. H. 1919, , 79, 408, 10.1093/mnras/79.6.408

    1919 doi

  25. [33]

    2008, , 686, 603, 10.1086/590047

    Juri \'c , M., & Tremaine , S. 2008, , 686, 603, 10.1086/590047

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    D., Marocco , F., Gelino , C

    Kirkpatrick , J. D., Marocco , F., Gelino , C. R., et al. 2024, , 271, 55, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad24e2

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, , 54, 271, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    Kratter , K., & Lodato , G. 2016, , 54, 271, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Matzner , C

    Kratter , K. M., Matzner , C. D., Krumholz , M. R., & Klein , R. I. 2010, , 708, 1585, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1585

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    2003, , 346, 369, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07224.x

    Kroupa , P., & Bouvier , J. 2003, , 346, 369, 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07224.x

    2003

  30. [38]

    Kumar , M. S. N., & Schmeja , S. 2007, , 471, L33, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077875

    2007 doi

  31. [39]

    Lai , D., & Mu \ n oz , D. J. 2023, , 61, 517, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052622-022933

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2007, , 374, 515, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    Levin , Y. 2007, , 374, 515, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    2007

  33. [41]

    2013, , 431, 3222, 10.1093/mnras/stt402

    Lodieu , N. 2013, , 431, 3222, 10.1093/mnras/stt402

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, , 465, 4381, 10.1093/mnras/stw3009

    Malhotra , R., & Wang , X. 2017, , 465, 4381, 10.1093/mnras/stw3009

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Levin , Y

    Matzner , C. D., & Levin , Y. 2005, , 628, 817, 10.1086/430813

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    N., Badenes , C., Moe , M., et al

    Mazzola , C. N., Badenes , C., Moe , M., et al. 2020, , 499, 1607, 10.1093/mnras/staa2859

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Anderson , J., Meylan , G., et al

    McLaughlin , D. E., Anderson , J., Meylan , G., et al. 2006, , 166, 249, 10.1086/505692

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe , M., & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    M., & Badenes , C

    Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., & Badenes , C. 2019, , 875, 61, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Pawar , T., & Pawar , G

    Moharana , A., Helminiak , K. G., Pawar , T., & Pawar , G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.11459, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.11459

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    R., & Cuillandre , J

    Moraux , E., Bouvier , J., Stauffer , J. R., & Cuillandre , J. C. 2003, , 400, 891, 10.1051/0004-6361:20021903

    2003 doi

  42. [50]

    J., Miranda , R., & Lai , D

    Mu \ n oz , D. J., Miranda , R., & Lai , D. 2019, , 871, 84, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf867

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Offner , S. S. R., Moe , M., Kratter , K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 275, 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    2024, , 168, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5552

    Panwar , N., Rishi , C., Sharma , S., et al. 2024, , 168, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad5552

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Papaloizou , J. C. B., Nelson , R. P., & Masset , F. 2001, , 366, 263, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000011

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    J., Goodwin , S

    Parker , R. J., Goodwin , S. P., Kroupa , P., & Kouwenhoven , M. B. N. 2009, , 397, 1577, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15032.x

    2009

  47. [55]

    A., Batten , A

    Pourbaix , D., Tokovinin , A. A., Batten , A. H., et al. 2004, , 424, 727, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041213

    2004 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Hogg, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8acc

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Rafikov , R. R. 2005, , 621, L69, 10.1086/428899

    2005 doi

  50. [58]

    A., Henry , T

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

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    Rein , H., & Liu , S. F. 2012, , 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    Rein , H., & Spiegel , D. S. 2015, , 446, 1424, 10.1093/mnras/stu2164

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    2001, , 122, 432, 10.1086/321121

    Reipurth , B., & Clarke , C. 2001, , 122, 432, 10.1086/321121

    2001 doi

  54. [62]

    2012, , 744, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/6

    Scholz , A., Muzic , K., Geers , V., et al. 2012, , 744, 6, 10.1088/0004-637X/744/1/6

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    2023, , 518, 2991, 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    Shahaf , S., Bashi , D., Mazeh , T., et al. 2023, , 518, 2991, 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, , 522, 2707, 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    Siwek , M., Weinberger , R., & Hernquist , L. 2023, , 522, 2707, 10.1093/mnras/stad1131

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    C., & Lin , D

    Spurzem , R., Giersz , M., Heggie , D. C., & Lin , D. N. C. 2009, , 697, 458, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/458

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    P., et al

    Sumi , T., Koshimoto , N., Bennett , D. P., et al. 2023, , 166, 108, 10.3847/1538-3881/ace688

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Kratter , K

    Tobin , J. J., Kratter , K. M., Persson , M. V., et al. 2016, , 538, 483, 10.1038/nature20094

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    J., Sheehan , P

    Tobin , J. J., Sheehan , P. D., Megeath , S. T., et al. 2020, , 890, 130, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab6f64

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    2017, , 844, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746

    Tokovinin , A. 2017, , 844, 103, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7746

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2020, , 496, 987, 10.1093/mnras/staa1639

    ---. 2020, , 496, 987, 10.1093/mnras/staa1639

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2021, Universe, 7, 352, 10.3390/universe7090352

    ---. 2021, Universe, 7, 352, 10.3390/universe7090352

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    2016, , 456, 2070, 10.1093/mnras/stv2825

    Tokovinin , A., & Kiyaeva , O. 2016, , 456, 2070, 10.1093/mnras/stv2825

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    Tokovinin , A. A. 2000, , 360, 997

    2000

  66. [74]

    2015, , 807, 157, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/157

    Tremaine , S. 2015, , 807, 157, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/2/157

    2015 doi

  67. [75]

    W., et al

    Udry , S., Mayor , M., Latham , D. W., et al. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 154, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. R. A. Donahue & J. A. Bookbinder , 2148

    1998

  68. [76]

    2024, , 688, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449421

    Valli , R., Tiede , C., Vigna-G \'o mez , A., et al. 2024, , 688, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/202449421

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2023, , 943, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac77

    Wang , H.-Y., Bai , X.-N., & Lai , D. 2023, , 943, 175, 10.3847/1538-4357/acac77

    2023 doi

  70. [78]

    W., & Stone , J

    Xu , W., Jiang , Y.-F., Kunz , M. W., & Stone , J. M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.12042, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.12042

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Zhou , J.-L., Lin , D. N. C., & Sun , Y.-S. 2007, , 666, 423, 10.1086/519918

    2007 doi

  72. [80]

    2021, , 909, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    Zrake , J., Tiede , C., MacFadyen , A., & Haiman , Z. 2021, , 909, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd1c

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.