pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29001 · v1 · pith:AYPZFYALnew · submitted 2026-06-27 · 🌌 astro-ph.EP · astro-ph.IM· astro-ph.SR

The GAPS programme at TNG LXXV. Validating and confirming Gaia substellar astrometric candidates with HARPS-N

D. Barbato , M. Pinamonti , A. Sozzetti , S. Desidera , V. D'Orazi , J. Maldonado , K. Biazzo , L. Naponiello
show 17 more authors
A. F. Lanza A. Bignamini A. S. Bonomo M. Brogi L. Cabona M. Damasso R. Gratton L. Mancini G. Mantovan D. Nardiello M. Rainer G. Guilluy P. Giacobbe L. Malavolta R. Cosentino W. Boschin R. Claudi
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 08:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords Gaia astrometryradial velocitysubstellar companionsbinary contaminationbrown dwarfsexoplanetsHARPS-Norbital solutions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radial velocity follow-up identifies six Gaia astrometric candidates as close stellar binaries and confirms eight as giant planets or brown dwarfs.

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

The paper examines radial velocity data for 14 stars whose Gaia astrometric solutions suggest the presence of distant substellar companions. Analysis of the cross-correlation function profiles from HARPS-N spectra reveals that six of these signals arise from close binary companions whose orbital motion produces a similar astrometric signature. Markov chain Monte Carlo fitting of the remaining radial velocity curves validates eight companions with minimum masses between 8 and 62 Jupiter masses on orbits of 0.76 to 1.42 astronomical units, supplying the first radial velocity orbits for six targets and refined solutions for two others. From the sample the authors derive an updated binary contamination fraction of 43 percent with uncertainties of plus 13 and minus 11 percent for the Gaia DR3 catalog of astrometric candidates. These results directly address the need to separate genuine substellar signals from astrophysical false positives in large astrometric surveys.

Core claim

Among 14 stars with Gaia DR3 astrometric solutions compatible with substellar companions, six are shown to be close stellar binaries that mimic the expected astrometric motion of a single distant companion, yielding a revised contamination fraction of 43_{-11}^{+13} percent in the catalog. The remaining eight solutions are validated through radial velocity data as giant and brown dwarf companions having minimum masses of 8 to 62 Jupiter masses and semimajor axes between 0.76 and 1.42 au, with new orbital characterizations provided for six and updated solutions for two previously known objects.

What carries the argument

HARPS-N spectral cross-correlation function profiles used to flag close binaries, followed by Markov chain Monte Carlo fitting of radial velocity time series to derive companion orbits.

If this is right

  • The six confirmed new companions now have measured minimum masses and orbital periods that remove part of the sin i degeneracy inherent to radial velocity alone.
  • The two previously known objects receive improved orbital parameters from the combined astrometric and radial velocity constraints.
  • The 43 percent contamination rate supplies a quantitative prior for statistical studies that rely on the Gaia DR3 astrometric candidate list.
  • The validated targets become priority objects for additional observations such as high-contrast imaging or atmospheric spectroscopy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A similar vetting campaign on a larger Gaia sample would tighten the occurrence rate of wide-orbit substellar companions.
  • The confirmed objects lie near the planet-brown dwarf boundary and can be used to test formation and migration models once true masses are obtained.
  • Future Gaia data releases may require systematic radial velocity screening if the contamination fraction remains comparable.

Load-bearing premise

The Gaia astrometric signals are produced only by either close stellar binaries or single substellar companions, with no significant contribution from stellar activity, extra unseen companions, or instrumental effects.

What would settle it

Discovery of strong periodic radial velocity signals attributable to stellar activity or to additional companions that cannot be absorbed into the single-companion model would falsify the validation of those eight candidates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29001 by A. Bignamini, A. F. Lanza, A. S. Bonomo, A. Sozzetti, D. Barbato, D. Nardiello, G. Guilluy, G. Mantovan, J. Maldonado, K. Biazzo, L. Cabona, L. Malavolta, L. Mancini, L. Naponiello, M. Brogi, M. Damasso, M. Pinamonti, M. Rainer, P. Giacobbe, R. Claudi, R. Cosentino, R. Gratton, S. Desidera, V. D'Orazi, W. Boschin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: HARPS-N cross correlation function profiles of the 6 stars in the sample identified as binaries mimicking substellar astrometric motion. DRS (Lovis & Pepe 2007), while the RV extraction was per￾formed using the Template-Enhanced Radial velocity Re-analysis Application pipeline (TERRA, Anglada-Escudé & Butler 2012). All RV measurements collected, as well as all activity indica￾tors analysed in the following… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radial velocity orbital fits for the stars discussed in this work. For all stars, The top panel shows the best-fit solution over the HARPS-N (red circles) data, while the bottom panel shows the post-Keplerian fit residuals. In the two figures shown for PM J13580+3141 (single-Keplerian and Keplerian with quadratic trend solutions respectively), literature HPF, FIES and NEID data are shown as purple, cyan an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Location of the eight companion discussed in this work (red￾bordered diamonds) in the known exoplanet and brown dwarf (black￾bordered circles) single-companion population, color-coded according to orbital eccentricity. Top panel: companion mass vs orbital separation. Bottom panel: companion-to-host mass ratio 𝑞 vs orbital separation. bital inclination to derive true mass estimates from our 𝑀 sin 𝑖 we obtai… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The astrometric measurements provided by the Gaia space mission represent a key advancement in the search and characterization of exoplanets, helping in particular to solve the mass degeneracy intrinsic to the radial velocity (RV) method. The fact that a fraction of astrophysical false positives contaminates the current catalog of astrometric candidate solutions requires an RV follow-up to validate and confirm such candidates. Within the GAPS programme, we have observed a selected sample of 14 stars having Gaia astrometric solutions compatible with the presence of a substellar companion. The immediate aim of this survey is to identify astrophysical false positives and provide the first RV validation and confirmation of the remaining candidates. We analysed data collected with the HARPS-N spectrograph to identify stellar binary systems from the spectral cross-correlation function profiles. The remaining astrometric candidates were characterized via Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis searching for the best-fit RV solution. Among the stars in our sample with astrometric candidate solutions, we identify 6 as originating from close binary companions mimicking the astrometric motion of distant substellar companions, from which we can estimate an updated value of $43_{-11}^{+13}\%$ for the binary contamination fraction in the Gaia DR3 catalog of astrometric candidates. We validate and confirm the remaining 8 solutions, corresponding to giant and brown dwarf companions with minimum masses between 8 and 62 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and semimajor axes between 0.76 and 1.42 au, providing the first RV characterization for 6 of these candidates and updated orbital solutions for 2 previously confirmed ones.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports HARPS-N radial velocity follow-up of 14 stars with Gaia DR3 astrometric solutions consistent with substellar companions. Six targets are classified as close stellar binaries on the basis of their cross-correlation function profiles. The remaining eight are modeled with single-Keplerian orbits via MCMC, yielding minimum masses of 8–62 M_Jup and semimajor axes of 0.76–1.42 au; six of these receive their first RV characterization. From the 6/14 binary fraction the authors derive an updated Gaia DR3 binary contamination rate of 43_{-11}^{+13}%.

Significance. If the classifications hold after additional model-comparison tests, the work supplies the first RV validation for several Gaia astrometric candidates, adds six new orbital solutions, and supplies a revised empirical estimate of the binary false-positive rate that is directly useful to the exoplanet community.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2] §4.2 (RV orbit fitting): The analysis adopts a single-Keplerian model for the eight confirmed candidates without reporting quantitative model comparisons (BIC, Bayes factors, or posterior odds) against either a two-companion model or a model that includes stellar activity (e.g., via activity-indicator correlations or Gaussian-process regression). Because the central claim that these eight signals arise from single substellar companions rests on this assumption, the absence of such tests is load-bearing for both the individual validations and the extrapolated contamination fraction.
  2. [§5] §5 (contamination fraction): The 43_{-11}^{+13}% binary fraction is obtained from a hand-selected sample of 14 targets; the precise selection function that maps the full Gaia DR3 astrometric-candidate catalog onto these 14 objects is not stated, preventing assessment of whether the observed fraction can be extrapolated without selection bias.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 3] Table 3 (orbital parameters): the reported minimum masses and semimajor axes lack accompanying 1σ uncertainties or the number of RV epochs used in each fit; these quantities should be added for reproducibility.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 (phase-folded RV curves): the panels do not indicate which data points were excluded (if any) or the rms of the residuals after the Keplerian fit; adding these details would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the analysis and clarify the sample selection.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 (RV orbit fitting): The analysis adopts a single-Keplerian model for the eight confirmed candidates without reporting quantitative model comparisons (BIC, Bayes factors, or posterior odds) against either a two-companion model or a model that includes stellar activity (e.g., via activity-indicator correlations or Gaussian-process regression). Because the central claim that these eight signals arise from single substellar companions rests on this assumption, the absence of such tests is load-bearing for both the individual validations and the extrapolated contamination fraction.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative model comparisons would provide stronger support for the single-Keplerian interpretation. In the revised manuscript we will add BIC values and, where the data permit, approximate Bayes factors comparing the adopted single-Keplerian model against (i) a two-companion model and (ii) a model that includes a Gaussian-process activity term correlated with the available activity indicators. These tests will be presented in an expanded §4.2 and will be used to report posterior odds for the single-substellar-companion hypothesis. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (contamination fraction): The 43_{-11}^{+13}% binary fraction is obtained from a hand-selected sample of 14 targets; the precise selection function that maps the full Gaia DR3 astrometric-candidate catalog onto these 14 objects is not stated, preventing assessment of whether the observed fraction can be extrapolated without selection bias.

    Authors: The 14 targets were drawn from the Gaia DR3 astrometric-candidate list using explicit observability criteria for HARPS-N at the TNG (V < 12, declination range accessible from La Palma, exclusion of previously observed or known binaries). We will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised §2 that fully documents these selection cuts and any additional filters applied. While this will allow readers to assess possible biases, we note that the reported fraction remains an empirical estimate from the present pilot sample rather than a statistically complete survey of the full catalog. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely observational classification from independent RV data

full rationale

The paper's central results (6 binaries identified via CCF profiles, 8 substellar companions via single-Keplerian MCMC RV fits, and the resulting 43% contamination fraction) are obtained through direct analysis of new HARPS-N spectra against Gaia astrometric candidates. No equations reduce outputs to inputs by construction, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing claims rest on self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The derivation is self-contained data reduction and orbit fitting.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no information on specific free parameters, model assumptions, or new entities; standard RV Keplerian fitting is assumed.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Keplerian orbital motion adequately describes the radial-velocity variations
    Implicit in the MCMC analysis described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5970 in / 1216 out tokens · 35918 ms · 2026-06-30T08:05:35.079382+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Adamow, M. M. 2017, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 230, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #230, 216.07

    2017

  2. [2]

    & Rocha-Pinto, H

    Almeida-Fernandes, F. & Rocha-Pinto, H. J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 184

    2018

  3. [3]

    Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A91 Anglada-Escudé, G. & Butler, R. P. 2012, ApJS, 200, 15

    2022

  4. [4]

    Armitage, P. J. & Bonnell, I. A. 2002, MNRAS, 330, L11

    2002

  5. [5]

    2018, A&A, 615, A175

    Barbato, D., Sozzetti, A., Desidera, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A175

    2018

  6. [6]

    2022, A&A, 664, A161

    Biazzo, K., D’Orazi, V., Desidera, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A161

    2022

  7. [7]

    & Izidoro, A

    Bitsch, B. & Izidoro, A. 2023, A&A, 674, A178

    2023

  8. [8]

    S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Dumusque, X., Massa, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A33

    2023

  9. [9]

    S., Naponiello, L., Pezzetta, E., et al

    Bonomo, A. S., Naponiello, L., Pezzetta, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 700, A126

    2025

  10. [10]

    Brandt, T. D. 2021, ApJS, 254, 42

    2021

  11. [11]

    D., Dupuy, T

    Brandt, T. D., Dupuy, T. J., Li, Y., et al. 2021, AJ, 162, 186

    2021

  12. [12]

    L., Knutson, H

    Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Lee, E. J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 52

    2019

  13. [13]

    Bryan, M. L. & Lee, E. J. 2024, ApJ, 968, L25

    2024

  14. [14]

    G., Sozzetti, A., et al

    Casertano, S., Lattanzi, M. G., Sozzetti, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 699

    2008

  15. [15]

    2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed

    Chabrier, G., Johansen, A., Janson, M., & Rafikov, R. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther, R. S. Klessen, C. P. Dullemond, & T. Henning, 619–642

    2014

  16. [16]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102 Cosentino,R.,Lovis,C.,Pepe,F.,etal.2012,inSocietyofPhoto-OpticalInstru- mentationEngineers(SPIE)ConferenceSeries,Vol.8446,Ground-basedand Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461V

    2016

  18. [18]

    2013, A&A, 554, A28

    Covino, E., Esposito, M., Barbieri, M., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A28

    2013

  19. [19]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: 2003yCat.2246....0C Cutri,R.M.,Wright,E.L.,Conrow,T.,etal.2021,VizieROnlineDataCatalog, II/328 Dal Ponte, M., D’Orazi, V., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2025, A&A,...

    2003

  20. [20]

    S., et al

    Desidera, S., Sozzetti, A., Bonomo, A. S., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A29

    2013

  21. [21]

    EXOFASTv2: A public, generalized, publication-quality exoplanet modeling code

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    D., et al

    Fitzmaurice, E., Stefánsson, G., Kavanagh, R. D., et al. 2024, AJ, 168, 140

    2024

  23. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 GaiaCollaboration.2022,VizieROnlineDataCatalog:GaiaDR3Part6.Perfor- mance verification (Gaia Collaboration, 2022), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/360. Originally published in: 2023A&A...674A...1G Gaia Collaboration, Arenou, F., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A34 Gaia Col...

    2013

  24. [24]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    2008

  25. [25]

    2023, A&A, 674, A10

    Holl, B., Sozzetti, A., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A10

    2023

  26. [26]

    N., Hersant, F., & Pierens, A

    Izidoro, A., Morbidelli, A., Raymond, S. N., Hersant, F., & Pierens, A. 2015, A&A, 582, A99

    2015

  27. [27]

    Jumper, P. H. & Fisher, R. T. 2013, ApJ, 769, 9

    2013

  28. [28]

    2022, A&A, 657, A7

    Kervella, P., Arenou, F., & Thévenin, F. 2022, A&A, 657, A7

    2022

  29. [29]

    2011, A&A, 528, L9 Lanza,A.F.,Molaro,P.,Monaco,L.,&Haywood,R.D.2016,A&A,587,A103 Lefèvre-Forján, E

    Lagrange, A.-M., Meunier, N., Desort, M., & Malbet, F. 2011, A&A, 528, L9 Lanza,A.F.,Molaro,P.,Monaco,L.,&Haywood,R.D.2016,A&A,587,A103 Lefèvre-Forján, E. & Mulders, G. D. 2025, ApJ, 988, 101

    2011

  30. [30]

    & Pepe, F

    Lovis, C. & Pepe, F. 2007, A&A, 468, 1115

    2007

  31. [31]

    Ma, B. & Ge, J. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2781 Mahadevan,S.,Ramsey,L.W.,Terrien,R.,etal.2014,inSocietyofPhoto-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471G

    2014

  32. [32]

    W., Louden, T., et al

    Malavolta, L., Mayo, A. W., Louden, T., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 107

    2018

  33. [33]

    2016, A&A, 588, A118

    Malavolta, L., Nascimbeni, V., Piotto, G., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A118

    2016

  34. [34]

    2015, A&A, 577, A132

    Maldonado, J., Affer, L., Micela, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A132

    2015

  35. [35]

    2017, A&A, 598, A27

    Maldonado, J., Scandariato, G., Stelzer, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 598, A27

    2017

  36. [36]

    & Villaver, E

    Maldonado, J. & Villaver, E. 2017, A&A, 602, A38

    2017

  37. [37]

    Marcussen, M. L. & Albrecht, S. H. 2023, AJ, 165, 266

    2023

  38. [38]

    Marcy, G. W. & Butler, R. P. 2000, PASP, 112, 137

    2000

  39. [39]

    2013, ApJ, 775, L11

    McQuillan, A., Mazeh, T., & Aigrain, S. 2013, ApJ, 775, L11

    2013

  40. [40]

    2020, A&A, 644, A77

    Meunier, N., Lagrange, A.-M., & Borgniet, S. 2020, A&A, 644, A77

    2020

  41. [41]

    2023, A&A, 670, A68

    Mishra, L., Alibert, Y., Udry, S., & Mordasini, C. 2023, A&A, 670, A68

    2023

  42. [42]

    & Di Stefano, R

    Moe, M. & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  43. [43]

    2015, Icarus, 258, 418

    Morbidelli, A., Lambrechts, M., Jacobson, S., & Bitsch, B. 2015, Icarus, 258, 418

    2015

  44. [44]

    Á., & Lindegren, L

    Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. Á., & Lindegren, L. 2014, ApJ, 797, 14

    2014

  45. [45]

    2026, A&A, 707, A67

    Pinamonti, M., Sozzetti, A., Barbato, D., et al. 2026, A&A, 707, A67

    2026

  46. [46]

    2002, Acta Astron., 52, 397

    Pojmanski, G. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 397

    2002

  47. [47]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  48. [48]

    J., Knutson, H

    Rosenthal, L. J., Knutson, H. A., Chachan, Y., et al. 2022, ApJS, 262, 1

    2022

  49. [49]

    2011, A&A, 525, A95

    Sahlmann, J., Ségransan, D., Queloz, D., et al. 2011, A&A, 525, A95

    2011

  50. [50]

    2021, A&A, 656, A71

    Schlecker, M., Mordasini, C., Emsenhuber, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A71

    2021

  51. [51]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Schwab, C., Rakich, A., Gong, Q., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical In- strumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 99087H

    2016

  52. [52]

    1973, ApJ, 184, 839

    Sneden, C. 1973, ApJ, 184, 839

    1973

  53. [53]

    G., Santos, N

    Sousa, S. G., Santos, N. C., Adibekyan, V., Delgado-Mena, E., & Israelian, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A67

    2015

  54. [54]

    2024, Comptes Rendus Physique, 24, 152

    Sozzetti, A. 2024, Comptes Rendus Physique, 24, 152

    2024

  55. [55]

    G., et al

    Sozzetti, A., Giacobbe, P., Lattanzi, M. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 497

    2014

  56. [56]

    2023, A&A, 677, L15 Stefánsson, G., Mahadevan, S., Winn, J

    Sozzetti, A., Pinamonti, M., Damasso, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, L15 Stefánsson, G., Mahadevan, S., Winn, J. N., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 107

    2023

  57. [57]

    & Price, K

    Storn, R. & Price, K. 1997, Journal of Global Optimization, 11, 341

    1997

  58. [58]

    H., Avila, G., Buchhave, L., et al

    Telting, J. H., Avila, G., Buchhave, L., et al. 2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335, 41 Tody,D.1993,inAstronomicalSocietyofthePacificConferenceSeries,Vol.52, AstronomicalDataAnalysisSoftwareandSystemsII,ed.R.J.Hanisch,R.J.V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    2014

  59. [59]

    Brown Dwarf Formation: Theory

    Whitworth, A. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1811.06833

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    Winn, J. N. 2022, AJ, 164, 196

    2022

  61. [61]

    O., Lacour, S., Mérand, A., et al

    Winterhalder, T. O., Lacour, S., Mérand, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A44

    2024

  62. [62]

    & Kürster, M

    Zechmeister, M. & Kürster, M. 2009, A&A, 496, 577

    2009

  63. [63]

    Zhu, W. & Wu, Y. 2018, AJ, 156, 92 Article number, page 9 of 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa57585-25 1 INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, I-35122, Padova, Italy e-mail:domenico.barbato@inaf.it 2 INAF – Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino, Via Osservatorio 20, I-10025, Pino Torinese, Italy 3 Department of Physics, Univers...

    2018

  64. [64]

    Catania, Italy 7 INAF–OsservatorioAstronomicodiTrieste,viaTiepolo11,I-34143 Trieste 8 DipartimentodiFisica,UniversitàdegliStudidiTorino,viaP.Giuria 1, Turin, I-10125, Italy 9 INAF – Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Via E. Bianchi 46, I- 23807 Merate, Italy 10 MaxPlanckInstituteforAstronomy,Königstuhl17,I-69117Heidel- berg, Germany 11 DipartimentodiFisic...

    2016