pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00264 · v1 · pith:ATPDD6E4new · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.EP· astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.IM

Stellar masses and ages in Gaia Data Release 4 from the Final Luminosity Age Mass Estimator algorithm

Orlagh L. Creevey , Laia Casamiquela , Yveline Lebreton , Christophe Ordenovic , Frederic Thevenin , Morgan Fouesneau , Rene Andrae , Coryn A. L. Bailer-Jones
show 18 more authors
Frederic Pailler Bernard Pichon Carine Babusiaux Angelique Barbier Nicolas Baudeau Nathalie Brouillet Santi Cassisi Bengt Edvardsson Oleg Kochukhov Georges Kordopatis Alessandro C. Lanzafame Andreas Korn Szabolz Meszaros Camila Navarrete Clement Robin Rosanna Sordo Caroline Soubiran Daniel R. Reese
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 16:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords stellar massesstellar agesGaia missionFLAME pipelineluminosity estimationmodel inferencedata release 4stellar parameters
0
0 comments X

The pith

FLAME pipeline derives stellar luminosities, radii, masses and ages from Gaia parameters using analytical steps followed by model inference.

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

The paper describes the Final Luminosity Age Mass Estimator pipeline built for Gaia data releases. An analytical module first computes luminosity, radius and gravitational redshift corrections from supplied atmospheric, astrometric and photometric values. A second module then applies classical minimization or Bayesian fitting to stellar models to obtain mass, age and evolutionary stage. Validation on simulated data, the Sun and well-studied stars shows statistical agreement with independent literature values. The pipeline is expected to return parameters for roughly 500 million sources in Gaia Data Release 4.

Core claim

FLAME performs luminosity and radius estimation analytically from Gaia inputs and then infers mass, age and stage via model fitting; tests confirm the outputs match literature results without large systematic offsets.

What carries the argument

Two-component FLAME process: analytical calculation of luminosity and radius from atmospheric, astrometric and photometric data, followed by minimization or Bayesian model inference for mass and age.

If this is right

  • Approximately 500 million Gaia sources will receive luminosity, radius, mass and age estimates in Data Release 4.
  • New parameters become available for high-velocity stars, stars with low-mass companions, and stars in the Plato field of view.
  • The two-step design allows photometric inputs prone to systematics to be handled with flexibility.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Large-scale application could tighten constraints on the age distribution of nearby stellar populations.
  • Reliable masses for exoplanet host stars would improve planet radius and density estimates derived from transit data.
  • If the pipeline runs on future Gaia releases, it could track evolutionary changes across the same stars over time.

Load-bearing premise

The atmospheric, astrometric and photometric parameters delivered by upstream Gaia pipelines are accurate enough that the derived masses and ages carry no large systematic errors.

What would settle it

A large sample of stars with independent mass and age measurements from asteroseismology or eclipsing binaries that shows systematic offsets larger than the quoted uncertainties would falsify the performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00264 by Alessandro C. Lanzafame, Andreas Korn, Angelique Barbier, Bengt Edvardsson, Bernard Pichon, Camila Navarrete, Carine Babusiaux, Caroline Soubiran, Christophe Ordenovic, Clement Robin, Coryn A. L. Bailer-Jones, Daniel R. Reese, Frederic Pailler, Frederic Thevenin, Georges Kordopatis, Laia Casamiquela, Morgan Fouesneau, Nathalie Brouillet, Nicolas Baudeau, Oleg Kochukhov, Orlagh L. Creevey, Rene Andrae, Rosanna Sordo, Santi Cassisi, Szabolz Meszaros, Yveline Lebreton.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: HR diagram showing the sample of simulated data used for validating the methodology. The background grey tracks are solar￾metallicity evolution tracks for different initial mass values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison between the true input M (top) and age (lower) with the output from Flame. The left panels illustrate a direct 1-1 comparison, colour-coded by log g for mass and M for age, with the bisector in grey to guide the eye. The right panels illustrate the histograms of the comparison of input-output scaled by their uncertainties. ibrating stellar system like globular clusters (e.g., VandenBerg et al. 2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison with GBS mass. and it can be seen that most of the masses are within 2σ, indicat￾ing a very satisfactory agreement. The few outliers at more than 4 sigma are for very evolved stars and these differences could be due to the fact that we use different input constraints - they use Teff, [Fe/H], L, and R, and in this region of the HR diagram there is an important degeneracy between metallicity and m… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panels: Relative difference between Flame mass and asteroseismic mass. The grey symbols show the results when we rerun Flame using GDR3 atmospheric parameters for these sources, while the colour-coded symbols show the comparison when we use the atmospheric parameters from the reference catalogue (colour) as input to Flame. Right panels: Comparison of Flame age and asteroseismic age when using the atmo… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the masses and ages from Flame using Gaia DR4 data as input and the results from the StarHorse catalogue. Left: Compar￾ison of masses after imposing some constraints on the input data (see text, 344 767 stars or 90% of the original samples). Right: Comparison of ages after imposing the same constraints and restricting the stars to those with masses that agree to 10% (269 834 or 72% of the ori… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of ages for three clusters as derived by Flame using a dataset representative of Gaia DR4 data. mind, we aim to derive the ages of the the sample of high ve￾locity and metal-poor stars presented in Katz et al. (2025). As input data to Flame we use the Teff, log g, [Fe/H], and [α/Fe] as given in Katz et al. 2025. As there are no observa￾tional errors published with the Teff and log g, we adopt … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of ages derived with Flame of high velocity stars from Katz et al. (2025). their masses and ages remain poorly constrained. In particular, if we consider objects on the boundary of sub-stellar and stel￾lar objects, knowing their masses and ages can lead to a better understanding of their formation and evolution. When such objects are members of binary systems with more massive primaries, the p… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: HR Diagram of a subset of the benchmark scvPIC stars from the GDR3 Golden Sample colour-coded by age. 7. Specifics of Gaia Data Sects. 4 and 5 focussed primarily on the validation of the model inference method Algo2, while Sect. 6 applied the model-based inference to a set of sources of astrophysical interest. In this sec￾tion, we revert to the complete methodology and examine the expected performance of F… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Luminosity errors as a function of input Teff uncertainty for different G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass errors as a function of luminosity errors for a sample of approximately 10 million stars. sen value of T corresponds to 50 K. The MCMC samples have five independent fitting parameters: {Teff, [M/H], log g, AG, d}. Thus, the inflation of the parameters has been applied by ac￾counting for all the correlations within the data. 7.2. Expected uncertainties 7.2.1. Luminosity The main purpose of Algo1 is to… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: illustrates the distribution of age uncertainties for mass ranges spanning the FGK range (different colours). The top panel shows normalised histograms of relative age uncertainty while the lower figure shows normalised histograms of the age error in Ga. As this figure illustrates, the lower mass stars tend to have very large relative uncertainties on the order of 70% which decreases slightly with mass. T… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The masses and ages of stars are key quantities for understanding exoplanetary, stellar, and galactic evolution. In the context of Gaia, these parameters provide insights into the stellar populations, helping to trace the formation and history of the Galaxy. As part of the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC), the Final Luminosity Age Mass Estimator (FLAME) pipeline processes Gaia data to derive stellar parameters comprising luminosities, radii, masses and ages. This paper discusses the methods and data used in FLAME for Gaia Data releases and the expected performances of FLAME for the 4th Gaia Data Release. FLAME comprises two main components: the first one, which is analytical, is used to estimate luminosity, radius, and radial velocity correction due to gravitational redshift by exploiting the atmospheric, astrometric, and photometric parameters produced within Gaia. The second is a model inference based on two main approaches: a classical minimization approach, and a Bayesian framework. It aims to derive mass, age, and evolutionary stage. The two step implementation offers flexibility in handling photometric properties that are prone to systematic errors. Tests with simulated data, the Sun, and well characterised samples of stars show that the methods in FLAME perform as expected, producing results in statistical agreement with the literature. We provide new stellar fundamental parameters for some high velocity stars, stars with very low mass companions, and a selection of stars in the Plato Field of View. In Gaia Data Release 4 approximately 500 million sources will have results from the pipeline. [abridged]

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 / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the Final Luminosity Age Mass Estimator (FLAME) pipeline for Gaia DR4, which derives stellar luminosities, radii, masses, and ages. An analytical first stage computes luminosity, radius, and gravitational-redshift corrections from Gaia atmospheric, astrometric, and photometric parameters; a second stage applies classical minimization or Bayesian inference against stellar models to obtain mass, age, and evolutionary stage. The authors state that tests on simulated data, the Sun, and well-characterised samples produce results in statistical agreement with the literature, and that the pipeline will deliver parameters for approximately 500 million sources, with additional results shown for high-velocity stars, low-mass-companion hosts, and PLATO-field stars.

Significance. If the pipeline outputs prove reliable, the work would deliver a homogeneous catalog of fundamental stellar parameters for hundreds of millions of stars, enabling large-scale studies of stellar evolution, galactic populations, and exoplanet hosts. The two-stage design that isolates photometric systematics is a practical strength for Gaia-scale processing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'tests with simulated data, the Sun, and well characterised samples of stars show that the methods in FLAME perform as expected, producing results in statistical agreement with the literature' supplies no quantitative metrics, bias/scatter values, error budgets, or details on the model grids and priors, preventing assessment of whether the central reliability claim is supported.
  2. [Abstract / validation section] Validation tests (Abstract and methods description): all reported tests employ the identical atmospheric, astrometric, and photometric inputs supplied by other Gaia pipelines. This design cannot detect or quantify propagation of systematic offsets in those inputs (e.g., Teff, log g, parallax) through the analytical luminosity/radius stage and the subsequent mass/age inference steps.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and recommendation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of validation results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'tests with simulated data, the Sun, and well characterised samples of stars show that the methods in FLAME perform as expected, producing results in statistical agreement with the literature' supplies no quantitative metrics, bias/scatter values, error budgets, or details on the model grids and priors, preventing assessment of whether the central reliability claim is supported.

    Authors: We agree the abstract is too concise and omits key quantitative details. The full manuscript contains these metrics (bias, scatter, error budgets, grids, and priors) in the validation sections. In revision we will expand the abstract to include representative performance numbers and direct references to the relevant sections and tables. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / validation section] Validation tests (Abstract and methods description): all reported tests employ the identical atmospheric, astrometric, and photometric inputs supplied by other Gaia pipelines. This design cannot detect or quantify propagation of systematic offsets in those inputs (e.g., Teff, log g, parallax) through the analytical luminosity/radius stage and the subsequent mass/age inference steps.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes a limitation of the current validation design. Our tests evaluate FLAME given the delivered Gaia inputs, which are themselves validated by upstream pipelines. To address propagation explicitly we will add a dedicated subsection with sensitivity tests (Monte Carlo perturbations of input parameters) and a discussion of how systematic offsets propagate to mass and age. This addition will be included in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: FLAME uses external models and Gaia inputs with independent validation

full rationale

The paper describes a two-stage pipeline (analytical luminosity/radius computation followed by classical/Bayesian inference on external stellar models) that ingests upstream Gaia atmospheric, astrometric and photometric parameters. Validation consists of comparisons against simulated data, the Sun and literature samples, none of which are shown to be fitted or redefined within the pipeline itself. No equations, fitted parameters or self-citations are presented that would make any output equivalent to an input by construction. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms or invented entities; stellar-evolution models are invoked but their specific assumptions are not listed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5957 in / 1007 out tokens · 24606 ms · 2026-07-02T16:52:52.112114+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

67 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    Aerts, C. 2021, Reviews of Modern Physics, 93, 015001

    2021

  2. [2]

    2018, A&A, 616, A8

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A8

    2018

  3. [3]

    2023, A&A, 674, A27

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Sordo, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A27

    2023

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Andrae, R., Arcay, B., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A74

    2013

  5. [5]

    2010, in ADA 6 - Sixth Conference on Astronomical Data Analysis, ed

    Bijaoui, A., Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., & Ordenovic, C. 2010, in ADA 6 - Sixth Conference on Astronomical Data Analysis, ed. J. L. Starck, M. Saber Naceur, & R. Murtagh, 9

    2010

  6. [6]

    Borucki, W. J. 2016, Reports on Progress in Physics, 79, 036901

    2016

  7. [7]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  8. [8]

    G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Bonifacio, P

    Caffau, E., Ludwig, H. G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Bonifacio, P. 2011, Sol. Phys., 268, 255

    2011

  9. [9]

    R., Lebreton, Y ., et al

    Casamiquela, L., Reese, D. R., Lebreton, Y ., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A243

    2024

  10. [10]

    2026, A&A, 705, A167

    Casamiquela, L., Soubiran, C., Jofré, P., et al. 2026, A&A, 705, A167

    2026

  11. [11]

    2009, Mem

    Collet, R., Nordlund, Å., Asplund, M., Hayek, W., & Trampedach, R. 2009, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 80, 719

    2009

  12. [12]

    L., Cassisi, S., Thévenin, F., Salaris, M., & Pietrinferni, A

    Creevey, O. L., Cassisi, S., Thévenin, F., Salaris, M., & Pietrinferni, A. 2024, A&A, 689, A243

    2024

  13. [13]

    Creevey, O. L. & Lebreton, Y . 2022, Masses and ages from FLAME in DR3, Gaia DPAC Public Technical Notes. Online at GAIA-C8-TN-OCA-OLC-036

    2022

  14. [14]

    L., Metcalfe, T

    Creevey, O. L., Metcalfe, T. S., Schultheis, M., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A67

    2017

  15. [15]

    L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al

    Creevey, O. L., Sordo, R., Pailler, F., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A26

    2023

  16. [16]

    L., Thévenin, F., Berio, P., et al

    Creevey, O. L., Thévenin, F., Berio, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A26

    2015

  17. [17]

    2018, A&A, 614, A19 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al

    Danielski, C., Babusiaux, C., Ruiz-Dern, L., Sartoretti, P., & Arenou, F. 2018, A&A, 614, A19 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A2

    2018

  18. [18]

    Delchambre, L., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Bellas-Velidis, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A31

    2023

  19. [19]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Conley, A., Meierjurgen Farr, W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    2013

  20. [20]

    2023, A&A, 674, A28 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fouesneau, M., Frémat, Y ., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A28 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016a, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Creevey, O. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2023a, A&A, 674, A39 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., e...

    2023

  21. [21]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932

    2019

  22. [22]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, Space Sci. Rev., 130, 105

    2007

  23. [23]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332

    2006

  24. [24]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

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

    2008

  25. [25]

    2015, A&A, 582, A49

    Heiter, U., Jofré, P., Gustafsson, B., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A49

    2015

  26. [26]

    & Ball, W

    Hekker, S. & Ball, W. H. 2014, A&A, 564, A105

    2014

  27. [27]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    Helmi, A. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 205

    2020

  28. [28]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85

    2018

  29. [29]

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

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125 Jofré, P., Heiter, U., Soubiran, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 582, A81 Jofré, P., Heiter, U., Soubiran, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A133 Jofré, P., Heiter, U., Worley, C. C., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A38

    2018

  30. [30]

    2025, A&A, 704, A294

    Katz, D., Gómez, A., Caffau, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A294

    2025

  31. [31]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5

    2023

  32. [32]

    Korn, A. & et al. (in prep.). 2026, in prep

    2026

  33. [33]

    2012, A&A, 543, A108

    Lagarde, N., Decressin, T., Charbonnel, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A108

    2012

  34. [34]

    C., Reylé, C., & Nasello, G

    Lagarde, N., Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., & Nasello, G. 2017, A&A, 601, A27

    2017

  35. [35]

    & Goupil, M

    Lebreton, Y . & Goupil, M. J. 2014, A&A, 569, A21

    2014

  36. [36]

    & Reese, D

    Lebreton, Y . & Reese, D. R. 2020, A&A, 642, A88

    2020

  37. [37]

    A., Hernández, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2

    2021

  38. [38]

    2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol

    Lodders, K. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings, V ol. 16, Prin- ciples and Perspectives in Cosmochemistry, 379

    2010

  39. [39]

    N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al

    Lund, M. N., Chontos, A., Grundahl, F., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A285

    2025

  40. [40]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 94

    2017

  41. [41]

    IAU 2015 Resolution B2 on Recommended Zero Points for the Absolute and Apparent Bolometric Magnitude Scales

    Mamajek, E. E., Torres, G., Prsa, A., et al. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1510.06262

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Maxted, P. F. L. 2025, MNRAS, 539, 3741

    2025

  43. [43]

    L., & et al

    Merle, T., Maxted, P., Creevey, O. L., & et al. 2026, A&A

    2026

  44. [44]

    S., Creevey, O

    Metcalfe, T. S., Creevey, O. L., Do˘gan, G., et al. 2014, ApJS, 214, 27

    2014

  45. [45]

    H., Elsworth, Y ., Epstein, C., et al

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y ., Epstein, C., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 19

    2014

  46. [46]

    H., Elsworth, Y

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Elsworth, Y . P., Tayar, J., et al. 2018, ApJS, 239, 32

    2018

  47. [47]

    Queiroz, A. B. A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 673, A155

    2023

  48. [48]

    2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2025, Experimental Astronomy, 59, 26

    2025

  49. [49]

    2016, A&A, 585, A93

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 585, A93

    2016

  50. [50]

    A., et al

    Recio-Blanco, A., de Laverny, P., Palicio, P. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A29

    2023

  51. [51]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3

    2021

  52. [52]

    2021, A&A, 649, A11

    Rowell, N., Davidson, M., Lindegren, L., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A11

    2021

  53. [53]

    1993, ApJ, 414, 580

    Salaris, M., Chieffi, A., & Straniero, O. 1993, ApJ, 414, 580

    1993

  54. [54]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  55. [55]

    2018, A&A, 616, A6

    Sartoretti, P., Katz, D., Cropper, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A6

    2018

  56. [56]

    2023, A&A, 674, A6

    Sartoretti, P., Marchal, O., Babusiaux, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A6

    2023

  57. [57]

    & Zinn, R

    Searle, L. & Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357

    1978

  58. [58]

    2017, ApJS, 233, 23

    Serenelli, A., Johnson, J., Huber, D., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 23

    2017

  59. [59]

    Shulyak, D., Tsymbal, V ., Ryabchikova, T., Stütz, C., & Weiss, W. W. 2004, A&A, 428, 993

    2004

  60. [60]

    L., Lagarde, N., et al

    Soubiran, C., Creevey, O. L., Lagarde, N., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A145

    2024

  61. [61]

    2021, A&A, 649, A10

    Torra, F., Castañeda, J., Fabricius, C., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A10

    2021

  62. [62]

    L., Álvarez, M

    Ulla, A., Creevey, O. L., Álvarez, M. A., et al. 2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 11: Astrophysical parameters, Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium. Online at https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR3/index.html, chap. 11

    2022

  63. [63]

    1997, in KITP Conference: Solar Neutrinos: News About SNUs, ed

    Ulrich, R. 1997, in KITP Conference: Solar Neutrinos: News About SNUs, ed. J. Bahcall, W. Haxton, P. Langacker, H. Robertson, & Y . Totsuka, 28

    1997

  64. [64]

    A., Bond, H

    VandenBerg, D. A., Bond, H. E., Nelan, E. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 110

    2014

  65. [65]

    L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N

    Vergely, J. L., Lallement, R., & Cox, N. L. J. 2022, A&A, 664, A174

    2022

  66. [66]

    The PLATO Science Calibration and Validation Plan: Targets for the First Long-pointing Field

    Zwintz, K., Aerts, C., Tkachenko, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.04042 Article number, page 15 of 19 A&A proofs:manuscript no. flame_arxiv Appendix A: Author contributions The authors of this paper have contributed in many ways to the Flamesoftware and feedback on performance. The Flameteam comprises OLC (scientific lead), CO (main java devel...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Significant support in the development of its integration into the CNES framework and scientific validation framework has been provided by NBa, FP, CR, CBJ, MF, RA, and AB

    YL, LC, BP, and have contributed significantly to all aspects mentioned below. Significant support in the development of its integration into the CNES framework and scientific validation framework has been provided by NBa, FP, CR, CBJ, MF, RA, and AB. BE, OK, SC, AK, RS have contributed to the provision of input models, bolometric corrections, and simulat...

    2025