Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Deep imaging of three accelerating stars using SHARK-NIR and LMIRCam at LBT

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simultaneous near-infrared and thermal-infrared coronagraphic imaging of three accelerating stars constrains the unseen companions of HIP 11696 and HIP 47110 to planetary masses at 2.5–28 au and 3–30 au, and shows that HIP 36277's wide…

desk verdict Solid first-light science from SHARK-NIR that places useful mass-separation constraints on two PMa stars and a candidate around a third; the main caveat is the circular-orbit PMa conversion, which the paper flags but does not stress-test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04171 v1 pith:VWUI2XMK submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

D. Mesa , R. Gratton , V. D'Orazi , E. Carolo , D. Vassallo , J. Farinato , L. Marafatto , K. Wagner
show 24 more authors
J. Hom S. Ertel Th. Henning C. Desgrange D. Barbato M. Bergomi P. Cerpelloni S. Desidera S. Di Filippo D. Doelman T.S. Gomes Machado D. Greggio P. Grenz M. Kenworthy F. Laudisio C. Lazzoni J. Leisenring A. Lorenzetto K.K.R. Santhakumari D. Ricci F. Snik G. Umbriaco M.C. Vega Pallauta V. Viotto
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords propermotionanomalyhigh-contrastimagingcoronagraphyexoplanetdetectionGaiaastrometryHIP116964711036277
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 tries to pin down the mass and orbital distance of the unseen companions responsible for the measured proper-motion anomalies of three nearby stars, using very deep coronagraphic images taken simultaneously in two infrared bands. For HIP 11696 and HIP 47110, excluding companions at large separation and at very small separation leaves a narrow allowed window: 2.5–28 au with mass 4–16 Jupiter masses for the first, and 3–30 au with mass 3–10 Jupiter masses for the second. For HIP 36277 the situation is age-dependent: a bright bound companion was imaged, and a faint inner candidate could explain the anomaly if the system is young. The value is that even non-detections, combined with astrometric acceleration, can identify the most promising architectures for future direct imaging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the proper-motion anomaly, the difference between short-term and long-term proper motion, which reveals the gravitational pull of an unseen companion. The mass–separation conversion $m_2(r)=\frac{\sqrt{2\epsilon_i}}{\varpi r}\,m_1$ translates the Gaia astrometric excess noise into a companion mass at each assumed orbital radius, under the assumption of a single circular orbit. This curve is then clipped from below by RUWE-based short-separation exclusion, and from above by the contrast limits of the two simultaneously operating coronagraphic cameras; the surviving window is the claimed companion parameter space. A second mechanism, the position angle of the proper-motion-anomaly vector, produces an allowed-position map on the sky that is used to test whether an imaged companion can actually be the source.

What would settle it

A direct detection of a companion around HIP 11696 or HIP 47110 at a separation outside 2.5–28 au or 3–30 au with a mass consistent with the anomaly, or an astrometric or radial-velocity measurement showing that the orbit is eccentric rather than circular, would overturn the claimed constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the proper-motion anomalies of HIP 11696 and HIP 47110 are produced by single, unseen, planetary-mass companions on roughly circular orbits: for HIP 11696 the companion lies at 2.5–28 au with mass 4–16 Jupiter masses, with the highest masses only at the outer part of that range; for HIP 47110 the companion lies at 3–30 au with mass 3–10 Jupiter masses. These intervals come from intersecting three independent constraints: the proper-motion-anomaly mass–separation relation derived from Gaia excess noise, RUWE-based exclusions of very close companions, and contrast limits from high-contrast imaging that exclude wider and more massive companions. For HIP 36277 the paper reports a bound companion at about 1.95 arcseconds and a fainter candidate at 0.625 arcseconds; depending on whether the star is young or old, one or the other could account for the magnitude of the anomaly, but the position angle of the outer companion rules it out as the source, leaving the inner candidate, if real, or an unseen companion.

Load-bearing premise

The core assumption is that the entire proper-motion anomaly is caused by a single companion on a circular orbit; if the orbit is eccentric or several bodies contribute, the quoted mass and separation ranges do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the circular-orbit interpretation is right, HIP 11696 and HIP 47110 each host a giant planet at separations of roughly 0.05–0.6 arcseconds, at the edge of what current high-contrast imagers can reach, so deeper observations could image them directly.
  • The allowed windows are narrow enough that a single additional epoch of astrometry, or a better contrast curve, should either detect the companion or further shrink the parameter space.
  • For HIP 36277, the wide bright companion cannot be the source of the proper-motion anomaly regardless of its mass, so the system's age must be settled before the inner candidate can be assigned a definitive mass.
  • The simultaneous H-band and L'-band strategy improves mass limits in different separation ranges, so future surveys of accelerating stars should use parallel wavelength coverage.
  • The methods used here can be applied to the dozens of other proper-motion-anomaly candidates with signal-to-noise between 3 and 20, turning null detections into useful constraints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the authors leave implicit is that if future Gaia releases or radial-velocity monitoring show the excess noise changing with time, the single-circular-companion hypothesis would be disfavored and the quoted mass intervals would need revision.
  • The allowed-position maps used for HIP 36277 could serve as finding charts for a dedicated campaign at 0.05–0.6 arcseconds with starlight-suppression techniques, either revealing the companions or pushing their minimum masses upward.
  • The same pipeline could be applied systematically to the rest of the high-signal-to-noise proper-motion-anomaly catalogue, which would clarify how common 3–16 Jupiter-mass planets at 3–30 au are around nearby young stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents simultaneous high-contrast imaging with SHARK-NIR (H band) and LMIRCam (L' band) at LBT of three nearby stars with significant proper-motion anomalies (PMa) from Kervella et al. (2022). For HIP 11696 and HIP 47110, the authors combine PMa mass–separation estimates (Eq. 1, from Kervella et al. 2019), RUWE-based inner limits, and DI mass limits to constrain the putative companions to 2.5–28 au (4–16 MJup) and 3–30 au (~3–10 MJup), respectively. For HIP 36277, they detect a bound stellar/substellar companion at 1.95" and a faint inner candidate at 0.625"; the age ambiguity makes the interpretation dependent on whether 41 Myr or ~5 Gyr is assumed. The paper also validates the non-association of a previously known background source around HIP 11696 and demonstrates the synergy of simultaneous dual-band imaging.

Significance. If the constraints hold, the paper provides a useful demonstration of using PMa catalogs to prioritize direct-imaging follow-up and showcases SHARK-NIR's contrast performance. The analysis is well documented: contrast curves include small-sample corrections and self-subtraction estimates; the RV detection limits for HIP 36277 are derived via injection-recovery; and the background/companion status of detected objects is checked against Gaia astrometry. The main quantitative conclusions, however, rest on the single-companion circular-orbit assumption of Eq. (1) and on the choice of atmospheric models, so the quoted mass/separation ranges are less robust than the abstract implies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (1), Figures 6–8] The mass–separation curves that determine the headline constraints for HIP 11696 (2.5–28 au, 4–16 MJup) and HIP 47110 (3–30 au, ~3–10 MJup) are derived from Eq. (1), which assumes a single companion on a circular orbit. The text in Section 4.2 states that the resulting masses are minimum values, but this is not a rigorous lower bound: for an eccentric orbit the instantaneous proper-motion anomaly depends on orbital phase, so a given companion mass can produce a larger or smaller PMa than the circular-orbit value, and a superposition of two or more companions would lower the mass attributable to each individual body. Because the paper does not test how the PMa curve shifts under these alternatives, the intersections with the DI mass limits (and therefore the quoted upper separation limits of 28 au and 30 au) could change substantially. The abstract and Section 7 report the ranges without this qualification, so an explicit sensitivity analysis or a softened statement of the constraints is needed.
  2. [Section 5.4, Figures 5–8] The DI mass limits used in the final comparison (Figures 6–8) are obtained from the AMES-COND models only, as stated in Section 5.4. However, Figure 5 shows that the BEX cold-start models give significantly less restrictive (higher) mass limits at the separations of interest. Since the upper separation limits (28 au and 30 au) are defined by where the PMa-required mass crosses the DI limit, adopting cold-start models would move these crossings to smaller separations and narrow the allowed mass ranges. The paper justifies the AMES-COND choice by reference to hot-start models being in better agreement with observations, but it does not quantify the sensitivity of the quoted bounds to this choice. Please either provide a quantitative comparison or state the quoted ranges as conditional on the adopted hot-start/AMES-COND models.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6] The references in Section 6 to "the orange line in Figure 7" and "the green line in Figure 7" for the HIP 36277 age cases appear to be incorrect; the HIP 36277 plots are in Figure 8, not Figure 7.
  2. [Section 3.3] In the sentence "The PMa signal obtained by Kervella et al. (2022) for this star have a SNR of 3.12", the verb should agree with the singular subject "signal" (i.e., "has").
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption phrase "On the right of each plots" should be "On the right of each plot".
  4. [Section 5.3] The sentence "In the latter case, as detailed in the text we could use just a lower number of models" is awkward; consider rephrasing for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central constraints combine an external PMa catalog, new direct-imaging contrast limits, and literature ages; the self-cited RUWE method is not defined from the target results.

full rationale

The paper's central claim for HIP 11696 and HIP 47110 is a mass/separation interval obtained from the intersection of a PMa-derived mass curve and new high-contrast imaging limits. The PMa mass curve is taken from Kervella et al. (2019) and Kervella et al. (2022), external catalogs and methods not fitted to this paper's targets. The direct-imaging mass limits come from the paper's own contrast measurements converted with AMES-COND and BEX atmospheric models, which are independent of the PMa signal. The short-separation lower bounds use the RUWE method of Gratton et al. (2023), a self-citation; however, the paper does not define that method in terms of the PMa values or the detected companions, and no equation in this paper reduces the RUWE limit to the target result. The HIP 36277 discussion relies on literature ages, Gaia common-proper-motion association, and injected-signal RV limits, all external inputs. Equation (1) does assume a single companion on a circular orbit, and the paper explicitly states the resulting masses are minimum values and that the position maps are rough because eccentricity and inclination are unknown. That is a modeling caveat, not a circular construction: the prediction is not an input to the assumptions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no target quantity is used in its own derivation. The self-citations are normal and not load-bearing in a way that would make the central result equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to the new imaging data; the mass and separation ranges come from intersecting externally measured PMa and RUWE values with imaging contrast limits converted to mass via literature atmospheric models. The assumed stellar ages are listed as free parameters because the mass limits scale with age. The circular-orbit single-companion approximation is the main domain assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed age of HIP 11696 = 137 ± 12 Myr (125-149 Myr considered)
    Selected from literature values for the AB Doradus moving group; used to convert contrast limits into mass limits via AMES-COND models. The allowed companion range 2.5-28 au is stable across the three ages.
  • Assumed age of HIP 47110 = 112 ± 5 Myr (107-117 Myr considered)
    From Gagne et al. (2018a) for the Pleiades moving group; enters the mass-limit conversion and hence the 3-30 au / 3-10 MJup constraint.
  • Assumed age of HIP 36277 = 41 Myr or ~5.3 Gyr
    Both ages are considered because the system age is disputed (Tetzlaff et al. 2011 young runaway vs. low Li and PARAM old). The mass of the outer companion and the interpretation of the inner candidate depend critically on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The PMa excess noise is caused by a single companion on a circular orbit.
    Used in Eq. 1 (Kervella et al. 2019) to convert excess astrometric noise into a companion mass as a function of separation; the paper notes masses are minimum values under this assumption.
  • domain assumption AMES-COND atmospheric models give reliable H- and L'-band mass-luminosity relations for substellar companions.
    Used in Section 5.3 to convert contrast limits into mass limits; BEX hot/cold-start models are also considered, but the final comparison uses AMES-COND.
  • domain assumption The RUWE-based short-separation mass limits from Gratton et al. (2023) apply to these targets.
    Used in Section 5.4 and Figures 6-7 to exclude separations below 2.5-3 au; note this is a self-cited method.
  • domain assumption Gaia EDR3 astrometric excess noise is a reliable proxy for a companion-induced PMa signal.
    The entire sample is selected on PMa SNR from Kervella et al. (2022); Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep imaging of three accelerating stars using SHARK-NIR and LMIRCam at LBT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWUI2XMK

@misc{pith2026241204171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep imaging of three accelerating stars using SHARK-NIR and LMIRCam at LBT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWUI2XMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04171}
}
read the original abstract

The combination of detection techniques enhances our ability to identify companions orbiting nearby stars. We employed high-contrast imaging to constrain mass and separation of possible companions responsible for the significant proper motion anomalies of the nearby stars HIP 11696, HIP 47110 and HIP 36277. These targets were observed using the LBT's high-contrast camera, SHARK-NIR, in H-band using a Gaussian coronagraph, and with the LMIRCam instrument in the L'-band and using a vAPP coronagraph. Both observations were conducted simultaneously. Additionally, constraints at short separations from the host star are derived analyzing the renormalized unit weight error (RUWE) values from the Gaia catalogue. We find that the companion responsible for the anomaly signal of HIP 11696 is likely positioned at a distance from 2.5 to 28 astronomical units from its host. Its mass is estimated to be between 4 and 16 Jupiter masses, with the greater mass possible only at the upper end of the separation range. Similar limits were obtained for HIP 47110 where the companion should reside between 3 and 30 au with a mass between 3 and 10 MJup. For HIP 36277, we identified a faint stellar companion at large separation, though it might be substellar depending on the assumed age for the star. Considering the older age, this object accounts for the absolute value of the PMa vector but not for its direction. Additionally, we found a substellar candidate companion at a closer separation that could explain the PMa signal, considering a younger age for the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.04171 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: Final image obtained for HIP 11696 using SHARK-NIR data. This image was obtained by applying a PCA method subtracting 5 principal components. Right panel: Final image obtained for HIP 11696 using LMIRCam data. In this case, a PCA method subtracting 10 principal components was applied. In both cases, a bright candidate companion is visible South-East from the star. broadband H filter (BB_H, central wavele… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relative astrometric position for the candidate companion detected around HIP 11696. The red circle represents the relative position of the ob￾ject at the NIRC2/KeckII observation epoch, while the green square repre￾sents the relative position of the candidate companion at the NIRI observa￾tion epoch. Finally, the violet diamond represents the relative position at the epoch of the LBT observation. The error bars on … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Final image obtained for HIP 36277 using SHARK-NIR data. This image was obtained by applying a PCA method subtracting 5 principal components. Right panel: Final image obtained for HIP 36277 using LMIRCam data. In this case, a PCA method subtracting 10 principal components was applied. In both cases, a bright candidate companion is visible southeast from the star. Furthermore, in the SHARK-NIR image, a po… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plots of the contrast versus the separation from the hosts star for HIP 11696(top panels), HIP 47110 (middle panels) and HIP 36277 (bottom panels) both for SHARK-NIR (left panels) and LMIRCam (right panels). On the right of each plots we also show the mass limits corre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of mass limits for HIP 11696 (upper left panel), HIP 47110 (upper right panel) and HIP 36277 (bottom panels) assuming different atmospheric models both for the H (solid lines) and the L (dashed lines) spectral band. For the case of HIP 36277 we considered bo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the plot of mass limits as a function of the sepa￾ration from the host star to explain the PMa measurement at the Gaia eDR3 epoch (blue lines) for HIP 11696 with the limits in mass obtained from the SHARK-NIR observations and the AMES-COND atmospheric mod…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the plot of mass limits as a function of the sepa￾ration from the host star to explain the PMa measurement at the Gaia eDR3 epoch (blue lines) for HIP 47110 with the limits in mass obtained from the SHARK-NIR observations and the AMES-COND atmospheric mod…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 2D maps of the FOV around HIP 11696 (top), HIP 47110 (middle) and HIP 36277 (bottom) displaying the sky area compatible with the PMa measured for these stars. The blue-white areas in the images are the regions where the companions causing the PMa signal can reside at t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A multi-technique detection of an eccentric giant planet around accelerating star HD 57625

    astro-ph.EP 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A joint fit of radial velocities and astrometric acceleration detects an 8.4 Jupiter-mass planet on a 5.7 au, eccentric orbit around HD 57625.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H., Schweitzer A., Alexander D

    Allard F., Guillot T., Ludwig H.-G., Hauschildt P. H., Schweitzer A., Alexander D. R., Ferguson J. W., 2003, in Mart \' n E., ed., Vol. 211, Brown Dwarfs. p. 325

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21918.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..948A 427, 948

    Amara A., Quanz S. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21918.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..948A 427, 948

    work page arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Barbato D., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...615A.175B 615, A175

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832791 2018

  4. [4]

    Barbato D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.114B 674, A114

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345874 2023

  5. [5]

    Bell C. P. M., Mamajek E. E., Naylor T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..593B 454, 593

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1981 2015

  6. [6]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A.155B 631, A155

    Beuzit J. L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...631A.155B 631, A155

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935251 2019

  7. [7]

    P., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJS...59..197B 59, 197

    Bidelman W. P., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191069 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJS...59..197B 59, 197

    doi:10.1086/191069 1985

  8. [8]

    Bonavita M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1250 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.513.5588B 513, 5588

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1250 2022

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...31B 239, 31

    Brandt T. D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaec06 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..239...31B 239, 31

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...42B 254, 42

    Brandt T. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJS..254...42B 254, 42

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Tuthill P

    Carolo E., et al., 2018, in Creech-Eakman M. J., Tuthill P. G., M \'e rand A., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10701, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VI. p. 107012B, @doi 10.1117/12.2312553

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Chauvin G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605L...9C 605, L9

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Currie T., et al., 2023, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abo6192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Sci...380..198C 380, 198

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    J., Nielsen E

    De Rosa R. J., Nielsen E. L., Wahhaj Z., Ruffio J.-B., Kalas P. G., Peck A. E., Hirsch L. A., Roberson W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A..94D 672, A94

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.422155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApOpt..60D..52D 60, D52

    Doelman D. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1364/AO.422155 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApOpt..60D..52D 60, D52

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    G., M \'e rand A., Sallum S., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Ertel S., et al., 2020, in Tuthill P. G., M \'e rand A., Sallum S., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 11446, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VII. p. 1144607, @doi 10.1117/12.2561849

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Farinato J., et al., 2015, @doi [International Journal of Astrobiology] 10.1017/S1473550414000494 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015IJAsB..14..365F 14, 365

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII

    Farinato J., et al., 2022, in Schreiber L., Schmidt D., Vernet E., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. p. 1218522, @doi 10.1117/12.2630083

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Franson K., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aca408 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...39F 165, 39

    doi

  12. [20]

    Franson K., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acd6f6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...950L..19F 950, L19

    doi

  13. [21]

    Fujiwara H., Onaka T., Yamashita T., Ishihara D., Kataza H., Fukagawa M., Takeda Y., Murakami H., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/749/2/L29 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...749L..29F 749, L29

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Gagn \'e J., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae09 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...23G 856, 23

    doi

  15. [23]

    K., Doyon R., Malo L., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...43G 860, 43

    Gagn \'e J., Roy-Loubier O., Faherty J. K., Doyon R., Malo L., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...860...43G 860, 43

    doi

  16. [24]

    K., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aacdff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861L..13G 861, L13

    Gagn \'e J., Fontaine G., Simon A., Faherty J. K., 2018c, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aacdff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...861L..13G 861, L13

    doi

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Galicher R., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527828 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..63G 594, A63

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Gratton R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...678A..93G 678, A93

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2402.09067

    Gratton R., et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.09067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240209067G p. arXiv:2402.09067

    doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gratton R., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..69G 684, A69

    doi

  22. [30]

    D., et al., 2015, in Shaklan S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Groff T. D., et al., 2015, in Shaklan S., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9605, Techniques and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets VII. p. 96051C, @doi 10.1117/12.2188465

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    Y., Bohn A

    Haffert S. Y., Bohn A. J., de Boer J., Snellen I. A. G., Brinchmann J., Girard J. H., Keller C. U., Bacon R., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-019-0780-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3..749H 3, 749

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Hinkley S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244727 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...671L...5H 671, L5

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    M., et al., 2016, in Malbet F., Creech-Eakman M

    Hinz P. M., et al., 2016, in Malbet F., Creech-Eakman M. J., Tuthill P. G., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V. p. 990704, @doi 10.1117/12.2233795

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    F., Hinz P

    Hoffmann W. F., Hinz P. M., Defr \`e re D., Leisenring J. M., Skemer A. J., Arbo P. A., Montoya M., Mennesson B., 2014, in Ramsay S. K., McLean I. S., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airbor...

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Keppler M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832957 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617A..44K 617, A44

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Kervella P., Arenou F., Mignard F., Th \'e venin F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..72K 623, A72

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Kervella P., Arenou F., Th \'e venin F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...657A...7K 657, A7

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    M., et al., 2012, in McLean I

    Leisenring J. M., et al., 2012, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV. p. 84464F, @doi 10.1117/12.924814

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...2L 649, A2

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Macintosh B., et al., 2014, @doi [Proceedings of the National Academy of Science] 10.1073/pnas.1304215111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PNAS..11112661M 111, 12661

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Macintosh B., et al., 2015, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aac5891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Sci...350...64M 350, 64

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    J., Bryant J

    Marafatto L., et al., 2022, in Evans C. J., Bryant J. J., Motohara K., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX. p. 121843V, @doi 10.1117/12.2629494

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Marleau G.-D., Coleman G. A. L., Leleu A., Mordasini C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A..20M 624, A20

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Marois C., Lafreni \`e re D., Doyon R., Macintosh B., Nadeau D., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/500401 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...641..556M 641, 556

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Wycoff G

    Mason B. D., Wycoff G. L., Hartkopf W. I., Douglass G. G., Worley C. E., 2024, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The Washington Visual Double Star Catalog (Mason+ 2001-2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: B/wds. Originally published in: 2001AJ....122.3466M

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mawet D., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792...97M 792, 97

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148...70M 148, 70

    McCarthy K., Wilhelm R. J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148...70M 148, 70

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    H., Song I., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717L..57M 717, L57

    Melis C., Zuckerman B., Rhee J. H., Song I., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/717/1/L57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...717L..57M 717, L57

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    Mesa D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244033 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...665A..73M 665, A73

    2022 doi

  42. [50]

    Mesa D., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345865 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A..93M 672, A93

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    R., Amara A., Reggiani M., Quanz S

    Meyer M. R., Amara A., Reggiani M., Quanz S. P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612L...3M 612, L3

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    C., Fern \'a ndez-Figueroa M

    Montes D., L \'o pez-Santiago J., G \'a lvez M. C., Fern \'a ndez-Figueroa M. J., De Castro E., Cornide M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04781.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.328...45M 328, 45

    2001

  45. [53]

    D., Molli \`e re P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..72M 608, A72

    Mordasini C., Marleau G. D., Molli \`e re P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..72M 608, A72

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..108M 815, 108

    Morzinski K. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..108M 815, 108

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    M \"u ller A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833584 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...617L...2M 617, L2

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158...13N 158, 13

    Nielsen E. L., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab16e9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158...13N 158, 13

    2019 doi

  49. [57]

    Nowak M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642L...2N 642, L2

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII

    Pedichini F., et al., 2022, in Schreiber L., Schmidt D., Vernet E., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 12185, Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. p. 121856Q, @doi 10.1117/12.2629244

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    M., V \'e ran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Pinna E., et al., 2016, in Marchetti E., Close L. M., V \'e ran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V. p. 99093V, @doi 10.1117/12.2234444

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    arXiv:2310.14447

    Pinna E., et al., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.14447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231014447P p. arXiv:2310.14447

    2023 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2758R 445, 2758

    Rodrigues T. S., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1907 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.445.2758R 445, 2758

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1433R 467, 1433

    Rodrigues T. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx120 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1433R 467, 1433

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    F., et al., 2010, in McLean I

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 77353H, @doi 10.1117/12.857724

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Soummer R., Pueyo L., Larkin J., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/755/2/L28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...755L..28S 755, L28

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17434.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..190T 410, 190

    Tetzlaff N., Neuh \"a user R., Hohle M. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17434.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..190T 410, 190

    2011

  58. [66]

    Vigan A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038107 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...651A..72V 651, A72

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    da Silva L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20065105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...458..609D 458, 609

    2006 doi

  60. [68]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.