Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Kepler meets Gaia DR3: homogeneous extinction-corrected color-magnitude diagram and binary classification

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds a homogeneous, extinction-corrected color-magnitude diagram and binary classification for all 196,762 Kepler stars from Gaia DR3 data, and validates the result against independent asteroseismic catalogs.

desk verdict A careful, useful Kepler-Gaia catalog paper; the Photometric Binary flag is the soft spot, but it is honestly caveated and the data release will be a workhorse for the community. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18719 v1 pith:XG6KZQNJ submitted 2025-01-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

D. Godoy-Rivera , S. Mathur , R. A. García , M. H. Pinsonneault , Â. R. G. Santos , P. G. Beck , D. H. Grossmann , L. Schimak
show 3 more authors
M. Bedell J. Merc A. Escorza
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords KeplermissionGaiaDR3color-magnitudediagramextinctioncorrectionbinarystarsstellarclassificationasteroseismologypubliccatalog
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 turns the full Kepler target list into one homogeneous stellar-characterization catalog by combining Kepler identifiers with Gaia DR3 astrometry, photometry, and spectroscopy. It places 179,295 stars that pass quality cuts on an extinction-corrected color-magnitude diagram (CMD) and assigns each a category: dwarf, subgiant, giant branch, photometric binary (unresolved companion making the star overluminous), overlap dwarf/subgiant, uncertain main-sequence, or white dwarf. It also flags candidate binaries through ten independent channels, including an astrometric excess flag (RUWE), radial-velocity variability, Gaia non-single-star solutions, and Kepler and Gaia eclipsing binaries. The paper's aim is to make sample selection for exoplanet, asteroseismic, and stellar-population studies straightforward, and its external checks support that goal: 97.7% of asteroseismically known giants land in the 'Giant Branch' category. A public catalog reports positions, uncertainties, classification probabilities, metallicity-tail flags, and cross-release astrometric differences for every target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the extinction-corrected Gaia color-magnitude diagram, with de-reddened color $(BP-RP)_0$ and absolute magnitude $M_{G,0}$ built from zero-point-corrected parallax-inverse distances and a three-dimensional extinction map. PARSEC isochrone suites (stellar-evolution models) at solar metallicity supply the borders of the Subgiant and Giant Branch regions; a smoothed running 99.5th percentile lower envelope defines the 'Uncertain MS' region; and a double-Gaussian fit to the magnitude excess $\Delta M_{G,0}$ sets the Photometric Binary boundary at $\Delta_s \approx -0.758$ mag, close to the theoretical $-2.5\log_{10}(2)$ shift for unresolved equal-mass binaries. These polygon borders, together with the ten binary flags, carry the classification and are published in machine-readable form.

What would settle it

Compare the catalog's CMD flags for a metallicity-stratified subsample against a star-by-star classification computed from isochrones matched to each star's independent spectroscopic [M/H]; if mismatch rates rise sharply for |[M/H]| above about 0.3 dex, the solar-metallicity boundary assumption is the limiting factor. A complementary check is to take stars flagged as Photometric Binary with $\Delta M_{G,0}\approx -0.75$ mag and test whether high-resolution radial velocities reveal near-equal-mass companions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a single Gaia DR3-based pipeline can reproducibly classify essentially the entire Kepler sample into evolutionary stages and binary candidates, and that the classification agrees with independent asteroseismic references. The authors compute de-reddened colors and absolute magnitudes, draw the subgiant and giant-branch boundaries from solar-metallicity PARSEC isochrones, define a main-sequence lower envelope from the data, and separate a photometric-binary region using a double-Gaussian fit to the magnitude excess above that envelope. The resulting flags match asteroseismic catalogs for 97.7% of known giants and 96.6% of APOKASC-3 red giants and red clump stars, and the binary categories are kept independent so users can combine them. The paper's stated caveat is metallicity: for stars without reliable Gaia spectroscopy the classification assumes solar abundance, and the authors flag the metal-poor and metal-rich tails where that assumption breaks down.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes solar metallicity for the roughly 88% of Kepler targets without reliable Gaia spectroscopy, because the PARSEC subgiant and giant-branch borders and the dwarf/photometric-binary split are calibrated at [M/H]=0; metal-poor and metal-rich stars can shift by about 0.3 mag in color and 0.9 mag in magnitude per dex and fall into a different CMD category.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can select single main-sequence stars (Flag CMD = Dwarf and Flag Binary Union = FALSE) or evolved stars (Subgiant and Giant Branch) without re-deriving distances or extinctions.
  • The ten binary flags give complementary views of binarity: for example, 81% of RUWE-flagged candidates appear in no other binary category, so combining methods increases completeness.
  • The catalog records 6,348 stars whose CMD category changes between Gaia DR2 and DR3, including 52 known exoplanet hosts, so sample properties can be checked against astrometric release differences.
  • The Gaia neighbor analysis explains most of the roughly 800 asteroseismic 'dwarfs-with-giant-oscillations' as light-contamination cases, with 93.2% of the contamination-flagged subset showing large distance disagreements.
  • About 40% of the Gaia short-timescale-variable-only targets are independently flagged as Kepler eclipsing binaries, linking the Gaia and Kepler variability classifications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the same CMD boundaries and binary flags could be applied to K2 or TESS targets once they are matched to Gaia, because the method is not tied to Kepler-specific photometry.
  • Our inference: the Photometric Binary boundary at $\Delta_s\approx-0.758$ mag is essentially an equal-mass or high-mass-ratio unresolved-binary selection, so lower-mass-ratio companions remain hidden inside the Dwarf region and the true binary fraction is likely higher than the 15.9% union.
  • Our inference: future Gaia data releases, with epoch astrometry and more radial-velocity epochs, will likely move stars among the binary categories without changing the CMD boundaries, making the category definitions stable while the binary inventory evolves.
  • A testable extension the paper does not perform: re-running the classification star-by-star with spectroscopically measured metallicities would remove the solar-metallicity assumption and quantify exactly how many stars migrate across category borders.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a homogeneous characterization of 196,762 Kepler targets cross-matched with Gaia DR3. It constructs an extinction-corrected Gaia CMD, defines mutually exclusive CMD categories (Dwarf, Subgiant, Giant Branch, Photometric Binary, Overlap Dwarf/Subgiant, Uncertain MS, White Dwarf), and assembles ten independent binary-identification flags (RUWE, RV variables, Gaia NSS, Kepler and Gaia eclipsing binaries, Gaia variable binaries, SB9, NEA multiples, HGCA accelerations, WDS). The authors validate the evolved-star classification against the asteroseismic catalogs of Yu et al. and APOKASC-3, and against the Gaia FLAME module, and they propagate photometric, astrometric, and extinction uncertainties through Monte Carlo simulations. They also quantify the impact of DR3-vs-DR2 astrometry, revisit a sample of asteroseismically misclassified stars, and report Gaia variability classifications. The catalog is made publicly available.

Significance. If the classifications are reliable, the catalog is a valuable community resource for selecting single versus binary stars and MS versus evolved stars in the Kepler field, with direct applications to exoplanet-host and asteroseismic target selection. The paper's strengths include a publicly available catalog with propagated uncertainties, external validation of the evolved-star CMD categories against two independent asteroseismic samples and FLAME, explicit metallicity-tail flags, the use of multiple complementary binary indicators, and careful handling of extinction-map systematics. The main residual uncertainty concerns the Photometric Binary category, which is a novel deliverable but is not externally validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.4 and Table 1] The 'Photometric Binary' region (14,117 stars, 7.2% of the sample) is a headline deliverable, defined by a global threshold Δs = -0.758 mag from a double-Gaussian fit to ΔMG0 for MS stars with (BP-RP)0 > 0.9. The paper acknowledges in §3.5.3 and Figure 5 that metal-rich dwarfs are shifted into this region, but it never quantifies the contamination fraction and never cross-checks the category against the independent binary indicators assembled in §4 (RUWE, NSS, Kepler/Gaia EBs, RV variables, SB9, HGCA, WDS). Without such a cross-check, the reliability of this photometric binary classification is unquantified. Please add a quantitative validation, for example the fraction of Photometric Binary stars that also have RUWE ≥ 1.4 or appear in the NSS or eclipsing-binary catalogs, and an estimate of the expected metal-rich contamination as a function of color, and discuss the resulting purity of the sample.
  2. [§3.5.2 and Figure 4] The Monte Carlo test including metallicity scatter adds a global systematic error of 0.18 mag in MG0, but the resulting PCMD,[M/H] is reported only as a global distribution. For the Photometric Binary region, whose width is comparable to this systematic shift (Δs ≈ 0.758 mag versus a 0.18 mag 1σ systematic), the per-category misclassification probability is likely substantially higher than the global median of 0.73. Please report PCMD and PCMD,[M/H] separately for each CMD category, or at least for Photometric Binary and its neighboring regions, so that users can assess the reliability of the flag they intend to use.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 1] The RUWE histogram caption reports N(RUWE ≥ 1.2) = 30,798 and N(RUWE < 1.2) = 164,267, which sum to 195,065 rather than the full sample size of 196,762; please clarify how many targets lack RUWE values, or adjust the numbers.
  2. [§4.8] The NEA query version is listed as '01/06/2025', which is ambiguous between January 6 and June 1 and appears to be after the manuscript submission date; please specify the date format or the exact retrieval date.
  3. [§3.6.2] When reporting the FLAME agreement percentages (93.9% for MS, 68.0% for SGB, and 81.6% for RGB), please also give the number of stars in each comparison group; the percentages alone are difficult to interpret without sample sizes.
  4. [§7] The sentence introducing the 19 variability classes lists 'ACV|CP|...|SXARI' with an ellipsis; for full transparency, define all acronyms at first use and consider expanding the abbreviated label in the text and figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the catalog is an observational characterization whose CMD regions are anchored to external PARSEC isochrones and externally validated against asteroseismic and Gaia FLAME catalogs.

full rationale

The paper's central deliverables are descriptive classifications, not derived predictions. The CMD boundaries for Dwarf, Subgiant, Overlap, and Giant Branch regions are taken from external PARSEC isochrones at solar metallicity; the 'Photometric Binary' boundary is obtained by a double-Gaussian fit to the data-defined ΔMG0 distribution and is explicitly reported as a descriptive cut, with the near-agreement with the equal-mass binary shift of -0.753 mag presented only as a consistency note. The classification is then checked against independent external references: 97.7% of Yu et al. (2018, 2020) giants fall in the CMD Giant Branch, 96.6% of APOKASC-3 RGB/RC stars do the same, and FLAME evolutionary stages agree at 68-94% depending on category. None of these validations reduce, by construction, to the paper's own inputs. The self-citations that exist (e.g., Beck et al. 2024 for SB9 curation, García et al. 2023 for a preliminary catalog use, and Pinsonneault et al. 2024 as an external APOKASC-3 catalog) are methodological or contextual and do not carry the load of any claimed derivation. The acknowledged limitation that solar-metallicity assumptions can misclassify metal-poor or metal-rich stars is a correctness risk, not a circularity: the classification is still defined by external models and empirical percentiles. No step in the paper's derivation chain is equivalent to its own inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalog rests on standard astrophysical assumptions (accuracy of Gaia astrometry, stellar model loci, and an adopted extinction map). The only data-fitted quantity that directly sets a classification boundary is the photometric binary threshold Delta_s. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Photometric binary boundary Delta_s = -0.758 mag
    Border between 'Dwarf' and 'Photometric Binary' regions, determined by the crossing point of a double-Gaussian fit to the observed Delta_MG0 distribution for MS stars with (BP-RP)_0 > 0.9 (Sect. 3.4). This directly sets which stars are flagged as photometric binaries.
  • Double-Gaussian fit parameters = mu_PhotBin=-0.910, sigma=0.391; mu_Single=-0.496, sigma=0.166
    Fit to the Delta_MG0 histogram; the crossing point is used as the boundary, so the individual parameters are ancillary but the approach depends on the two-Gaussian model.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PARSEC stellar evolution models at [M/H]=0 accurately represent the locus of MS, subgiant, and red giant stars in the CMD for the Kepler sample.
    Used in Sect. 3.4 to define the borders of the evolved CMD regions via alpha shapes. The validity for non-solar metallicities is assessed but the fiducial classification assumes [M/H]=0.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallaxes, after zero-point correction and with SNR > 10, give reliable distances for the sample.
    Stated in Sect. 2; the paper notes agreement with Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) geometric distances for 97.4% of targets.
  • domain assumption The Vergely et al. (2022) extinction map provides accurate monochromatic extinctions for the Kepler field.
    Adopted in Sect. 3.2 after comparison with other maps; used to de-redden the CMD. The paper assigns a 20% systematic uncertainty to account for map-to-map differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kepler meets Gaia DR3: homogeneous extinction-corrected color-magnitude diagram and binary classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XG6KZQNJ

@misc{pith2026250118719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kepler meets Gaia DR3: homogeneous extinction-corrected color-magnitude diagram and binary classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XG6KZQNJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18719}
}
read the original abstract

The original Kepler mission has delivered unprecedented high-quality photometry. These data have impacted numerous research fields (e.g., asteroseismology and exoplanets), and continue to be an astrophysical goldmine. Because of this, thorough investigations of the ~ 200,000 stars observed by Kepler remain of paramount importance. In this paper, we present a state-of-the-art characterization of the Kepler targets based on Gaia DR3 data. We place the stars on the color-magnitude diagram (CMD), account for the effects of interstellar extinction, and classify targets into several CMD categories (dwarfs, subgiants, red giants, photometric binaries, and others). Additionally, we report various categories of candidate binary systems spanning a range of detection methods, such as Renormalised Unit Weight Error (RUWE), radial velocity variables, Gaia non-single stars (NSS), Kepler and Gaia eclipsing binaries from the literature, among others. First and foremost, our work can assist in the selection of stellar and exoplanet host samples regarding CMD and binary populations. We further complement our catalog by quantifying the impact that astrometric differences between Gaia data releases have on CMD location, assessing the contamination in asteroseismic targets with properties at odds with Gaia, and identifying stars flagged as photometrically variable by Gaia. We make our catalog publicly available as a resource to the community when researching the stars observed by Kepler.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18719 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Characterization of the Kepler targets. Top-left: Distribution of apparent Gaia G-band magnitudes. The targets are mostly concentrated in the 10 < G < 16 mag range. Top-right: Distribution of Gaia distances. The distribution peaks around ∼ 1 kpc. Bottom-left: Distribution of RUWE values, with the vertical lines indicating RUWE = 1.0 (green), 1.2 (cyan), and 1.4 (red). From this, RUWE binaries are later identified in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absolute and de-reddened Gaia CMD of the Kepler targets. Top-left: CMD sample described in Sect. 3. The purple marker illustrates the median error bars. Top-right: Hess diagram of the CMD sample. Bottom: CMD sample, with the stars color-coded according to the CMD categories we define in Sect. 3. The black lines illustrate the borders of the CMD regions. 3.4. CMD categories We now classify the Kepler stars into diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Characterization of the CMD regions presented in Sect. 3. The top-left panel shows the suite of PARSEC models we use to define the upper-CMD regions, and the projections of these onto the Hess diagram are displayed in the top-right panel. The bottom-left panel shows the Hess diagram and borders of the lower-CMD regions. The bottom-right panel shows the distribution of ∆MG0 values we use to define the ‘Photometric Bi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation of the CMD categories via the Monte Carlo method presented in Sect. 3.6. Top: Logarithmic distribution of the ‘Probability of CMD Category’ parameter, PCMD. The filled histogram represents the fiducial simulation (Sect. 3.5.1), while the open histogram repre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Metallicity impact on the CMD classification. The blue and red points show, respectively, the metal-poor and metal-rich tails (beyond 2σ) of the Andrae et al. (2023b) metallicity distribution. Our CMD clas￾sification loses accuracy towards extreme-metallicity values, a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Characterization of the binary categories we define in Sect. 4. The panels display the CMD projection of the RUWE, RV Variable, NSS, Kepler + Gaia EB, SB9 + NEA + HGCA, and WDS binary samples, respectively. In all the CMDs, we show the separation between MS and evolved…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the four most numerous binary categories. Top: Distribution of apparent G-band magnitudes. The RV Variable and RUWE binary candidates are concentrated at the bright and faint limits of the Kepler sample, respectively. Bottom: Venn diagram. While some cate…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Astrometric comparison between Gaia DR3 and DR2 from Sect. 5. Top: 2D histogram of the distance comparison. Most targets closely follow the 1:1 relation. Middle: Distribution of the distance modulus difference (in the sense of DR3 minus DR2). Stars are heavily centered…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Gaia DR3 analysis of the misclassified stars identified by Mathur et al. (2016) from Sect. 6. Top: Distance comparison. The sample is split between targets inside (orange) and outside (green) the 2:1 and 1:2 lines. Middle: Gaia CMD projection. The targets with large di…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Photometric variability analysis of the Kepler targets from Sect. 7. Top: bar chart of the 19 classes of variable sources found in Gaia DR3. The text inside the bars lists the number of targets in each class (with the size of the CMD subset shown in parenthesis). Midd…

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. OpenAlex reports about 13 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. The Maunder Model and Catalog: Stellar Rotation, Bimodal Activity, and Magnetic Braking in Kepler Main-Sequence Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A hybrid self-supervised and consensus-supervised model yields calibrated rotation periods for 148,746 Kepler main-sequence stars and identifies bimodal signals where the longer mode is the true rotation.

  2. Hints of enhanced magnetic activity after the intermediate rotation period gap as traced by the chromospheric Ca ii infrared triplet

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Main-sequence Kepler stars exhibit enhanced chromospheric Ca II IRT activity after the intermediate-period gap, paralleling the photospheric Sph signature.

  3. Magnetic activity evolution of solar-like stars: II. $S_{\rm ph}$-Ro evolution of Kepler main-sequence targets

    astro-ph.SR 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For Kepler main-sequence F, G, and K dwarfs, the photometric activity index Sph shows a spectral-type-dependent relation with Rossby number, including a dip near Ro/Ro_sun ~0.3 for G and K dwarfs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

196 extracted references · 42 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 edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2022, , 259, 35

    Abdurro'uf , Accetta , K., Aerts , C., et al. 2022, , 259, 35

    2022

  4. [4]

    2020, , 492, L40

    Abril , J., Schmidtobreick , L., Ederoclite , A., & L \'o pez-Sanjuan , C. 2020, , 492, L40

    2020

  5. [5]

    2023 a , , 674, A27

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

    2023

  6. [6]

    2023 b , , 267, 8

    Andrae , R., Rix , H.-W., & Chandra , V. 2023 b , , 267, 8

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147

    2021

  8. [8]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58

    2018

Show all 196 references
  1. [9]

    H., Triaud , A

    Ball , W. H., Triaud , A. H. M. J., Hatt , E., Nielsen , M. B., & Chaplin , W. J. 2023, , 521, L1

    2023

  2. [10]

    M., Rowe , J

    Batalha , N. M., Rowe , J. F., Bryson , S. T., et al. 2013, , 204, 24

    2013

  3. [11]

    G., Grossmann , D

    Beck , P. G., Grossmann , D. H., Steinwender , L., et al. 2024, , 682, A7

    2024

  4. [12]

    G., Hambleton , K., Vos , J., et al

    Beck , P. G., Hambleton , K., Vos , J., et al. 2014, , 564, A36

    2014

  5. [13]

    G., Mathur , S., Hambleton , K., et al

    Beck , P. G., Mathur , S., Hambleton , K., et al. 2022, , 667, A31

    2022

  6. [14]

    G., Montalban , J., Kallinger , T., et al

    Beck , P. G., Montalban , J., Kallinger , T., et al. 2012, , 481, 55

    2012

  7. [15]

    R., Mosser , B., Huber , D., et al

    Bedding , T. R., Mosser , B., Huber , D., et al. 2011, , 471, 608

    2011

  8. [16]

    2020, , 496, 1922

    Belokurov , V., Penoyre , Z., Oh , S., et al. 2020, , 496, 1922

    2020

  9. [17]

    A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J

    Berger , T. A., Huber , D., Gaidos , E., & van Saders , J. L. 2018, , 866, 99

    2018

  10. [18]

    A., Huber , D., van Saders , J

    Berger , T. A., Huber , D., van Saders , J. L., et al. 2020, , 159, 280

    2020

  11. [19]

    A., Schlieder , J

    Berger , T. A., Schlieder , J. E., & Huber , D. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11338

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    L., et al

    Bhalotia , V., Huber , D., van Saders , J. L., et al. 2024, , 970, 166

    2024

  13. [21]

    J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  14. [22]

    Brandt , T. D. 2018, , 239, 31

    2018

  15. [23]

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

    2021

  16. [24]

    2012, , 427, 127

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

    2012

  17. [25]

    M., Latham , D

    Brown , T. M., Latham , D. W., Everett , M. E., & Esquerdo , G. A. 2011, , 142, 112

    2011

  18. [26]

    2018, , 618, A93

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., Jordi , C., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 618, A93

    2018

  19. [27]

    L., Messias , Y

    Canto Martins , B. L., Messias , Y. S., Arruda Gon c alves , M. I., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 900

    2023

  20. [28]

    & Pinsonneault , M

    Cao , L. & Pinsonneault , M. H. 2022, , 517, 2165

    2022

  21. [29]

    I., Raiteri , C

    Carnerero , M. I., Raiteri , C. M., Rimoldini , L., et al. 2023, , 674, A24

    2023

  22. [30]

    R., et al

    Castro-Ginard , A., Penoyre , Z., Casey , A. R., et al. 2024, , 688, A1

    2024

  23. [31]

    C., Magnier , E

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

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    2014, , 444, 2525

    Chen , Y., Girardi , L., Bressan , A., et al. 2014, , 444, 2525

    2014

  25. [33]

    2016, , 823, 102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102

    2016

  26. [34]

    2023, , 674, A18

    Clementini , G., Ripepi , V., Garofalo , A., et al. 2023, , 674, A18

    2023

  27. [35]

    L., L \'o pez-Morales , M., Harrison , T

    Coughlin , J. L., L \'o pez-Morales , M., Harrison , T. E., Ule , N., & Hoffman , D. I. 2011, , 141, 78

    2011

  28. [36]

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

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

    2023

  29. [37]

    L., Ag \"u eros , M

    Curtis , J. L., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Douglas , S. T., & Meibom , S. 2019, , 879, 49

    2019

  30. [38]

    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

    2003

  31. [39]

    2023, , 674, A2

    De Angeli , F., Weiler , M., Montegriffo , P., et al. 2023, , 674, A2

    2023

  32. [40]

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

    2023

  33. [41]

    C., Brugaletta , E., et al

    Distefano , E., Lanzafame , A. C., Brugaletta , E., et al. 2023, , 674, A20

    2023

  34. [42]

    2017, , 470, 2439

    Dobrotka , A., Antonuccio-Delogu , V., & Baj c i c \'a kov \'a , I. 2017, , 470, 2439

    2017

  35. [43]

    2023, , 675, A89

    Donada , J., Anders , F., Jordi , C., et al. 2023, , 675, A89

    2023

  36. [44]

    2014, , 789, L3

    Dong , S., Zheng , Z., Zhu , Z., et al. 2014, , 789, L3

    2014

  37. [45]

    2008, , 178, 89

    Dotter , A., Chaboyer , B., Jevremovi \'c , D., et al. 2008, , 178, 89

    2008

  38. [46]

    F., Howell , S

    Doyle , T. F., Howell , S. B., Petit , V., & L \'e pine , S. 2017, , 464, 3464

    2017

  39. [47]

    & Babusiaux , C

    Dubus , G. & Babusiaux , C. 2024, , 683, A247

    2024

  40. [48]

    & Kraus , A

    Duch \^e ne , G. & Kraus , A. 2013, , 51, 269

    2013

  41. [49]

    & Mayor , M

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

    1991

  42. [50]

    2024, , 685, A82

    Edenhofer , G., Zucker , C., Frank , P., et al. 2024, , 685, A82

    2024

  43. [51]

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

    2021

  44. [52]

    1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol

    ESA , ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    1997

  45. [53]

    & De Rosa , R

    Escorza , A. & De Rosa , R. J. 2023, , 671, A97

    2023

  46. [54]

    2023, , 674, A13

    Eyer , L., Audard , M., Holl , B., et al. 2023, , 674, A13

    2023

  47. [55]

    2021, , 649, A5

    Fabricius , C., Luri , X., Arenou , F., et al. 2021, , 649, A5

    2021

  48. [56]

    M., & Kraus , A

    Fitton , S., Tofflemire , B. M., & Kraus , A. L. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 18

    2022

  49. [57]

    L., Massa , D., Gordon , K

    Fitzpatrick , E. L., Massa , D., Gordon , K. D., Bohlin , R., & Clayton , G. C. 2019, , 886, 108

    2019

  50. [58]

    2022, dustapprox

    Fouesneau, M., Andrae, R., Sordo, R., & Dharmawardena, T. 2022, dustapprox

    2022

  51. [59]

    2023, , 674, A28

    Fouesneau , M., Fr \'e mat , Y., Andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A28

    2023

  52. [60]

    2016, , 594, A39

    Frasca , A., Molenda- \.Z akowicz , J., De Cat , P., et al. 2016, , 594, A39

    2016

  53. [61]

    2023 a , , 674, A34

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A34

    2023

  54. [62]

    2018 a , , 616, A10

    Gaia Collaboration , Babusiaux , C., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018 a , , 616, A10

    2018

  55. [63]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018 b , , 616, A1

    2018

  56. [64]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021, , 649, A1

    2021

  57. [65]

    L., Sarro , L

    Gaia Collaboration , Creevey , O. L., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A39

    2023

  58. [66]

    2019, , 623, A110

    Gaia Collaboration , Eyer , L., Rimoldini , L., et al. 2019, , 623, A110

    2019

  59. [67]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  60. [68]

    2023 c , , 680, A36

    Gaia Collaboration , Trabucchi , M., Mowlavi , N., et al. 2023 c , , 680, A36

    2023

  61. [69]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 d , , 674, A1

    2023

  62. [70]

    A., Ceillier , T., Salabert , D., et al

    Garc \' a , R. A., Ceillier , T., Salabert , D., et al. 2014, , 572, A34

    2014

  63. [71]

    A., Gourv \`e s , C., Santos , A

    Garc \' a , R. A., Gourv \`e s , C., Santos , A. R. G., et al. 2023, , 679, L12

    2023

  64. [72]

    2016, , 832, 121

    Gaulme , P., McKeever , J., Jackiewicz , J., et al. 2016, , 832, 121

    2016

  65. [73]

    2023, , 674, A22

    Gavras , P., Rimoldini , L., Nienartowicz , K., et al. 2023, , 674, A22

    2023

  66. [74]

    2022, , 668, A116

    Gehan , C., Gaulme , P., & Yu , J. 2022, , 668, A116

    2022

  67. [75]

    2024, , 686, A93

    Gehan , C., Godoy-Rivera , D., & Gaulme , P. 2024, , 686, A93

    2024

  68. [76]

    P., Tremblay , P

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P. E., Cukanovaite , E., et al. 2021, , 508, 3877

    2021

  69. [77]

    & Chanam \'e , J

    Godoy-Rivera , D. & Chanam \'e , J. 2018, , 479, 4440

    2018

  70. [78]

    H., & Rebull , L

    Godoy-Rivera , D., Pinsonneault , M. H., & Rebull , L. M. 2021 a , , 257, 46

    2021

  71. [79]

    H., et al

    Godoy-Rivera , D., Tayar , J., Pinsonneault , M. H., et al. 2021 b , , 915, 19

    2021

  72. [80]

    A., Davenport , J

    Gordon , T. A., Davenport , J. R. A., Angus , R., et al. 2021, , 913, 70

    2021

  73. [81]

    2025, , 693, A124

    Gosset , E., Damerdji , Y., Morel , T., et al. 2025, , 693, A124

    2025

  74. [82]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    Green , G. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695

    2018

  75. [83]

    M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93

    2019

  76. [84]

    H., Beck , P

    Grossmann , D. H., Beck , P. G., Mathur , S., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09018

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    2023, , 674, A9

    Halbwachs , J.-L., Pourbaix , D., Arenou , F., et al. 2023, , 674, A9

    2023

  78. [86]

    J., Davies , G

    Hall , O. J., Davies , G. R., van Saders , J., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 707

    2021

  79. [87]

    2018, , 473, 5165

    Hambleton , K., Fuller , J., Thompson , S., et al. 2018, , 473, 5165

    2018

  80. [88]

    W., Pr s a , A., et al

    Hambleton , K., Kurtz , D. W., Pr s a , A., et al. 2016, , 463, 1199

    2016

  81. [89]

    M., Kurtz , D

    Hambleton , K. M., Kurtz , D. W., Pr s a , A., et al. 2013, , 434, 925

    2013

  82. [90]

    & Aerts , C

    Hey , D. & Aerts , C. 2024, , 688, A93

    2024

  83. [91]

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

    Hidalgo , S. L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al. 2018, , 856, 125

    2018

  84. [92]

    2023, , 674, A10

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

    2023

  85. [93]

    W., Marcy , G

    Howard , A. W., Marcy , G. W., Bryson , S. T., et al. 2012, , 201, 15

    2012

  86. [94]

    B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al

    Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398

    2014

  87. [95]

    M., et al

    Huber , D., Silva Aguirre , V., Matthews , J. M., et al. 2014, , 211, 2

    2014

  88. [96]

    & Tout , C

    Hurley , J. & Tout , C. A. 1998, , 300, 977

    1998

  89. [97]

    & Perets , H

    Kamai , I. & Perets , H. B. 2025, , 169, 59

    2025

  90. [98]

    2023, , 674, A5

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

    2023

  91. [99]

    2022, , 657, A7

    Kervella , P., Arenou , F., & Th \'e venin , F. 2022, , 657, A7

    2022

  92. [100]

    2024, , 691, A98

    Khalatyan , A., Anders , F., Chiappini , C., et al. 2024, , 691, A98

    2024

  93. [101]

    2016, , 151, 68

    Kirk , B., Conroy , K., Pr s a , A., et al. 2016, , 151, 68

    2016

  94. [102]

    A., Hillenbrand , L

    Kuhn , M. A., Hillenbrand , L. A., Sills , A., Feigelson , E. D., & Getman , K. V. 2019, , 870, 32

    2019

  95. [103]

    L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N

    Lallement , R., Vergely , J. L., Babusiaux , C., & Cox , N. L. J. 2022, , 661, A147

    2022

  96. [104]

    2023, , 674, A15

    Lebzelter , T., Mowlavi , N., Lecoeur-Taibi , I., et al. 2023, , 674, A15

    2023

  97. [105]

    M., Anguiano , B., Majewski , S

    Lewis , H. M., Anguiano , B., Majewski , S. R., et al. 2022, , 509, 3355

    2022

  98. [106]

    2022, , 610, 43

    Li , G., Deheuvels , S., Ballot , J., & Ligni \`e res , F. 2022, , 610, 43

    2022

  99. [107]

    2020, , 901, 49

    Li , L., Shao , Z., Li , Z.-Z., et al. 2020, , 901, 49

    2020

  100. [108]

    2018, gAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124

    Lindegren, L. 2018, gAIA-C3-TN-LU-LL-124

    2018

  101. [109]

    2021 a , , 649, A4

    Lindegren , L., Bastian , U., Biermann , M., et al. 2021 a , , 649, A4

    2021

  102. [110]

    2018, , 616, A2

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2

    2018

  103. [111]

    A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al

    Lindegren , L., Klioner , S. A., Hern \'a ndez , J., et al. 2021 b , , 649, A2

    2021

  104. [112]

    2023, , 268, 30

    Long , L., Bi , S., Zhang , J., et al. 2023, , 268, 30

    2023

  105. [113]

    2022, , 941, 175

    Lu , Y., Benomar , O., Kamiaka , S., & Suto , Y. 2022, , 941, 175

    2022

  106. [114]

    Luri , X., Brown , A. G. A., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2018, , 616, A9

    2018

  107. [115]

    C., Vyhmeister , K., Hawley , S

    Lurie , J. C., Vyhmeister , K., Hawley , S. L., et al. 2017, , 154, 250

    2017

  108. [116]

    & Weiler , M

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J. & Weiler , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21388

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    2015, , 447, 1749

    Maoz , D., Mazeh , T., & McQuillan , A. 2015, , 447, 1749

    2015

  110. [118]

    Martin , D. V. 2018, in Handbook of Exoplanets, ed. H. J. Deeg & J. A. Belmonte , 156

    2018

  111. [119]

    2023, , 166, 265

    Mart \' nez-Palomera , J., Hedges , C., & Dotson , J. 2023, , 166, 265

    2023

  112. [120]

    2023, , 674, A21

    Marton , G., \'A brah \'a m , P., Rimoldini , L., et al. 2023, , 674, A21

    2023

  113. [121]

    D., Wycoff , G

    Mason , B. D., Wycoff , G. L., Hartkopf , W. I., Douglass , G. G., & Worley , C. E. 2001, , 122, 3466

    2001

  114. [122]

    R., Santos , \^A

    Mathur , S., Claytor , Z. R., Santos , \^A . R. G., et al. 2023, , 952, 131

    2023

  115. [123]

    A., Breton , S., et al

    Mathur , S., Garc \' a , R. A., Breton , S., et al. 2022, , 657, A31

    2022

  116. [124]

    A., Huber , D., et al

    Mathur , S., Garc \' a , R. A., Huber , D., et al. 2016, , 827, 50

    2016

  117. [125]

    M., et al

    Mathur , S., Huber , D., Batalha , N. M., et al. 2017, , 229, 30

    2017

  118. [126]

    Maxted , P. F. L. 2023, , 519, 3723

    2023

  119. [127]

    2013, , 775, L11

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

    2013

  120. [128]

    2014, , 211, 24

    McQuillan , A., Mazeh , T., & Aigrain , S. 2014, , 211, 24

    2014

  121. [129]

    2020, , 499, 2116

    Merc , J., G \'a lis , R., K \'a ra , J., Wolf , M., & Vra s t \'a k , M. 2020, , 499, 2116

    2020

  122. [130]

    2021, , 506, 4151

    Merc , J., G \'a lis , R., Wolf , M., et al. 2021, , 506, 4151

    2021

  123. [131]

    S., de Oliveira , L

    Messias , Y. S., de Oliveira , L. L. A., Gomes , R. L., et al. 2022, , 930, L23

    2022

  124. [132]

    2013, , 429, 423

    Miglio , A., Chiappini , C., Morel , T., et al. 2013, , 429, 423

    2013

  125. [133]

    J., & Hobbs , D

    Mikkola , D., McMillan , P. J., & Hobbs , D. 2023, , 519, 1989

    2023

  126. [134]

    2023, , 674, A3

    Montegriffo , P., De Angeli , F., Andrae , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A3

    2023

  127. [135]

    J., Belkacem , K., et al

    Mosser , B., Goupil , M. J., Belkacem , K., et al. 2012, , 548, A10

    2012

  128. [136]

    2023, , 674, A16

    Mowlavi , N., Holl , B., Lecoeur-Ta \" bi , I., et al. 2023, , 674, A16

    2023

  129. [137]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.01389

    Munari , U. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.01389

    2019 arXiv

  130. [138]

    T., Costa , G., Girardi , L., et al

    Nguyen , C. T., Costa , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A126

    2022

  131. [139]

    2022, , 663, A101

    Panahi , A., Zucker , S., Clementini , G., et al. 2022, , 663, A101

    2022

  132. [140]

    2023, , 166, 110

    Pang , X., Wang , Y., Tang , S.-Y., et al. 2023, , 166, 110

    2023

  133. [141]

    A., Pinsonneault , M

    Patton , R. A., Pinsonneault , M. H., Cao , L., et al. 2024, , 528, 3232

    2024

  134. [142]

    Pecaut , M. J. & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9

    2013

  135. [143]

    Penoyre , Z., Belokurov , V., & Evans , N. W. 2022, , 513, 2437

    2022

  136. [144]

    Penoyre , Z., Belokurov , V., Wyn Evans , N., Everall , A., & Koposov , S. E. 2020, , 495, 321

    2020

  137. [145]

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

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

    2014

  138. [146]

    H., Elsworth , Y

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

    2018

  139. [147]

    H., Zinn , J

    Pinsonneault , M. H., Zinn , J. C., Tayar , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.00102

    2024

  140. [148]

    A., Batten , A

    Pourbaix , D., Tokovinin , A. A., Batten , A. H., et al. 2004, , 424, 727

    2004

  141. [149]

    2018, Modeling and Analysis of Eclipsing Binary Stars; The theory and design principles of PHOEBE

    Pr s a , A. 2018, Modeling and Analysis of Eclipsing Binary Stars; The theory and design principles of PHOEBE

    2018

  142. [150]

    W., et al

    Pr s a , A., Batalha , N., Slawson , R. W., et al. 2011, , 141, 83

    2011

  143. [151]

    A., Henry , T

    Raghavan , D., McAlister , H. A., Henry , T. J., et al. 2010, , 190, 1

    2010

  144. [152]

    A., et al

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

    2023

  145. [153]

    I., Solanki , S

    Reinhold , T., Shapiro , A. I., Solanki , S. K., & Basri , G. 2023, , 678, A24

    2023

  146. [154]

    2016, , 225, 28

    Ren , A., Fu , J., De Cat , P., et al. 2016, , 225, 28

    2016

  147. [155]

    W., et al

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

    2021

  148. [156]

    2023, , 674, A14

    Rimoldini , L., Holl , B., Gavras , P., et al. 2023, , 674, A14

    2023

  149. [157]

    2023, , 674, A17

    Ripepi , V., Clementini , G., Molinaro , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A17

    2023

  150. [158]

    2017, , 472, 3230

    Roelens , M., Eyer , L., Mowlavi , N., et al. 2017, , 472, 3230

    2017

  151. [159]

    2018, , 620, A197

    Roelens , M., Eyer , L., Mowlavi , N., et al. 2018, , 620, A197

    2018

  152. [160]

    L., Jessen-Hansen , J., Shetrone , M

    Sandquist , E. L., Jessen-Hansen , J., Shetrone , M. D., et al. 2016, , 831, 11

    2016

  153. [161]

    Santos , A. R. G., Breton , S. N., Mathur , S., & Garc \' a , R. A. 2021, , 255, 17

    2021

  154. [162]

    Santos , A. R. G., Garc \' a , R. A., Mathur , S., et al. 2019, , 244, 21

    2019

  155. [163]

    Santos , \^A . R. G., Godoy-Rivera , D., Finley , A. J., et al. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1356379

    2024

  156. [164]

    Santos , A. R. G., Mathur , S., Garc \' a , R. A., et al. 2023, , 672, A56

    2023

  157. [165]

    J., Verbeek , K., et al

    Scaringi , S., Groot , P. J., Verbeek , K., et al. 2013, , 428, 2207

    2013

  158. [166]

    Schlafly , E. F. & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103

    2011

  159. [167]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525

    1998

  160. [168]

    & Stassun , K

    Schonhut-Stasik , J. & Stassun , K. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 18

    2023

  161. [169]

    2017, , 233, 23

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

    2017

  162. [170]

    2021, , 29, 4

    Serenelli , A., Weiss , A., Aerts , C., et al. 2021, , 29, 4

    2021

  163. [171]

    N., Antia , H

    Silva Aguirre , V., Lund , M. N., Antia , H. M., et al. 2017, , 835, 173

    2017

  164. [172]

    2023, , 523, 5947

    Silva-Beyer , J., Godoy-Rivera , D., & Chanam \'e , J. 2023, , 523, 5947

    2023

  165. [173]

    Simonian , G. V. A., Pinsonneault , M. H., & Terndrup , D. M. 2019, , 871, 174

    2019

  166. [174]

    Simonian , G. V. A., Pinsonneault , M. H., Terndrup , D. M., & van Saders , J. L. 2020, , 898, 76

    2020

  167. [175]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163

    2006

  168. [176]

    L., Mushotzky , R

    Smith , K. L., Mushotzky , R. F., Boyd , P. T., et al. 2018, , 857, 141

    2018

  169. [177]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Paegert , M., et al. 2019, , 158, 138

    2019

  170. [178]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Pepper , J., et al. 2018, , 156, 102

    2018

  171. [179]

    M., Cody , A

    Stauffer , J., Rebull , L. M., Cody , A. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 275

    2018

  172. [180]

    2022, , 261, 26

    Su , T., Zhang , L.-y., Long , L., et al. 2022, , 261, 26

    2022

  173. [181]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  174. [182]

    2010, , 18, 67

    Torres , G., Andersen , J., & Gim \'e nez , A. 2010, , 18, 67

    2010

  175. [183]

    R., Speagle , J

    Van-Lane , P. R., Speagle , J. S., Eadie , G. M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12244

    2024 arXiv

  176. [184]

    L., Ceillier , T., Metcalfe , T

    van Saders , J. L., Ceillier , T., Metcalfe , T. S., et al. 2016, , 529, 181

    2016

  177. [185]

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

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

    2022

  178. [186]

    S., Bossini , D., et al

    Vrard , M., Cunha , M. S., Bossini , D., et al. 2022, Nature Communications, 13, 7553

    2022

  179. [187]

    M., Berger , T

    Wolniewicz , L. M., Berger , T. A., & Huber , D. 2021, , 161, 231

    2021

  180. [188]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868

    2010

  181. [189]

    R., et al

    Yamaguchi , N., El-Badry , K., Rees , N. R., et al. 2024, , 136, 084202

    2024

  182. [190]

    R., Stello , D., et al

    Yu , J., Bedding , T. R., Stello , D., et al. 2020, , 493, 1388

    2020

  183. [191]

    R., et al

    Yu , J., Huber , D., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2018, , 236, 42

    2018

  184. [192]

    M., & Rix , H.-W

    Zhang , X., Green , G. M., & Rix , H.-W. 2023, , 524, 1855

    2023

  185. [193]

    2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 110

    Zhou , A.-Y. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 110

    2024

  186. [194]

    2020, , 159, 19

    Ziegler , C., Tokovinin , A., Brice \ n o , C., et al. 2020, , 159, 19

    2020

  187. [195]

    2018, , 238, 30

    Zong , W., Fu , J.-N., De Cat , P., et al. 2018, , 238, 30

    2018

  188. [196]

    & Steindl , T

    Zwintz , K. & Steindl , T. 2022, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 9, 914738

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.