Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

On the Orbit of the Binary Brown Dwarf Companion GL229 Ba and Bb

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The tight brown-dwarf binary GL229 Ba/Bb has a 12.13-day orbit and a total mass of 71 Jupiter masses, matching the mass of its wider orbit.

desk verdict Solid re-analysis with a genuinely useful kernel-phase method, but the headline period precision is conditional on a contrast model the data strongly disfavor. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05359 v1 pith:HJTKMW6N submitted 2025-02-07 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

William Thompson , Dori Blakely , Jerry W. Xuan , Alexandre Bouchard-Côté , Guillaume Bourdarot , Miguel Biron-Lattes , Trevor Campbell , Frank Eisenhauer
show 16 more authors
Thomas Henning Markus Janson Doug Johnstone Jens Kammerer Quinn Konopacky Sylvestre Lacour Christian Marois Dimitri Mawet Antoine Mérand Jayke Samson Nguyen Eric Nielsen Emily Rickman Jean-Baptiste Ruffio Nikola Surjanovic Jason J. Wang Thomas Winterhalder
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords browndwarfsinterferometrybinarystarsorbitdeterminationkernelphasesradialvelocitiespropermotionanomalyBayesianinference
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 argues for a precise dynamical model of GL229B, a nearby brown dwarf recently resolved as a tight binary of two brown dwarfs, Ba and Bb. By jointly analyzing sparse, low-signal interferometric data and radial-velocity measurements, the authors find an orbital period of $12.1346^{+0.0011}_{-0.0012}$ days, an eccentricity of $0.2317^{+0.0024}_{-0.0025}$, and a combined mass of $71.0^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ Jupiter masses for the pair. The same total mass, $71.7 \pm 0.6$ Jupiter masses, is recovered from the outer orbit of the pair around its host star using astrometry and the proper motion anomaly, a cross-check that supports the reliability of both orbits. The paper also reports that the inner and outer orbits are tilted by $31\pm2.5^\circ$, below the threshold for Kozai-Lidov oscillations. If right, this gives a precisely calibrated brown dwarf binary and a method for constraining fast-orbiting substellar companions from interferometric data with very little per-epoch coverage.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the kernel-phase transform: a fixed linear projection of the four closure phases formed by the six baselines onto three statistically independent combinations, removing the baseline redundancy that otherwise makes the closure-phase covariance matrix rank-deficient. The paper constructs the transform by Cholesky-factorizing the closure-phase design matrix and discarding singular values, then models the remaining spectral correlation with a single free parameter. The second piece is non-reversible parallel tempered MCMC, a sampling scheme that lets heated chains exchange with the target chain on a deterministic schedule, making it feasible to explore the highly multimodal posterior that sparse interferometric epochs produce. Together these allow a single global fit of the orbit directly to the raw interferometric observables rather than to per-epoch astrometric points extracted in advance.

What would settle it

Re-fit the same interferometric and radial-velocity measurements with a model that lets the brightness ratio vary freely from epoch to epoch and from wavelength to wavelength, and compare the recovered period and total mass to the quoted $12.1346^{+0.0011}_{-0.0012}$-day and $71.0^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ Jupiter-mass values; the paper reports a roughly $0.01$-day period shift between contrast models, so a model that recovers the same period within $0.001$ days would confirm the central claim, while a shift beyond three times the quoted uncertainty would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the inner binary GL229 Ba/Bb has a uniquely determined Keplerian orbit with period $P = 12.1346^{+0.0011}_{-0.0012}$ days, eccentricity $e = 0.2317^{+0.0024}_{-0.0025}$, and total mass $M = 71.0^{+0.4}_{-0.5}\,M_{\rm Jup}$, with component masses $M_{\rm Ba}=37.7\pm1.1\,M_{\rm Jup}$ and $M_{\rm Bb}=33.4\pm1.0\,M_{\rm Jup}$. The same system, modeled independently as a single companion on a wide orbit about the primary, gives a total mass of $71.7\pm0.6\,M_{\rm Jup}$; the two mass measurements agree at the $1.1\sigma$ level. The authors take this agreement as validation that their treatment of radial velocities, interferometric closure phases, relative astrometry, and the Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly are mutually consistent, and they derive from the combined orbits a mutual inclination of $31\pm2.5^\circ$, which lies below the $\sim39.2^\circ$ Kozai-Lidov threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted numbers rest on the assumption that the brightness ratio between the two brown dwarfs stays the same over time and wavelength, even though the paper's own model comparison strongly favors allowing that ratio to change between observing runs; if that variation is real signal rather than noise, the period and its quoted uncertainties shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single self-consistent model now reproduces the inner binary's motion and the outer companion's effect on the primary star, so GL229B's total mass is known to about one Jupiter mass from two independent routes.
  • The mutual inclination of $31\pm2.5^\circ$ lies below the $\sim39.2^\circ$ Kozai-Lidov threshold, so the inner binary's eccentricity is not being pumped by the outer companion through Kozai-Lidov oscillations.
  • Fitting an orbit directly from sparse, low-signal interferometric epochs makes it practical to observe fast-orbiting companions with many short visits rather than one long fill of the visibility plane.
  • The detected epoch-to-epoch contrast variations, if not calibrated out, shift the inferred period by about $0.01$ days; future radial-velocity or astrometric measurements can decide between the contrast models.
  • The outer-orbit and inner-orbit masses agree at the $1.1\sigma$ level, supporting the use of proper-motion-anomaly data in measuring companion masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's reported $0.01$-day period shift between contrast models implies that the quoted $\pm0.0011$-day uncertainty is a statistical precision, not a systematic floor; a more cautious error budget for the period would be about ten times larger until the contrast systematics are understood.
  • If the epoch-varying contrast is a true astrophysical signal rather than a systematic, the first epoch's unusual contrast could also affect the inferred component masses, so the mass ratio would need revision.
  • The same kernel-phase plus global-sampling pipeline could be applied to other close-in binaries observed with sparse interferometric coverage; the paper's recommendation of short repeated observing sequences is a directly testable strategy for future campaigns.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a re-analysis of VLTI-GRAVITY interferometric and CRIRES+ radial-velocity data for the tight brown-dwarf binary GL229 Ba/Bb, introducing kernel-phase modeling of the GRAVITY closure phases and a parallel-tempered MCMC implementation in Octofitter. The authors derive an inner orbit with period 12.1346±0.0011 days, eccentricity 0.2317±0.0025, and total mass 71.0±0.4 Mjup from their simplest 'steady contrast' model, and an updated outer orbit using a new Keck/NIRC2 astrometric point, yielding a total mass for the B component of 71.7±0.6 Mjup. The inner and outer masses are claimed to agree at 1.1σ, and the mutual inclination is 31±2.5 degrees. The paper also reports that a model allowing per-epoch contrast variation is strongly preferred by the Bayesian evidence, but the final quoted parameters are taken from the steady-contrast model for simplicity.

Significance. If the results hold, this work provides one of the first precise dynamical mass measurements for a brown-dwarf binary using a combination of interferometric and radial-velocity data, and it validates the use of Hipparcos-Gaia proper-motion anomalies for outer-orbit fitting. The methodological contributions—kernel-phase reduction for redundant GRAVITY closure phases and non-reversible parallel tempering for a highly multimodal posterior—are important and broadly applicable to future low-signal interferometric observations. The paper is transparent about its model choices and makes its code publicly available, and the explicit comparison of Bayesian evidence across contrast models is a strength that partially mitigates the concerns below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.2 and Abstract] The headline period 12.1346±0.0011 days is quoted from the 'steady contrast' model, yet the paper's own Bayesian evidence in §4.1.2 strongly prefers the 'contrast flexible vs. time' model (log-evidence -17161 vs. -17176, an evidence ratio of ≈3×10^6). The authors state in the same section that the orbital period is sensitive to this modeling choice, and the period shift between the two contrast treatments is ~0.01 days, an order of magnitude larger than the quoted ±0.0011 day uncertainty. As written, the abstract and Table 5 therefore present a period precision that is not supported by the paper's own model comparison. The authors should either quote the period from the model preferred by the evidence, include a systematic error that covers the model difference, or explicitly state in the abstract that the quoted uncertainty excludes this known systematic effect. This is load-bearing because the period is a central claimed result and the basis for the mass-period validation.
  2. [§4.1.2 and §5] The paper attributes the strongly preferred per-epoch contrast variability to uncalibrated interferometric systematics, yet still chooses the simpler 'steady contrast' model for the final results. If the contrast variation is believed to be a systematic, then the steady-contrast model is knowingly inconsistent with the data, and quoting its parameters as the main result is questionable. Conversely, if the flexible-contrast model is fitting legitimate signal, then discarding it on simplicity grounds is arbitrary. The authors need to justify the model choice more rigorously, for example by showing that the steady-contrast model's parameters are more physically plausible or that the flexible-contrast model's parameters are biased by the suspected systematics. As it stands, the procedure appears to select a disfavored model to obtain the headline numbers, which weakens the reliability of the quoted uncertainties.
  3. [§4.2, Table 5, and Abstract] The claimed 1.1σ agreement between the inner and outer total masses is misleading as stated because the quoted inner mass of 71.0±0.4 Mjup (Table 5) adopts the G.M. Brandt et al. (2021) mass prior from the outer orbit. The genuinely independent inner-orbit value, obtained with a uniform mass prior, is 70.0+0.9−0.8 Mjup, which agrees with the outer mass 71.7±0.6 Mjup at a larger significance (approximately 1.8σ). The text and Figure 11 do acknowledge this, but the abstract phrases the agreement as a validation of independent measurements. The abstract should state the uniform-prior inner mass when presenting the cross-check, or explicitly note that the quoted inner mass is a combined estimate informed by the outer orbit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'We demonstrate very agreement the VLTI-GRAVITY and CRIRES+ datasets' contains a grammar error; it should read 'very good agreement between' or similar.
  2. [§3.1, near Eq. (2)] The text contains an unresolved LaTeX command 'textbf0.017' in the description of spectral correlation; this should be fixed to read '0.017'.
  3. [§3.1] The typo 'Choleksy factorizing' should be 'Cholesky factorizing'.
  4. [§4.1.2 and Table 5] The kernel-phase jitter values in Table 5 are given in degrees but the table caption does not explain why the jitter is expressed in degrees or what the '×1.333' factor signifies beyond the conversion from closure phases to kernel phases; this should be clarified for reproducibility.
  5. [§4.3 and Figure 12] The mutual inclination uncertainty is stated as 31±2.5 degrees, but the figure caption and text could more explicitly separate the contributions from the inner and outer orbit uncertainties; the current text does so qualitatively but a quantitative breakdown would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline inner mass adopts an external outer-orbit prior, but the paper explicitly reports a uniform-prior model that independently agrees with the outer orbit.

full rationale

The main potential circularity is that the headline inner-orbit total mass (71.0+0.4-0.5 MJup, Table 5) comes from a model whose total-mass prior is the G.M. Brandt et al. (2021) outer-orbit value (71.4 +/- 0.6 MJup), and the abstract then presents agreement between this inner mass and the updated outer-orbit mass (71.7 +/- 0.6 MJup) as validation. Taken alone, that would be a partially inherited result. However, the paper explicitly breaks the chain: Section 4.1.2 and Table 5 report a 'uniform mass prior' model (70.0+0.9-0.8 MJup, period 12.1343+0.0012-0.0013 d) that is not informed by the outer orbit, and it remains consistent with the outer-orbit mass and with the headline period. The paper also labels the prior-informed value as a 'best combined estimate' using information from both inner and outer orbits (Section 4.2), rather than as an independent measurement. The RV/KP consistency check is not circular because the KP-only posterior is genuinely independent of the RV data, and the RV-only model's prior dependence is explicitly acknowledged: 'These results do depend strongly on the total mass prior we adopted from G.M. Brandt et al. (2021), and other orbital periods would be plausible without it.' The kernel-phase construction, covariance parametrization, and sampling methodology are external or model-fitting choices, not definitions of the target results. The strong Bayesian preference for the epoch-varying contrast model over the quoted 'steady contrast' model is a model-selection and systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular derivation; the paper itself flags that the period is sensitive to this choice. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's analysis rests primarily on standard Keplerian orbit models and on a noise model for GRAVITY data that is partly borrowed from the literature (Kammerer et al. 2020) and partly fitted ad hoc (per-epoch kernel phase jitter). The strong prior on total mass from G.M. Brandt et al. (2021) is an external input but is explicitly checked with a uniform prior.

free parameters (12)
  • Total mass prior for inner orbit (G.M. Brandt et al. 2021) = 71.4 ± 0.6 Mjup
    Adopted as Gaussian prior in primary inner models; uniform-prior check gives 70.0+0.9-0.8 Mjup, so the prior is not the sole driver.
  • Contrast f (Bb/Ba) = 0.514+0.017-0.015
    Flux ratio between Ba and Bb fitted to GRAVITY kernel phases; assumed constant in the final quoted model.
  • Kernel phase spectral correlation Cz = (23.2 ± 2.8) x 10^-4
    Correlation between wavelength channels within a kernel phase, fitted with Uniform(0,1) prior using the Kammerer et al. (2020) structure.
  • Kernel phase jitter, epoch 1 = 12.6 ± 0.3 deg x 1.333
    Per-epoch variance added in quadrature to absorb GRAVITY systematics; prior Uniform(0,180).
  • Kernel phase jitter, epoch 2 = 29.8+1.1-1.0 deg x 1.333
    Per-epoch variance added in quadrature to absorb GRAVITY systematics.
  • Kernel phase jitter, epoch 3 = 53.6+2.3-2.1 deg x 1.333
    Per-epoch variance added in quadrature to absorb GRAVITY systematics.
  • Kernel phase jitter, epoch 4 = 29.8+2.8-2.5 deg x 1.333
    Per-epoch variance added in quadrature to absorb GRAVITY systematics.
  • Kernel phase jitter, epoch 5 = 8.7 ± 0.6 deg x 1.333
    Per-epoch variance added in quadrature to absorb GRAVITY systematics.
  • RV jitter = 323+139-106 m/s
    Empirical RV jitter shared by both components of the binary; LogUniform(1,5000) prior.
  • RV offset rv0 = 427+197-186 m/s
    Instrumental zero-point for the CRIRES+ barycentric RV; Normal(0,2000) prior.
  • Outer orbit mass M_B = 71.7 ± 0.6 Mjup
    Fitted from relative astrometry, long-baseline RVs, and Hipparcos-Gaia PM anomaly; the key consistency check with the inner orbit.
  • Outer orbit RV jitters (7 instruments) = 1 to 21 m/s
    Instrumental jitter terms for HIRES, HARPS, UVES, Lick RV series in the outer orbit fit.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Keplerian two-body orbits describe both the Ba-Bb inner binary and the B-A outer orbit
    Used throughout Sections 3.3 and 3.4; no relativistic or three-body terms included.
  • domain assumption The GRAVITY source is a binary of two point sources whose closure phases can be transformed into kernel phases via the design matrix
    Section 3.1; assumes the visibility model, the single-mode fiber coupling theory, and the Kammerer et al. (2020) noise correlation structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-epoch kernel phase jitter captures all remaining unmodeled interferometric systematics
    Section 3.1; these five fitted variance terms are not derived from a physical noise model.
  • domain assumption The outer orbit signal on the primary is caused by a single companion B, with the 12-day inner binary averaged out
    Sections 3.4 and 4.2; the paper argues three-body effects are negligible because the inner period is short compared with Hipparcos/Gaia baselines.
  • domain assumption Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly is modeled by propagating the full 3D orbit and undoing the HGCA static correction
    Section 3.4; relies on the HGCA catalog (T.D. Brandt 2021) and on the Gaia DR3 radial velocity of 4 km/s for the correction.
  • domain assumption The outer orbit's contribution to the CRIRES+ RV over the 2024 campaign is negligible (6.3 m/s)
    Section 3.2; the correction is below the measurement uncertainties.
  • domain assumption The G.M. Brandt et al. (2021) mass posterior is a valid prior for the inner orbit
    Table 3; the paper tests a Uniform(50,150) Mjup prior and finds consistency at 1.1 sigma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Orbit of the Binary Brown Dwarf Companion GL229 Ba and Bb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJTKMW6N

@misc{pith2026250205359,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Orbit of the Binary Brown Dwarf Companion GL229 Ba and Bb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJTKMW6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05359}
}
abstract

The companion GL229B was recently resolved by Xuan et al. (2024) as a tight binary of two brown dwarfs (Ba and Bb) through VLTI-GRAVITY interferometry and VLT-CRIRES+ RV measurements. Here, we present Bayesian models of the interferometric and RV data in additional detail, along with an updated outer orbit of the brown dwarf pair about the primary. To create a model of the inner orbit with robust uncertainties, we apply kernel phases to the GRAVITY data to address baseline redundancy in the raw closure phases. Using parallel tempering, we constrain the binary's orbit using only VLTI-GRAVITY data, despite each epoch having low visibility-plane coverage and/or SNR. We demonstrate very agreement the VLTI-GRAVITY and CRIRES+ datasets and find that the inner binary has a period of 12.1346$\pm$0.0011 days, eccentricity of 0.2317$\pm$0.0025, and total mass of 71.0$\pm$0.4 Mjup, with Ba and Bb having masses of 37.7$\pm$1.1Mjup and 33.4$\pm$1.0Mjup respectively. With new Keck/NIRC2 astrometry, we update the outer orbit GL229B around the primary. We find a semi-major axis of 42.9+3.0-2.4AU, eccentricity of 0.736$\pm$0.014, and a total mass for B of 71.7$\pm$0.6Mjup, consistent with that derived from the inner orbit. We find a mutual inclination of 31$\pm$2.5deg, below the threshold for Kozai-Lidov oscillations. The agreement on the mass of Ba+Bb between the inner and outer orbits is an important test of our ability to model RV, astrometry, and Hipparcos-Gaia proper motion anomaly. Our methodological advances in handling interferometric data with low SNR and sparse UV-coverage will benefit future observations of rapidly-orbiting companions with VLTI-GRAVITY.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05359 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The semi-analytic correlation matrix from Kam￾merer et al. (2020) adopted in our model for closure phases (left) and projected into kernel phases (right). The indices run first over wavelength, and then by closure or kernel phase index. The closure phase correlation matrix on the left is rank deficient and therefore cannot be used to define a multi￾variate normal distribution for MCMC sampling. Projecting it onto a … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between constraints provided by the CRIRES+ RV data only (A), the GRAVITY kernel phase data only (B), and the combination of both (C). The rows present in turn the visual orbit of Bb around Ba, their projected separation, the position angle of Bb around Ba, the barycentric radial velocity of Ba, and the relative radial velocity of Bb - Ba. The colour of the lines corresponds to mean anomaly, that is, the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kernel phase detection maps calculated at each epoch. Looking at the GRAVITY data alone, there are two ranges of orbital period that are equally likely. This is because the 2024-02-28 and 2024-03-29 cannot distinguish between two different position angles, though these locations have essentially the same separation. Thankfully, the addition of the radial velocity data resolves this ambiguity. The maps were generated… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bottom left: Corner plot comparing key variables from three different models. The model with only RV data is shown in orange, only GRAVITY kernel phase data shown in green, and both GRAVITY and RV data shown in blue. Note that while RV data alone cannot constrain incli…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: contrast between Bb and Ba versus GRAVITY epoch. In this model, the contrast is averaged over wave￾lengths but allowed to vary over time. within the longest baseline for approximately half of the exposures, meaning that it is only marginally resolved by GRAVITY. As a r…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: In-depth comparison of variable contrast model to data to aid in diagnosing the observed contrast variations. A: u−v plane coverage at each epoch overtop the binary model visibility amplitude. B: Kernel phase data (points) and the variable contrast model (lines) versus…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of orbit posteriors between the three flux models, considering variation in either spectral contrast or variation over time. objects should consider using much shorter observing sequences, repeated many times over the course of an orbit, rather than trying t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Outer orbit posterior of the tight binary B around the primary A updated with new relative astrometry. The panels in the left column show the relative separation, position angle, and apparent proper motion induced by the binary. The bottom three sub-panels plot the res…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Corner plot of selected variables from the outer orbit posterior. Despite agreeing on the secondary mass, we find substantially higher semi-major axis and lower eccentricity than T.D. Brandt et al. (2020) and G.M. Brandt et al. (2021). Facilities: VLTI (GRAVITY), Keck…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mass posteriors from this work and G.M. Brandt et al. (2021). The dashed lines show the mass as determined only by the reflex motion of the primary star A. The solid blue line shows the mass as determined only by the radial ve￾locities of the binary Ba and Bb. The sol…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mutual inclination between the inner (“steady contrast” model) and outer orbits, and comparison of orbit orien￾tations between the systems. Vousden, W. D., Farr, W. M., & Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2422 Wang, J. J., Vigan, A., Lacour, S.,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ϿgX"c\ <2H55埳 X /

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. 2017, SIAM R eview, 59, 65, 10.1137/141000671

    doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  5. [5]

    W., Johnson , M

    Blackburn , L., Pesce , D. W., Johnson , M. D., et al. 2020, , 894, 31, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8469

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8469 2020

  6. [6]

    J., Angelo, I., et al

    Blunt, S., Wang, J. J., Angelo, I., et al. 2020, 159, 89, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab6663 2020

  7. [7]

    D., Dupuy, T

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

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    V., et al

    Buenzli , E., Apai , D., Morley , C. V., et al. 2012, , 760, L31, 10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/L31

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l31 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3349, 10.21105/joss.03349

    Danisch, S., & Krumbiegel, J. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3349, 10.21105/joss.03349

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    P., Vogt, S

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7e57

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    A., Marcy, G

    Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., & Spronck, J. F. P. 2013, 210, 5, 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/5

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

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

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Brandt , Dupuy , T

    G.M. Brandt , Dupuy , T. J., Li , Y., et al. 2021, , 162, 301, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2014, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1593. http://jmlr.org/papers/v15/hoffman14a.html

    2014

  8. [16]

    R., Mandell , A

    Howe , A. R., Mandell , A. M., & McElwain , M. W. 2023, , 951, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd76

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Ireland , M. J. 2013, , 433, 1718, 10.1093/mnras/stt859

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    J., & Lacour , S

    Kammerer , J., M \'e rand , A., Ireland , M. J., & Lacour , S. 2020, , 644, A110, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038563

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    A., Vandal , T., et al

    Kammerer , J., Cooper , R. A., Vandal , T., et al. 2023, , 135, 014502, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9a74

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2656, 10.1093/mnras/stz114

    Lachaume, R., Rabus, M., Jordán, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2656, 10.1093/mnras/stz114

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    2019, , 623, A164, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834387

    Laugier , R., Martinache , F., Ceau , A., et al. 2019, , 623, A164, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834387

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2009, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100, 1989, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2009.04.008

    Lewandowski, D., Kurowicka, D., & Joe, H. 2009, Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 100, 1989, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2009.04.008

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    S., & Smith , A

    Mangoubi , O., Pillai , N. S., & Smith , A. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.03230, 10.48550/arXiv.1808.03230

    2018 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Manjavacas , E., Apai , D., Lew , B. W. P., et al. 2019, , 875, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab13b9

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2010, , 724, 464, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/464

    Martinache , F. 2010, , 724, 464, 10.1088/0004-637X/724/1/464

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    M \'e rand , A. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12183, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VIII, ed. A. M \'e rand , S. Sallum , & J. Sanchez-Bermudez , 121831N, 10.1117/12.2626700

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    R., et al

    Nakajima , T., Oppenheimer , R., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 1995, , 378, 463, 10.1038/378463a0

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    Neal, R. M. 2003, The annals of statistics, 31, 705

    2003

  21. [29]

    R., Matthews , K., & Nakajima , T

    Oppenheimer , R., Kulkarni , S. R., Matthews , K., & Nakajima , T. 1995, Science, 270, 1478, 10.1126/science.270.5241.1478

    1995

  22. [30]

    2012, , 750, 105, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    Radigan , J., Jayawardhana , R., Lafreni \`e re , D., et al. 2012, , 750, 105, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/105

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Fulton , B

    Rosenthal , L. J., Fulton , B. J., Hirsch , L. A., et al. 2021, , 255, 8, 10.3847/1538-4365/abe23c

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    2023, arXiv:2308.09769

    Surjanovic, N., Biron-Lattes, M., Tiede, P., et al. 2023, arXiv:2308.09769

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    2022, 35, 565

    Surjanovic, N., Syed, S., Bouchard-C\^ o t\' e , A., & Campbell, T. 2022, 35, 565. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/03cd3cf3f74d4f9ce5958de269960884-Paper-Conference.pdf

    2022

  26. [34]

    2021, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84, 321, 10.1111/rssb.12464

    Syed, S., Bouchard-Côté, A., Deligiannidis, G., & Doucet, A. 2021, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 84, 321, 10.1111/rssb.12464

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    2018, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2018--862

    Tal-Or , L., Trifonov , T., Zucker , S., Mazeh , T., & Zechmeister , M. 2018, in European Planetary Science Congress, EPSC2018--862

    2018

  28. [36]

    2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Tamura , M. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1158, Exoplanets and Disks: Their Formation and Diversity, ed. T. Usuda , M. Tamura , & M. Ishii (AIP), 11--16, 10.1063/1.3215811

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    T.D. Brandt . 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 254, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/abf93c

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Brandt , Dupuy , T

    T.D. Brandt , Dupuy , T. J., Bowler , B. P., et al. 2020, , 160, 196, 10.3847/1538-3881/abb45e

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, PairPlots.jl Beautiful and flexible visualizations of high dimensional data, https://sefffal.github.io/PairPlots.jl/dev

    Thompson, W. 2023, PairPlots.jl Beautiful and flexible visualizations of high dimensional data, https://sefffal.github.io/PairPlots.jl/dev

    2023

  32. [40]

    2023, , 166, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    Thompson , W., Lawrence , J., Blakely , D., et al. 2023, , 166, 164, 10.3847/1538-3881/acf5cc

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    2020, 636, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936686

    Trifonov, T., Tal-Or, L., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2020, 636, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936686

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Tuomi , M., Jones , H. R. A., Barnes , J. R., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., & Jenkins , J. S. 2014, , 441, 1545, 10.1093/mnras/stu358

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    D., Farr , W

    Vousden , W. D., Farr , W. M., & Mandel , I. 2016, , 455, 1919, 10.1093/mnras/stv2422

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    J., Vigan , A., Lacour , S., et al

    Wang , J. J., Vigan , A., Lacour , S., et al. 2021, , 161, 148, 10.3847/1538-3881/abdb2d

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Brandt, G

    Whitebook, S., Brandt, T. D., Brandt, G. M., & Martin, E. C. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 974, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7714

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    O., Fan, Y., Kuo, L., & Chen, M.-H

    Xie, W., Lewis, P. O., Fan, Y., Kuo, L., & Chen, M.-H. 2010, Systematic Biology, 60, 150, 10.1093/sysbio/syq085

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, GRAVITY and CRIRES+ data for Gliese 229Bab, 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13851639

    Xuan, J., Thompson, W., Lacour, S., Blakely, D., & Mérand, A. 2024, GRAVITY and CRIRES+ data for Gliese 229Bab, 1.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.13851639

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    W., M \'e rand , A., Thompson , W., et al

    Xuan , J. W., M \'e rand , A., Thompson , W., et al. 2024, , 634, 1070, 10.1038/s41586-024-08064-x

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.