Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 75 references

Three-dimensional Orbit and Dynamical Masses of GJ 105 AC

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives model-independent dynamical masses for both components of the nearby binary GJ 105 AC, at about 2% precision, and argues the stars are effectively single benchmark objects.

desk verdict A solid benchmark-star paper: new MINERVA RVs and archival NIRC2 astrometry sharpen the dynamical masses of GJ 105 AC to ~2%, and the result survives the main error-model worry. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08042 v1 pith:3T7VO3KD submitted 2025-05-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Cayla M. Dedrick , Jason T. Wright , Jason D. Eastman , Cullen H. Blake , Samson A. Johnson , Peter Plavchan , John Asher Johnson , David H. Sliski
show 6 more authors
Maurice L. Wilson Robert A. Wittenmyer Thomas Barclay Jonathan Horner Stephen R. Kane Sharon X. Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords dynamicalmassesbinarystarsorbitalsolutionradialvelocitiesrelativeastrometrybenchmarkGJ105AClow-mass
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 reports a complete three-dimensional orbit for the nearby binary GJ 105 AC and uses it to weigh both stars without relying on stellar models. The joint analysis of new radial velocities and relative astrometry yields $M_1 = 0.78 \pm 0.02\,M_\odot$ for the K3 primary and $M_2 = 0.098 \pm 0.002\,M_\odot$ for the M7 companion, on a $76.0 \pm 1.3$ year orbit. That precision puts both stars in a rare class: stars with model-independent dynamical masses good to roughly 2–3% that are far enough apart to be treated as effectively single and to give clean, unblended spectra. Because GJ 105 A is a bright nearby K dwarf, it becomes a practical benchmark for testing stellar evolution models and for future asteroseismic age work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-dimensional Keplerian orbit of the secondary about the primary, parametrized by the period, time of periapsis, eccentricity, argument of periapsis, longitude of the ascending node, inclination, and the two masses, with the radial velocity and astrometry likelihoods linked through Kepler's third law and the velocity semi-amplitude $K_1$. The argument is carried by the joint fit: radial velocities fix the period, eccentricity, and periapsis timing, while relative astrometry fixes the orientation and physical angular scale; together they break the degeneracies that plague either data set alone. A secondary mechanism is the leave-one-out reweighting of the 13 astrometric errors, which the authors use to avoid overfitting the small astrometry sample, and they check that the preferred masses change by only $\sim$2% when the published errors are used instead.

What would settle it

Measure the binary's orbit independently with future astrometry that does not use the same error model, for example a Gaia astrometric orbit or additional high-resolution imaging over the next decade, and compare the total mass $M_1+M_2$ and individual masses with the paper's values; a discrepancy larger than the combined uncertainties at the level of a few percent would show the quoted precision overstates what the data support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that GJ 105 AC is a benchmark binary: combining 569 new MINERVA radial velocities that capture the full periapsis passage and the RV minimum with 13 relative astrometry points spanning 27 years and seven instruments, they fit a single Keplerian model and read off the masses directly from the orbit. The resulting dynamical masses are $M_1 = 0.78 \pm 0.02\,M_\odot$ and $M_2 = 0.098 \pm 0.002\,M_\odot$, with both components agreeing with independent SED and isochrone model masses at the 1.4$\sigma$ level. The paper argues this makes GJ 105 A and C the newest members of a small population of stars with $\sim$2–3% model-independent masses that are effectively single, and notes the system has the widest on-sky separation of any such pair after $\alpha$ Centauri AB, so both stars can be observed without spectral blending.

Load-bearing premise

The ~2 percent mass errors assume the adopted uncertainties on the 13 astrometric measurements, including the assumed 0.5-degree and 3-milliarcsecond errors and the camera distortion model for the new Keck epochs, contain no hidden systematic error; the paper itself notes that with the published errors the precision drops to about 3 percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GJ 105 A and C join the small set of stars with model-independent masses at roughly 2–3% precision that are effectively single, meaning their properties can be compared directly with single-star evolution models.
  • The new MINERVA radial velocities, which cover the full periapsis passage and the RV minimum for the first time, remove the earlier period ambiguity and pin the period to $76.0 \pm 1.3$ years.
  • With an average on-sky separation of $2.67''$ and a maximum of $3.51''$, the system is, after $\alpha$ Centauri AB, the widest such precise-mass pair, so both components can be observed with clean, essentially unblended spectra.
  • GJ 105 A is a viable target for extreme-precision RV asteroseismology, with a predicted oscillation amplitude of about 1.9 m/s, which could deliver an independent age for the system; TESS photometry alone does not detect the oscillations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the authors do not pursue is using the dynamical mass of GJ 105 A to calibrate asteroseismic scaling relations directly; the predicted extreme-precision RV oscillation amplitude of about 1.9 m/s makes this comparison feasible.
  • At roughly $0.098\,M_\odot$, GJ 105 C sits near the bottom of the main sequence, so a future measurement of its radius and temperature would make it a pointed test of the mass–luminosity relation in a regime where dynamical masses are rare.
  • The effectively single criteria introduced here could be applied to the growing sample of astrometric binaries to estimate how many clean-spectrum benchmark stars exist; the paper's own census of 805 precise-mass stars finds only 122 qualifiers, suggesting the usable population is small and worth cataloging.
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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The authors present a joint Keplerian fit to new MINERVA radial velocities and 13 relative astrometry points (including new Keck/NIRC2 measurements) for the K3+M7 binary GJ 105 AC. They derive P = 76.0 ± 1.3 yr, M1 = 0.782 ± 0.019 M_sun, and M2 = 0.098 ± 0.002 M_sun, with 2.5% and 2.3% precision, respectively. They compare these dynamical masses with independent EXOFASTv2 SED-based masses, discuss the system's status as a benchmark 'effectively single' star, and assess the prospects for asteroseismic follow-up.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper adds two stars to the small population of 'effectively single' benchmark objects with model-independent masses precise to ~2-3%, and GJ 105 C becomes one of the lowest-mass stars with a dynamical mass. The new MINERVA RV data spanning the periastron passage are a valuable contribution, and the joint fit is carefully tested against the choice of astrometric error weighting. The masses agree with independent SED modeling at 1.4 sigma and with the Feng et al. (2021) mass at 0.5 sigma, which strengthens confidence in the result. The explicit 'effectively single' criteria in Section 6.1 are a useful framework for placing the system in the context of the broader benchmark-star population, even though the thresholds are approximate.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2] The text 'located in the thin disk ( ?)' contains an unresolved placeholder citation that should be replaced with the appropriate reference.
  2. [Section 3.1] The HARPS data span is given as 'between 2003 October 27 and 200 September 6'; the year is presumably 2009 and should be corrected.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated article in 'as well as the the second-widest true separation', which should be corrected to 'the second-widest'.
  4. [Section 4.6 and Table 7] The astrometry-only fit with published errors gives Tperi, omega1, and Omega that differ from the preferred joint fit by 5.6-6.6 sigma, yet the text only notes that the periods are consistent within 1.3 sigma; the authors should add a brief discussion of whether this tension reflects the need for the LOO reweighting, a known degeneracy in astrometry-only solutions, or an unresolved systematic in the astrometry.
  5. [Section 4.6] The LOO reweighting procedure is self-referential in that the same joint model is used both to calibrate the astrometric errors and to perform the final fit; the published-error comparison bounds the impact on the masses, but a sentence in Section 5 or the abstract clarifying that the ~2% uncertainties are conditional on this reweighting and that the alternative error model yields ~3% precision would make the claim easier to parse.
  6. [Section 6.1.1] The sentence 'all of the low-mass stars in our sample with a/R_star < 100 are isolated' appears to contradict the stated criterion a/R_star > 100; please check whether the inequality should be reversed.
  7. [Section 4.5] The text 'a class of Markov Markov Chain Monte Carlo' contains a duplicated word and should read 'Markov Chain Monte Carlo'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamical masses come from independent RV and relative astrometry via Kepler's laws, with only a minor self-referential astrometric error reweighting that is explicitly bounded by a published-error comparison.

  1. other [Section 4.6 (Reweighting the Astrometry Data), Eqs. 19-20]
    "We use a simplified variant of a Leave-One-Out (LOO) cross-validation model evaluation to determine the approximate scale of the errors σ∗ρ from each instrument. For each of the 13 astrometry data points, we remove the nth astrometry data point and fit the remaining data to the joint model as described in Sections 4.4 and 4.5."

    The reweighted astrometric errors are computed from the RMS deviation of each point relative to leave-one-out versions of the very same joint model (Eq. 20), so the preferred fit's error bars are not independent of the model they are used to constrain. This is self-referential rather than an external calibration. It is not load-bearing for the central mass claim, however: the paper also fits with the published errors, the mass centroids shift by only ~2% and ~1.3%, and the adopted masses remain at roughly 3% precision, so the dynamical masses do not reduce to the reweighting procedure.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The joint fit combines 569 new MINERVA RVs with literature RVs and 13 relative astrometry points, solving Keplerian orbital elements and masses directly via Eqs. (4), (6)-(9); no stellar-model output is fed into the dynamical fit. The EXOFASTv2 SED masses are explicitly computed without priors from the astrometric fit ('our EXOFASTv2 model did not include priors on stellar masses derived from the astrometric fit'), so the 1.4-sigma agreement is an independent cross-check rather than an input. The only self-referential element is the LOO reweighting of astrometric errors in Section 4.6, which affects the quoted uncertainty but not the central values; the published-error comparison bounds its impact, and the resulting masses agree with the external Feng et al. (2021) value. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-by-citation appears. The paper is therefore essentially non-circular, with at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-referential step.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass measurement relies on standard two-body mechanics and external data (Gaia parallax, archival RVs and astrometry) plus 19 fitted noise and offset parameters and a post hoc astrometric error reweighting. No new physical entities are postulated. The 'effectively single' classification introduces approximate ad hoc thresholds for tidal and irradiation effects, but these do not enter the mass derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • RV zero-point offsets for seven instruments = γ_Lick = -39.4 m/s, γ_HARPS = -33.2 m/s, γ_HIRES = -37.6 m/s, γ_APF = -45.5 m/s, γ_T1 = -52.6 m/s, γ_T2 = -72 m/s…
    Each instrument has an independent velocity zero point fitted jointly with the orbit; absolute RV scales differ between instruments (Table 7).
  • Instrumental jitter variances = σ²_Lick = -19 m²/s², σ²_HARPS = -0.4, σ²_HIRES = -0.5, σ²_APF = 7.9, σ²_T1 = 170, σ²_T2 = 210, σ²_T3 = 130 m²/s²
    Fitted white-noise jitter per instrument; some are allowed to be negative to avoid Lucy-Sweeney bias (Section 4.2).
  • MINERVA power-outage offset Δ_out = -20 ± 4 m/s
    An additional RV offset for MINERVA data taken after 2021 May 21 (Section 4.2).
  • Astrometric error scaling ln S_ast = 0.37 in the preferred reweighted fit
    Multiplicative scaling of astrometric error bars to account for underestimated uncertainties (Section 4.3).
  • LOO-reweighted astrometric errors σ*_ρ = Per-instrument values in Table 5, e.g. NIRC2 0.032 arcsec, WFPC2 0.041 arcsec, AEOS 0.024 arcsec
    Astrometric errors recomputed from leave-one-out cross-validation residuals of the joint model; used in the preferred fit (Section 4.6).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Two-body Keplerian dynamics with the primary and secondary on a single conic section
    Standard orbital mechanics used throughout Section 4.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax 138.34 ± 0.32 mas is accurate
    Used to convert angular semi-major axis to physical AU in the joint model; a 0.23% parallax error propagates to about 0.7% in mass.
  • domain assumption RV contamination from the M7 companion is negligible
    Stated in Section 3.1 due to the ~10^4 optical contrast ratio between the two stars.
  • domain assumption The NIRC2 astrometric distortion model of Yelda et al. (2010) applies to all NIRC2 epochs, including those after the 2015 realignment
    Section 3.2: differences to the newer Service et al. (2016) solution are stated to be less than 1 mas in the central region.
  • ad hoc to paper The LOO cross-validation reweighting yields unbiased per-instrument astrometric errors
    Section 4.6: the reweighted errors are derived from the joint model itself; the paper checks robustness by refitting with published errors.
  • ad hoc to paper The three 'effectively single' criteria thresholds (a/R > 100, ellipticity < 1%, instellation < 1% of surface flux) define physical isolation
    Section 6.1: approximate criteria applied to classify benchmark stars; used for discussion, not for the mass measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three-dimensional Orbit and Dynamical Masses of GJ 105 AC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3T7VO3KD

@misc{pith2026250508042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three-dimensional Orbit and Dynamical Masses of GJ 105 AC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3T7VO3KD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08042}
}
abstract

The precision of stellar models is higher than the precision at which we are able to measure the masses of most stars, with the notable exception of binaries where we can determine dynamical masses of the component stars. In addition to well-measured stellar properties, the ideal benchmark star is far enough from its companion that its properties are indistinguishable from an otherwise identical single star. Currently, there are a handful of stars with precise ($\pm$3 %), model-independent mass measurements that are "effectively single" and for which we can obtain clean spectra (i.e. spectra that are not blended with a close companion). In this paper, we introduce GJ 105 AC as the newest members of this exclusive population. We present an updated orbital analysis for the long-period K3+M7 binary GJ 105 AC. We jointly analyze radial velocity (RV) and relative astrometry data, including new RVs from the Miniature Exoplanet Radial Velocity Array (MINERVA) that capture the full periapsis passage and the RV minimum of the $76.0 \pm 1.3$ yr orbit for the first time. We derive precise dynamical masses of $M_1 = 0.78 \pm 0.02\, \mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $M_2 = 0.098 \pm 0.002\, \mathrm{M}_\odot$. We find that of all stars with similarly precise masses (~2%), GJ 105 AC stands out as having the widest on-sky separation after $\alpha$ Centauri AB, making it one of the most easily accessible to spectroscopy, as well as the the second-widest true separation, ensuring that its members are truly "effectively single" in terms of their evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The SED model of the GJ 105 ABC system, showing the best fit models for each star in yellow (A), orange (B) and red (C). Blended and differential photometry are used simultaneously with the evolutionary model (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The MIST evolutionary model isochrone (dark blue line) of the GJ 105 ABC system at the best-fit model age of 11 Gyr and initial metallicity of -0.051 dex. The A (yellow), B (orange) and C (red) stars are overplotted on the isochrone. Given the model uncertainties of theoretical stellar evolution, they are not required to fall directly on the isochrone, but constrained with a mass-dependent Gaussian prior that penali… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A visual depiction of the process of taking the per-instrument medians of the RMSD to the 13 LOO models (Eq. 20), as described in §4.6. We run the astrometry-only and joint fits using both the published error bars and our rescaled errors and compare the results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Corner plot showing the posterior distributions of orbital parameters in the joint RV and astrometry model, sampled using the NUTS sampler described in §4.5. The 1D histograms and 2D kernel density contours shown in blue represent the posteriors derived from fitting to…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radial velocity timeseries data, with three different models overplotted: the best-fit joint RV+astrometry model to the data set using the re-weighted values of σ ∗ ρ, the best-fit joint RV+astrometry model to the data set using the published values of σρ, and the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The astrometry timeseries data, with four different models overplotted: the best-fit joint RV+astrometry model 1) to the data set using the re-weighted values of σ ∗ ρ and 2) to the data set using the published values of σρ, as well as the best-fit to the astrometry da…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit 2D orbits of GJ 105 C relative to GJ 105 A. Four models are plotted on each of the four plots: the best-fit joint RV+astrometry model 1) to the data set using the re-weighted values of σ ∗ ρ and 2) to the data set using the published values of σρ, as well as t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of the stellar mass M⋆ vs.semi-major axis divided by the stellar radius (a/R⋆) for the same stars in of the sample of 805 precise-mass stars described in §1. The points in this plot are color-coded to demonstrate how many of these stars are “effectively single”, b…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We plot the total mass Mtot = M1+M2 vs. semi– major axis in of the sample of 401 precise-mass binary/triple systems shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: We plot the ratio between a star’s mass M⋆ and the mass of its companion m vs. semi-major axis di￾vided by the stellar radius (a/R⋆) for the same set of binary stars in of the sample of 805 precise-mass stars. The points are color-coded based on tidal distortion …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lomb-scargle periodogram of GJ 105 A from TESS sectors 70 and 71. The dashed vertical line is at the predicted frequency of p-mode oscillations ν = 4745 µHz. We plot the expected power of signals with 1% and 5% false alarm probability (FAP) in yellow and orange respec…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, e1516

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 370, 2765, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    1991, A&A Rv, 3, 91, doi: 10.1007/BF00873538 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Andersen, J. 1991, A&A Rv, 3, 91, doi: 10.1007/BF00873538 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1007/bf00873538 1991

  4. [4]

    I., Gibson, S., Nield, K., & Cochrane, D

    Barnes, S. I., Gibson, S., Nield, K., & Cochrane, D. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  5. [5]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 844688, doi: 10.1117/12.926527

    doi:10.1117/12.926527

  6. [6]

    2023, pymc-devs/pytensor: rel-2.12.3, rel-2.12.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8049794

    Bastien, F., Lamblin, P., abergeron, et al. 2023, pymc-devs/pytensor: rel-2.12.3, rel-2.12.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8049794

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8049794 2023

  7. [7]

    F., Henry, T

    Benedict, G. F., Henry, T. J., Franz, O. G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 141, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/141

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/141 2016

  8. [8]

    S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al

    Boyajian, T. S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 757, 112, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/112

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/2/112 2012

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2008, Astrophysics Processes: The Physics of Astronomical Phenomena (Cambridge University Press)

    Bradt, H. 2008, Astrophysics Processes: The Physics of Astronomical Phenomena (Cambridge University Press)

    2008

  2. [10]

    M., Gilliland, R

    Brown, T. M., Gilliland, R. L., Noyes, R. W., & Ramsey, L. W. 1991, ApJ, 368, 599, doi: 10.1086/169725

    1991 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Vogt, S

    Butler, R. P., Vogt, S. S., Laughlin, G., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa66ca

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Schofield, M., Kuszlewicz, J

    Campante, T. L., Schofield, M., Kuszlewicz, J. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 138, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/138

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Cegla, H

    Chaplin, W. J., Cegla, H. M., Watson, C. A., Davies, G. R., & Ball, W. H. 2019, AJ, 157, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0c01

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    M., & et al

    Cutri, R. M., & et al. 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2328

    2013

  7. [15]

    B., Henry, T

    Dieterich, S. B., Henry, T. J., Golimowski, D. A., Krist, J. E., & Tanner, A. M. 2012, AJ, 144, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/64

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Agol, E

    Eastman, J., Gaudi, B. S., & Agol, E. 2013, PASP, 125, 83, doi: 10.1086/669497

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Rodriguez, J

    Eastman, J. D., Rodriguez, J. E., Agol, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.09480, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.09480

    2019 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    P., Jones, H

    Feng, F., Butler, R. P., Jones, H. R. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2856, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2225

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Marcy, G

    Fischer, D. A., Marcy, G. W., & Spronck, J. F. P. 2014, ApJS, 210, 5, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/5

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J

    Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J. R. A., & Luger, R. 2019, ApJ, 881, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed2

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2105.01994. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.01994

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Luger, R., Agol, E., et al. 2022, exoplanet: Gradient-based Probabilistic Inference for Exoplanet Data & Other Astronomical Time Series, v0.5.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7191939 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A...

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, AJ, 125, 1530, doi: 10.1086/346143 GJ 105 AC 21

    Gatewood, G., Coban, L., & Han, I. 2003, AJ, 125, 1530, doi: 10.1086/346143 GJ 105 AC 21

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    I., Hearnshaw, J., et al

    Gibson, S., Barnes, S. I., Hearnshaw, J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S

    2012

  18. [26]

    McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 844648, doi: 10.1117/12.925501

    doi

  19. [27]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Henry, T

    Golimowski, D. A., Henry, T. J., Krist, J. E., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 2082, doi: 10.1086/301567

    2000 doi

  21. [29]

    Oppenheimer, B. R. 1995, ApJL, 444, L101, doi: 10.1086/187870

    1995 doi

  22. [30]

    F., Luhn, J., Wright, J

    Gupta, A. F., Luhn, J., Wright, J. T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 254, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac96f3

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    D., & Cantor, B

    Heintz, W. D., & Cantor, B. A. 1994, PASP, 106, 363, doi: 10.1086/133386 He lminiak, K. G., Konacki, M., Maehara, H., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 451, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3528

    1994 doi

  25. [33]

    D., & Gelman, A

    Hoffman, M. D., & Gelman, A. 2011, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1111.4246, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1111.4246

    2011 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    R., Stello, D., et al

    Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 143, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    2022, ApJ, 924, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3421

    Huston, M., & Wright, J. 2022, ApJ, 924, 78, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3421

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Ianna, P. A. 1992, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 32, IAU Colloq. 135: Complementary Approaches to Double and Multiple Star Research, ed. H. A. McAlister & W. I. Hartkopf, 323

    1992

  30. [38]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Kane, S. R. 2014, ApJ, 782, 111, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/111

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    C., & McNeil, R

    Keenan, P. C., & McNeil, R. C. 1989, ApJS, 71, 245, doi: 10.1086/191373

    1989 doi

  33. [41]

    Kjeldsen, H., & Bedding, T. R. 1995, A&A, 293, 87, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9403015

    1995 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    R., Arentoft, T., et al

    Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Arentoft, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1370, doi: 10.1086/589142

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, doi: 10.21105/joss.01143 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS Time Series Analysis in Python, Astrophysics Sour...

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Lippincott, S. L. 1973, AJ, 78, 303, doi: 10.1086/111418

    1973 doi

  37. [45]

    B., & Sweeney, M

    Lucy, L. B., & Sweeney, M. A. 1971, AJ, 76, 544, doi: 10.1086/111159

    1971 doi

  38. [46]

    E., & Ianna, P

    Martin, G. E., & Ianna, P. A. 1975, AJ, 80, 321, doi: 10.1086/111749

    1975 doi

  39. [47]

    D., Wycoff, G

    Mason, B. D., Wycoff, G. L., Hartkopf, W. I., Douglass, G. G., & Worley, C. E. 2001, AJ, 122, 3466, doi: 10.1086/323920 —. 2019, yCat, B/wds

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.04778

    2021 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v1.1.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3715232

    Reback, J., McKinney, W., jbrockmendel, et al. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v1.1.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3715232

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    C., & Mason, B

    Roberts, L. C., & Mason, B. D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 4497, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2559

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 182

    Rodrigo, C., & Solano, E. 2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 182

    2020

  45. [53]

    2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0, IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    Rodrigo, C., Solano, E., & Bayo, A. 2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0, IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    2012 doi

  46. [54]

    R., Duchˆ ene, G., Tom, H., et al

    Rodriguez, D. R., Duchˆ ene, G., Tom, H., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3160, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv483

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    M., & Durlevich, O

    Tsvetkova, T. M., & Durlevich, O. V. 2009, PASP, 121, 1378, doi: 10.1086/649432

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    C., Gomes da Silva, J., Lovis, C., & Melo, C

    Santos, N. C., Gomes da Silva, J., Lovis, C., & Melo, C. 2010, A&A, 511, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913433

    2010 doi

  49. [57]

    R., Campbell, R., et al

    Service, M., Lu, J. R., Campbell, R., et al. 2016, PASP, 128, 095004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/967/095004

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Southworth, J. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 496, Living Together: Planets, Host Stars and Binaries, ed. S. M. Rucinski, G. Torres, & M. Zejda, 164, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1411.1219

    2015 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    J., Bottom, M., Johnson, J

    Swift, J. J., Bottom, M., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 027002, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.2.027002

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    M., Gelino, C

    Tanner, A. M., Gelino, C. R., & Law, N. M. 2010, PASP, 122, 1195, doi: 10.1086/656481 22 Dedrick et al

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D., & van Saders, J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4bbc

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    2018, ApJS, 235, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa1a5

    Tokovinin, A. 2018, ApJS, 235, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa1a5

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    Tokovinin, A. A. 1997, A&AS, 124, 75, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997181

    1997 doi

  57. [65]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Gim´ enez, A. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    P., & Latham, D

    Torres, G., Stefanik, R. P., & Latham, D. W. 2024a, ApJ, 960, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad09db

    doi

  59. [67]

    H., Stefanik, R

    Torres, G., Schaefer, G. H., Stefanik, R. P., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01674, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01674

    doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    A., Eggleton, P

    Tout, C. A., Eggleton, P. P., Fabian, A. C., & Pringle, J. E. 1989, MNRAS, 238, 427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/238.2.427

    1989 doi

  61. [69]

    W., & Wright, J

    Tuchow, N. W., & Wright, J. T. 2020, ApJ, 905, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc556 van Belle, G. T., & von Braun, K. 2009, ApJ, 694, 1085, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/694/2/1085 van Maanen, A. 1938, ApJ, 88, 27, doi: 10.1086/143957

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, NatMe, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    2023, pymc-devs/pymc:, v5.10.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10205573

    Wiecki, T., Salvatier, J., Vieira, R., et al. 2023, pymc-devs/pymc:, v5.10.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10205573

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Eastman, J

    Wilson, M. L., Eastman, J. D., Cornachione, M. A., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 115001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab33c5

    2019 doi

  65. [73]

    T., Marcy, G

    Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 533, doi: 10.1086/510553

    2007 doi

  66. [74]

    2017, ApJS, 232, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa80e4

    Xiang, M., Liu, X., Shi, J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa80e4

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    R., Ghez, A

    Yelda, S., Lu, J. R., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 331, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/331

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.