Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 81 references

gr8stars I: A homogeneous spectroscopic study of bright FGKM dwarfs and a public library of their high-resolution spectra

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The gr8stars catalogue delivers homogeneously derived spectroscopic parameters for 1,716 bright FGKM dwarfs, with median uncertainties of 106 K in effective temperature, 0.08 dex in surface gravity, and 0.03 dex in metallicity, publicly…

desk verdict A genuinely useful public catalogue, but the abstract's median uncertainties contradict the paper's own stated accuracy floors; fix that before citing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12945 v1 pith:CNISIW3R submitted 2025-05-19 astro-ph.SR

Alix Violet Freckelton , Annelies Mortier , Megan Bedell , Sam Morrell , Tim Naylor , Lars A. Buchhave , Guy R. Davies , J.I. González Hernández
show 10 more authors
Baptiste Klein Ernst J.W. de Mooij Vera Maria Passegger Andreas Quirrenbach Arpita Roy Nuno C. Santos Sérgio G.Sousa A. Suárez Mascareño Maria Tsantaki Lily L. Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarparametersFGKMdwarfshigh-resolutionspectroscopyequivalentwidthmethodspectralsynthesisenergydistributionfittingextreme-precisionradialvelocityGaiaDR3
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 introduces gr8stars, an all-sky magnitude-limited catalogue of 5,645 bright FGKM dwarfs, and presents homogeneously derived spectroscopic parameters for the 1,716 northern-hemisphere targets with spectra. The authors claim that reprocessing archival and new high-resolution spectra from six instruments through a single pipeline yields effective temperatures, surface gravities, and metallicities accurate to 106 K, 0.08 dex, and 0.03 dex, suitable for selecting targets for extreme-precision radial-velocity searches. They support the homogeneity claim with 20 stars observed by two instruments, whose derived temperatures and metallicities agree to within uncertainties, and with a comparison against the PASTEL compilation. If the catalogue is as uniform as claimed, it provides the exoplanet and stellar communities a public, ready-made foundation for planet-host statistics, stellar characterisation, and EPRV target selection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the PAWS pipeline, which wraps iSpec and the ATLAS9 model grid into a two-stage parameter derivation: first a curve-of-growth equivalent-width analysis with the WIDTH radiative transfer code, then a spectral synthesis refinement with the SPECTRUM code. The same chain is applied to every star and every instrument, which is what converts 36,019 spectra into a single set of comparable parameters. Accuracy floors—100 K added in quadrature to temperature uncertainties and 0.04 and 0.1 dex to metallicity and surface gravity, respectively—are intended to absorb model systematics rather than instrument systematics.

What would settle it

Take a larger random subset of the catalogue stars, observe them with two or more of the six spectrographs, and recompute the cross-instrument differences in effective temperature and metallicity. If the new comparison shows an instrument-dependent bias larger than the quoted median uncertainties—beyond the 78 K and 0.05 dex means seen in the 20-star test—the homogeneity claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a public catalogue rather than a new physical effect: across 1,716 bright FGK and M dwarfs observed with FEROS, FIES, HARPS, HERMES, SOPHIE, and UVES, a single homogeneous reduction and analysis chain produces stellar parameters that agree across instruments to within the quoted uncertainties. Spectroscopic effective temperature, surface gravity, metallicity, microturbulence, macroturbulence, and projected rotation are derived in two stages: first equivalent widths of Fe I and Fe II lines enforce excitation and ionisation balance, then spectral synthesis over 480–680 nm refines the parameters, both using ATLAS9 model atmospheres. An independent spectral energy distribution fit to Gaia, 2MASS, and WISE photometry supplies a second, orthogonal temperature and a radius. The catalogue also includes uniformly formatted S1D and S2D spectra and kinematic classifications into thin disk, thick disk, and halo.

Load-bearing premise

The catalogue's homogeneity rests on the assumption that combining spectra from six instruments, each reduced by its own pipeline, introduces no significant systematic offsets—a premise tested on only 20 of the 1,716 stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the brighter subsample with G < 7.5, the catalogue is 986 of 1,418 targets, roughly 70% complete, giving EPRV surveys a pre-characterised pool of bright, single stars from which to choose targets.
  • All spectra share a uniform naming, format, and header scheme, so users can run their own analyses on S1D or order-by-order S2D files without re-normalising or re-binning.
  • The combination of homogeneous parameters and kinematic flags lets planet-formation studies separate exoplanet hosts by metallicity and Galactic component; the paper reports 147 confirmed planet hosts and a clear preference for metal-rich hosts.
  • The kinematic analysis classifies 96.86% of the northern sample as thin disk stars, 3.03% as thick disk, and 0.11% as halo, providing a clean stellar-population context for the catalogue.
  • An overlap of 137 of 164 proposed target stars for the Habitable Worlds Observatory is already present in gr8stars, meaning the catalogue covers many prime stars for future Earth-twin searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the homogeneity holds over the full sample, the 1,716-star parameters can be combined with Gaia parallaxes and the SED radii to produce a uniformly calibrated mass–radius–age ladder for bright dwarfs, a step beyond what the paper itself tabulates.
  • The identical PAWS chain could be applied to the 2,788 southern targets once spectra from the planned 2ES instrument arrive, making the all-sky half of the catalogue directly comparable without a new calibration step.
  • The 20-star cross-instrument check could be promoted into a permanent quality-control monitor: as new spectra are ingested, recompute per-instrument residuals and flag any spectrograph that drifts relative to the others, turning a one-time validation into a living diagnostic.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper introduces the gr8stars catalogue, a magnitude-limited, all-sky sample of 5645 bright FGKM dwarfs, and presents homogeneously derived spectroscopic parameters for 1716 Northern-hemisphere targets observed with six high-resolution spectrographs. Stellar parameters are derived with the PAWS pipeline using both equivalent-width and spectral-synthesis methods, supplemented by SED-based temperatures and radii, and by a kinematic classification into Galactic components. The paper claims median spectroscopic uncertainties of 106 K in Teff, 0.08 dex in log g, and 0.03 dex in [Fe/H], validates the parameters against the PASTEL catalogue (RMS 101 K and 0.11 dex), and reports a 20-target multi-instrument comparison in support of cross-instrument homogeneity. The catalogue and uniformly formatted spectra are presented as a public resource for EPRV target selection and related stellar and exoplanet science.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the gr8stars catalogue is a valuable community resource: it combines a large, bright FGKM sample with a single analysis pipeline, external validation against PASTEL, multi-instrument overlap checks, and public data products. The explicit release of parameters and spectra, and the demonstrated interest for upcoming EPRV surveys such as the Terra Hunting Experiment, give the paper practical impact. The validation strategy is broadly sound in its use of external benchmarks, but the numerical consistency of the headline uncertainties and the statistical strength of the homogeneity test are the key points that need to be resolved before the catalogue can be used as advertised.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1 and Abstract] The quoted median uncertainties in the abstract (0.08 dex in log g and 0.03 dex in [Fe/H]) are inconsistent with the accuracy floors described in Section 4.1. The text states that model-accuracy uncertainties of 0.1 dex in log g and 0.04 dex in [Fe/H] are added in quadrature to the formal precision uncertainties; a final uncertainty obtained in this way cannot be smaller than the floor itself. Since the reported Teff median of 106 K is consistent with the 100 K floor, the issue is specific to the two parameters whose floors are violated. Please state clearly whether the quoted catalogue uncertainties include the accuracy floors. If they do, the median values must be revised upward; if they do not, the paper must say explicitly that the headline values are precision-only and should additionally report the total uncertainties that include the floors. As written, the central precision claim is not internally consistent.
  2. [Section 5.1.1, Figure 6] The homogeneity claim rests on a comparison of only 20 randomly selected targets with multi-instrument spectra. Table 1 shows far larger overlap samples available within the catalogue, such as 161 targets observed with both HARPS and SOPHIE, so the test can be made much more stringent without new observations. Moreover, the reported mean cross-instrument differences (78 K in Teff and 0.05 dex in [Fe/H]) are comparable to, or larger than, the quoted median uncertainties of the catalogue, and no cross-instrument comparison is shown for log g. The current evidence is therefore insufficient to support the claim that combining six instruments and their independent reduction pipelines introduces no sample-wide systematic offsets for the full 1716-target catalogue.
  3. [Section 5.1.2, Figure 10] The PASTEL comparison gives an RMS difference of 0.11 dex in [Fe/H], which is more than three times the quoted median uncertainty of 0.03 dex. The text says this 'matches with our median error', but this is not obviously true unless the PASTEL comparison uncertainties are much larger than the catalogue uncertainties, or unless the quoted median is precision-only. This discrepancy directly affects any user who interprets 0.03 dex as the realistic external uncertainty of the catalogue. Please quantify the comparison more carefully, for example by reporting the RMS in bins of Teff and SNR, and state whether the external scatter is consistent with the final reported uncertainties once the accuracy floors are included.
  4. [Section 5.1.1, SED fitting discussion] The paper acknowledges that the SED fitting uses only solar-metallicity atmosphere models and that the resulting systematic is expected to lie below the statistical uncertainties only for -0.25 < [Fe/H] < 0.25, a range that covers 70% of the spectroscopic sample. No quantitative estimate is given for the remaining 30% of the sample, so the photometric Teff and radius measurements for the most metal-poor stars are not validated. Since the photometric parameters are part of the delivered catalogue, this limitation should either be quantified or explicitly flagged in the data release.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'Spectrosocpic' in the abstract is a typo and should read 'Spectroscopic'.
  2. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgements contain an unrelated sentence beginning 'the update to pyaneti to do model comparison...' which appears to be a leftover from another document and should be removed before publication.
  3. [Appendix C, Table C1] There are small typographical errors in Table C1: 'Eclisping Binary' should be 'Eclipsing Binary' and 'Chemically Perculiar Star' should be 'Chemically Peculiar Star'.
  4. [References] The paper relies on 'Morrell et al. (subm)' for a quantitative statement about SED-fitting systematics; if this work is still unpublished, the relevant result should be summarized in the present paper so that the claim can be checked independently.
  5. [Section 3.7] The description of the S1D spectral format would benefit from an explicit statement of the resampling step used for non-uniformly sampled input spectra, since this affects the delivered flux values and wavelength grids.
  6. [Section 5.1.1] The sentence describing inverse-variance weighting of multi-instrument results should specify whether the uncertainty floors of Section 4.1 are applied before or after the weighted combination, since this affects the final quoted uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the parameter measurements are externally benchmarked, though the abstract's median uncertainties conflict with the stated accuracy floors.

full rationale

The spectroscopic parameters are derived from the spectra themselves via PAWS, using equivalent-width excitation/ionization balance and spectral synthesis, and are then validated against the PASTEL catalogue and against multi-instrument comparisons for 20 overlapping targets. The SED-based temperatures and radii come from an independent input set (broadband photometry plus parallaxes), and the kinematic classification uses Gaia astrometry and radial velocities. The citation of Freckelton et al. (2024) for PAWS is a same-group method reference, but it is not load-bearing in the sense of substituting for measurement: the catalogue's values are externally checkable and are in fact checked against PASTEL in Section 5.1.2. The systematic floors quoted in Section 4.1 are adopted from prior published work (Freckelton et al. 2024; Sousa et al. 2011) rather than fitted to the presented results, so the uncertainty treatment is not circular by construction. I find no claim in the paper that reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its inputs. One non-circular but serious internal inconsistency should be recorded: Section 4.1 states that accuracy floors of 0.04 dex in [Fe/H] and 0.1 dex in log g are added in quadrature, while the abstract reports median uncertainties of 0.03 dex and 0.08 dex respectively, which are below those floors. Either the abstract values exclude the systematic floors or the floors were not applied to the delivered catalogue; both readings are inconsistent with the paper's own description and affect the headline precision claim. This is a correctness problem, not a circularity problem, and it does not change the low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the accuracy of external model grids, adopted uncertainty floors, and the assumption that a 20-target comparison establishes cross-instrument homogeneity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Spectroscopic Teff systematic floor = 100 K
    Added in quadrature to statistical uncertainties, following Freckelton et al. (2024); sets the quoted median Teff uncertainty.
  • Spectroscopic [Fe/H] systematic floor = 0.04 dex
    Added in quadrature following Sousa et al. (2011); used in the quoted metallicity uncertainties.
  • Spectroscopic log g systematic floor = 0.1 dex
    Added in quadrature following Sousa et al. (2011); used in the quoted gravity uncertainties.
  • SED photometric uncertainty floor = 0.01 mag
    Adopted floor per photometric band in the SED fit to avoid Gaia systematics (Section 4.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry are accurate and extinction is small for the sample.
    Used to define absolute magnitudes, colours, parallax-corrected magnitudes, and distances; Section 2.
  • domain assumption Dartmouth isochrones correctly separate dwarfs from giants and subgiants in target selection.
    Isochrone and mass-track cuts remove evolved stars; Section 2, Figure 2.
  • domain assumption ATLAS9 model atmospheres and the SPECTRUM line list are valid for the FGKM parameter range.
    Basis of the PAWS spectral synthesis and EW methods; Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption BT-SETTL CIFIST model grid with solar metallicity is adequate for SED fitting for -0.25 < [Fe/H] < 0.25.
    Authors state systematics may exceed statistical uncertainties outside this range; Section 5.1.1.
  • domain assumption Vergely et al. (2022) dust maps and the Fitzpatrick extinction law give negligible reddening corrections.
    Section 4.2; errors in E(44-55) are stated to be < 0.001 mag within 100 pc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of gr8stars I: A homogeneous spectroscopic study of bright FGKM dwarfs and a public library of their high-resolution spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNISIW3R

@misc{pith2026250512945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: gr8stars I: A homogeneous spectroscopic study of bright FGKM dwarfs and a public library of their high-resolution spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNISIW3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12945}
}
read the original abstract

As the fields of stellar and exoplanetary study grow and revolutionary new detection instruments are created, it is imperative that a homogeneous, precise source of stellar parameters is available. This first work of the gr8stars collaboration presents the all-sky magnitude limited sample of 5645 bright FGKM dwarfs, along with homogeneously derived spectroscopic parameters of a subset of 1716 targets visible from the Northern hemisphere. We have collected high-resolution archival and new spectra from several instruments. Spectrosocpic parameters are determined using the PAWS pipeline, employing both the curve-of-growth equivalent width method, and the spectral synthesis method. We achieve median uncertainties of 106K in stellar effective temperature, 0.08 dex in surface gravity, and 0.03 dex in metallicity. This paper also presents photometric stellar parameters for these dwarfs, determined using SED fitting. The full gr8stars sample selection, including derived spectroscopic and photometric parameters, is made available through an interactive online database. We also perform a kinematic analysis to classify these stars according to their Galactic component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histogram of apparent G magnitudes for the gr8stars targets of the minimum Gaia BP−RP colour ≥ 0.6, where the lack of lower limit allows for the inclusion of bright M dwarfs. Evolved stars were removed from the sample by the use of isochrones [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The isochronal and mass track cuts used in the target selection. The 13 Gyr, metal rich ([Fe/H] = 0.5) isochrone, and the metal poor ([Fe/H] = -0.5), 1.05 Solar Mass (M⊙) mass-track used in selection are shown in green and blue, respectively. Targets meeting these two cuts are shown in purple, with targets not selected shown in light pink [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A histogram representing the number of targets belonging to each SIMBAD object type within the gr8stars catalogue. Table C1 contains definitions for the SIMBAD object types. The spectra were all processed by the SOPHIE DRS (Bouchy et al. 2009). 3.6 UVES Archival spectra for 42 gr8stars targets were obtained from the UVES (Ultraviolet and Visual Echelle Spectrograph) spectrograph (Dekker et al. 2000) on the VLT Kueye… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Colour-magnitude diagram of the gr8stars targets, with stars found to be hottest in this work as the darkest points, and those found to be the coolest as the lightest points. 4.3 Galactic Velocities We determined the galactic velocities – U,V,W – in order to classify t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: [Fe/H] vs 𝑇eff, both derived in this work, for 20 randomly selected targets in the gr8stars catalogue. All 20 targets have spectra available form two different instruments, wherein which results for the same target from separate instruments are plotted in the same colo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our sample with the 𝑇SED and 𝑅★ derived from SED fitting along with their uncertainties. The colour of each point indicates its spectroscop￾ically determined metallicity. To avoid comparing objects whose observed flux may vary, we omitted objects flagged as double or m…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The residuals between the 𝑇SED and 𝑇sp, plotted as a function of 𝑇sp. The distribution of these residuals, overlaid with a Gaussian fit, are shown in the right hand pane. We omitted from this plot the same targets as specified in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of spectroscopic effective temperatures (a) and metallicities (b) derived in this work to those from the PASTEL catalogue (Soubiran et al. 2016). The differences between results from this work and those from the PASTEL catalogue are shown in the subplots be…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The Toomre diagram of the northern-observable gr8stars sam￾ple, with circles representing thin disk stars, triangles representing thick disk stars, and stars representing halo stars. The respective membership groups have individual colour scales representing the proba…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of metallicities derived from this work spectroscopi￾cally in each galactic component group, plotted as a stacked histogram in log scale. lar parameters will additionally be uploaded to Vizier CDS. Spectra are available upon request to the authors. REFERE…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adibekyan V., et al., 2021, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abg8794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Sci...374..330A 374, 330

    doi:10.1126/science.abg8794 2021

  2. [2]

    C., Wildi F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..39A 669, A39

    Al Moulla K., Dumusque X., Figueira P., Lo Curto G., Santos N. C., Wildi F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244663 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..39A 669, A39

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244663 2023

  3. [3]

    Allard F., Homeier D., Freytag B., 2012, @doi [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A] 10.1098/rsta.2011.0269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RSPTA.370.2765A 370, 2765

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  5. [5]

    Ballester P., Modigliani A., Boitquin O., Cristiani S., Hanuschik R., Kaufer A., Wolf S., 2000, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Msngr.101...31B 101, 31

    2000

  6. [6]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz549 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2075B 486, 2075

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  7. [7]

    Blanco-Cuaresma S., Soubiran C., Heiter U., Jofr \'e P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...569A.111B 569, A111

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

  8. [8]

    E., Nelan E

    Bond H. E., Nelan E. P., VandenBerg D. A., Schaefer G. H., Harmer D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/L12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...765L..12B 765, L12

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/765/1/l12 2013

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Bouchy F., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...505..853B 505, 853

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.486..375B 486, 375

    Buchhave L. A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature11121 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Natur.486..375B 486, 375

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.509..593B 509, 593

    Buchhave L. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature13254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.509..593B 509, 593

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2107.14291

    Crass J., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2107.14291 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210714291C p. arXiv:2107.14291

    2021 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..17C 545, A17

    Creevey O. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...545A..17C 545, A17

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..26C 575, A26

    Creevey O. L., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...575A..26C 575, A26

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Andrews S

    Czekala I., Mandel K. S., Andrews S. M., Dittmann J. A., Ghosh S. K., Montet B. T., Newton E. R., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aab , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...840...49C 840, 49

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01600.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.298..387D 298, 387

    Dehnen W., Binney J. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01600.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.298..387D 298, 387

    1998

  9. [17]

    F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Dekker H., D'Odorico S., Kaufer A., Delabre B., Kotzlowski H., 2000, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detectors. pp 534--545, @doi 10.1117/12.395512

    2000 doi

  10. [18]

    P., Ryan S

    Deliyannis C. P., Ryan S. G., Beers T. C., Thorburn J. A., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/187301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...425L..21D 425, L21

    1994 doi

  11. [19]

    W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178...89D 178, 89

    Dotter A., Chaboyer B., Jevremovi \'c D., Kostov V., Baron E., Ferguson J. W., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/589654 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJS..178...89D 178, 89

    2008 doi

  12. [20]

    European Southern Observatory 2013, ESO-MIDAS: General tools for image processing and data reduction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1302.017 ( @eprint ascl 1302.017 )

    2013

  13. [21]

    Fabricius C., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039834 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...5F 649, A5

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Valenti J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622.1102F 622, 1102

    Fischer D. A., Valenti J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428383 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...622.1102F 622, 1102

    2005 doi

  15. [23]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/964/066001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128f6001F 128, 066001

    Fischer D. A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/964/066001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128f6001F 128, 066001

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Massa D., Gordon K

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., Gordon K. D., Bohlin R., Clayton G. C., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c3a , 886, 108

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4085F 531, 4085

    Freckelton A. V., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.4085F 531, 4085

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [AAP] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

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

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Katsova M

    Gershberg R. E., Katsova M. M., Lovkaya M. N., Terebizh A. V., Shakhovskaya N. I., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..139..555G 139, 555

    1999 doi

  22. [30]

    O., Corbally C

    Gray R. O., Corbally C. J., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994AJ....107..742G 107, 742

    1994 doi

  23. [31]

    F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd79e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..130G 161, 130

    Gupta A. F., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd79e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..130G 161, 130

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad89bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169....1G 169, 1

    Gupta A. F., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad89bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169....1G 169, 1

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    D., Thompson S

    Hall R. D., Thompson S. J., Handley W., Queloz D., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2968H 479, 2968

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Corsini E

    Haywood M., 2001, in Funes J. G., Corsini E. M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 230, Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies. pp 15--16

    2001

  27. [35]

    Hojjatpanah S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834729 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...629A..80H 629, A80

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Jofr \'e P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322440 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.133J 564, A133

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Johnson D. R. H., Soderblom D. R., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114370 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987AJ.....93..864J 93, 864

    1987 doi

  30. [38]

    Kaufer A., Stahl O., Tubbesing S., N rregaard P., Avila G., Francois P., Pasquini L., Pizzella A., 1999, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Msngr..95....8K 95, 8

    1999

  31. [39]

    R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PASP..109..776K 109, 776

    King J. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133943 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PASP..109..776K 109, 776

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    L., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MSAIS...8...14K 8, 14

    Kurucz R. L., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MSAIS...8...14K 8, 14

    2005

  33. [41]

    Lovis C., Pepe F., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20077249 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...468.1115L 468, 1115

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    arXiv:2402.12414

    Mamajek E., Stapelfeldt K., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240212414M p. arXiv:2402.12414

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mayor M., et al., 2003, The Messenger, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Msngr.114...20M 114, 20

    2003

  36. [44]

    McWilliam A., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.503 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ARA&A..35..503M 35, 503

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    Mel \'e ndez J., Barbuy B., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200811508 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...497..611M 497, 611

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Borgniet S., Rieutord M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...583A.118M 583, A118

    Meunier N., Lagrange A. M., Borgniet S., Rieutord M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...583A.118M 583, A118

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Morrell S., Naylor T., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2242 , 489, 2615

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Morrell S., Naylor T., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa926 , 498, 5048

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    K., subm, Using Stellar Spectral Energy Distributions to Measure Exoplanet Parameters

    Morrell S., Naylor T., Southworth J., Sing D. K., subm, Using Stellar Spectral Energy Distributions to Measure Exoplanet Parameters

  42. [50]

    C., Sozzetti A., Mayor M., Latham D., Bonfils X., Udry S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..45M 543, A45

    Mortier A., Santos N. C., Sozzetti A., Mayor M., Latham D., Bonfils X., Udry S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118651 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A..45M 543, A45

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    C., Sousa S

    Mortier A., Santos N. C., Sousa S. G., Adibekyan V. Z., Delgado Mena E., Tsantaki M., Israelian G., Mayor M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...557A..70M 557, A70

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, @doi 10.17226/26141

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2023, Pathways to Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 2020s. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, @doi 10.17226/26141

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    S., Casali M

    Perruchot S., et al., 2008, in McLean I. S., Casali M. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II. p. 70140J, @doi 10.1117/12.787379

    2008 doi

  46. [54]

    Ralchenko Y., 2005, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MSAIS...8...96R 8, 96

    2005

  47. [55]

    Raskin G., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A..69R 526, A69

    2011 doi

  48. [56]

    Rauer H., et al., 2014, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ExA....38..249R 38, 249

    2014 doi

  49. [57]

    L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..108R 818, 108

    Rawls M. L., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..108R 818, 108

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    E., Lambert D

    Reddy B. E., Lambert D. L., Allende Prieto C., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10148.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367.1329R 367, 1329

    2006

  51. [59]

    Riello M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...3R 649, A3

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Robertson P., Mahadevan S., Endl M., Roy A., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1253253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...345..440R 345, 440

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    Sairam L., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3136 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.2261S 527, 2261

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    C., Israelian G., Mayor M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...415.1153S 415, 1153

    Santos N. C., Israelian G., Mayor M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...415.1153S 415, 1153

    2004 doi

  55. [63]

    C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..94S 608, A94

    Santos N. C., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...608A..94S 608, A94

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    L., 2004, @doi [Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MSAIS...5...93S 5, 93

    Sbordone L., Bonifacio P., Castelli F., Kurucz R. L., 2004, @doi [Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0406268 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MSAIS...5...93S 5, 93

    2004 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    M., Barbuy B., Spite M., Spite F., Korotin S

    Siqueira-Mello C., Andrievsky S. M., Barbuy B., Spite M., Spite F., Korotin S. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...584A..86S 584, A86

    2015 doi

  58. [66]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/498708 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  59. [67]

    Soubiran C., Le Campion J.-F., Brouillet N., Chemin L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628497 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...591A.118S 591, A118

    2016 doi

  60. [68]

    G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...487..373S 487, 373

    Sousa S. G., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200809698 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...487..373S 487, 373

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    G., Santos N

    Sousa S. G., Santos N. C., Israelian G., Lovis C., Mayor M., Silva P. B., Udry S., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...526A..99S 526, A99

    2011 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Motohara K., Vernet J

    St \"u rmer J., et al., 2024, in Bryant J. J., Motohara K., Vernet J. R. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 13096, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X. p. 130968E, @doi 10.1117/12.3019107

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    I., Esposito M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4772S 468, 4772

    Su \'a rez Mascare \ n o A., Rebolo R., Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J. I., Esposito M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx771 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.468.4772S 468, 4772

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    H., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201312007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AN....335...41T 335, 41

    Telting J. H., et al., 2014, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201312007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AN....335...41T 335, 41

    2014 doi

  65. [73]

    J., et al., 2016, in Evans C

    Thompson S. J., et al., 2016, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI. p. 99086F ( @eprint arXiv 1608.04611 ), @doi 10.1117/12.2232111

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    G., Pancino E., Martins J

    Tsantaki M., Delgado-Mena E., Bossini D., Sousa S. G., Pancino E., Martins J. H. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244374 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A.157T 674, A157

    2023 doi

  67. [75]

    C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..397U 45, 397

    Udry S., Santos N. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110529 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ARA&A..45..397U 45, 397

    2007 arXiv

  68. [76]

    A., Bond H

    VandenBerg D. A., Bond H. E., Nelan E. P., Nissen P. E., Schaefer G. H., Harmer D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/2/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...792..110V 792, 110

    2014 doi

  69. [77]

    L., Lallement R., Cox N

    Vergely J. L., Lallement R., Cox N. L. J., 2022, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243319 , 664, A174

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    Wenger M., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&AS..143....9W 143, 9

    2000 doi

  71. [79]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  72. [80]

    Zicher N., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.3060Z 512, 3060

    2022 doi

  73. [81]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

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