Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

10,000 Resolved Triples from Gaia: Empirical Constraints on Triple Star Populations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A Gaia catalog of ~10,000 resolved triple stars now maps how the triple fraction rises with primary mass, from about 5% near 0.5 solar masses to about 35% at 2 solar masses.

desk verdict Strong catalog paper; the completeness-corrected triple fractions need a sensitivity study before you quote the 5% to 35% numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16513 v2 pith:UPF3R33A submitted 2025-06-19 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Cheyanne Shariat , Kareem El-Badry , Smadar Naoz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords triplestarsGaiaastrometrystellarmultiplicityfractiontwinexcesshierarchicaltriplespopulationsynthesissolarneighborhood
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 establishes the first large, well-characterized census of resolved triple star systems in the solar neighborhood, using Gaia astrometry to find about 9,800 systems within 500 pc with high expected purity. The authors argue that these triples are overwhelmingly hierarchical and dynamically stable, and that their intrinsic demographics can be recovered from the observed sample through a modeled selection function. The central results are that inner binaries inside triples look statistically like isolated wide binaries—including a pronounced excess of equal-mass 'twin' pairs out to separations beyond 1000 au—while tertiaries are systematically lower-mass companions following a power-law mass ratio with slope about -1.4. If these claims hold, triple star formation is not a rare side branch but a common outcome that scales steeply with primary mass, and population synthesis of stellar multiples can be anchored to an empirical prescription rather than to guesses.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the resolved-sample construction plus its completeness model. Triples are assembled by a graph search over Gaia pairs that share consistent parallax and proper motion, with a KDE-based chance-alignment statistic $R_{\rm triple}$ assigned to each system; then a synthetic triple population is generated from proposed intrinsic distributions, passed through Gaia's resolution and detection limits, and compared to the observed sample to select the underlying period, mass-ratio, and eccentricity laws and to correct observed fractions for incompleteness.

What would settle it

A volume-complete census of multiplicity within 100 pc that can detect tight inner binaries, for example through radial-velocity monitoring of every M and K dwarf, would settle the claim: if the intrinsic triple fraction as a function of primary mass does not rise from about 5% at $0.5\,M_\odot$ to about 35% at $2\,M_\odot$, the completeness correction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, after applying a stringent chance-alignment filter, Gaia data across a 500 pc volume yield 9,767 resolved hierarchical triples whose selection biases are understood well enough to infer intrinsic population statistics. Its central quantitative claims are: the intrinsic triple fraction rises monotonically with primary mass, from about 5% at $M_1 \lesssim 0.5\,M_\odot$ to about 35% at $2\,M_\odot$; inner binary orbital periods, eccentricities, and mass ratios match those of isolated binaries, including a twin excess at $q > 0.95$ out to separations of 1000+ au; tertiary mass ratios follow a power law $dN/dq \propto q^{-1.4}$; and outer orbits are consistent with a log-normal period distribution and thermal eccentricities, subject to dynamical stability. The paper also reports that mutual inclinations are isotropic for wide triples but show modest alignment for more compact systems, and that the observed fraction of triples that appear unstable in projection is reproduced by projection effects acting on an intrinsically stable hierarchical population.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness corrections used to back out intrinsic triple fractions assume that the intrinsic period and mass-ratio distributions inferred from the resolved sample are correct; if those distributions are wrong, the corrected triple fractions and outer-orbit demographics shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Triple inner binaries and isolated wide binaries likely share a common formation pathway, since both show the same twin excess and mass-ratio distributions at matched separations and distances.
  • Population synthesis of stellar multiples can sample tertiaries from a log-normal period distribution and thermal eccentricities with dynamical-stability rejection, and reproduce observed resolved triples without invoking a separate triple-specific period law.
  • Most triples that appear unstable in projection are actually hierarchical and stable; the simpler stability criterion $P_{\rm out}/P_{\rm in} > 5$ is inconsistent with the data.
  • The triple fraction rises with primary mass, so multiplicity statistics of stellar populations must be treated as mass-dependent rather than as a single number.
  • The public catalog, together with the sampling prescription, provides a testbed for models of triple dynamics and evolution, including exoplanet-hosting triples and white-dwarf triples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if triple inner binaries show the same wide-separation twin excess as isolated binaries, then the leading explanation of the binary twin excess—early close formation followed by dynamical widening by an interloper—must either operate before the tertiary is added or selectively preserve triples; otherwise the widening encounter would usually unbind the terti
  • The finding that tertiaries follow a steeper mass-ratio distribution than isolated binaries suggests formation channels that favor low-mass companions, such as turbulent fragmentation or dynamical capture. A testable extension is to check whether the tertiary mass-ratio slope varies with galactic environment or stellar age.
  • The catalog's cross-match with eclipsing-binary and non-single-star catalogs yields several hundred systems of multiplicity four and five. Comparing their frequency to random pairing in the field would test whether triples preferentially host close inner subsystems, a signature expected from Kozai-Lidov-driven orbital shrinking.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a catalog of 9,767 resolved triple star systems within 500 pc from Gaia DR3, using parallax, proper-motion, and chance-alignment cuts adapted from wide-binary catalogs, and it validates the R_triple statistic against shifted-catalog chance alignments. It characterizes the sample (separations, masses, CMD types, mutual-inclination proxy), compares inner binaries of triples to matched wide binaries (including a twin excess out to ~1000 au), and builds a generative model for triple masses, periods, and eccentricities. The model is then used to estimate catalog completeness and to derive a mass-dependent intrinsic triple fraction rising from ~5% at 0.5 Msun to ~35% at 2 Msun. A public catalog and sampling prescription are provided.

Significance. If the demographic claims hold, this is the largest homogeneous resolved-triple sample to date and a valuable community resource. The strengths are substantial: the chance-alignment statistic is validated against shifted catalogs, cluster contamination is explicitly addressed, the wide-binary control sample is matched in separation and distance, and the catalog and mock-population code are made public. The catalog-based results — separation distributions, twin excess, stellar-type diversity, and the existence of many new resolved triples — are robust and interesting. However, the absolute demographic conclusions, especially the mass-dependent triple fraction in Figure 10, rest on completeness corrections computed from a model calibrated on the same sample, and the mock selection does not fully reproduce the observed filtering. These issues are fixable with sensitivity tests and a more complete mock selection, but they currently limit the strength of the 'intrinsic triple fraction' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.6, Figure 10] The corrected triple fraction is not a direct observable: it is obtained by dividing the observed wide-triple fraction by a completeness fraction computed from the model of Section 4.4, and Section 4.5 states that this completeness is most sensitive to the adopted tertiary period distribution. That period distribution is adopted in Section 4.2 from field-binary log-normals after a qualitative comparison in Figure 7, i.e., it is calibrated on the same resolved sample that it is then used to correct. The reported 5%-to-35% mass trend should be accompanied by a sensitivity test in which completeness is recomputed for the log-uniform outer-period model and for log-normal models with shifted means or widths. If the corrected fractions change by more than the quoted Poisson errors, the central demographic claim needs to be softened accordingly.
  2. [Appendix C, Section 2, Eq. (3), Appendix F] The mock-observed sample used for completeness includes the resolvability/contrast curve and the G<20.5 cut, but it does not appear to apply the proper-motion consistency cut of Eq. (3) or the R_triple<0.1 chance-alignment cut, while the observed sample is filtered by both. The paper explicitly notes that the PM cut biases against compact inner binaries (Section 2), and Appendix F shows that the chance-alignment filter removes real wide systems at s > 30,000 au. Omitting these effects from the mock therefore likely overestimates the completeness fraction and biases the corrected triple fractions in Figure 10. The authors should either include these cuts in the mock or quantify their effect on the final completeness corrections.
  3. [Sections 4.1-4.3, 4.6] The intrinsic model used for completeness also adopts the qout power-law slope gamma = -1.4, thermal outer eccentricities, and the Moe & Di Stefano (2017) inner-binary distributions because those choices reproduce the observed resolved sample. This is not by itself an error, but it means Figures 6-8 and the resulting completeness corrections are consistency tests rather than independent constraints. An explicit out-of-sample validation — for example, fitting the model to the 500 pc sample and predicting the 100 pc sample, or comparing completeness predictions against an independently selected volume-limited sample — would substantially strengthen the demographic claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 4] The text states that the twin excess is present out to theta ~ 5 arcsec, while Figure 4 and its caption state theta ~ 4 arcsec; these should be harmonized.
  2. [Conclusions, item 5] The outer binary mass ratio is written as 'qin = M3/(M1+M2)'; this should be qout, since qin is defined elsewhere as M2/M1.
  3. [Appendix I] The sentence 'the cut on proper motion difference (Equation 2 and 2 removes...' should refer to Equations (2) and (3), and the sentence would be clearer if it explained how the proper-motion cut biases the NSS matches.
  4. [Section 2.1, Appendix A] The notation 'R chance align' is used inconsistently in the text ('R', 'Rtriple', and 'R chance align'); a single symbol for the triple-level statistic would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the demographic constraints are empirical fits to the data, and the completeness correction is model-dependent but checked against independent surveys.

full rationale

I find no circular step that reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction. The catalog is constructed directly from Gaia astrometry with a chance-alignment statistic (R) that the paper validates against shifted-catalog realizations (Appendix A), so the sample itself is not circularly defined. The qout slope of -1.4, the log-normal outer-period distribution, and the thermal outer eccentricities are presented as empirical parametrizations chosen to match the observed resolved sample, not as independent predictions; the paper explicitly frames its sampling prescription as observationally motivated and notes that the completeness estimate 'relies on assumptions about the intrinsic distribution of triple masses and orbital periods' (Section 4.5). The completeness correction in Sections 4.5-4.6 uses the adopted intrinsic model to convert observed resolved fractions into intrinsic triple fractions; this is model-dependent, but the outer-period parameters are taken from external binary surveys (Duquennoy & Mayor 1991; Raghavan et al. 2010; Winters et al. 2019) and the resulting triple fractions are compared with independent volume-limited measurements (Winters et al. 2019; Raghavan et al. 2010; Tokovinin 2014b; Moe & Kratter 2021), so the central claim retains independent content. The paper's own caveat that the completeness is sensitive to the assumed period distribution, and the skeptic's point that the mock omits some cuts (proper-motion consistency and Rtriple filtering), are correctness risks rather than circularity. The many citations of El-Badry et al. (2021) and El-Badry (2024) are methodological self-citations, but they are not load-bearing in the sense of importing an unverified uniqueness theorem or smuggling in the target result; the methods are externally validated and re-tested here. I therefore assign a low score of 2 for the minor model-dependence and self-citation presence, with no identified circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The catalog itself is direct observation, but the demographic inferences (triple fraction, period and eccentricity distributions, mass-ratio slope) rest on a model that is fitted to the same catalog and then used to correct that catalog's incompleteness. The free parameters are the fitted qout slope, the chosen outer eccentricity form, the adopted M-dwarf period distribution, and the wide-binary truncation power law.

free parameters (4)
  • Outer mass-ratio power-law slope = gamma = -1.4
    Section 4.1: qout = M3/(M1+M2) is sampled from a power-law with slope -1.4 because the alternative (drawing M3 from the IMF) does not reproduce the observed qout distribution. The slope is effectively fit to the catalog.
  • Outer eccentricity distribution = thermal f(e)=2e
    Section 4.3: thermal eout (vs uniform) is adopted after comparing mock-observed distributions to the same catalog's eccentricity reconstruction. The choice is data-driven.
  • M-dwarf period distribution parameters = log10(a/au)=1.3, sigma=1.16
    Adopted from Winters et al. (2019) for primaries below 0.6 Msun; this shifts the model's period distribution and therefore affects the completeness correction.
  • Wide-binary separation power-law slope for truncation correction = -1.6
    Appendix F uses dN/ds ~ s^-1.6 from prior wide-binary work to estimate the drop-off beyond 30,000 au; this corrects for missing wide tertiaries in the model.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Kroupa IMF describes the underlying stellar mass distribution
    Used as the primary-mass prior in Sections 4.1 and 4.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Moe & Di Stefano (2017) joint binary distributions apply to triple inner binaries
    Section 4.1 samples inner binary M1, qin, Pin, ein from these empirical distributions; the validity for triples is tested only by comparing final mock distributions to the same data.
  • ad hoc to paper Tertiary orbital periods follow the binary log-normal period distribution
    Section 4.2: tested against log-uniform; the log-normal is accepted because it matches the observed s1, s2, and s2/s1 distributions, making it a self-consistent assumption.
  • domain assumption Mardling & Aarseth (2001) and hierarchy criterion epsilon<0.1 describe triple stability
    Equations 10 and 11 are used to reject unstable triples in the mock and to classify observed triples as stable.
  • standard math Worley (1967) relation converts sign correlation to mean mutual inclination
    Equation 9 assumes random orbital orientations; used to translate counts of co/counter-rotating tertiaries into imut.
  • domain assumption Gaia resolvability curves from El-Badry (2024) describe detection probability
    Appendix C uses the 'no cuts' sensitivity curve to decide whether mock triples are resolved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 10,000 Resolved Triples from Gaia: Empirical Constraints on Triple Star Populations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UPF3R33A

@misc{pith2026250616513,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 10,000 Resolved Triples from Gaia: Empirical Constraints on Triple Star Populations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UPF3R33A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16513}
}
abstract

We present a catalog of $\sim 10,000$ resolved triple star systems within 500 pc of the Sun, constructed using Gaia data. The triples include main-sequence, red giant, and white dwarf components spanning separations of 10 to 50,000 au. A well-characterized selection function allows us to constrain intrinsic demographics of the triple star population. We find that (a) all systems are compatible with being hierarchical and dynamically stable; (b) mutual orbital inclinations are isotropic for wide triples but show modest alignment as the systems become more compact; (c) primary masses follow a Kroupa initial mass function weighted by the triple fraction; (d) inner binary orbital periods, eccentricities, and mass ratios mirror those of isolated binaries, including a pronounced twin excess (mass ratios greater than 0.95) out to separations of 1000+ au, suggesting a common formation pathway; (e) tertiary mass ratios follow a power-law distribution with slope $-1.4$; (f) tertiary orbits are consistent with a log-normal period distribution and thermal eccentricities, subject to dynamical stability. Informed by these observations, we develop a publicly available prescription for generating mock triple star populations. Finally, we estimate the catalog's completeness and infer the intrinsic triple fraction, which rises steadily with primary mass: from $5\%$ at $\lesssim 0.5\,{\rm M_\odot}$ to $35\%$ at $2\,{\rm M_\odot}$. The public catalog provides a robust testbed for models of triple star formation and evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16513 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Images of resolved triples with proper motion vectors. The images show proper motion arrows atop PanSTARRs gri images for all Gaia sources in the image. The triple has blue proper motion vectors, while the stars unassociated with the triple have red proper motion arrows. The Gaia DR3 source id for the primary star is displayed above each image. Left: Visually hierarchical triples where the bottom system contains thr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Basic properties of the resolved triples sample. Top: From left to right, we show the on-sky positions of all triples, the distribution of separations for the 100 pc sample (inner s1 in blue, outer s2 in red), and the histogram of separation ratios between the outer and inner components. In the middle column of this row, we also plot the 100 pc wide binary separations for comparison. In the right column, we include … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Apparent twin excess in triple inner binaries. We show the difference in apparent G magnitudes between components in resolved triples. From left to right, the columns show the ∆G between the inner two stars, inner primary (1) and the tertiary (3), and inner secondary (2) and the tertiary. Top: The distribution of ∆G between triple components for all resolved triples (black) and those where the angular separation of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Twin properties of triple inner binaries compared to isolated wide binaries. The twin fraction of inner binaries in triples is displayed as a function of their physical separa￾tion (top) and angular separation (bottom). In red, we show the fraction of triples with ∆G <…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean mutual inclinations of triples as a function of separation ratio (left) and tertiary separation (right). Each point shows the inferred mean mutual inclination, ⟨imut⟩ (Equation 9), for triples in the given bin with binomial errors included. Only triples interior t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The origin of triple masses. Top: The underlying distributions for initial triple primary masses (M1), inner binary mass ratios (qin), and outer binary mass ratios (qout). Bottom: Assuming this intrinsic triple model, we show the results of 10 Gyr evolution with consta…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The origin of triple separations. The outer separations (s2) of resolved triples are drawn from various parent distributions (gray histograms), whereas the inner separations (s1) all follow Moe & Di Stefano (2017). We show the resulting mock distributions from these mo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The origin of triple eccentricities. Observed eccentricity distributions for the inner (left) and outer (right) orbits of resolved triples are shown, with the mean (black dashed line) and 1σ uncertainty (gray band). These are compared to two models that sample outer ec…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Completeness of the 100 pc resolved triple sam￾ple. The solid curves show the intrinsic distribution of the inner (blue) and outer (red) orbital periods for 30, 000 triples (roughly the number expected within 100 pc). The shaded histograms show the subset that are full…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Triple fraction as a function of primary mass. Left: The number of total stars (gray circles), in wide binaries (black squares) and in wide triples (blue triangles) in the Gaia 100 pc sample that pass initial quality cuts (Section 2). Middle: Observed fraction of star…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparing observed resolved triples to isolated wide binaries. The wide binary control sample is designed to have the same separations and distances to the triples. Top: Comparing individual stellar masses between binaries (gray) and triples (blue). On the left, we co…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of our resolved triple systems (black) to solar-type triples from Tokovinin (2014b) (gray), both limited to d < 67 pc. The corner plot shows the various parameter spaces spanned by Pin, Pout, qin, and qout. Our resolved sample places no restriction on spect…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The Rtriple statistics as a measure of chance alignment probability. Left: We plot the true number of chance alignments as a function of Rtriple. Nchance align/Ncandidate is the ratio between the number of chance-aligned triples (from the shifted catalog) with a given…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A wide binary control sample with similar separations and distances to triple inner binaries. On the left, we show the separation triple inner binaries (red), all wide binaries (gray), and the control sample of wide binaries (black). On the right, we show the distance…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The absence of wide stellar companions. The top panel shows the observed separation distribution of wide binaries within 300 pc (black) compared to a s −1.6 power-law. The bottom shows the ratio between these two histograms at each separation bin. Above ∼ 10, 000 au, …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Unveiling the nature of G6096: a likely hierarchical triple system

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    G6096 is likely a hierarchical triple of main-sequence stars rather than a binary hosting a white dwarf or neutron star.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R., Koerner, D

    Allen, P. R., Koerner, D. W., McElwain, M. W., Cruz, K. L., & Reid, I. N. 2007, AJ, 133, 971, doi: 10.1086/510346

    doi:10.1086/510346 2007

  2. [2]

    J., Chanam´ e, J., & Ag¨ ueros, M

    Andrews, J. J., Chanam´ e, J., & Ag¨ ueros, M. A. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2000 Anglada-Escud´ e, G., Amado, P. J., Barnes, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 536, 437, doi: 10.1038/nature19106

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2000 2017

  3. [3]

    2006, A&A, 450, 1221, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054040

    Baraffe, I., Alibert, Y., Chabrier, G., & Benz, W. 2006, A&A, 450, 1221, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054040

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054040 2006

  4. [4]

    2024, A&A, 692, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452637

    Bashi, D., & Tokovinin, A. 2024, A&A, 692, A247, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452637

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452637 2024

  5. [5]

    Bate, M. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03333.x —. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x

    arXiv 2000

  6. [6]

    R., & Bonnell, I

    Bate, M. R., & Bonnell, I. A. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 33, doi: 10.1093/mnras/285.1.33

    doi:10.1093/mnras/285.1.33 1997

  7. [7]

    J., & Holman, M

    Bhaskar, H., Li, G., Hadden, S., Payne, M. J., & Holman, M. J. 2021, AJ, 161, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abcbfc

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abcbfc 2021

  8. [8]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 4136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2530

    Borkovits, T., Hajdu, T., Sztakovics, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4136, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2530

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    C., & Whitworth, A

    Clark, P. C., & Whitworth, A. P. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1697, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3176

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Correia, A. C. M., Bourrier, V., & Delisle, J. B. 2020, A&A, 635, A37, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936967

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Ciardi, D. R., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2016, ApJS, 226, 7, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/7

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Millard, M

    Cuntz, M., Luke, G. E., Millard, M. J., Boyle, L., & Patel, S. D. 2022, ApJS, 263, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9302

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    N., Albrecht, S., et al

    Dai, F., Winn, J. N., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 115, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/115 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    1991, A&A, 248, 485

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

    1991

  10. [18]

    2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    2024

  11. [19]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 480, 4884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2186

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    2019, MNRAS, 482, L139, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly206

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2019, MNRAS, 482, L139, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly206

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Heintz, T. M. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 2269, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab323

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 5822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2480

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Tian, H., Duchˆ ene, G., & Moe, M. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2480

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298, doi: 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    B., Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N

    Fezenko, G. B., Hwang, H.-C., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3881, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac309

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    A., & Marcy, G

    Fischer, D. A., & Marcy, G. W. 1992, ApJ, 396, 178, doi: 10.1086/171708 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Smart, R. L., Sarro, L. M., et al. 2021a, A&A, 649, A6, doi: 10.1051/00...

    1992 doi

  18. [26]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3068 Gonz´ alez-Payo, J., Caballero, J

    Gao, Y., Toonen, S., & Leigh, N. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3068 Gonz´ alez-Payo, J., Caballero, J. A., Gorgas, J., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A302, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450048

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Grishin, E., & Perets, H. B. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4993, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac706 10,000 Resolved Triples from Gaia 33

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    B., Zenati, Y., & Michaely, E

    Grishin, E., Perets, H. B., Zenati, Y., & Michaely, E. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3096

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    2016, AJ, 152, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/132

    Grziwa, S., Gandolfi, D., Csizmadia, S., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 132, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/132

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    F., & Krumholz, M

    Guszejnov, D., Hopkins, P. F., & Krumholz, M. R. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 4093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx725

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    S., Glanz, H., & Neunteufel, P

    Hamers, A. S., Glanz, H., & Neunteufel, P. 2022, ApJS, 259, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac49e7

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, ApJL, 929, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6600

    Hamilton, C. 2022, ApJL, 929, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6600

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    D., & L´ epine, S

    Hartman, Z. D., & L´ epine, S. 2020, ApJS, 247, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab79a6

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Hermes, J

    Heintz, T. M., Hermes, J. J., El-Badry, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 934, 148, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78d9

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Hermes, J

    Heintz, T. M., Hermes, J. J., Tremblay, P. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.02423. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02423

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2022a, ApJL, 933, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c70

    Hwang, H.-C., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 933, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7c70

    doi

  29. [37]

    C., Zakamska, N

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., Schlaufman, K. C., Zakamska, N. L., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 4329, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3854

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Hwang, H.-C., Ting, Y.-S., & Zakamska, N. L. 2022b, MNRAS, 512, 3383, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac675

    doi

  31. [39]

    2010, MNRAS, 401, 977, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15744.x

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Tremaine, S. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 977, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15744.x

    2010

  32. [40]

    2017, A&A, 599, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629398

    Joncour, I., Duchˆ ene, G., & Moraux, E. 2017, A&A, 599, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629398

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    A., & Raymond, S

    Kaib, N. A., & Raymond, S. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 60, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/60

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1211.4584, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1211.4584

    Katz, B., & Dong, S. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1211.4584, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1211.4584

    2012 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    Knigge, C., Toonen, S., & Boekholt, T. C. N. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1895, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1336

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    Kokori, A., Tsiaras, A., Edwards, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 265, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac9da4

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    2019, AJ, 157, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., Moe, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 196, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab13b1

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Kouwenhoven, M. B. N., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 1835, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16399.x

    2010

  39. [47]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  40. [48]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    Kratter, K., & Lodato, G. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 271, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023307

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    1995a, MNRAS, 277, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491 —

    Kroupa, P. 1995a, MNRAS, 277, 1491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1491 —. 1995b, MNRAS, 277, 1507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/277.4.1507

    doi

  42. [50]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.09400, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.09400

    Kummer, F., Toonen, S., & de Koter, A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.09400, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.09400

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    R., Zorotovic, M., et al

    Lagos, F., Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 676, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3703

    2021 doi

  44. [52]

    G., & Mathieu, R

    Laos, E., Stassun, K. G., & Mathieu, R. D. 2020, ApJ, 902, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3fe

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    T., Offner, S

    Lee, A. T., Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., Smullen, R. A., & Li, P. S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 232, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab584b

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    M., Gosnell, N

    Leiner, E. M., Gosnell, N. M., Geller, A. M., et al. 2025, ApJL, 979, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad9d0c

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    1962 doi

  48. [56]

    B., & Ricco, E

    Lucy, L. B., & Ricco, E. 1979, AJ, 84, 401, doi: 10.1086/112434

    1979 doi

  49. [57]

    A., & Aarseth, S

    Mardling, R. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 398, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03974.x

    2001

  50. [58]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1702, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19519.x

    Marks, M., & Kroupa, P. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1702, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19519.x

    2011

  51. [59]

    W., Vanderburg, A., Latham, D

    Mayo, A. W., Vanderburg, A., Latham, D. W., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaadff

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Michaely, E., & Perets, H. B. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 4188, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw368

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3593, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2328

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    T., Morton, T

    Montet, B. T., Morton, T. D., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/25

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, A&A, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330 Mu˜ noz, D

    Mowlavi, N., Holl, B., Lecoeur-Ta¨ ıbi, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330 Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Petrovich, C. 2020, ApJL, 904, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abc564

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2492

    Mushkin, J., & Katz, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2492

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Naoz, S., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2014, ApJ, 793, 137, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/137

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt302

    Teyssandier, J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt302

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    P., & Rasio, F

    Naoz, S., Fragos, T., Geller, A., Stephan, A. P., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJL, 822, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L24

    2016 doi

  62. [70]

    2022, ApJ, 931, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c84

    Niu, Z., Yuan, H., Wang, Y., & Liu, J. 2022, ApJ, 931, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6c84

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    2005, ApJ, 623, 922, doi: 10.1086/428601 34 Shariat et al

    Ochi, Y., Sugimoto, K., & Hanawa, T. 2005, ApJ, 623, 922, doi: 10.1086/428601 34 Shariat et al. O’Connor, C. E., Liu, B., & Lai, D. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3723

    2005 doi

  64. [72]

    Offner, S. S. R., Kratter, K. M., Matzner, C. D., Krumholz, M. R., & Klein, R. I. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1485, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/1485

    2010 doi

  65. [73]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

    J., & Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., & Mamajek, E. E. 2013, ApJS, 208, 9, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  67. [75]

    Perets, H. B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.02939, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02939

    2025 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    B., & Fabrycky, D

    Perets, H. B., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1048, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1048

    2009 doi

  69. [77]

    B., & Kratter, K

    Perets, H. B., & Kratter, K. M. 2012, ApJ, 760, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/99 Perpiny` a-Vall` es, M., Rebassa-Mansergas, A., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 901, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3149

    2012 doi

  70. [78]

    A., Sinukoff, E., Lopez, E

    Petigura, E. A., Sinukoff, E., Lopez, E. D., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5ea5

    2017 doi

  71. [79]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1

    2010 doi

  72. [80]

    2012, Nature, 492, 221, doi: 10.1038/nature11662

    Reipurth, B., & Mikkola, S. 2012, Nature, 492, 221, doi: 10.1038/nature11662

    2012 doi

  73. [81]

    C., & van Roestel, J

    Shariat, C., El-Badry, K., Naoz, S., Rodriguez, A. C., & van Roestel, J. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.14025, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14025

    doi arXiv

  74. [82]

    2025b, ApJ, 983, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf01 —

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025b, ApJ, 983, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adbf01 —. 2025c, ApJ, 978, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a

    doi

  75. [83]

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., Hansen, B. M. S., et al. 2023, ApJL, 955, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf76b

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    P., Naoz, S., & Gaudi, B

    Stephan, A. P., Naoz, S., & Gaudi, B. S. 2021, ApJ, 922, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac22a9

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    F., & Tokovinin, A

    Sterzik, M. F., & Tokovinin, A. A. 2002, A&A, 384, 1030, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020105

    2002 doi

  78. [86]

    2024, A&A, 689, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449649

    Thomasson, B., Joncour, I., Moraux, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449649

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    2020, ApJS, 246, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4

    Tian, H.-J., El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., & Gould, A. 2020, ApJS, 246, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab54c4

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Looney, L

    Tobin, J. J., Looney, L. W., Li, Z.-Y., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/73

    2016 doi

  81. [89]

    2008, MNRAS, 389, 925, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13613.x —

    Tokovinin, A. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 925, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13613.x —. 2014a, AJ, 147, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/86 —. 2014b, AJ, 147, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87 —. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1639 —. 2021, Universe, 7, 352, doi: 10.339...

    2008

  82. [90]

    2016, MNRAS, 456, 2070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2825

    Tokovinin, A., & Kiyaeva, O. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 2070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2825

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    2006, A&A, 450, 681, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427

    Tokovinin, A., Thomas, S., Sterzik, M., & Udry, S. 2006, A&A, 450, 681, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427

    2006 doi

  84. [92]

    Tokovinin, A. A. 1997, Astronomy Letters, 23, 727 —. 2000, A&A, 360, 997

    1997

  85. [93]

    Toonen, S., Boekholt, T. C. N., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2022, A&A, 661, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141991

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    B., & Hamers, A

    Toonen, S., Perets, H. B., & Hamers, A. S. 2018, A&A, 610, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731874

    2018 doi

  87. [95]

    2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835 Van Eylen, V., Nowak, G., Albrecht, S., et al

    Bandopadhyay, D. 2020, A&A, 640, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936835 Van Eylen, V., Nowak, G., Albrecht, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 56, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/56

    2020 doi

  88. [96]

    A., Xu, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Rappaport, S. A., Xu, S., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 363, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2713-y von Zeipel, H. 1910, Astronomische Nachrichten, 183, 345, doi: 10.1002/asna.19091832202

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    C., Naoz, S., & Hansen, B

    Weldon, G. C., Naoz, S., & Hansen, B. M. S. 2024, ApJ, 974, 302, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77a9

    2024 doi

  90. [98]

    J., & Ghez, A

    White, R. J., & Ghez, A. M. 2001, ApJ, 556, 265, doi: 10.1086/321542

    2001 doi

  91. [99]

    G., Henry, T

    Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 216, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab05dc

    2019 doi

  92. [100]

    Worley, C. E. 1967, in On the Evolution of Double Stars, ed. J. Dommanget, Vol. 17, 221

    1967

  93. [101]

    Yang, E., Su, Y., & Winn, J. N. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.07927, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.07927

    2025 doi arXiv

  94. [102]

    D., & Clarke, C

    Young, M. D., & Clarke, C. J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3085, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1512

    2015 doi

  95. [103]

    Zhang, E., Naoz, S., & Will, C. M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.08271, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.08271

    2023 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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