Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

A Spectroscopic Search for Dormant Black Holes in Low-Metallicity Binaries

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Comparing one fresh radial-velocity measurement against the time-averaged value published by Gaia DR3 recovers at least half of dormant black hole companions in low-metallicity binaries, and has already yielded one strong, unconfirmed…

desk verdict A solid survey progress report whose headline sensitivity claim is a bit ahead of the evidence; the method, data, and candid limitations make it worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12532 v2 pith:5S7EFNLC submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Pranav Nagarajan , Kareem El-Badry , Henrique Reggiani , Casey Y. Lam , Joshua D. Simon , Johanna Müller-Horn , Rhys Seeburger , Hans-Walter Rix
show 4 more authors
Howard Isaacson Jessica Lu Vedant Chandra Rene Andrae
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords dormantblackholesradialvelocitysurveylow-metallicitystarsGaiaDR3RUWEspectroscopicbinariesstellar-massgravitationalwaveprogenitors
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

The paper's central claim is that a single fresh radial-velocity measurement, compared against the time-averaged value Gaia DR3 published years earlier, is enough to identify probable dormant black hole or neutron star companions around low-metallicity stars. The authors observed over 500 metal-poor stars with astrometric excess noise (RUWE $> 2$) using the FEROS and APF spectrographs, and their simulations indicate this strategy recovers at least half of the black hole binaries within the selection limits of period, distance, and magnitude. The survey's best result is an unconfirmed candidate, Gaia DR3 6769569470180424704, a low-metallicity star whose velocity sits roughly $98$ km s$^{-1}$ away from its DR3 mean and is slowly accelerating, as a massive dark companion would produce. If the strategy and its yield predictions hold, the sample should contain several more black hole companions, which would strengthen the emerging connection between low metallicity and massive black hole formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the radial-velocity discrepancy test: the difference between a freshly measured epoch velocity and the mean velocity published in Gaia DR3. Because DR3 reports a time-averaged value (the median of roughly 20 epoch measurements for bright stars, or the peak of a summed cross-correlation function for fainter stars), a binary with a massive dark companion spends a large fraction of its orbit with its instantaneous velocity far from that average; in Gaia BH3, the offset exceeds $20$ km s$^{-1}$ over about $70\%$ of the orbit. Companion selection uses RUWE (Renormalized Unit Weight Error), a measure of astrometric fit quality, to pick binaries with periods of roughly $100$–$5000$ days within about $2$ kpc, together with XP-spectrum metallicities to enforce the low-metallicity cut. The sensitivity calculation relies on the gaiamock forward model, which simulates how Gaia would have observed each binary, including the paper's model of how DR3 constructs mean velocities for faint stars.

What would settle it

For the candidate, roughly two years of continued monitoring showing the radial velocity reversing direction and returning toward the DR3 mean would falsify the massive-companion interpretation, since the current $-11 \pm 2$ km s$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$ acceleration would have to turn around. For the sensitivity claim, computing what DR3 would report for a set of real binaries with known orbits and $G_{\mathrm{RVS}} > 12$, using the paper's Gaussian cross-correlation recipe, and comparing against actual DR3 catalog values would settle whether the faint-star velocity model is adequate. For the yield, if Gaia DR4 orbital solutions reveal that none of the 67 candidates host compact companions, the population assumptions behind the predicted eight systems would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a method and its demonstrated sensitivity: among low-metallicity stars whose Gaia DR3 astrometry signals binarity (RUWE $> 2$, or a large predicted photocenter orbit), a single epoch radial velocity that differs from the DR3 catalog mean by more than $10$ km s$^{-1}$ is a workable signature of a dark companion. The paper argues this strategy recovers at least half of the black hole companions within its selection criteria for typical orbital periods near $10^3$ days and black hole masses near $10\,M_\odot$, with sensitivity peaking at a few hundred days. Applied to a nearly complete sample of stars with $[\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}] < -1.5$, RUWE $> 2$, and $G < 15$, the method yields 67 vetted candidates and one standout, Gaia DR3 6769569470180424704, which shows a $\sim98$ km s$^{-1}$ discrepancy and a slow acceleration of $-11 \pm 2$ km s$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$; the paper presents evidence that this star is a typical $\sim 0.7\,M_\odot$ metal-poor main-sequence star with no luminous secondary, making a dormant black hole the leading interpretation if the DR3 mean velocity is accurate.

Load-bearing premise

The recovery fraction rests on an unvalidated model of how Gaia DR3 computes mean radial velocities for faint stars: the paper assumes each epoch cross-correlation function is a 10 km/s Gaussian and the reported value is the peak of their sum, so the claimed 'at least half' would shift if the real pipeline behaves differently; the expected yield additionally assumes Gaia BH3 is the only giant-BH system in the sample and sits at a typical distance, which the paper flags as a possible overestimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claimed recovery fraction is right, the same epoch-versus-mean velocity comparison applied to other catalogs and future Gaia releases should surface dozens of additional dormant black hole and neutron star binaries that never received orbital solutions.
  • The yield model predicts roughly eight undiscovered black-hole-plus-dwarf systems inside the already-observed sample, so continued monitoring of the 67 candidates should convert several of them into confirmed systems.
  • Confirming Gaia DR3 6769569470180424704 would give a second low-metallicity system with a massive black hole companion, supporting the idea that metal-poor massive stars stay compact and avoid engulfing their companions.
  • When Gaia DR4 delivers epoch astrometry for these targets, joint fits with the long-baseline radial velocities should turn candidates into measured companion masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My extension: the method is not tied to Gaia; any pair of radial velocity measurements separated by a meaningful fraction of an orbit, such as a new spectroscopic survey cross-matched against an older catalog, can run the same test provided the catalog value's averaging behavior is understood.
  • My extension: the estimated ~93% candidate false-positive rate is itself testable, because if the population model is correct, follow-up should reveal most of the 67 candidates to be hierarchical triples or spurious velocity readings, and the confirmed count directly calibrates the underlying assumptions.
  • My extension: the faint-star velocity model in Section 6.3 can be validated immediately by applying the Gaussian cross-correlation recipe to real binaries with $G_{\mathrm{RVS}} > 12$ and known orbits, comparing predicted against actual DR3 mean velocities.
  • My extension: because the survey's kinematic cut ($v_\perp > 70$ km s$^{-1}$) selects halo stars, the low-metallicity overrepresentation claim is entangled with stellar age and environment; repeating the survey on a metal-rich, disk-like sample would separate metallicity-driven from environment-driven effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a spectroscopic survey of low-metallicity stars with elevated Gaia DR3 RUWE, comparing new epoch radial velocities (from FEROS and APF) with the mean RVs reported in Gaia DR3 to identify dormant black hole (BH) companions. The survey has observed 528 targets, including a nearly complete sample with [Fe/H] < -1.5, RUWE > 2, and G < 15. The authors report 67 vetted candidates with RV discrepancies exceeding 10 km/s, one of which (Gaia DR3 6769569470180424704) shows a ~98 km/s discrepancy and slow acceleration. The paper also presents simulations with the gaiamock code to quantify the survey's sensitivity, concluding that the search recovers at least half of BH companions within the stated selection criteria. All spectra and RVs are publicly released.

Significance. If the sensitivity claim holds, this is a valuable survey strategy paper and dataset for the growing field of dormant BH discovery. The public release of 657 spectra and RVs for 528 metal-poor binaries is a useful community resource, and the recovery of Gaia BH3 as a blind test of the method is a clear strength. The one strong candidate, with a 98 km/s RV discrepancy and measurable acceleration from the DR3 mean, is compelling and warrants follow-up regardless of the simulation-based sensitivity estimate. The main significance is therefore twofold: a practical demonstration of a promising search method, and a quantitative sensitivity framework that, once properly validated, would be an important reference for future surveys.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.3 and Figure 12] The central quantitative claim, stated in the abstract as 'recovers at least half of the BH companions within our selection criteria,' rests on the model of DR3 mean RVs for faint stars (G_RVS > 12). Section 6.3 approximates each epoch CCF as a Gaussian of width 10 km/s and takes the peak of the summed CCF as the reported DR3 RV. This is the entire mechanism by which a binary's instantaneous RV can differ from the catalog value for faint stars, so the recovery fraction is directly controlled by this assumption. No empirical validation is presented for this model against real faint-star DR3 RVs, and the actual CCF combination, line-shape distortions, and per-transit SNR could shift the peak in ways not captured by a fixed-width Gaussian. A different CCF width or a median rather than mode combination would change the simulated distribution of |RV - RV_DR3| and hence the recovery fraction. The body text is more cautious ('about half'), but the abstract's unqualified 'at least half' is only as strong as this unvalidated model. I request either an empirical validation using known faint-star SB1/SB2 systems or realistic simulated RVS spectra, or an explicit sensitivity study over CCF width and combination rule; the abstract claim should then be adjusted to match the resulting uncertainty.
  2. [Section 6.3 vs Section 3.1] The sensitivity simulation does not apply the full set of selection cuts used in the actual survey. Section 3.1 includes cuts on rv amplitude robust > 15 km/s (for the G_RVS < 12 subset), v_perp > 70 km/s, color 0.3 < (GBP - GRP) < 2.5, ipd_frac_multi_peak < 3, and parallax > 0.5 mas, yet Section 6.3 only applies RUWE > 2.0, G < 15, and d < 2 kpc. If any of these cuts are correlated with orbital phase, inclination, or the magnitude of the RV discrepancy, the simulated recovery fraction would not equal the recovery fraction of the actual selected sample. In particular, the rv amplitude robust cut may preferentially remove systems with large DR3 epoch-to-epoch RV variability, which is precisely the signature the search targets. The authors should either incorporate these cuts in the simulation or explicitly justify why each omitted cut does not affect the recovery fraction.
  3. [Section 6.2] The expected yield of ~8 undiscovered dwarf-BH systems in the observed sample, and the resulting false-positive rate estimate of ~93%, depend on the assumption that Gaia BH3 is the only giant-BH system in the sample and that Gaia BH3 is at a typical distance. The paper honestly flags this as a possible overestimate and cites historical examples, but the quantitative statements in the conclusion ('expect there to be ≈ 8 undiscovered BH + dwarf binaries') and in Section 6.2 ('we expect there to be ≈ 8') could be misread as robust predictions. Since this yield feeds directly into the interpretation of the 67 candidates, I ask that the text more clearly separate the conditional prediction from the observed upper limit, or provide a simple sensitivity test varying the assumed distance/normalization of Gaia BH3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.3] The abstract says 'recovers at least half of the BH companions within our selection criteria,' while Section 6.3 and the figure caption say 'about half' and 'at least half' in different places; please make the statements consistent, especially if the simulations carry a 68% confidence interval.
  2. [Section 7] In the conclusion bullet on the promising candidate, the Gaia DR3 ID is truncated as '676956947018042470' while Table 1 lists '6769569470180424704'; the missing final digit should be corrected to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 6.2] The phrase 'This history of astronomy' should read 'The history of astronomy.'
  4. [References] "Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society" appears in the Bennett & Bovy (2019) and Buder et al. (2021) entries; the journal name should be 'Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.'
  5. [Figure 6] The figure caption would benefit from stating the meaning of the shaded bands or the definition of the residual plot in the lower panel; currently the reader must infer that the bottom panel is (FEROS/APF RV - DR3 mean RV).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central sensitivity claim is a forward simulation with stated assumptions, not a fit to the data it predicts.

full rationale

The paper's principal quantitative claims are (i) that the search recovers at least half of BH companions within the selection criteria (Section 6.3, Figure 12) and (ii) that one promising candidate shows a ~98 km/s RV discrepancy (Section 5.2). Neither claim reduces to its inputs. The recovery fraction is obtained by mock-observing a simulated population: orbital parameters are sampled from stated distributions, Gaia epoch astrometry and RVs are forward-modeled with gaiamock, the DR3 mean RV is modeled from 20 epoch CCFs (a Gaussian width of 10 km/s for faint stars), and recovery is scored by the same |RV - RV_DR3| > 10 km/s and RUWE > 2.0 thresholds that define candidates. This is a sensitivity calculation, not a prediction fitted to the observed candidates, and the successful recovery of the externally known Gaia BH3 provides an independent benchmark. The yield estimate in Section 6.2 explicitly scales from the assumption that Gaia BH3 is the only giant-BH system in the observed sample, and the paper itself warns that the prediction could be an overestimate if Gaia BH3 is a statistical anomaly; this is a model assumption, not circularity. The self-citations (gaiamock, the Andrae et al. 2023 XP metallicity catalog, and the forthcoming Muller-Horn analysis) are used as tools or as externally calibrated inputs: the metallicity catalog is trained on APOGEE and cross-validated, and gaiamock is a forward code rather than a fitted surrogate for the present results. The unvalidated CCF model for faint-star DR3 mean RVs is the largest caveat, but it affects the accuracy of the recovery fraction without making the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim, a recovery fraction, rests on forward-modeling assumptions about Gaia and the binary population rather than on fitted free parameters. The main hand-set parameters are detection thresholds. The yield estimate is normalized to the assumption that Gaia BH3 is representative. No new physical entities are introduced; the candidates are hypothesized existing black holes, and the dormant BH concept predates the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • RV discrepancy threshold = 10 km/s
    A candidate must have |epoch RV - DR3 mean RV| > 10 km/s (Section 5); the same threshold is used in the sensitivity simulations (Section 6.3). It is a hand-selected detection threshold, informed by Gaia BH3's orbital behavior, not a quantity fitted to the survey data.
  • RUWE thresholds = 2.0 and 1.4
    The main [M/H]<-1.5 sample uses RUWE>2.0, and the [M/H]<-1.0 large-a0 sample uses RUWE>1.4 with a predicted photocenter orbit >1 au (Section 3). These set the selection function and therefore the sensitivity claim, but are not fitted values.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 mean RVs used as the baseline are accurate enough for the comparison, with failures confined to a small number of flagged objects.
    Sections 5 and 6.1 assume most DR3 mean RVs are reliable despite noting a few may be spurious; this is needed to interpret large RV shifts as evidence of binarity.
  • domain assumption gaiamock accurately forward-models Gaia DR3 epoch astrometry and the resulting RUWE for binary systems.
    Used in Sections 2, 6.2, and 6.3 to predict RUWE and to estimate search sensitivity; gaiamock is a public code from El-Badry et al. (2024), but its fidelity is taken as given.
  • ad hoc to paper For faint stars, the DR3 mean RV is well approximated by the peak of a summed CCF of 20 Gaussian epoch CCFs with width 10 km/s.
    Introduced in Section 6.3 to simulate the DR3 RV for G_RVS>12; this approximation is not validated against real faint-star RVs and directly controls the simulated recovery fraction.
  • domain assumption The simulated halo BH binary population uses a Kroupa IMF, log-uniform orbital periods from 10 to 10^4 days, thermal eccentricities, and an r^-3.5 halo density profile, and these choices represent the real low-metallicity binary population.
    Sections 6.2 and 6.3 define the mock population; the yield and sensitivity estimates inherit these population priors, which are not derived from the survey data.
  • domain assumption Gaia BH3 is the only giant-BH system in the observed sample and is at a typical distance for low-metallicity BH binaries.
    Section 6.2 uses this to scale from one giant-BH system to roughly eight expected dwarf-BH systems; the paper itself notes this could be an overestimate if Gaia BH3 is a statistical anomaly.
  • domain assumption Andrae et al. (2023) XP-derived metallicities are reliable in the metal-poor regime.
    Section 3 selects the sample based on [M/H] from this catalog; accuracy is supported by external APOGEE training but is assumed for the survey.
  • domain assumption The BOSZ template grid and chi-squared fitting procedure produce unbiased RVs for the observed stars.
    Section 4.2 derives RVs by matching to BOSZ templates with no rotational broadening; template mismatch or continuum errors could bias RVs, and no independent RV cross-check is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Spectroscopic Search for Dormant Black Holes in Low-Metallicity Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5S7EFNLC

@misc{pith2026250712532,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Spectroscopic Search for Dormant Black Holes in Low-Metallicity Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5S7EFNLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12532}
}
abstract

The discovery of the massive black hole (BH) system Gaia BH3 in pre-release Gaia DR4 data suggests that wide BH binaries with luminous companions may be significantly overrepresented at low metallicities. Motivated by this finding, we have initiated a spectroscopic survey of low-metallicity stars exhibiting elevated RUWE values in Gaia DR3, using the FEROS and APF spectrographs. We identify promising BH binary candidates as objects with instantaneously measured radial velocities (RVs) that are very different from their mean RVs reported in Gaia DR3. Thus far, we have observed over 500 targets, including a nearly complete sample of stars with $\text{[Fe/H]} < -1.5$, RUWE $> 2$, and $G < 15$. Our search has yielded one promising target exhibiting slow acceleration and an RV more than 98 km s$^{-1}$ different from its DR3 mean RV, as well as dozens of other candidates with smaller RV discrepancies. We quantify the sensitivity of our search using simulations, demonstrating that it recovers at least half of the BH companions within our selection criteria. We make all the spectra and RVs from our survey publicly available and encourage further follow-up.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12532 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated Gaia DR3 epoch astrometry and radial velocity curve for Gaia BH3 based on best-fit combined parameters from Gaia Collaboration et al. (2024). In the left panel, the gray line connects the barycenter to periastron. In the right panel, the temporal range of the simulated DR3 epoch astrometry is plotted with higher opacity. The epoch RVs of Gaia BH3 are different from its reported mean RV by at least 20 km s−… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependence of predicted RUWE in DR3 on orbital period, distance, and BH mass for low-metallicity dwarf or giant companions to BHs, with the shaded regions representing a 68% confidence interval. We randomly sample sky positions from our catalog of candidates, orbital eccentricities from a thermal distribution, and isotropic binary orientations. At orbital periods of 102 –103 d, RUWE increases as the projected semi-m… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Properties of our sample of low-metallicity stars with elevated RUWE, with Gaia BH3 shown for comparison. Upper left: Color-magnitude diagram. As expected, the low-metallicity stars are bluer than their counterparts in the 100 pc random comparison sample. Upper right: Distance versus apparent magnitude for all targets. They are bright and have mean RVs in DR3. Lower left: Metallicity versus RUWE for all targets. The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: Comparison of a template to a FEROS spectrum of a typical target in our sample. The three strongest lines are due to the Mg I b triplet. Bottom: Chi-squared statistic as a function of RV shift for the same target. The minimum corresponds to the derived RV. We meas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of our derived RVs to the mean RV reported in DR3. RVs for flagged spectra (see Section 4.3) are plotted in orange. In most cases, the RVs are in good agreement. In several cases, the RVs are discrepant, suggesting the presence of a faint or dark companion. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of interesting targets with multiple RV measurements. In the left panel, we see RV variability on short timescales, suggesting that the system is potentially a hierarchical triple (see Section 5.1). In the right panel, we see evidence of slower RV variability,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Best-fit RV curve and residuals for Gaia DR3 2123589958955565824. We measured RVs at 11 epochs us￾ing APF. The minimum companion mass is only ≈ 0.4 M⊙, implying that the system is unlikely to host a BH. While the observed DR3 RUWE is 2.45, the expected DR3 RUWE for the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: RV measurements over time for Gaia DR3 6769569470180424704, the target in our sample with the largest discrepancy between its epoch RVs and the mean RV reported in DR3. The instantaneous RVs measured in 2024–2025 differ from the DR3 mean RV in 2014–2017 by more than 80…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top: Color-magnitude diagram of Gaia DR3 6769569470180424704, the BH candidate with the largest RV dis￾crepancy in our observed sample. The target, which is plotted in yellow, is bluer than the main sequence of the 100 pc random comparison sample, but has typical colo…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Properties of the simulated sample of low-metallicity BH binaries (Section 6.2). Left: Color-magnitude diagram, with a 100 pc random comparison sample shown for reference. The sources are colored by initial mass, and include both dwarfs and giants sampled from a 12 Gy…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Median fraction of BH companions at d < 2 kpc and G < 15 (see Section 6.2) recovered by our search strategy as a function of orbital period and BH mass, with the shaded regions representing a 68% confidence interval. For each binary, we sample eccentricities from a th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  2. [2]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  3. [3]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e

    Andrae, R., Rix, H.-W., & Chandra, V. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acd53e 2023

  4. [4]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2532

    Oh, S. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 3661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2532

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2532 2022

  5. [5]

    A Sample of Neutron Star and Black Hole Binaries Detected through Gaia DR3 Astrometry

    Andrews, J. J., Taggart, K., & Foley, R. 2022, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.00680 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab...

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.00680 2022

  6. [6]

    2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    Balbinot, E., Dodd, E., Matsuno, T., et al. 2024, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 687, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450425

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450425 2024

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    2019, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 39

    Bennett, M., & Bovy, J. 2019, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 1417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2813 39

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2813 2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    A., Gunnels, S

    Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes, ed. M. Iye & A. F. M. ...

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455

    Brahm, R., Jord´ an, A., & Espinoza, N. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2021, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    Buder, S., Sharma, S., Kos, J., et al. 2021, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 150, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1242

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    D., Craig, P

    Chakrabarti, S., Simon, J. D., Craig, P. A., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/accf21

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    Chawla, C., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac60a5

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    2016, in Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 785–794

    Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. 2016, in Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 785–794

    2016

  7. [15]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

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

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S

    Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., Koposov, S. E., & Lancaster, L. 2018, ApJL, 862, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad0ee

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, New Astronomy Reviews, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

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

    2024

  11. [19]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 38, doi: 10.33232/001c.117652

    El-Badry, K. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 38, doi: 10.33232/001c.117652

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    El-Badry, K. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 62, doi: 10.33232/001c.138448

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    El-Badry, K., Lam, C., Holl, B., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1797

    El-Badry, K., & Rix, H.-W. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1266, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1797

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1864

    El-Badry, K., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Wetzel, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 652, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1864

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    doi

  17. [25]

    2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    doi

  18. [26]

    D., Reggiani, H., et al

    El-Badry, K., Simon, J. D., Reggiani, H., et al. 2024a, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 27, doi: 10.33232/001c.116675

    doi

  19. [27]

    W., et al

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Latham, D. W., et al. 2024b, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, doi: 10.33232/001c.121261

    doi

  20. [28]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    Eyer, L., Audard, M., Holl, B., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Weiss, L

    Fulton, B. J., Weiss, L. M., Sinukoff, E., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 175, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/175 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A.,...

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243626 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al

    Gomel, R., Mazeh, T., Faigler, S., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243626 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 615, L15, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833718

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs, J.-L., Pourbaix, D., Arenou, F., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, A&A, 674, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244161

    Holl, B., Sozzetti, A., Sahlmann, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244161

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Johnson, J

    Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1467, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1467

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, A&A, 690, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450531

    Iorio, G., Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450531

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A5, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244220

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    1999, The Messenger, 95, 8 40

    Kaufer, A., Stahl, O., Tubbesing, S., et al. 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8 40

    1999

  31. [39]

    Kelson, D. D. 2003, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 115, 688, doi: 10.1086/375502

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, 159, doi: 10.1086/308445

    Franx, M. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, 159, doi: 10.1086/308445

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    G., & Pols, O

    Klencki, J., Nelemans, G., Istrate, A. G., & Pols, O. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037694

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    2001, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Modern Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  35. [43]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1979, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 40, 1, doi: 10.1086/190589

    1979 doi

  36. [44]

    Kurucz, R. L. 1993, SYNTHE spectrum synthesis programs and line data

    1993

  37. [45]

    Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J

    Lam, C. Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J. D. 2025, ApJ, 987, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addac2

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    Y., Lu, J

    Lam, C. Y., Lu, J. R., Udalski, A., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7442

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2018, http://www.rssd.esa.int/doc fetch.php?id=3757412

    Lindegren, L. 2018, http://www.rssd.esa.int/doc fetch.php?id=3757412

    2018

  40. [48]

    2022, https://dms.cosmos.esa.int/COSMOS/ doc fetch.php?id=1566327

    Lindegren, L. 2022, https://dms.cosmos.esa.int/COSMOS/ doc fetch.php?id=1566327

    2022

  41. [49]

    1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 178, 159

    Maeder, A. 1987, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 178, 159

    1987

  42. [50]

    M., & Moriya, T

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 588, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 Mar ´ ın Pina, D., Rastello, S., Gieles, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450460 M´ esz´ aros, S., B...

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330

    Mowlavi, N., Holl, B., Lecoeur-Ta ¨ ıbi, I., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    2024a, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 074202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad5dfd

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Lam, C., & Reggiani, H. 2024a, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 074202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad5dfd

    doi

  45. [53]

    C., van Roestel, J., & Roulston, B

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Rodriguez, A. C., van Roestel, J., & Roulston, B. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 4367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2130

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Triaud, A. H. M. J., et al. 2024b, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 014202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1ba7

    doi

  47. [55]

    2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    Nagarajan, P., El-Badry, K., Chawla, C., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 044202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adc839

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557 Portegies Zwart, S

    Olejak, A., Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., & Sobolewska, M. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 638, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936557 Portegies Zwart, S. F., Verbunt, F., & Ergma, E. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 321, 207, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9701037

    2020 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    T., & Vogt, S

    Lockwood, C. T., & Vogt, S. S. 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, Vol. 7735, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 77354K, doi: 10.1117/12.857726

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    C., Healy, B

    Reggiani, H., Schlaufman, K. C., Healy, B. F., Lothringer, J. D., & Sing, D. K. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 159, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac4d9f

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al

    Sahu, K. C., Anderson, J., Casertano, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac739e

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    Schmidt, M. 1963, Nature, 197, 1040, doi: 10.1038/1971040a0

    1963 doi

  53. [61]

    2021, MNRAS, 500, 3750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3479

    Sestito, F., Buck, T., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 3750, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3479

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 2991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    Shahaf, S., Bashi, D., Mazeh, T., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 2991, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3290

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    Majewski, S. R. 2016, ApJ, 832, 206, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/206

    2016 doi

  56. [64]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf36

    Tanikawa, A., Hattori, K., Kawanaka, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf36

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al

    Vogt, S. S., Radovan, M., Kibrick, R., et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 359, doi: 10.1086/676120

    2014 doi

  58. [66]

    2015, ApJ, 809, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/144

    Xue, X.-X., Rix, H.-W., Ma, Z., et al. 2015, ApJ, 809, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/144

    2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.