Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 134 references

Prospects of Constraining Equilibrium Tides in Low-Mass Binary Stars

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Even with idealized observations, the tidal quality factor $Q$ of a low-mass binary star cannot be inferred to order-of-magnitude precision for individual systems, because the present-day orbit is far more sensitive to unknown initial…

desk verdict Solid simulation study showing tidal Q is degenerate with initial conditions in individual-system inference, but the headline claim is prior-dependent and should be qualified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12639 v1 pith:VW6HN4BR submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.SR

Jessica Birky , Rory K. Barnes , James R.A. Davenport This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords tidaldissipationqualityfactorequilibriumtidesbinarystarsspin-orbitsynchronizationsimulation-basedinferenceglobalsensitivityanalysiseclipsingbinaries
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 asks whether the strength of tidal dissipation in low-mass binary stars can be inferred from observations at all. Using simulated observations with idealized uncertainties—precise masses, ages, orbital periods, eccentricities, and rotation periods—the authors show that Bayesian inference on individual systems cannot pin down the tidal quality factor $Q$ (or the equivalent time lag $\tau$) even to an order of magnitude. The reason is a fundamental degeneracy: the present-day orbit and spins are far more sensitive to the unknown initial orbital period, eccentricity, and rotation periods than to the tidal efficiency. The paper suggests that population-level statistics—the fraction of old binaries that have synchronized their spins with their orbits—can place upper or lower bounds on $Q$, but tight constraints remain out of reach under the assumed model. If correct, this reframes the long-standing scatter in published $Q$ values as a symptom of model unidentifiability rather than measurement error.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a simulated-likelihood experiment: a fiducial binary is evolved under equilibrium-tide models—constant time lag (CTL) and constant phase lag (CPL)—coupled to stellar evolution and magnetic braking, and the final $P_{\rm orb}$, $P_{\rm rot}$, and $e$ are compared to simulated 'observed' values with optimistic uncertainties. Variance-based Sobol sensitivity indices decompose how much of the spread in the final state comes from each input, and Gaussian-process active learning maps the high-probability regions of the five-dimensional posterior over initial spins, initial orbital period, eccentricity, and $Q$. The key object that exposes the degeneracy is the marginal posterior in ($P_{\rm orb,i}$, $e_i$), which condenses onto a line of constant final orbital angular momentum rather than onto the true initial state.

What would settle it

If a Bayesian fit to a real eclipsing binary with precisely known masses, age, $P_{\rm orb}$, $P_{\rm rot}$, and $e$ produced a unimodal posterior with $\log Q$ constrained to a width below about one decade under the same CTL or CPL models, the claim of per-system non-identifiability would be contradicted. More directly, a measured, unambiguous orbital period decay $dP_{\rm orb}/dt$ for a low-mass binary would supply the missing derivative constraint; if combining it with the same model then pins $Q$, the degeneracy is not fundamental.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for fixed tidal quality factor across all stars, $Q$ cannot be inferred to order-of-magnitude precision for individual systems by Bayesian methods, even when the present-day orbital period, rotation period, and eccentricity are known with optimistic precision and the masses and age are fixed at their true values. The simulated posteriors show two degeneracy structures: a flat direction where weak tides leave the initial orbital period nearly equal to the observed one, and a curved $P_{\rm orb,i}$–$e_i$ degeneracy along a line of constant final orbital angular momentum for strong tides. In both cases the true initial conditions are statistically indistinguishable from many other solutions. The final orbital period alone dominates the likelihood, so the inferred tidal strength is systematically controlled by the prior assumed for the initial orbital period. The authors conclude that individual-system constraints on $Q$ from current or foreseeable observations are fundamentally limited, and that population-level synchronization fractions of old binaries are a more tractable route to bounding tidal dissipation.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumed distribution of initial orbital periods, eccentricities, and rotation periods: the paper uses wide uniform priors, and if real binaries form with much narrower initial configurations, the degeneracy could shrink enough for $Q$ to be recoverable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individual binaries, even ideal ones, should not be used to claim a measured $Q$; published single-system values are likely prior-dominated.
  • Young ($\lesssim100$ Myr) systems can only provide a lower bound on $Q$ (an upper bound on $\tau$).
  • For populations older than about 5 Gyr, the fraction of synchronized versus subsynchronous binaries can set order-of-magnitude bounds on $\tau$ or $Q$, but the middle range ($-4 \lesssim \log\tau \lesssim 0$; $5.5 \lesssim \log Q \lesssim 9$) remains poorly constrained.
  • Under these equilibrium-tide models, present-day short-period binaries likely formed with short orbital periods; tides are too weak to drive significant inward migration.
  • Constraints from measured orbital period decay (for example in hot Jupiter systems) can probe $Q$ only if magnetic braking and unobserved companions are ruled out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same degeneracy likely afflicts more complex tide models: any model with unknown initial conditions and no direct measurement of the time derivatives of the orbit will face a similar flat direction, so the conclusion may generalize beyond CTL and CPL.
  • Population synthesis with realistic, physically motivated initial distributions (for example from binary formation simulations) could break the degeneracy that wide uniform priors create; the paper's bounds are conditional on those priors.
  • If the attractor-manifold idea is right, overdensities of old binaries in ($P_{\rm orb}, e, P_{\rm rot}$) space—rather than any single system—could validate tidal theories without needing to know how fast a system is evolving.
  • Measuring spin-orbit ratios of subsynchronous binaries in old populations could map the balance between tidal torques and magnetic braking, providing a test that does not require per-system age precision.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether the tidal quality factor Q (or time lag tau) in equilibrium tide models can be inferred from observations of individual low-mass binary stars. The authors use the VPLanet package to evolve binaries under constant-phase-lag and constant-time-lag tides coupled to stellar evolution and magnetic braking, then apply Sobol global sensitivity analysis, simulated Gaussian likelihoods with optimistic observational uncertainties, 5D posterior sampling via a Gaussian-process active-learning surrogate, and 1D likelihood recovery tests. They find that the final orbital period and eccentricity are dominated by the initial orbital conditions, that the combined likelihood is most sensitive to the initial orbital period, and that the 5D posteriors show broad and degenerate constraints on Q or tau. They propose population-level synchronization fractions of old binaries as an alternative route and caution against interpreting published individual-system Q constraints.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper strengthens the case that individual-system Bayesian inference of tidal Q is ill-posed, which is an important and timely caution given the order-of-magnitude spread of Q estimates in the literature. The study has real strengths: it uses two standard equilibrium-tide formulations, adopts idealized but clearly specified observational uncertainties, combines Sobol sensitivity analysis with simulation-based inference, and makes the analysis reproducible through VPLanet, SALib, alabi, and the linked GitHub repository. The population-level synchronization fractions (Figures 10-11) are a useful, falsifiable alternative proposal. The main weakness is that the headline conclusion is demonstrated under wide uniform priors on the initial conditions and is not yet quantified by posterior width statistics, so the strength of the abstract and conclusion currently exceeds what the simulations establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1.2, Fig. 7; Section 4.2, Table 2] The claim in the abstract and in Conclusion item 6 that individual-system Bayesian inference cannot constrain Q to order-of-magnitude precision is conditional on the wide uniform priors in Table 2 (P_orb,i in [0.1,12] d, P_rot,i in [0.1,10] d, e_i in [0,0.5]). Figure 7 shows that the likelihood is dominated by the initial orbital period, and Figures 18-20 show that when the initial conditions are fixed, the 1D likelihoods are mostly single-peaked, meaning that Q is identifiable if the initial state is known. The uniform prior therefore directly shapes the posterior width that drives the negative result. Because the formation distribution of short-period binaries may be much narrower than the assumed uniform range, the conclusion is not established for more realistic priors. I ask for a robustness test with narrower, formation-motivated priors on P_orb,i and P_rot,i (for example, a log-normal or truncated normal around the observed short-period population), or at minimum an explicit statement in the abstract and conclusion that the result applies to wide uniform priors on the initial conditions.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figs. 12-15] The 5D posteriors are presented only as corner plots; no quantitative summary of the marginal posterior width in log Q or log tau is reported. Since the headline claim is about an order-of-magnitude constraint, please report for each of the four posterior tests the 5-95% credible interval of the log Q (or log tau) marginal posterior, or the ratio of posterior width to prior width. Without such a quantitative measure, the claim that Q cannot be inferred to order-of-magnitude precision is supported only by visual inspection of the corner plots.
  3. [Section 5.1, Figs. 12-15] The statement that 'present-day short-period systems evolved from an initial configuration that started with a short orbital period' is drawn from the 5D posteriors, but those posteriors use uniform priors and include no model of binary formation. The high density of samples near P_orb,i ~ 5-10 days is likely a prior-dependent artifact rather than an inference about formation. Please either soften or remove this conclusion, or support it with a formation-model-informed prior and a corresponding sensitivity test.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Futhermore' (Sections 1 and 5.3), 'prameters' (Section 5.2), 'precudes' (Section 5.1), 'acelerated' (Section 3.3), 'the the community' (Section 5), and 'tidelock' (Table 5).
  2. [Figure 10 caption] The caption refers to a 'lower bound on logQ' in the shaded orange region, but since Figure 10 is for the CTL model, this should read 'lower bound on log tau' to match the figure content.
  3. [Table 2 and Figure 1 caption] Table 2 lists the maximum log10(tau) as 1.0, while the Figure 1 caption states the range as -4.0 < log(tau) < 1.6. These should be made consistent.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The appendix has two subsections labeled 'A.3' (Semi-major axis and Eccentricity); the second should be renumbered.
  5. [Section 3.3] The sampling package alabi is cited as 'Birky et al. in prep.'; since the posterior results depend on this tool, please provide a stable URL, versioned release, or archival reference at the time of resubmission so that the results can be reproduced independently.
  6. [Conclusion item 6] The phrase 'perfect priors (fixed at true values) for system masses and age' is confusing: masses and age are fixed, not sampled, so they are not 'priors' in the usual Bayesian sense. Please rephrase to state that these parameters are held fixed at their true values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-identifiability result is computed from the forward tidal model under stated priors, not fitted to data or carried by self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim—that individual-system Bayesian inference cannot recover tidal Q to order-of-magnitude precision—is obtained by integrating the CTL/CPL equilibrium-tide equations (Appendix A, after Leconte et al. 2010 and Ferraz-Mello et al. 2008) with VPLanet, computing Sobol sensitivity indices (Eqs. 6–11), and sampling simulated posteriors (Eqs. 12–13) under the Table 2 priors and Table 3 idealized uncertainties. No parameter is fitted to external data and then presented as a prediction; the datapoints are synthetic, and the masses and ages are held at their true values by construction. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the result depends on the chosen prior for the initial orbital period (Section 4.1.2) and that the synchronization fractions in Figures 10–11 are computed under uniform priors, so the headline claim is stated as conditional on those assumptions rather than as an unconditioned empirical law. Self-citations (VPLanet, alabi, Fleming et al.) are to numerical tools and prior implementations, but the non-identifiability conclusion is demonstrated in this paper from the model equations and sampling; those citations are not invoked as authority for the central result. No circular step can be quoted, so no step is flagged.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its conclusions rest on standard equilibrium tide models plus hand-chosen prior ranges and fiducial values; the uniform prior on initial orbital period is the most load-bearing choice and is acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (5)
  • Uniform prior range for initial orbital period = U(0.1, 12.0) days
    Chosen by hand (Table 2); the conclusion that initial P_orb dominates the likelihood and is degenerate with Q depends on this range.
  • Uniform prior range for initial eccentricity = U(0.0, 0.5)
    Chosen by hand (Table 2); affects the curved P_orb_i - e_i degeneracy at 5 Gyr.
  • Uniform prior range for initial rotation periods = U(0.1, 10.0) days
    Chosen by hand (Table 2); rotation is weakly constraining but enters the posteriors.
  • Prior range for log10 Q and log10 tau = Q: U(4,12), tau: U(-4,1) log(s)
    Chosen to span literature values; the synchronization fraction bounds (Figures 10-11) depend on these ranges.
  • Fiducial values for simulated likelihood = M=1.0 Msun, psi=10 deg, P_rot,i=0.5 d, P_orb,i=7 d, e_i=0.3, logQ=6, logtau=-1
    Chosen to represent a typical system (Table 2); the 1D and 5D inference tests use these as truth.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CTL and CPL equilibrium tide equations from Leconte et al. (2010) and Ferraz-Mello et al. (2008) correctly describe tidal evolution
    The entire sensitivity analysis and inference test are built on these equations (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Tidal and magnetic braking torques are linearly independent
    Stated in Section 2.2: T_rot = T_mb + T_tide; nonlinear coupling could alter the degeneracies.
  • domain assumption Stellar evolution grids from Baraffe et al. (2015) and magnetic braking from Matt et al. (2015) are accurate to within an order of magnitude
    Section 5.3 limitation: the paper assumes these are correct.
  • ad hoc to paper Input parameters are sampled independently from uniform distributions for Sobol analysis
    Sobol indices assume independent inputs; correlated initial conditions would change the variance decomposition.
  • domain assumption The system is an isolated binary with no third perturber
    Section 5.3 states this assumption; Kozai-Lidov or companions could affect evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects of Constraining Equilibrium Tides in Low-Mass Binary Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VW6HN4BR

@misc{pith2026250712639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects of Constraining Equilibrium Tides in Low-Mass Binary Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VW6HN4BR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12639}
}
abstract

The dynamical evolution of short-period low-mass binary stars (with mass $M < 1.5M_{\odot}$, from formation to the late main-sequence, and with orbital periods less than $\sim$10 days) is strongly influenced by tidal dissipation. This process drives orbital and rotational evolution that ultimately results in circularized orbits and rotational frequencies synchronized with the orbital frequency. Despite the fundamental role of tidal dissipation in binary evolution, constraining its magnitude of (typically parameterized by the tidal quality factor $\mathcal{Q}$) has remained discrepant by orders of magnitude in the existing literature. Recent observational constraints from time-series photometry (e.g., Kepler, K2, TESS), as well as advances in theoretical models to incorporate a more realistic gravitational response within stellar interiors, are invigorating new optimism for resolving this long-standing problem. To investigate the prospects and limitations of constraining tidal $\mathcal{Q}$, we use global sensitivity analysis and simulation based inference to examine how the initial conditions and tidal $\mathcal{Q}$ influence the observable orbital and rotational states. Our results show that even under the simplest and most tractable models of tides, the path towards inferring $\mathcal{Q}$ from individual systems is severely hampered by inherent degeneracies between tidal $\mathcal{Q}$ and the initial conditions, even when considering the strongest possible constraints (i.e., binaries with precise masses, ages, orbital periods, eccentricities, and rotation periods). Finally as an alternative, we discuss how population synthesis approaches may be a more promising path forward for validating tidal theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12639 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulations of equilibrium tide (CTL) coupled with stellar evolution. Panels show the evo￾lution of orbital period (left), rotational period (center), and eccentricity (right) for tidal τ strengths in the range −4.0 < log(τ ) < 1.6. Tidal τ influences the timescale of synchronization and circular￾ization, where higher tidal τ results in more rapid evolution. Each track originates from the same initial conditions for… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exchange in energy (left panel) and angular momentum (right panel) between the rotation and orbit of stars in the binary system, as predicted by the CTL model (Hut 1981) when coupled with stellar evolution (Baraffe et al. 2015), and magnetic braking (Matt et al. 2015). Lost energy (red line, left panel) is due to tidal heating, and lost angular momentum is due to stellar winds (red line, right panel). The black dash… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Likelihood sensitivity for the CTL (top) and CPL (bottom) model. The results for both models indicate that model goodness-of-fit (as quantified by a Gaussian likelihood, with uncertainties described in Section 3.2) is most sensitive to the initial orbital period [PITH…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sensitivity of the period ratio (orbital period / primary rotation period) for the CTL (top) and CPL (bottom) model. At ages of 5-10 Gyrs, τ and Q dominate the final period ratio Porb/Prot1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of orbital parameters for the CTL model (top) and CPL model (bottom) evolved to an age of 5 Gyr, taken from the same simulations as Figures 5–8. The blue scatterpoints show the initial distribution of parameters (sampled uniformly in eccentricity, orbital …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fraction of binaries that are synchronized (Porb/Prot1 ≈ 1, orange), subsynchronous (Porb/Prot1 < 1, blue) and supersynchronous (Porb/Prot1 > 1, green) according to the CTL model. The dotted lines show the systems evolved to an age of 1 Gyr, the dark solid lines show …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Samples from the simulated posterior for the CTL model at an early age of 50 Myr (blue points). The posterior function is sampled using a Gaussian process and active learning (Kandasamy et al. 2017) using the package alabi (Birky et al. in prep.) in order to visualize…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Samples from the simulated posterior for the CTL model at a late age of 5 Gyr (from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Simulated 1-dimensional likelihood for CTL model (left) and CPL model (right) evaluated at an age of 50 Myrs. Each of the colored lines shows the likelihood value as a function of varying τ or Q for different “true” values (−3, −2, −1, 0, +1) for τ , and (4, 5, 6, 7, …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Examples showing the how solutions with different log τ are degenerate at different ages. The black line highlights the solution for log τ = 0. The thick grey vertical lines mark the ages 50 Myr, 500 Myr, and 5 Gyr as used in Figures 18–20. The colored dashed lines sh…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Orbital and rotational evolution for randomized initial conditions with strong tides (orange, log τ = 0) and weak tides (blue, log τ = −2). Axes plot the rotation period (days), orbital period (days), and eccentricity. The dashed portion of the lines show the trajecto…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Evolution of the Porb/Prot ratio for the primary star in a 1M⊙ − 1M⊙ binary system assuming only CTL tides. The system is evolved with an initial eccentricity of e = 0.2 and initial rotation periods of Prot,1 = Prot,2 = 0.5 d for different initial orbital periods: 5 d…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Same system as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_25.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ZЫѤ*ʙ \.w8 Hze ']Ph ̙z mW, 8; NG

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

    2021

  2. [2]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3211, 10.1093/mnras/stv853

    Aigrain, S., Llama, J., Ceillier, T., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 450, 3211, 10.1093/mnras/stv853

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv853 2015

  3. [3]

    Albrecht, S., Reffert, S., Snellen, I., Quirrenbach, A., & Mitchell, D. S. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 474, 565, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077953

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077953 2007

  4. [4]

    H., Dawson, R

    Albrecht, S. H., Dawson, R. I., & Winn, J. N. 2022, arXiv:2203.05460 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05460

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, aap, 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  6. [6]

    M., Sipőcz, B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, aj, 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  7. [7]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  8. [8]

    Barker, A. J. 2020, arXiv:2008.03262 [astro-ph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03262

    arXiv 2020

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 927, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b63

    ---. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 927, L36, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5b63

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    J., & Ogilvie, G

    Barker, A. J., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2009, mnras, 395, 2268, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14694.x

    2009

  3. [11]

    2017, Tidal Locking of Habitable Exoplanets , 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    Barnes, R. 2017, Tidal Locking of Habitable Exoplanets , 10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    2013, Astrobiology, 13, 225, 10.1089/ast.2012.0851

    Barnes, R., Mullins, K., Goldblatt, C., et al. 2013, Astrobiology, 13, 225, 10.1089/ast.2012.0851

    2013

  5. [14]

    2020, , 132, 024502, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8

    Barnes , R., Luger , R., Deitrick , R., et al. 2020, , 132, 024502, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab3ce8

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    Barnes, S. A. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 586, 464, 10.1086/367639

    2003 doi

  7. [16]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stad999, 10.1093/mnras/stad999

    Bashi, D., Mazeh, T., & Faigler, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stad999, 10.1093/mnras/stad999

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    Birky, J., Barnes, R., & Fleming, D. P. 2021, Research Notes of the AAS, 5, 122, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac034c

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    P., & Barnes, R

    Birky, J., Fleming, D. P., & Barnes, R. K. in prep

  10. [19]

    2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    Bolmont, E., & Mathis, S. 2016, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 126, 275, 10.1007/s10569-016-9690-3

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, 10.1126/science.1185402

    2010 doi

  12. [21]

    A., Matt, S

    Breimann, A. A., Matt, S. P., & Naylor, T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 913, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf0a3

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 2957, 10.1093/mnras/stu1366

    Burkart, J., Quataert, E., & Arras, P. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 443, 2957, 10.1093/mnras/stu1366

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    C., & Jardine, M

    Cameron, A. C., & Jardine, M. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 476, 2542, 10.1093/mnras/sty292

    2018 doi

  15. [24]

    R., Ho, A

    Casey, A. R., Ho, A. Y. Q., Ness, M., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 880, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab27bf

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    W., et al

    Chontos, A., Huber, D., Latham, D. W., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 192, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab0e8e

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    Colombo, G., & Shapiro, I. I. 1966, The Astrophysical Journal, 145, 296, 10.1086/148762

    1966 doi

  18. [27]

    Correia, A. C. M., & Laskar, J. 2004, Nature, 429, 848, 10.1038/nature02609

    2004 doi

  19. [28]

    Counselman, III, C. C. 1973, apj, 180, 307, 10.1086/151964

    1973 doi

  20. [29]

    R., & Saar, S

    Cranmer, S. R., & Saar, S. H. 2011, apj, 741, 54, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/54

    2011 doi

  21. [30]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Cody, A. M., Carpenter, J. M., & Howard, A. W. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 816, 21, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/1/21

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Conroy, K

    David, T. J., Conroy, K. E., Hillenbrand, L. A., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 112, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/5/112

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    1991, , 248, 485

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

    1991

  24. [33]

    Efroimsky, M., & Williams, J. G. 2009, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 104, 257, 10.1007/s10569-009-9204-7

    2009 doi

  25. [34]

    2018, mnras, 476, 528, 10.1093/mnras/sty240

    El-Badry, K., Ting, Y.-S., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2018, mnras, 476, 528, 10.1093/mnras/sty240

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    Fabrycky, D., & Tremaine, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 669, 1298, 10.1086/521702

    2007 doi

  27. [36]

    2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 101, 171, 10.1007/s10569-008-9133-x

    Ferraz-Mello, S., Rodríguez, A., & Hussmann, H. 2008, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 101, 171, 10.1007/s10569-008-9133-x

    2008 doi

  28. [37]

    P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J

    Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Davenport, J. R. A., & Luger, R. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 88, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2ed2

    2019 doi

  29. [38]

    P., Barnes, R., Graham, D

    Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Graham, D. E., Luger, R., & Quinn, T. R. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 858, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd38

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    P., Barnes, R., Luger, R., & VanderPlas, J

    Fleming, D. P., Barnes, R., Luger, R., & VanderPlas, J. T. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 891, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab77ad

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    P., & VanderPlas, J

    Fleming, D. P., & VanderPlas, J. 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 781, 10.21105/joss.00781

    2018 doi

  32. [41]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  33. [42]

    2012, , 421, 426, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20320.x

    Fuller , J., & Lai , D. 2012, , 421, 426, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20320.x

    2012

  34. [43]

    A., David, T

    Gillen, E., Hillenbrand, L. A., David, T. J., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 849, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa84b3

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    B., & Perets, H

    Ginat, Y. B., & Perets, H. B. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 031020, 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.031020

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    1966, The Astronomical Journal, 71, 425, 10.1086/109947

    Goldreich, P., & Peale, S. 1966, The Astronomical Journal, 71, 425, 10.1086/109947

    1966 doi

  37. [46]

    1966, Icarus, 5, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    Goldreich, P., & Soter, S. 1966, Icarus, 5, 375, 10.1016/0019-1035(66)90051-0

    1966 doi

  38. [47]

    1974, ıcarus, 23, 51, 10.1016/0019-1035(74)90103-1

    Greenberg, R. 1974, ıcarus, 23, 51, 10.1016/0019-1035(74)90103-1

    1974 doi

  39. [48]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, L42, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L42

    ---. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 698, L42, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/L42

    2009 doi

  40. [49]

    H., & Schlaufman, K

    Hamer, J. H., & Schlaufman, K. C. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 190, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3c56

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    S., Rantala, A., Neunteufel, P., Preece, H., & Vynatheya, P

    Hamers, A. S., Rantala, A., Neunteufel, P., Preece, H., & Vynatheya, P. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 4479, 10.1093/mnras/stab287

    2021 doi

  42. [51]

    Hansen, B. M. S. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 285, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/285

    2010 doi

  43. [52]

    Hatzes, A. P. 2019, in The Doppler Method for the Detection of Exoplanets, 2514-3433 (IOP Publishing), 13--1 to 13--14, 10.1088/2514-3433/ab46a3ch13

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    2011, aap, 528, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015809

    Heller, R., Leconte, J., & Barnes, R. 2011, aap, 528, A27, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015809

    2011 doi

  45. [54]

    2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 97, 10.21105/joss.00097

    Herman, J., & Usher, W. 2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 97, 10.21105/joss.00097

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04082, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04082

    Hobson-Ritz , M., Birky , J., Peterson , L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.04082, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.04082

    2025 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, pasp, 126, 398, 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

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

    2007 doi

  49. [58]

    1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 92, 167

    Hut, P. 1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 92, 167. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980A&A....92..167H/abstract

    1980

  50. [59]

    1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126

    ---. 1981, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 99, 126. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A

    1981

  51. [60]

    2009, apj, 698, 1357, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1357

    Jackson, B., Barnes, R., & Greenberg, R. 2009, apj, 698, 1357, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1357

    2009 doi

  52. [61]

    2008, apj, 678, 1396, 10.1086/529187

    Jackson, B., Greenberg, R., & Barnes, R. 2008, apj, 678, 1396, 10.1086/529187

    2008 doi

  53. [62]

    S., Tayar, J., & Fuller, J

    Jermyn, A. S., Tayar, J., & Fuller, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 690, 10.1093/mnras/stz2983

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., & others . 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  55. [64]

    2017, Artificial Intelligence, 243, 45 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2016.11.002

    Kandasamy, K., Schneider, J., & Póczos, B. 2017, Artificial Intelligence, 243, 45 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2016.11.002

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    Kaula, W. M. 1966, Theory of satellite geodesy. Applications of satellites to geodesy

    1966

  57. [66]

    R., Stassun, K

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K. R., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 184, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac1798

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 847, 10.1086/304899

    Lai, D. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 490, 847, 10.1086/304899

    1997 doi

  59. [68]

    2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    Leconte, J., Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., & Levrard, B. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 516, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/201014337

    2010 doi

  60. [69]

    Levrard, B., Correia, A. C. M., Chabrier, G., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 462, L5, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066487

    2007 doi

  61. [70]

    C., Vyhmeister, K., Hawley, S

    Lurie, J. C., Vyhmeister, K., Hawley, S. L., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 250, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa974d

    2017 doi

  62. [71]

    MacDonald, G. J. F. 1964, Reviews of Geophysics, 2, 467, 10.1029/RG002i003p00467

    1964 doi

  63. [72]

    R., Schiavon, R

    Majewski, S. R., Schiavon, R. P., Frinchaboy, P. M., et al. 2015, aj, 154, 94, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d

    2015 doi

  64. [73]

    A., & Aarseth, S

    Mardling, R. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 321, 398, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03974.x

    2001

  65. [74]

    2007, aap, 463, 1081, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066458

    Marilli, E., Frasca, A., Covino, E., et al. 2007, aap, 463, 1081, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066458

    2007 doi

  66. [75]

    D., & Mazeh , T

    Mathieu , R. D., & Mazeh , T. 1988, , 326, 256, 10.1086/166087

    1988 doi

  67. [76]

    D., Meibom, S., & Dolan, C

    Mathieu, R. D., Meibom, S., & Dolan, C. J. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 602, L121, 10.1086/382686

    2004 doi

  68. [77]

    M., et al

    Mathur, S., Huber, D., Batalha, N. M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 229, 30, 10.3847/1538-4365/229/2/30

    2017 doi

  69. [78]

    A., Gies, D

    Matson, R. A., Gies, D. R., Guo, Z., & Orosz, J. A. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 139, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/139

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    P., Brun, A

    Matt, S. P., Brun, A. S., Baraffe, I., Bouvier, J., & Chabrier, G. 2015, apjl, 799, L23, 10.1088/2041-8205/799/2/L23

    2015 doi

  71. [80]

    2019, apjl, 870, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/aafa1b

    ---. 2019, apjl, 870, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/aafa1b

    2019 doi

  72. [81]

    P., MacGregor, K

    Matt, S. P., MacGregor, K. B., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Greene, T. P. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 754, L26, 10.1088/2041-8205/754/2/L26

    2012 doi

  73. [82]

    Mayor , M., & Mermilliod , J. C. 1984, in Observational Tests of the Stellar Evolution Theory, 411

    1984

  74. [83]

    2008, EAS Publications Series, 29, 1, 10.1051/eas:0829001

    Mazeh, T. 2008, EAS Publications Series, 29, 1, 10.1051/eas:0829001

    2008 doi

  75. [84]

    A., Platais, I., et al

    Meibom, S., Barnes, S. A., Platais, I., et al. 2015, nat, 517, 589, 10.1038/nature14118

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    Meibom, S., & Mathieu, R. D. 2005, apj, 620, 970, 10.1086/427082

    2005 doi

  77. [86]

    D., & Stassun, K

    Meibom, S., Mathieu, R. D., & Stassun, K. G. 2006, apj, 653, 621, 10.1086/508252

    2006 doi

  78. [87]

    M., Hendriks, D

    Mirouh, G. M., Hendriks, D. D., Dykes, S., Moe, M., & Izzard, R. G. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 3978, 10.1093/mnras/stad2048

    2023 doi

  79. [88]

    Moe, M., & Kratter, K. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 854, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa6d2

    2018 doi

  80. [89]

    D., & Winn, J

    Morton, T. D., & Winn, J. N. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 796, 47, 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/47

    2014 doi

  81. [90]

    2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 441, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    Naoz, S. 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 441, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023315

    2016 doi

  82. [91]

    Ogilvie, G. I. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 613, 10.1093/mnras/sts362

    2013 doi

  83. [92]

    Oleskiewicz, P., & Baugh, C. M. 2019, arXiv:1910.01745 [astro-ph], 10.1093/mnras/stz3560

    2019 arXiv

  84. [94]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stac203, 10.1093/mnras/stac203

    Patel, R., & Penev, K. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stac203, 10.1093/mnras/stac203

    2022 doi

  85. [95]

    C., Winn, J

    Patra, K. C., Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., et al. 2017, aj, 154, 4, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d75

    2017 doi

  86. [96]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 150, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374

    ---. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 150, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7374

    2020 doi

  87. [97]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2010 doi

  88. [98]

    G., Winn, J

    Penev, K., Bouma, L. G., Winn, J. N., & Hartman, J. D. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 165, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaaf71

    2018 doi

  89. [99]

    2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 553, 10.1086/677042

    Penev, K., Zhang, M., & Jackson, B. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 553, 10.1086/677042

    2014 doi

  90. [100]

    M., & Schussler, J

    Penev, K. M., & Schussler, J. A. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, stac2618, 10.1093/mnras/stac2618

    2022 doi

  91. [101]

    M., & Goodman, J

    Price-Whelan, A. M., & Goodman, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 867, 5, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae264

    2018 doi

  92. [102]

    M., Hogg, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Hogg, D. W., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 895, 2, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8acc

    2020 doi

  93. [103]

    E., & Williams, C

    Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning

    2006

  94. [104]

    M., Stauffer, J

    Rebull, L. M., Stauffer, J. R., Megeath, S. T., Hora, J. L., & Hartmann, L. 2006, apj, 646, 297, 10.1086/504865

    2006 doi

  95. [105]

    2012, apj, 746, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/43

    Reiners, A., & Mohanty, S. 2012, apj, 746, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/43

    2012 doi

  96. [106]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 542, 10.1093/mnras/stu1454

    Repetto, S., & Nelemans, G. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 444, 542, 10.1093/mnras/stu1454

    2014 doi

  97. [107]

    R., Winn , J

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

    2015 doi

  98. [108]

    2017, Why So Many Published Sensitivity Analyses Are False

    Saltelli, A., Aleksankina, K., Becker, W., et al. 2017, Why So Many Published Sensitivity Analyses Are False . A Systematic Review of Sensitivity Analysis Practices , Tech. Rep. arXiv:1711.11359, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.1711.11359

    2017 doi arXiv

  99. [109]

    2010, Computer Physics Communications, 181, 259, 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018

    Saltelli, A., Annoni, P., Azzini, I., et al. 2010, Computer Physics Communications, 181, 259, 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018

    2010 doi

  100. [110]

    1972, apj, 171, 565, 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich, A. 1972, apj, 171, 565, 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  101. [111]

    Sobol, I. M. 2001, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 55, 271, 10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6

    2001 doi

  102. [112]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 581, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806

    2010 doi

  103. [113]

    F., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al

    Song, H. F., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 609, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731073

    2018 doi

  104. [114]

    Southworth, J., & Clausen, J. V. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0608016. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608016

    2006 arXiv

  105. [115]

    G., Mathieu, R

    Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., Mazeh, T., & Vrba, F. J. 1999, aj, 117, 2941, 10.1086/300881

    1999 doi

  106. [116]

    F., Durisen, R

    Sterzik, M. F., Durisen, R. H., & Zinnecker, H. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 411, 91, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034219

    2003 doi

  107. [117]

    Terquem, C., Papaloizou, J. C. B., Nelson, R. P., & Lin, D. N. C. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 502, 788, 10.1086/305927

    1998 doi

  108. [118]

    2021, Universe, 7, 352, 10.3390/universe7090352

    Tokovinin, A. 2021, Universe, 7, 352, 10.3390/universe7090352

    2021 doi

  109. [119]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5158, 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    Tokovinin, A., & Moe, M. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 491, 5158, 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    2020 doi

  110. [120]

    2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    Toonen, S., Hamers, A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    2016 doi

  111. [121]

    L., Vanderburg, A., Kraus, A

    Torres, G., Curtis, J. L., Vanderburg, A., Kraus, A. L., & Rizzuto, A. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadca8

    2018 doi

  112. [122]

    Triaud, A. H. M. J. 2018, 1375--1401, 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7_2

    2018 doi

  113. [123]

    2016, SALib / SALib : Launch !, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.160164

    Usher, W., Herman, J., Whealton, C., et al. 2016, SALib / SALib : Launch !, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.160164

    2016 doi

  114. [124]

    C., & Varoquaux, G

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22, 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2011 doi

  115. [125]

    Vidal, J., & Barker, A. J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 888, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6219

    2020 doi

  116. [126]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca47e

    Vissapragada, S., Chontos, A., Greklek-McKeon, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/aca47e

    2022 doi

  117. [127]

    C., & Zamora-Avilés, M

    Vázquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., Ballesteros-Paredes, J., Gómez, G. C., & Zamora-Avilés, M. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 3061, 10.1093/mnras/stz2736

    2019 doi

  118. [128]

    Willems, J. C. 2000, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 53, 227, 10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00209-3

    2000 doi

  119. [129]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1644, 10.1093/mnras/stz2137

    Windemuth, D., Agol, E., Ali, A., & Kiefer, F. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1644, 10.1093/mnras/stz2137

    2019 doi

  120. [130]

    G., & Savonije , G

    Witte , M. G., & Savonije , G. J. 1999, , 350, 129. astro-ph/9909073

    1999 arXiv

  121. [131]

    G., & Savonije, G

    Witte, M. G., & Savonije, G. J. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 386, 222, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020155

    2002 doi

  122. [132]

    W., Winn, J

    Yee, S. W., Winn, J. N., Knutson, H. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab5c16

    2019 doi

  123. [133]

    1975, aap, 41, 329

    Zahn, J.-P. 1975, aap, 41, 329

    1975

  124. [134]

    2008, EAS Publications Series, 29, 67, 10.1051/eas:0829002

    ---. 2008, EAS Publications Series, 29, 67, 10.1051/eas:0829002

    2008 doi

  125. [135]

    1989, aap, 223, 112

    Zahn, J.-P., & Bouchet, L. 1989, aap, 223, 112

    1989

  126. [136]

    J., & Wu, Y

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Wu, Y. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 263, 10.3847/1538-3881/abf097

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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