Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 102 references

J1250+0455AB an ultracool binary in a hierarchical triple system

T0 review · 4 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 Adaptive-optics imaging splits an apparently single M9 ultracool dwarf into a close M9+L0 binary at 12.2 AU, bound for over 10 Gyr.

desk verdict Solid new benchmark binary, but the system distance rests on a wobbling Gaia parallax that a quick cross-check with the wide tertiary could test. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23705 v1 pith:XNKCOUJA submitted 2025-07-31 astro-ph.SR

Sayan Baig , R. L. Smart , Hugh R.A. Jones , E. Pinna , A. Sozzetti , Gemma Cheng , Felice Cusano , Fabio Rossi
show 2 more authors
Cedric Plantet Guido Agapito
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords ultracooldwarfbinaryM/Lboundaryadaptiveopticsimaginghierarchicaltriplesystemgyrochronologybrownbenchmarkorbitalperiodbindingenergy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the discovery that J1250+0455, previously catalogued as a single M9 ultracool dwarf, is actually a close binary straddling the M/L dwarf boundary. Adaptive-optics imaging resolves the system into two near-equal components separated by 0.17 arcsec, or 12.2 AU, at a position angle of about 85 degrees. Combining the resolved photometry with a gyrochronological age of about 0.56 Gyr and two evolutionary models, the authors derive masses near 0.079 and 0.072 solar masses, effective temperatures around 2350 and 2200 K, and an orbital period of about 156 years. Because the binary sits in a hierarchical triple with an early-M primary, the age and composition of that brighter star can be carried over to the ultracool pair, making J1250+0455AB a benchmark for testing evolutionary models at the stellar-substellar boundary. The paper also argues the binary is strongly bound and should survive for more than 10 Gyr.

What carries the argument

The resolving instrument is the LUCI camera on the Large Binocular Telescope with the SOUL single-conjugate adaptive optics system, delivering roughly 60–70 mas FWHM images in H and Ks at 0.015 arcsec per pixel, which is what splits the 0.17-arcsec pair. The analysis chain then has five load-bearing steps: photometric calibration of the resolved components against the unresolved 2MASS Ks magnitude to place both stars on a common absolute-magnitude scale; binary spectral template fitting with intermediate-gravity M9–L2 standards to assign spectral types; gyrochronology from the rotation period of the wide primary, using the Lu et al. (2024b) relations to get the age; interpolation on iso-mass tracks in the age-luminosity plane from the BCAH15 and SM08 evolutionary models to get mass, temperature, and radius; and Kepler's third law with a 1.26 projection-correction factor from Fischer & Marcy (1992) to convert the projected separation into an orbital period. The binding-energy formula cited from Rothermich et al. (2024), together with empirical stability limits from Faherty et al. (2010) and disruption isochrones from Dhital et al. (2010), supports the claim that the binary survives for more than 10 Gyr.

What would settle it

Measure the astrometric acceleration of J1250+0455AB with Gaia DR4 epoch astrometry or long-baseline adaptive-optics monitoring: the paper predicts roughly 270 micro-arcseconds per year squared for the photocentric motion induced by a companion of about 0.071 solar masses at 12.2 AU. A measured acceleration that is inconsistent with that prediction, or a null detection, would falsify the adopted masses and separation. A second check would be a high-resolution abundance measurement of the wide primary to test whether the assumed solar-metallicity evolutionary models are appropriate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

J1250+0455AB is an ultracool dwarf binary with components of spectral type M9 and L0, resolved by LUCI1-SOUL adaptive optics on the Large Binocular Telescope. The projected physical separation is 12.2 ± 1.5 AU at position angle 84.8 degrees, with a Ks-band flux ratio of 1.27, indicating near-equal masses. From the 11.48-day rotation period of the M-dwarf primary of the hierarchical triple (J1250+04553), the system age is 0.58 (+0.07/−0.06) Gyr; using the BCAH15 and SM08 evolutionary models, the authors obtain masses of 0.079 and 0.072 solar masses (slightly lower for BCAH15), effective temperatures of 2350 and 2220–2300 K, and radii near 0.113 and 0.108 solar radii. They estimate a 156 ± 8 year orbital period and a binding energy around 65×$10^{41}$ erg, well above empirical disruption thresholds, so the binary is predicted to remain bound beyond 10 Gyr. The system is part of a wider triple with an M2.5V star at 10.44 arcsec, whose coeval age and sub-solar metallicity anchor the ultracool components.

Load-bearing premise

The entire physical scale rests on the Gaia DR3 parallax of the unresolved target, whose large uncertainty (13.93 ± 1.13 mas) and elevated RUWE of 1.51 already signal the photocentric wobble the paper cites; if that distance is biased, the separation, luminosities, masses, radii, temperatures, and period all shift together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the resolved binary and the gyrochronological age hold, J1250+0455AB becomes a model-independent age benchmark near the stellar-substellar boundary, where the mass-age degeneracy is normally severe.
  • The 156 ± 8 year orbit means Gaia DR4 epoch astrometry should detect an astrometric acceleration of roughly 270 micro-arcseconds per year squared, providing a dynamical mass check that does not rely on evolutionary models.
  • Both components straddle the hydrogen-burning limit near 0.075 solar masses, so the system directly compares cloudless (BCAH15) and cloud-inclusive (SM08) atmospheric models at the M/L transition.
  • The stability analysis places J1250+0455AB well above empirical binding-energy thresholds, so it should remain intact for more than 10 Gyr and serve as a long-lived benchmark.
  • The successful resolution of this candidate validates the Gaia-based diagnostic criteria (RUWE, IPD harmonic amplitude, and colour anomaly) for finding hidden ultracool binaries in wide hierarchical systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same Gaia diagnostics could be applied systematically to the rest of the Baig et al. (2024) catalogue; if a comparable fraction of M9/L0 field dwarfs hide near-equal-luminosity companions, the binary fraction at the M/L boundary may be noticeably higher than currently assumed.
  • A testable extension is a dedicated abundance measurement of the wide primary, whose literature metallicity estimates range from about −0.17 to −0.5; that would show whether the solar-metallicity evolutionary models adopted here need revision.
  • If Gaia DR4 detects the predicted astrometric acceleration, combining it with the 12.2 AU separation would yield a dynamical mass ratio that could distinguish between the BCAH15 and SM08 model grids, which differ by only about 0.002–0.003 solar masses.
  • A decade-long relative-astrometry campaign would begin to trace curvature of the 156-year orbit, constraining the inclination and eccentricity that the current 1.26 correction factor only approximates on average.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. J1250+0455AB is reported as a newly resolved ultracool dwarf binary, imaged with LBT/LUCI-SOUL adaptive optics in H and Ks. The authors measure a projected separation of 170±15 mas, PA 84.8±0.2°, and flux ratio 1.27±0.01; combine the separation with the Gaia DR3 parallax of the unresolved system to obtain a physical separation of 12.2±1.5 AU; classify the components as M9 and L0 via photometric and spectral template fitting; derive a gyrochronological age of 0.58 Gyr from the rotation period of the wide M-dwarf primary; and use BCAH15 and SM08 evolutionary models to estimate masses, effective temperatures, and radii. They also compute an orbital period of ~156 yr, a binding energy, and long-term stability, and predict a detectable astrometric acceleration in Gaia DR4. The system is part of a hierarchical triple with the early-M dwarf J1250+04553 at 10.44 arcsec.

Significance. The observational discovery is solid: 15 frames in each band give consistent separations, position angles, and flux ratios, and the system is clearly resolved. The paper is methodologically honest: it does not fit the target result, and the masses come from external evolutionary models using an age anchored to the wide companion's rotation, not to the binary itself. If the parameters hold, J1250+0455AB would be a valuable benchmark for evolutionary models at the M/L boundary and a target for Gaia DR4 astrometric acceleration. The stability and acceleration predictions are falsifiable. The main weakness is that the distance, and hence most derived quantities, rests on the Gaia DR3 parallax of an unresolved, astrometrically perturbed binary, and the paper does not provide the readily available cross-check against the wide tertiary's parallax.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.2, Table 1] The system distance is taken from the Gaia DR3 parallax of the unresolved binary (13.93±1.13 mas; RUWE=1.51; ipd_gof_harmonic_amplitude=0.15). The paper itself identifies these indicators as signatures of photocentric wobble (Sec. 2) and in Sec. 4.1.2 attributes the large parallax uncertainty to this wobble. A systematic bias in this parallax, not captured by the quoted ±1.13 mas, would coherently shift the physical separation (Sec. 4.2.3), the absolute magnitudes and bolometric luminosities (Sec. 4.1.2), and the model-derived masses, radii, and effective temperatures (Sec. 4.2.2). The wide tertiary J1250+04553 (Gaia DR3 3705763723623026304) has its own, far more precise, Gaia DR3 parallax; if the triple is physical, the two distances must agree. This cross-check is not reported. Please add it and, if it agrees, adopt a combined distance or explicitly justify using the unresolved-binary parallax.
  2. [§4.2.1, §4.2.2, Table 3] The adopted gyrochronological age (0.58+0.07/−0.06 Gyr) is a key input to the evolutionary-model masses, radii, and effective temperatures. The paper states in Sec. 4.2.1 that the quoted uncertainties only capture the internal scatter of the model fit and are likely underestimated, yet it uses these uncertainties in the bootstrap that produces the mass posteriors. In addition, Lu et al. (2024a) report 0.81 Gyr for the same primary, a difference of roughly 3σ from the adopted value; the paper calls this 'broadly consistent' without a quantitative reconciliation. Please provide a sensitivity analysis showing how the derived masses shift if the age is 0.81 Gyr or if the age uncertainty is doubled, and enlarge the quoted mass uncertainties accordingly.
  3. [§4.2.3] The orbital period is obtained by multiplying the projected separation by a factor of 1.26 following Fischer & Marcy (1992), but the uncertainty in this statistical factor is not propagated into P=156±8 yr. The factor converts a projected separation to a semi-major axis for a distribution of orbital orientations and eccentricities and carries intrinsic scatter. Please either propagate the known scatter or quote a conservative period range that reflects the unknown orbital geometry. In the same section, the binding energy in Eq. (3) appears to use the period-adjusted separation, while the text defines it with the projected separation; clarify which separation is used.
  4. [§4.2.2] Both evolutionary models (BCAH15 and SM08) assume solar metallicity, while the wide primary is reported to have [Fe/H] between −0.17 and −0.5 (Lu et al. 2024a; Ding et al. 2022; Verberne et al. 2024). The paper does not quantify how this metallicity offset affects the derived masses, effective temperatures, and radii. Since the system is proposed as a benchmark for evolutionary models, the sensitivity to this assumption should be stated, or the quoted parameter ranges should be widened.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1.3] The paragraph beginning 'Since empirical templates that jointly reflect modest metal deficiency...' is repeated verbatim; remove the duplicate.
  2. [Abstract, §5] The system age is quoted as 0.56 Gyr, while §4.2.1 and Table 3 quote 0.58 Gyr; harmonize the values.
  3. [§4.2.3] The phrase 'using both masses derived from SM08 and BHAC15giveninTable1' should refer to Table 3, not Table 1.
  4. [Figure 2] The caption describes the absolute-magnitude–spectral-type relation, but the figure appears to show the LUCI and 2MASS Ks filter transmission curves; the captions of Figures 2 and 3 appear to be swapped.
  5. [Data Availability, §3.1] The data availability statement lists proposal ID IT-2023B-035, while the text gives program ID 2028203; clarify the relationship between the two identifiers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: masses, age, and distance come from independent external inputs; derived orbit and stability are forward calculations.

full rationale

J1250+0455AB's parameters are not defined in terms of the conclusions drawn from them. The binary separation and flux ratio are new measurements from LBT/LUCI AO imaging. The system distance is taken from the Gaia DR3 parallax; although the paper itself flags that photocentric wobble inflates this parallax uncertainty, the distance is not re-derived from any target quantity, so a possible parallax bias is a robustness concern rather than a circular step. The adopted age comes from a TESS rotation period of the wide tertiary J1250+04553 and the external gyrochronology relation of Lu et al. (2024b); it is not fitted to the binary. Masses, effective temperatures, and radii are interpolated on external BCAH15 and SM08 evolutionary tracks using this age and the bolometric luminosities. The orbital period and binding energy are then forward-calculated from those inputs via Kepler's third law and the quoted binding-energy formula; no equation is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Baig et al. (2024) supply a prior catalogue identification of the wide companion and the selection method; they do not define the resolved binary parameters and do not carry the derivation by themselves.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central physical characterization rests on the Gaia parallax of a partly resolved binary, on gyrochronology calibrated externally, and on evolutionary model grids. The only paper-level free parameter is the 1.26 projection correction. No new entities or fitting constants are invented.

free parameters (1)
  • Projection correction factor for orbital period estimate = 1.26
    Multiplicative factor from Fischer & Marcy (1992) applied to the projected separation (12.2 AU) before computing the orbital period in Section 4.2.3; its statistical spread is not propagated into the quoted 156 +- 8 yr.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Coeval formation of J1250+0455AB and wider companion J1250+04553; the wide M dwarf's age and composition apply to the UCD binary.
    Invoked in Section 4.2.1 to transfer gyrochronological age (0.58 Gyr) from the primary to the binary; also in Section 1 for benchmark methodology.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax of 13.93 +- 1.13 mas is a valid distance for the unresolved binary despite RUWE=1.51 and photocentric wobble.
    Used in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 to convert angular separation to AU and to compute absolute Ks magnitude and luminosities.
  • domain assumption Evolutionary models BCAH15 (cloudless) and SM08 (cloudy), at solar metallicity, bracket the physical parameters of M/L boundary objects.
    Section 4.2.2 uses these grids to map age and luminosity to mass, Teff, and radius; model dependence is acknowledged but not quantified beyond 1-sigma agreement.
  • domain assumption Gyrochronology relations of Lu et al. (2024b) are valid for an early-M dwarf at roughly 0.6 Gyr.
    Section 4.2.1 converts the TESS rotation period (11.48 d) into age; the authors note the quoted uncertainty ignores observational errors in Teff and Prot.
  • domain assumption Empirical spectral type-absolute magnitude and bolometric correction relations (Dupuy & Liu 2012; Sanghi et al. 2023) apply to these components.
    Section 4.1.2 uses MKs versus SpT to classify and derive bolometric luminosities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of J1250+0455AB an ultracool binary in a hierarchical triple system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNKCOUJA

@misc{pith2026250723705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: J1250+0455AB an ultracool binary in a hierarchical triple system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNKCOUJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23705}
}
abstract

We report the discovery of the ultracool dwarf binary system J1250+0455AB, a low-mass (M$_\odot$$_\mathrm{tot} <$ 0.2 M$_\odot$) system in which the components straddle the M/L dwarf boundary. The binary was resolved through near-infrared adaptive optics imaging with LUCI1-SOUL on the Large Binocular Telescope, revealing a projected angular separation of 0.17 $\pm$ 0.015$\arcsec$, which, combined with a system distance of $71 \pm 5.8$\,pc, corresponds to a physical separation of 12.2 $\pm$ 1.5\,AU at a position angle of 84.8 $\pm$ 0.2{\deg}. We estimated the orbital period of J1250+0455AB to be 156 $\pm$ 8\,yr, the bolometric luminosities of the primary and secondary luminosities as $\log (L_\mathrm{bol} / L_\odot) = -3.45 \pm 0.04$ and $-3.58 \pm 0.04$, respectively, with the spectral types of M9 and L0 determined through binary template fitting and spectrophotometric relations. This binary system is part of a hierarchical triple with a separation of 10.44$\arcsec$ from its primary. We estimated the age of the system from the rotational period of the primary star as $0.56^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ Gyr. Using evolutionary models, for each component we estimate the mass [0.079 $\pm$ 0.002\,M$_\odot$ / 0.072 $\pm$ 0.003\,M$_\odot$], effective temperature [2350 $\pm$ 38\,K / 2200 $\pm$ 43\,K], and radius [0.113 $\pm$ 0.003\,R$_\odot$ / 0.108 $\pm$ 0.002\,R$_\odot$]. Based on the system's binding energy, total mass, and separation, J1250+0455AB is predicted to be a highly stable system, remaining bound for $>$ 10\,Gyr. J1250+0455AB extends the growing population of UCD benchmark systems, providing a new system for refining evolutionary theories at the lowest stellar masses into the substellar regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [Top panel]: Images of the system J1250+0455AB and its nearby companion J1250+04553 in the UKIDSS-K (left) and 2MASS-H (right) bands. The white dashed squares highlight the unresolved PSF of J1250+0455AB in both the images. The dashed lines connect these squares to the corresponding LUCI-Ks and LUCI-H images where the individual components of the binary system are resolved. The UKIDSS-K and 2MASS-H images cover a fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Absolute magnitude 𝑀𝐾𝑠 as a function of spectral type. The black line represents the polynomial fit from Dupuy & Liu (2012), whereas the blue points denote selected samples from the same catalogue. The blue and red dashed lines indicate the 𝑀𝐾𝑠 values for J1250+0455A and J1250+0455B, respectively, with the shaded regions reflecting the corresponding uncertain￾ties. Fig.3 presents the absolute magnitude (MKs ) as a f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Best-fitting binary templates for J1250+0455AB are shown. The black line represents the observed spectrum of J1250+0455AB (Cheng et al. 2025) with the binary fits in green. The primary and secondary components of the fit are marked in red and blue, respectively. The four best fits, ranked by 𝜒 2 , are arranged with the best fit at the top left. Grey lines indicate the residuals between the observed (black) and best-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [Top left]: TESS image of J1250+04553, featuring our aperture mask in red and the background marked in white. [Top right]: Background￾subtracted light curve of J1250+04553. [Bottom left]: Lomb-Scargle peri￾odogram of J1250+04553, highlighting the strongest signal at 11…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Age-luminosity plane with the detected companions J1250+0455A (blue marker) and J1250+0455B (red marker) with iso-mass tracks taken from the SM08 (orange) and BCAH15 (blue) model grids. 0.072 0.077 0.082 J1250+045A 2250 2400 2550 0.105 0.112 0.119 0.065 0.070 0.075 Mas…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: [Left]: System binding energy versus total mass. The grey dotted and dash-dotted lines indicate the Jeans length criterion for mass ratios q = 1.0, and q = 0.1, following the approach outlined in Faherty et al. (2010). The orange hexagon and blue star markers represent…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    L., Jones H

    Baig S., Smart R. L., Jones H. R. A., Gagn \'e J., Pinfield D. J., Cheng G., Moranta L., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3784B 533, 3784

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2005 2024

  3. [3]

    Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3610 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.5811B 492, 5811

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3610 2020

  4. [4]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...577A..42B 577, A42

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201425481 2015

  5. [5]

    Barentsen G., Lightkurve Collaboration 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235. p. 409.04

    2020

  6. [6]

    A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..464B 586, 464

    Barnes S. A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...586..464B 586, 464

    doi:10.1086/367639 2003

  7. [7]

    A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669.1167B 669, 1167

    Barnes S. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/519295 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...669.1167B 669, 1167

    doi:10.1086/519295 2007

  8. [8]

    Baron F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...802...37B 802, 37

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/802/1/37 2015

Show all 102 references
  1. [10]

    R., 2011, in Alves J., Elmegreen B

    Bate M. R., 2011, in Alves J., Elmegreen B. G., Girart J. M., Trimble V., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 270, Computational Star Formation. pp 133--140, @doi 10.1017/S1743921311000299

    2011 doi

  2. [11]

    R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3115B 419, 3115

    Bate M. R., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19955.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.3115B 419, 3115

    2012

  3. [12]

    K., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Burke C

    Berta Z. K., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Burke C. J., Falco E. E., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/145 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144..145B 144, 145

    2012 doi

  4. [13]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    2010 doi

  5. [14]

    L., Brandner W., Bouvier J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129..511B 129, 511

    Bouy H., Mart \' n E. L., Brandner W., Bouvier J., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426559 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....129..511B 129, 511

    2005 doi

  6. [15]

    D., Dupuy T

    Brandt T. D., Dupuy T. J., Bowler B. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab04a8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158..140B 158, 140

    2019 doi

  7. [16]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..301B 162, 301

    Brandt G. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac273e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..301B 162, 301

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    J., 2009, in Mamajek E

    Burgasser A. J., 2009, in Mamajek E. E., Soderblom D. R., Wyse R. F. G., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 258, The Ages of Stars. pp 317--326 ( @eprint arXiv 0811.2508 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921309031974

    2009 arXiv

  9. [18]

    J., 2014, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series

    Burgasser A. J., 2014, in Astronomical Society of India Conference Series. pp 7--16, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1406.4887

    2014 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    J., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531L..57B 531, L57

    Burgasser A. J., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531L..57B 531, L57

    2000 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Reid I

    Burgasser A. J., Reid I. N., Siegler N., Close L., Allen P., Lowrance P., Gizis J., 2007, in Reipurth B., Jewitt D., Keil K., eds, Protostars and Planets V. p. 427 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0602122 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0602122

    2007 doi arXiv

  12. [22]

    Burningham B., et al., 2009b, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14620.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.395.1237B 395, 1237

    2009

  13. [23]

    B., Lunine J

    Burrows A., Hubbard W. B., Lunine J. I., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..939B 345, 939

    1989 doi

  14. [24]

    Burrows A., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...491..856B 491, 856

    1997 doi

  15. [25]

    Burrows A., Heng K., Nampaisarn T., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/736/1/47 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...736...47B 736, 47

    2011 doi

  16. [26]

    Castro-Ginard A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A...1C 688, A1

    2024 doi

  17. [27]

    Cheng G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.538.3144C 538, 3144

    2025 doi

  18. [28]

    M., Richer H

    Close L. M., Richer H. B., Crabtree D. R., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ....100.1968C 100, 1968

    1990 doi

  19. [29]

    M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660.1492C 660, 1492

    Close L. M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/513417 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...660.1492C 660, 1492

    2007 doi

  20. [30]

    Currie T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abc631 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...904L..25C 904, L25

    2020 doi

  21. [31]

    P., Huber K

    Czesla S., Schr \"o ter S., Schneider C. P., Huber K. F., Pfeifer F., Andreasen D. T., Zechmeister M., 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages ( @eprint ascl 1906.010 )

    2019

  22. [33]

    De Angeli F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...2D 674, A2

    2023 doi

  23. [34]

    A., Stassun K

    Dhital S., West A. A., Stassun K. G., Bochanski J. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.2566D 139, 2566

    2010 doi

  24. [35]

    Y., et al., 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Stellar parameters of M-type stars from LAMOST DR8 (Ding+, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/260/45

    Ding M. Y., et al., 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Stellar parameters of M-type stars from LAMOST DR8 (Ding+, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/ApJS/260/45. Originally published in: 2022ApJS..260...45D, @doi 10.26093/cds/vizier.22600045

    2022 doi

  25. [36]

    J., Liu M

    Dupuy T. J., Liu M. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/201/2/19 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..201...19D 201, 19

    2012 doi

  26. [37]

    J., Liu M

    Dupuy T. J., Liu M. C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa5e4c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..231...15D 231, 15

    2017 doi

  27. [38]

    J., Brandt T

    Dupuy T. J., Brandt T. D., Kratter K. M., Bowler B. P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aafb31 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871L...4D 871, L4

    2019 doi

  28. [39]

    J., Liu M

    Dupuy T. J., Liu M. C., Evans E. L., Best W. M. J., Pearce L. A., Sanghi A., Phillips M. W., Bardalez Gagliuffi D. C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3557 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.1688D 519, 1688

    2023 doi

  29. [40]

    G., Guinan E

    Engle S. G., Guinan E. F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L..50E 954, L50

    2023 doi

  30. [41]

    K., Burgasser A

    Faherty J. K., Burgasser A. J., West A. A., Bochanski J. J., Cruz K. L., Shara M. M., Walter F. M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/176 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139..176F 139, 176

    2010 doi

  31. [42]

    A., Marcy G

    Fischer D. A., Marcy G. W., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...396..178F 396, 178

    1992 doi

  32. [43]

    Fontana A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423543 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...570A..11F 570, A11

    2014 doi

  33. [44]

    Gagn \'e J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaae09 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856...23G 856, 23

    2018 doi

  34. [45]

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

    2023 doi

  35. [46]

    A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...572A..34G 572, A34

    Garc \' a R. A., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423888 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...572A..34G 572, A34

    2014 doi

  36. [47]

    I., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.2745G 431, 2745

    Gomes J. I., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.2745G 431, 2745

    2013 doi

  37. [48]

    A., Cort \'e s-Contreras M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.102G 670, A102

    Gonz \'a lez-Payo J., Caballero J. A., Cort \'e s-Contreras M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A.102G 670, A102

    2023 doi

  38. [49]

    A., Davenport J

    Gordon T. A., Davenport J. R. A., Angus R., Foreman-Mackey D., Agol E., Covey K. R., Ag \"u eros M. A., Kipping D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abf63e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913...70G 913, 70

    2021 doi

  39. [50]

    Halbwachs J.-L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...9H 674, A9

    2023 doi

  40. [51]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    Howell S. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    2014 doi

  41. [52]

    J., Angus R., Cruz K

    Kiman R., Schmidt S. J., Angus R., Cruz K. L., Faherty J. K., Rice E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1753 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....157..231K 157, 231

    2019 doi

  42. [53]

    D., Henry T

    Kirkpatrick J. D., Henry T. J., Irwin M. J., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118357 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....113.1421K 113, 1421

    1997 doi

  43. [54]

    L., White R

    Kraus A. L., White R. J., Hillenbrand L. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/449303 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633..452K 633, 452

    2005 doi

  44. [55]

    C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...482..420L 482, 420

    Laughlin G., Bodenheimer P., Adams F. C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...482..420L 482, 420

    1997 doi

  45. [56]

    Lawrence A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379.1599L 379, 1599

    2007

  46. [57]

    E., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...291L..47L 291, L47

    Leinert C., Weitzel N., Richichi A., Eckart A., Tacconi-Garman L. E., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...291L..47L 291, L47

    1994

  47. [58]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...2L 649, A2

    2021 doi

  48. [59]

    L., Angus R., Curtis J

    Lu Y. L., Angus R., Curtis J. L., David T. J., Kiman R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abe4d6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..189L 161, 189

    2021 doi

  49. [60]

    L., See V., Amard L., Angus R., Matt S

    Lu Y. L., See V., Amard L., Angus R., Matt S. P., 2024a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-023-02126-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024NatAs...8..223L 8, 223

    doi

  50. [61]

    Lu Y., Angus R., Foreman-Mackey D., Hattori S., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad28b9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..159L 167, 159

    doi

  51. [62]

    L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..152L 760, 152

    Luhman K. L., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/760/2/152 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...760..152L 760, 152

    2012 doi

  52. [63]

    S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...85M 920, 85

    Marley M. S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac141d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...920...85M 920, 85

    2021 doi

  53. [64]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    Masci F. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASP..131a8003M 131, 018003

    2019 doi

  54. [65]

    S., Egeland R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...39M 871, 39

    Metcalfe T. S., Egeland R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...39M 871, 39

    2019 doi

  55. [66]

    E., et al., 2022, in Ruiz J

    Mullally S. E., et al., 2022, in Ruiz J. E., Pierfedereci F., Teuben P., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 532, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. p. 277

    2022

  56. [67]

    J., Mamajek E

    Pecaut M. J., Mamajek E. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJS..208....9P 208, 9

    2013 doi

  57. [68]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..38P 637, A38

    Phillips M. W., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937381 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..38P 637, A38

    2020 doi

  58. [69]

    J., Jones H

    Pinfield D. J., Jones H. R. A., Lucas P. W., Kendall T. R., Folkes S. L., Day-Jones A. C., Chappelle R. J., Steele I. A., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10213.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.368.1281P 368, 1281

    2006

  59. [70]

    J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20549.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.1922P 422, 1922

    Pinfield D. J., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20549.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.422.1922P 422, 1922

    2012

  60. [71]

    M., V \'e ran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Pinna E., et al., 2016, in Marchetti E., Close L. M., V \'e ran J.-P., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9909, Adaptive Optics Systems V. p. 99093V, @doi 10.1117/12.2234444

    2016 doi

  61. [72]

    arXiv:2101.07091

    Pinna E., et al., 2021, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2101.07091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210107091P p. arXiv:2101.07091

    2021 doi arXiv

  62. [73]

    J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Pramskiy A., Thompson D., Heidt J., Seifert W., Gredel R., Quirrenbach A., 2018, in Evans C. J., Simard L., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII. p. 1...

    2018 doi

  63. [74]

    S., Reyl \'e C., Allard F., Homeier D., Schultheis M., Bessell M

    Rajpurohit A. S., Reyl \'e C., Allard F., Homeier D., Schultheis M., Bessell M. S., Robin A. C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321346 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A..15R 556, A15

    2013 doi

  64. [75]

    T., Toomey D

    Rayner J. T., Toomey D. W., Onaka P. M., Denault A. J., Stahlberger W. E., Vacca W. D., Cushing M. C., Wang S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/367745 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..362R 115, 362

    2003 doi

  65. [76]

    N., Gizis J

    Reid I. N., Gizis J. E., Kirkpatrick J. D., Koerner D. W., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318023 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....121..489R 121, 489

    2001 doi

  66. [77]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  67. [78]

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

    2021 doi

  68. [79]

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

    2020

  69. [80]

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

    2012 doi

  70. [81]

    Rodrigo C., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449998 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A..93R 689, A93

    2024 doi

  71. [82]

    Rothermich A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad324e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AJ....167..253R 167, 253

    2024 doi

  72. [83]

    Sahlmann J., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201015427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...525A..95S 525, A95

    2011 doi

  73. [84]

    Sanghi A., et al., 2023, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts. p. 203.11

    2023

  74. [85]

    S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1327S 689, 1327

    Saumon D., Marley M. S., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/592734 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...689.1327S 689, 1327

    2008 doi

  75. [86]

    Schatzman E., 1962, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962AnAp...25...18S 25, 18

    1962

  76. [87]

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

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

    2006 doi

  77. [88]

    Skumanich A., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...171..565S 171, 565

    1972 doi

  78. [89]

    R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..581S 48, 581

    Soderblom D. R., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..581S 48, 581

    2010 doi

  79. [90]

    Sozzetti A., Desidera S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...509A.103S 509, A103

    2010 doi

  80. [91]

    G., Torres G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abdaad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..33S 907, L33

    Stassun K. G., Torres G., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abdaad , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907L..33S 907, L33

    2021 doi

  81. [92]

    B., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PASP...99..191S 99, 191

    Stetson P. B., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PASP...99..191S 99, 191

    1987 doi

  82. [93]

    B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV. p. 29

    2005

  83. [94]

    B., 2006, in Gabriel C., Arviset C., Ponz D., Enrique S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2006, in Gabriel C., Arviset C., Ponz D., Enrique S., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV. p. 666

    2006

  84. [95]

    L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tody D., 1986, in Crawford D. L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI. p. 733, @doi 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  85. [96]

    J., Brissenden R

    Tody D., 1993, in Hanisch R. J., Brissenden R. J. V., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II. p. 173

    1993

  86. [97]

    Torres G., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PASP..111..169T 111, 169

    1999 doi

  87. [98]

    E., Rossi E

    Verberne S., Koposov S. E., Rossi E. M., Marchetti T., Kuijken K., Penoyre Z., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A..29V 684, A29

    2024 doi

  88. [99]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  89. [100]

    J., Davis Leverett J., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...148..217W 148, 217

    Weber E. J., Davis Leverett J., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149138 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...148..217W 148, 217

    1967 doi

  90. [101]

    D., Shapiro S

    Weinberg M. D., Shapiro S. L., Wasserman I., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/164883 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ApJ...312..367W 312, 367

    1987 doi

  91. [102]

    A., Weisenburger K

    West A. A., Weisenburger K. L., Irwin J., Berta-Thompson Z. K., Charbonneau D., Dittmann J., Pineda J. S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812....3W 812, 3

    2015 doi

  92. [103]

    H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16394.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1817Z 404, 1817

    Zhang Z. H., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16394.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1817Z 404, 1817

    2010

  93. [104]

    Zuckerman B., Song I., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810038 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...493.1149Z 493, 1149

    2009 doi

  94. [105]

    dal Ponte M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.499.5302D 499, 5302

    2020 doi

Pith tools

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