Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Discovery of the pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary MML 48

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MML 48 is a young single-lined eclipsing binary with the most extreme mass ratio known among pre-main-sequence eclipsing binaries, and its primary is caught in the fusion bump.

desk verdict New extreme-ratio pre-main-sequence EB with careful observations, but the fusion-bump claim outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03831 v1 pith:NVDKKDR2 submitted 2025-09-04 astro-ph.SR

Y. Gómez Maqueo Chew , L. Hebb , H.C. Stempels , F.M. Walter , D.J. James , G.A. Feiden , R. Petrucci , T. Lister
show 7 more authors
I. Baraffe M. Brodheim F. Faedi D.R. Anderson R.A. Street C. Hellier K.G. Stassun
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords eclipsingbinarypre-main-sequencestarsstellarevolutionfusionbumphelium-3UpperCentaurusLupuslow-masssingle-lined
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

MML 48 is a pair of young low-mass stars in Upper Centaurus Lupus that eclipse every 2.017 days, and the paper shows it is the most extreme-mass-ratio pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary known, q = 0.209 ± 0.014. Because the system is single-lined, the primary mass is not measured directly; it is inferred as 1.2 ± 0.07 M☉ from matching the temperature and the eclipse temperature ratio to stellar-evolution tracks at the association's 16 ± 2 Myr age, which then yields a secondary mass of 0.2509 ± 0.0078 M☉. The central result is that the primary is caught in the 'fusion bump'—a brief phase when 3He is still building toward equilibrium in the proton-proton I chain, so the core over-produces energy and the star is temporarily bloated. This makes MML 48 A the first young star in an eclipsing system observed during that phase, and the system a rare benchmark for models of pre-main-sequence evolution at intermediate ages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 'fusion bump' in pre-main-sequence evolution: 3He accumulates toward its equilibrium abundance in the proton-proton I chain, so nuclear energy production temporarily exceeds the rate the contracting core can absorb, and the envelope expands before the star settles on the main sequence. It is invoked to explain why MML 48 A's radius is ~15% larger than a same-age, similar-mass star like NP Per A and larger than 15-25 Myr isochrones. The analysis is carried by a single-lined eclipsing-binary model that turns the measured radial-velocity semi-amplitude, a model-dependent primary mass, and the eclipse light-curve geometry into the secondary mass, radii, inclinat

What would settle it

Take high-resolution infrared spectra during both quadratures and measure the secondary's absorption lines to get K2; combining K2 with the measured K1 gives both masses and the mass ratio directly, without stellar models. If those masses disagree with 1.2 + 0.25 M☉, the fusion-bump identification and the inferred age would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MML 48 is a single-lined eclipsing binary in Upper Centaurus Lupus, period 2.0171068 d. With only the primary visible, its mass is inferred by matching the measured temperature and temperature ratio to pre-main-sequence tracks at the cluster age of 16 ± 2 Myr, giving M1 = 1.2 ± 0.07 M☉; the mass function then yields M2 = 0.2509 ± 0.0078 M☉ and the most extreme mass ratio among young EBs, q = 0.209 ± 0.014. Eclipse modeling gives radii 1.574 and 0.587 R☉. The paper's discovery claim: the primary is in the 'fusion bump', its radius inflated by temporary energy over-production as 3He builds toward p-p I chain equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

The primary mass is not measured; it is inferred by matching temperature and temperature ratio to stellar-evolution tracks at the adopted cluster age of 16 ± 2 Myr, so any error in the models, the age, or the metallicity would shift the masses and the fusion-bump interpretation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The inflated radius of MML 48 A makes the system a direct, age-sensitive test of the fusion-bump phase in pre-main-sequence models.
  • With q = 0.209, the two stars sit on very different parts of the same isochrone, so the measured radii and temperatures jointly constrain the age of Upper Centaurus Lupus more tightly than a near-equal-mass binary could.
  • MML 48 joins a short list of intermediate-age (15-25 Myr) low-mass pre-main-sequence eclipsing binaries, filling the mass-radius gap between 1-10 Myr and >20 Myr systems.
  • The paper's comparison with magnetic models implies that standard models at the 16 Myr age cannot reproduce the primary's radius; direct, model-independent masses are needed before the physics can be settled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Infrared spectroscopy could detect the secondary's absorption lines and yield a model-independent K2; one measurement would test the 1.2 + 0.25 M☉ solution and the fusion-bump claim.
  • Because the bump's timing depends on initial helium abundance, other uneven-mass young binaries could map where the bump occurs in mass-age space and separate it from magnetic radius inflation.
  • The spot-induced scatter in eclipse timings—larger than the formal errors and behind an eight-minute drift between WASP and TESS epochs—suggests active young binaries have a practical floor on orbital-period precision independent of photometric accuracy.
  • If the bump interpretation is right, the radius excess over standard models around 15-25 Myr should peak near 1.0-1.2 M☉ and vanish by about 30 Myr, a pattern a broader sample of young eclipsing binaries could test.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the discovery and initial characterization of MML 48, a 2.017 day single-lined eclipsing binary in Upper Centaurus Lupus. Combining WASP, LCOGT, CTIO/SMARTS, CASLEO and TESS photometry with FEROS, CHIRON and SOAR spectroscopy, the authors derive an ephemeris, Teff1 = 5386 +/- 100 K, K1 = 32.86 +/- 0.33 km/s, and use Baraffe et al. (2015) tracks at the adopted UCL age of 16 +/- 2 Myr to obtain M1 = 1.2 +/- 0.07 Msun and hence M2 = 0.2509 +/- 0.0078 Msun and q = 0.209 +/- 0.014. A Phoebe light-curve fit gives R1 = 1.574 +/- 0.026 +/- 0.050 Rsun and R2 = 0.587 +/- 0.0095 +/- 0.050 Rsun. The authors conclude that MML 48 A is currently in the 'fusion bump' caused by 3He overproduction, the first such object found in an eclipsing system.

Significance. MML 48 is a potentially valuable addition to the sparse sample of intermediate-age pre-main-sequence eclipsing binaries: its extreme mass ratio and young age make it a useful anchor for isochrone tests, and the photometric and spectroscopic reductions are careful and well documented. The paper is honest about the SB1 limitation in the text and provides public light-curve tables. However, the headline mass and evolutionary-phase results are not direct measurements: M1 is a model-inferred quantity, and the fusion-bump classification is conditional on the same model family, age, and composition assumptions. These caveats must be reflected in the abstract and conclusions before the discovery claim is accepted at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.5, Fig. 7] M1 is not measured directly. It is the primary mass whose Baraffe et al. (2015) track reproduces the measured Teff1 and the EB temperature ratio at the adopted UCL age of 16 +/- 2 Myr. The quoted M1 = 1.2 +/- 0.07 Msun contains no term for the systematic uncertainty in the adopted cluster age, metallicity, or model family; Sect. 4 later shows that magnetic Dartmouth models require 20-22 Myr. Since M2 and q are propagated from M1 through the mass function (Sect. 3.4), the headline mass ratio 0.209 +/- 0.014 is not a purely empirical value. The paper should quote a model/age systematic term or explicitly label M1, M2, and q as model-dependent.
  2. [Abstract and Sect. 4, Figs. 9-11] The fusion-bump claim is not independently supported. The paper itself states that standard models at 17 Myr place the first bump at a higher mass than MML 48 A and that the magnetic models that reproduce the primary radius require ages of 20-22 Myr (Fig. 11). Thus whether MML 48 A is caught in the fusion bump depends on choosing non-magnetic standard tracks and the cluster age. The abstract's statement that MML 48 A is the first young star in an eclipsing system found during its fusion bump is stronger than the current evidence. Please reframe as a model-dependent interpretation and discuss sensitivity to age and model choice.
  3. [Sect. 3.6, Table 4] The radius systematic of +/-0.050 Rsun is introduced ad hoc so that all estimates of the primary star radius are consistent within their 1-sigma uncertainties. Since the enlarged primary radius is central to the fusion-bump interpretation, the source and derivation of this systematic should be justified quantitatively rather than presented as a reconciliation constant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The printed table header appears corrupted: the units row repeats the RV-table units (kms-1) under the BJD and delta-mag columns. Please correct the caption and the machine-readable version.
  2. [References] The Mamajek et al. (2002) entry has a typographical 'Aj' instead of 'AJ'.
  3. [Sect. 2.1.5 and 3.6] TESS light curves were excluded from the EB fit, and Johnson I was used as a proxy for the TESS passband. This is a reasonable choice, but the passband-mismatch and third-light systematics should be mentioned in the ephemeris error budget.
  4. [Sect. 4] The phrase 'higher mass stars in Sco-Cen suggest an age closer to 16 Myr' is not quantified in this paper; please add a reference or an explicit uncertainty so the age comparison is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; model dependence is acknowledged and the fusion-bump claim is a model-based interpretation tested against independent radius data, not a fitted quantity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. M1 is not measured directly but is estimated in Sect. 3.5 by matching Teff,1 and the EB temperature ratio to Baraffe et al. (2015) tracks at the adopted UCL age; this is a model-dependent inference, not a tautology. The mass ratio and M2 then follow from the SB1 mass function (Sect. 3.4), and R1, R2, i, and Teff,2/Teff,1 come from independent Phoebe light-curve fits (Sect. 3.6). The 'fusion bump' claim is made in Sect. 4 by comparing the measured radius to model mass-radius tracks, i.e., an independent observable (radius) against a model prediction; it is not constructed from the same fitted value. The paper explicitly acknowledges the tension: standard 17 Myr models place the first bump at higher mass than MML 48 A, magnetic Dartmouth models require 20–22 Myr, and the authors state that model-independent masses are needed before further conclusions. That is model/age degeneracy and overstatement risk, not circular reduction. The self-citations used (Gómez Maqueo Chew et al. 2019 for MML 53; Feiden 2016 for magnetic models; Stassun et al. 2014 for the bump concept) are supported by independent published measurements or external physics, and they are not used to forbid alternatives. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no equation reduces to its input by construction.

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

The ledger is dominated by one model-derived quantity, M1, and the adopted cluster age. Both are needed to construct the fusion-bump interpretation. The TESS third-light values and radius systematic are secondary fitted/ad hoc parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Primary mass M1 = 1.2 ± 0.07 Msun
    Not dynamically measured; chosen by matching Teff and temperature ratio to Baraffe et al. (2015) tracks at the assumed UCL age. Propagates to q and M2.
  • Assumed UCL age = 16 ± 2 Myr
    Adopted from Pecaut et al. (2012) and used both to derive M1 and to interpret the fusion bump. Not fitted in this paper but load-bearing for the central claim.
  • TESS third-light values = 0.077, 0.064, 0.091
    Fit to TESS light curves in Sectors 11, 38, and 65 for ephemeris derivation only; not used in the final EB radius fit.
  • Radius systematic uncertainty = 0.05 Rsun
    Added by hand to both stellar radii so that EB, vsini, and SED radius estimates agree within 1 sigma; effectively tuned to reconcile independent estimates.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Baraffe et al. (2015) and Dartmouth/Feiden magnetic stellar models correctly predict PMS mass-temperature-radius-age relations.
    Invoked in Sects. 3.5 and 4 to derive the primary mass and to identify the fusion bump. If these models are biased, both the masses and the evolutionary interpretation shift.
  • domain assumption Upper Centaurus Lupus has an age of 16 ± 2 Myr.
    Adopted from Pecaut et al. (2012) and Wright & Mamajek (2018) in Sect. 1 and used in the mass derivation and fusion-bump timing. The paper notes tension with older ages needed for magnetic models.
  • domain assumption The secondary contributes negligible light, so a single-lined treatment is sufficient.
    Supported by absence of secondary lines in FEROS, SOAR, and CHIRON spectra (Sects. 2.2.1-2.2.3), and by the very shallow secondary eclipses. Required for the SB1 RV fit and EB modeling.
  • domain assumption The orbit is circular.
    Adopted after finding e = 0.010 ± 0.008 with a Lucy-Sweeney probability of spuriousness around 40%, and after light-curve tests. Used in Phoebe and RadVel fits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of the pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary MML 48." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVDKKDR2

@misc{pith2026250903831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of the pre-main-sequence eclipsing binary MML 48},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVDKKDR2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03831}
}
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of the eclipsing binary MML 48, which is a member of Upper Centaurus Lupus, has an associated age of 16 Myr, and is composed of two young, low-mass stars. We used space- and ground-based observations to characterize the system with both time-series photometry and spectroscopy. Given the extreme mass ratio between the stars, q_EB = 0.209 +- 0.014, we modeled a single-lined spectroscopic and eclipsing binary system. The orbital period, 2.0171068 +- 0.0000004 d, is measured from the highest precision light curves. We derive a primary mass of 1.2 +- 0.07 Msun using stellar models, and with radial velocities we measured a secondary mass of 0.2509 +- 0.0078 Msun. The radii are large, as expected for pre-main-sequence stars, and are measured as 1.574 +- 0.026 +- 0.050 Rsun and 0.587 +- 0.0095 +- 0.050 Rsun, for the primary and secondary stars, respectively. MML 48 joins the short list of known low-mass, pre-main-sequence eclipsing binaries (EBs), being one of only five systems with intermediate ages (15-25 Myr), and the system with the most extreme mass ratio. The primary star is currently at the "fusion bump", undergoing an over-production of energy in the core due to the build-up of 3He before reaching its equilibrium abundance set by the proton-proton (p-p) I chain. MML 48 A is the first young star in an eclipsing system that has been found during its fusion bump. MML 48 is thus an important benchmark for low-mass stellar evolution at a time when the stars are rapidly changing, which allows for a tight constraint on the corresponding isochrone given the uneven mass ratio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. WASP time-series photometry of primary eclipses of MML 48 obtained in 2006–2014. The secondary eclipse is too shallow to see in this photometry, indicating the secondary is a very low-mass compan￾ion. These data were not used to derive the EB parameters since the light curves are contaminated by a nearby background star 15′′ to the west (2MASS 14413595-4700280). flat-field division of each individual science frame w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Primary- and secondary-eclipse light curves of MML 48. Left: Primary-eclipse light curves acquired at CTIO/SMARTS-0.9m telescope in BVRI bands (from top to bottom), each shifted vertically for clarity. Overplotted is the Phoebe best fit model in the corresponding filter, shown by the continuous red line. The photometric uncertainties are represented by the length of the vertical lines. The residuals to the fit are s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the out-of-eclipse TESS light curve. We measure the rotational modulation in the TESS light curve and obtain a periodicity of 2.013 ± 0.076 d, which is consistent with synchronous rotation. The most significant period is marked in both the plot and the inset with the vertical red lines. The inset shows the structure around the most significant peak, with its width determining the uncertai… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TESS and CASLEO eclipse light curves of MML 48 compared to best fit model. Left: Primary-eclipse TESS light curve acquired during Sectors 11 (top), 38 (middle), and 65 (bottom). Overplotted is the Phoebe best fit model in the I-band filter with a third light contaminat…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative RV curve for MML 48. Top panel: We present the three RV datasets CHIRON (red diamonds), FEROS (blue asterisks), and SOAR (green triangles). Each dataset has been shifted by the cor￾responding systemic velocity (reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: O-C diagram for all full primary eclipses spanning from 2007 to 2023. The O-Cs were calculated on the measured time of minimum for each primary eclipse where both sides of the out-of-eclipse data are available ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Estimation of mass of primary star done by comparing the Baraffe et al. (2015) stellar-evolution models to measured effective tem￾perature of primary star (Sect. 2.2.2) in the top panel and to temperature ratio measured from the relative eclipse depths (Sect. 3.6) in t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass-radius diagram of known sample of pre-main-sequence EBs compared to low-mass stellar models from Baraffe et al. (2015). MML 48 is shown in the large, green dots with uncertainties from the best fit solution. Also in green are the other eclipsing stars with age est…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radius evolution of a 1.2 M⊙ nonmagnetic Dartmouth stellar￾evolution model mass track (solid red line). This is shown with (top) the luminosity evolution of the p-p chain (solid black line) and CNO cycle (dashed black line) as a fraction of the total stellar luminosity…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radius evolution of a 1.2 M⊙ stellar evolution model mass track (in red) from Baraffe et al. (2015) for Y = 0.28 (solid lines) and Y = 0.29 (dashed lines). Y is the initial helium mass fraction. This is shown with the evolution of the stellar central temperature (TC; …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Hoyer, S., et al

    Alonso, R., Deeg, H. J., Hoyer, S., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 584, L8

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

    Andersen, J. 1991, A&A Rev., 3, 91

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    & Chabrier, G

    Baraffe, I. & Chabrier, G. 2018, A&A, 619, A177

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2015, A&A, 577, A42

    Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, A&A, 577, A42

    2015

  5. [5]

    & Baraffe, I

    Chabrier, G. & Baraffe, I. 1997, A&A, 327, 1039

    1997

  6. [6]

    2000, A&A, 359, 289

    Claret, A. 2000, A&A, 359, 289

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Clayton, D. D. 1968, Principles of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis

    work page 1968

  8. [8]

    C., Crain, J

    Clemens, J. C., Crain, J. A., & Anderson, R. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 5492, Ground- based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 331–340 Collier Cameron, A., Pollacco, D., Street, R. A., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 799

    work page 2004

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    A., Kielkopf, J

    Collins, K. A., Kielkopf, J. F., Stassun, K. G., & Hessman, F. V . 2017, AJ, 153, 77

    2017

  2. [10]

    M., Paladino, R., & Sterzik, M

    Covino, E., Frasca, A., Alcalá, J. M., Paladino, R., & Sterzik, M. F. 2004, As- tronomy, 649, 637

    2004

  3. [11]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hebb, L., & Hawley, S. L. 2015, ApJ, 806, 212

    2015

  4. [12]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Cody, A. M., Carpenter, J. M., & Howard, A. W. 2016, ApJ, 816, 21

    2016

  5. [13]

    J., Hillenbrand, L

    David, T. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., Gillen, E., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 161

    2019

  6. [14]

    D., Rees, D

    Donati, J.-F., Semel, M., Carter, B. D., Rees, D. E., & Collier Cameron, A. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 658

    1997

  7. [15]

    2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi´c, D., et al. 2008, ApJS, 178, 89

    2008

  8. [16]

    R., & Hebb, L

    Enoch, B., Collier Cameron, A., Parley, N. R., & Hebb, L. 2010, A&A, 516, A33

    2010

  9. [17]

    Feiden, G. A. 2016, A&A, 593, A99

    2016

  10. [18]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2018

  11. [19]

    2014, A&A, 562, A50

    Gillen, E., Aigrain, S., McQuillan, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 562, A50

    2014

  12. [20]

    A., Stauffer, J., et al

    Gillen, E., Hillenbrand, L. A., Stauffer, J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 1531 Gómez Maqueo Chew, Y ., Hebb, L., Stempels, H. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A23 Gómez Maqueo Chew, Y ., Stassun, K. G., Prša, A., & Mathieu, R. D. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 699, 1196 Gómez Maqueo ...

    2020

  13. [21]

    2009, ApJ, 693, 1920

    Hebb, L., Collier-Cameron, A., Loeillet, B., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1920

    2009

  14. [22]

    Hebb, L., Collier-Cameron, A., Triaud, A. H. M. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, 224

    2010

  15. [23]

    J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J

    Henry, T. J., Jao, W.-C., Winters, J. G., et al. 2018, AJ, 155, 265

    2018

  16. [24]

    Howell, S. B. 1989, PASP, 101, 616

    1989

  17. [25]

    2007, MNRAS, 380, 541

    Irwin, J., Aigrain, S., Hodgkin, S., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 541

    2007

  18. [26]

    & Lewis, J

    Irwin, M. & Lewis, J. 2001, New A Rev., 45, 105

    2001

  19. [27]

    & Milone, E

    Kallrath, J. & Milone, E. F. 2009, Eclipsing Binary Stars: Modeling and Analysis

    2009

  20. [28]

    & Stassun, K

    Kounkel, M. & Stassun, K. 2024, AJ, 168, 134 Kovács, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 2002, A&A, 391, 369

    2024

  21. [29]

    Lacy, C. H. S., Fekel, F. C., Pavlovski, K., Torres, G., & Muterspaugh, M. W. 2016, AJ, 152, 2 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V . d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2016

  22. [30]

    Lucy, L. B. & Sweeney, M. A. 1971, AJ, 76, 544

    1971

  23. [31]

    2002,\Aj, 124, 1670

    Mamajek, E., Meyer, M., & Liebert, J. 2002,\Aj, 124, 1670

    2002

  24. [32]

    J., Lawson, W

    Murphy, S. J., Lawson, W. A., Onken, C. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4902

    2020

  25. [33]

    G., Collins, K

    Paegert, M., Stassun, K. G., Collins, K. A., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.04778

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 794

    2016

  27. [35]

    J., Mamajek, E

    Pecaut, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bubar, E. J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 154

    2012

  28. [36]

    & Jofré, J

    Petrucci, R. & Jofré, J. E. 2016, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astrono- mia La Plata Argentina, 58, 298

    2016

  29. [37]

    Piskunov, N. E. & Valenti, J. A. 2002, A&A, 385, 1095

    2002

  30. [38]

    L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al

    Pollacco, D. L., Skillen, I., Collier Cameron, A., et al. 2006, PASP, 118, 1407 Prša, A., Harmanec, P., Torres, G., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 41 Prša, A. & Zwitter, T. 2005, ApJ, 628, 426 Ruci´nski, S. M. 1969, Acta Astron., 19, 245 Article number, page 12 of 13 Y . Gómez Maqueo C...

    2006

  31. [39]

    Schwab, C., Spronck, J. F. P., Tokovinin, A., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV , 84460B

    2012

  32. [40]

    Southworth, J., Bruntt, H., & Buzasi, D. L. 2007, A&A, 467, 1215

    2007

  33. [41]

    G., Feiden, G

    Stassun, K. G., Feiden, G. A., & Torres, G. 2014, New A Rev., 60, 1

    2014

  34. [42]

    G., Mathieu, R

    Stassun, K. G., Mathieu, R. D., Vaz, L. P. R., Stroud, N., & Vrba, F. J. 2004, ApJS, 151, 357

    2004

  35. [43]

    G., Torres, G., Kounkel, M., et al

    Stassun, K. G., Torres, G., Kounkel, M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 941, 125

    2022

  36. [44]

    C., Hebb, L., Stassun, K

    Stempels, H. C., Hebb, L., Stassun, K. G., et al. 2008, A&A, 481, 747

    2008

  37. [45]

    Stetson, P. B. 1990, PASP, 102, 932

    1990

  38. [46]

    2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Stoehr, F., White, R., Smith, M., et al. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 394, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XVII, ed. R. W. Argyle, P. S. Bunclark, & J. R. Lewis, 505

    2008

  39. [47]

    M., Kraus, A

    Tofflemire, B. M., Kraus, A. L., Mann, A. W., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.10789

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A., Bonati, M., et al

    Tokovinin, A., Fischer, D. A., Bonati, M., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 1336

    2013

  41. [49]

    2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 256

    Torres, G. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 256

    2021

  42. [50]

    2010, A&A Rev., 18, 67

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Giménez, A. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 67

    2010

  43. [51]

    Valenti, J. A. & Piskunov, N. 1996, A&AS, 118, 595 Walter. 2018, An Alternative Scheme for Chiron Fiber and Slicer Mode Data Reductions, http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/SMARTS/ CHIRON/ch_reduce.pdf, accessed: 2024-03-29

    1996

  44. [52]

    Watson, C. A. & Dhillon, V . S. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 110

    2004

  45. [53]

    Wright, N. J. & Mamajek, E. E. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 381

    2018

  46. [54]

    1977, A&A, 57, 383

    Zahn, J.-P. 1977, A&A, 57, 383

    1977

  47. [55]

    Zahn, J. P. & Bouchet, L. 1989, A&A, 223, 112 Article number, page 13 of 13

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.