Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 99 references

Spectroscopic follow-up of compact object binary candidates from Gaia DR3: White dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, and the parallax zeropoint

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-year spectroscopic campaign shows that about 60% of Gaia DR3 high-mass astrometric binary candidates host compact objects, and measures the orbital-solution parallax zeropoint as $Z=-0.0362\pm0.0053$ mas.

desk verdict A systematic RV campaign that vets essentially all Gaia DR3 compact-object candidates and gives the first direct parallax-zeropoint measurement for orbital solutions; the zeropoint is convincing, though the quoted uncertainty may be a bit optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06453 v1 pith:JGPZY6I6 submitted 2026-08-06 astro-ph.SR

Kareem El-Badry , David W. Latham , Hans-Walter Rix , Allyson Bieryla , Lars A. Buchhave , Sahar Shahaf , Tsevi Mazeh , Johanna Müller-Horn
show 7 more authors
Pranav Nagarajan Natsuko Yamaguchi Casey Y. Lam Dominick Rowan Joshua D. Simon Jessica R. Lu Howard Isaacson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords GaiaDR3astrometricbinariescompactobjectradialvelocityfollow-upparallaxzeropointblackholeneutronstarcandidateswhitedwarfspectroscopicbinarypurity
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 a four-year spectroscopic follow-up of 227 candidate compact-object binaries drawn from Gaia DR3 astrometric and single-lined spectroscopic orbital solutions. Its central claim is that about 60% of the high-mass astrometric candidates genuinely host dark companions -- black holes, neutron stars, or massive white dwarfs -- whereas the spectroscopic candidate sample is dominated by impostors such as post-mass-transfer binaries, hierarchical triples, and spurious orbital solutions. The paper's main quantitative discovery comes from jointly fitting Gaia astrometry with 1,292 new radial velocities for binaries whose companions are dark: each such fit yields a parallax-independent distance. Combining 40 such systems gives a Gaia DR3 parallax zeropoint for astrometric orbital solutions of $Z=-0.0362\pm0.0053$ mas under the convention $\varpi_{\mathrm{true}}=\varpi-Z$, matching the single-star zeropoint. If the claim holds, binary solutions should be corrected with the same zeropoint as single stars, and the same technique can calibrate distances for the larger DR4 sample.

What carries the argument

The central object is the joint astrometry+RV orbital model for a binary whose companion is assumed dark (Section 5.1.1). Astrometry fixes the angular photocenter orbit through Thiele-Innes elements, while the RV data fix the physical orbit through the velocity semi-amplitude; the likelihood is the product of a multivariate Gaussian on the Gaia parameters and a Gaussian on the radial velocities. Equation 24 extends the model to a luminous companion by replacing the photocenter semimajor axis with a flux-ratio-dependent expression, allowing the same fits to measure the G-band flux ratio and thereby test the dark-companion assumption. For the zeropoint, the paper fits 40 systems simultaneously with a shared additive parallax offset $Z$, exploiting the fact that RV plus inclination gives a parallax-independent distance against which the Gaia parallax can be calibrated. The astrometric mass-ratio function is the selection tool that identifies candidate binaries with massive dark companions before follow-up begins.

What would settle it

Observe the 40 calibration binaries with high-contrast imaging or wait for Gaia DR4 astrometry to directly measure their G-band flux ratios; if more than a few show flux ratios above roughly 2-5%, the inferred $Z=-0.0362$ mas is biased. Alternatively, measure the same systems' distances from wide, resolved companions with single-star parallaxes and compare them with the joint-fit distances; a systematic difference would falsify the shared zeropoint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that Gaia DR3 astrometric orbital solutions carry the same parallax zeropoint as single-star solutions, measured directly rather than assumed. Using 40 binaries whose companions contribute negligible G-band light, the paper fits each system's Gaia astrometry jointly with high-precision follow-up radial velocities and obtains a shared zeropoint $Z=-0.0362\pm0.0053$ mas; this agrees with the median value predicted by the Lindegren et al. (2021) prescription for these sources, and the joint fit prefers it by $\Delta\ln P=14.3$. The same fits verify the dark-companion assumption by constraining G-band flux ratios, show that about 60% of astrometric candidates host compact objects (two black holes, 27 neutron-star candidates, and roughly a dozen massive white dwarfs), and reveal that tight WD+WD binaries can masquerade as neutron stars. They also show the high-mass SB1 sample is impure: roughly half of the spectroscopically testable sources have spurious solutions, and most of the rest are post-mass-transfer binaries or hierarchical triples. Applying the zeropoint lowers the inferred companion masses by a median of $0.018\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The distance and zeropoint results assume that the light we see from each binary comes almost entirely from the visible star, so the photocenter tracks that star; if a substantial share of the 40 calibration systems actually contain faint but luminous companions, the inferred distances and zeropoint would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the measured zeropoint matches the single-star prescription, astrometric binary solutions from DR3 should be corrected with $\varpi_{\mathrm{true}}=\varpi-Z$ just like single stars, and the same correction should be applied to mass measurements derived from these orbits.
  • Uncorrected astrometric binary masses are systematically overestimated, by a median of $0.018\,M_\odot$ in this sample, and the bias grows for the more distant binaries expected in Gaia DR4.
  • Reliable astrometric orbits can be separated from spurious ones only statistically: cuts on the Gaia significance and goodness-of-fit remove most impostors, but no single cut is clean.
  • Some neutron-star candidates are probably tight WD+WD binaries rather than single neutron stars; near-circular orbits or UV excess can flag them.
  • The 40 dark-companion binaries provide a set of parallax-independent distance anchors that can be revisited with DR4 data to check whether the zeropoint depends on magnitude, color, or ecliptic latitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zeropoint is truly shared, then every published DR3 astrometric binary distance should shrink by roughly $0.036$ mas divided by its parallax squared, which matters most for distant systems.
  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to split the 40 systems by color, magnitude, and sky position to test whether the binary zeropoint varies with these quantities the way the single-star zeropoint does.
  • The WD+WD masquerade suggests that some confirmed neutron-star candidates could be resolved by ultraviolet spectroscopy or by DR4 astrometric detection of the inner binary's motion.
  • For future surveys, the low purity of SB1-selected candidates argues for requiring astrometric orbital solutions or combined SED and light-curve vetting before committing multi-year radial-velocity resources.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic spectroscopic follow-up of 227 Gaia DR3 compact-object binary candidates selected from astrometric and single-lined spectroscopic orbits. The authors present 1292 new RVs from TRES and FEROS, joint astrometry+RV fits with per-source jitter and instrumental offsets, SED-based stellar parameter and mass estimates, and a classification of the candidate samples into reliable binaries, spurious solutions, hierarchical triples, and compact-object candidates. A central result is the inference of a Gaia DR3 parallax zeropoint for astrometric orbital solutions, Z = -0.0362 ± 0.0053 mas under the convention varpi_true = varpi - Z, obtained from 40 systems with apparently dark companions and consistent with the single-star Lindegren et al. (2021) correction. The paper also reports that about 60% of the astrometric candidates have reliable orbits and that roughly 27 systems are neutron-star candidates, while cautioning that tight WD+WD binaries can masquerade as neutron stars.

Significance. If the zeropoint result holds, it is important because it validates applying the single-star DR3 parallax zeropoint to 12- and 15-parameter astrometric binary solutions, with direct consequences for Gaia DR4 sample selection and for the inferred physical parameters of compact-object binaries. The paper's strengths include a large homogeneous RV dataset at typical 50 m/s precision, explicit joint modeling of astrometry and RVs with jitter and instrumental offsets, a flux-ratio consistency test, a direct comparison with the external Lindegren et al. (2021) prescription, and public release of spectra, RVs, and machine-readable orbital solutions. The conclusion that the binary zeropoint is consistent with the single-star zeropoint is additionally supported by an ensemble of published astrophysical-standard-candle measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1.3, Eq. (24)] The shared-zeropoint fit fixes the G-band flux ratio to fG=0 for all 40 sources, but Section 5.1.2 reports that one included source, Gaia DR3 220012968211559296, has a best-fit fG=0.055±0.019. Because Eq. (24) shows that a positive fG reduces the photocenter semimajor axis in a way that can be partially absorbed by a less negative Z, this source can bias the inferred Z by roughly (1−factor) times its parallax, which is about 0.3 mas for its ϖ≈3.2 mas and q≈1.4. Even a population with mean fG=0.01 would bias Z by roughly 0.03 mas, several times the quoted 0.0053 mas uncertainty. Please report a joint fit in which fG and a shared Z are fit simultaneously, and/or repeat the zeropoint measurement after excluding sources with fG>0.03, stating how Z changes.
  2. [Section 5.1.3, Figure 9] The quoted uncertainty of Z=-0.0362±0.0053 mas is computed from the Fisher matrix, but the per-source best-fit zeropoints in the upper-right panel of Figure 9 show visibly larger scatter, and the bootstrap median, Z=-0.028 (+0.008/-0.012), implies an effective uncertainty of order 0.01-0.02 mas rather than 0.0053 mas. This discrepancy suggests that the formal Fisher uncertainty underestimates the actual spread, possibly because of astrometric systematics or a small number of outliers. A hierarchical or bootstrap analysis of the shared-Z fit should be reported; if the robust uncertainty is substantially larger, the headline precision should be revised even though the consistency with Lindegren et al. (2021) would remain.
  3. [Section 5.1.2-5.1.3] The paper uses the Lindegren et al. (2021) zeropoint correction in the flux-ratio test that supports treating the 40-source sample as dark, and then compares the independently fitted Z with the same Lindegren et al. (2021) prescription. This is not circular, but it means the two consistency checks are not fully independent. The manuscript should state explicitly that the 40-source dark-companion selection does not depend on the L21 zeropoint, or should demonstrate that the zeropoint result is unchanged when the selection is made without any zeropoint correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says the inferred zeropoint is 'perfectly consistent' with the single-star zeropoint; given the systematic concerns discussed in Section 5.1.3, 'consistent within uncertainties' would be more precise.
  2. [Section 5.1.3] The text moves from 41 reliable joint fits to 40 sources in the zeropoint sample without explicitly stating that Gaia BH1 is excluded; please state the exclusion criterion at the start of the subsection.
  3. [Figure 9] The lower-right panel would benefit from a caption clarifying that the red dashed line is the median Lindegren et al. (2021) zeropoint for the same 40 sources and that the abscissa is Z in mas, since several panels share similar axis labels.
  4. [Section 5.1.2, Eq. (24)] Define q immediately before Eq. (24) and explicitly state that negative fG values are unphysical but allowed in the fits, as this convention is used later in the discussion of Gaia BH1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parallax-zeropoint measurement is derived from independent RV-plus-astrometry distances and compared against an external zeropoint, not assumed.

full rationale

The central claim, Z = -0.0362 +/- 0.0053 mas, is not circular. The joint astrometry+RV fits (Section 5.1.1, Equations 9-23) constrain the luminous star's physical semimajor axis a1 from the RV semi-amplitude K1 (Equation 20) and Kepler's law (Equation 12), while the Gaia Thiele-Innes elements A,B,F,G (Equations 13-16) determine the angular photocenter semimajor axis a0. The ratio a1/a0 gives a distance that is independent of the Gaia parallax, so fitting a shared offset Z between varpi_gaia and 1/d is an actual measurement rather than a restatement of prior inputs. The dark-companion assumption fG=0 is not imposed by construction of the result: Section 5.1.2 re-fits fG as a free parameter, and the final 40-source sample is selected by 'well-constrained RV curves and no evidence for a luminous companion' (Section 5.1.3), with the only clear positive-fG outlier (the hierarchical triple 1748901959855337472) and Gaia BH1 explicitly excluded. The agreement with the external Lindegren et al. (2021) single-star zeropoint is a comparison, not an input: the final shared-Z fit is stated to improve the likelihood by Delta ln P = 14.3 relative to imposing the L21 prescription, so the target value is not assumed. Self-citations appear for sample selection (El-Badry et al. 2023a, 2024a) and classification thresholds (M2 > 1.25 Msun), but these are selection criteria, not parameters fed into the zeropoint fit. The fG-Z degeneracy in Equation 24 is a genuine systematic limitation - a population with mean fG about 0.01 could bias Z by several times the quoted Fisher uncertainty - but the paper does not hide it; it tests fG and reports the residual scatter. That is an assumption and a limitation, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central zeropoint measurement depends on standard Keplerian orbit math, the dark-companion assumption, SED-based primary mass priors, and the fidelity of Gaia covariance matrices. The free parameters are nuisance terms (jitter, instrument offset) and the target zeropoint itself. The M2 threshold is a conventional classification boundary, not a fitted constant.

free parameters (4)
  • Global parallax zeropoint Z = -0.0362 +/- 0.0053 mas
    Central result, fitted simultaneously across 40 binaries with dark companions (Section 5.1.3).
  • Per-source RV jitter sigma_jit = Various, e.g. 0.002-2.5 km/s
    Added in quadrature to RV uncertainties to absorb underestimated errors; included in every orbit fit (Section 5.1.1).
  • FEROS-minus-TRES velocity offset = Median -0.12 km/s
    Fitted for systems observed with both spectrographs (Section 5.1.1).
  • G-band flux ratio fG = Tests; most consistent with 0, one triple at 0.168
    Free parameter in Section 5.1.2 to test the dark-companion assumption.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Keplerian two-body orbits and Thiele-Innes parameterization of astrometric orbits
    Used throughout Section 5 to relate astrometric and RV observables to orbital parameters.
  • domain assumption Dark companion: the photocenter traces the luminous star for class III astrometric solutions
    Assumed in the joint fits (Section 5.1.1) and tested via flux-ratio fits (Section 5.1.2).
  • domain assumption SED-based primary mass prior from BaSeL/MIST models
    Used as a Gaussian prior on M1 in all joint fits (Section 4 and 5.1.1).
  • domain assumption Gaia astrometric covariance matrix correctly characterizes the DR3 orbital solution uncertainties
    The likelihood in Equation 19 uses the Gaia covariance matrix without additional error inflation.
  • domain assumption The M2 > 1.25 solar mass threshold separates neutron-star candidates from white-dwarf candidates
    Adopted from prior work (El-Badry et al. 2024a) and used in Section 6.4 to count NS candidates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic follow-up of compact object binary candidates from Gaia DR3: White dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, and the parallax zeropoint." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGPZY6I6

@misc{pith2026260806453,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic follow-up of compact object binary candidates from Gaia DR3: White dwarfs, neutron stars, black holes, and the parallax zeropoint},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGPZY6I6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06453}
}
abstract

Astrometry and radial velocities (RVs) from Gaia DR3 yielded orbits for hundreds of thousands of binary systems, including several samples proposed to contain black holes (BHs), neutron stars (NSs), and white dwarfs (WDs). We present results of a systematic spectroscopic follow-up program targeting these objects. Beginning with a sample of 227 sources, we used a combination of archival data and many-epoch spectroscopic follow-up to characterize more than 200. We obtained 1292 high-quality RVs over a period of four years using the TRES and FEROS spectrographs, achieving a typical precision of 50 m/s and at least 10 RVs for 60 sources. We use these data to test the Gaia orbital solutions and tighten constraints on orbital parameters and component masses. Joint fitting of astrometry and RVs allows us to directly constrain flux ratios, verifying that undetected companions are genuinely dark. We find that ~60% of the astrometric candidates indeed host compact objects, including the two known Gaia BHs, 27 NS candidates, and a dozen massive WDs. We show that tight WD+WD binaries may masquerade as NSs within this sample. The spectroscopic candidates have lower purity: ~50% have spurious solutions, and a majority of the rest are post-mass-transfer binaries or hierarchical triples. Joint astrometry+RV fits of binaries with dark companions yield direct, parallax-independent distance measurements. Using 40 such systems, we measure the Gaia DR3 parallax zeropoint for astrometric orbital solutions. We find $Z=-0.0362\pm0.0053$ mas, consistent with the single-star zeropoint for sources of similar color and magnitude. These results will guide the selection of cleaner candidate samples from Gaia DR4, where a longer observing baseline will enable discovery of many more compact object binaries. RV follow-up will remain important for confirming individual systems, particularly those with extreme parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06453 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Basic properties of the SB1 (gold) and astrometric (blue) candidates. Panels (a) and (b) show extinction-corrected CMDs; small black points show the full DR3 astrometric orbit and SB1 catalogs from which our candidates are selected. Dashed lines show the main-sequence selection used to assign initial photometric masses. Small colored points show initial candidates rejected due to evidence for a second luminous com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Normalized TRES spectra of four representative sources compared to the Kurucz model spectrum used for RV measurements. From top to bottom, we show a solar-type star, a low-metallicity MS star, a star with significant rotational broadening, and an evolved hot star in a post-mass transfer binary. In the last case, Hα emission traces a disk around the companion. the astrometric and SB1 follow-up samples are shown in … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Measured RV uncertainties for all reported spectra as a function of G-band magnitude. The median uncertainty is 0.065 km s−1 for 815 TRES epochs and 0.049 km s−1 for 477 FEROS epochs. with our follow-up RVs, we first compare the RVs to predictions of the Gaia solution alone. In cases where the RVs and Gaia solution appear consistent, we fit them jointly. In cases where they are inconsistent – i.e., where including… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Observed and Gaia-predicted RVs for sources in the astrometric sample. Cyan curves show predicted RVs for draws from the Gaia astrometric covariance matrix. Systemic RVs are fixed to the values inferred from the joint astrometry-plus-RV fits ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Joint astrometry+RV orbital fits for 41 systems in the astrometric sample for which RVs are consistent with the Gaia solution. Cyan curves show the maximum-posterior joint model; lower sub-panels show RV residuals. The fitted FEROS-minus-TRES offsets are included whe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Joint astrometry+RV fits compared to RV-only fits for the 10 sources with RVs inconsistent with their astrometric solutions. Cyan curves show the best-fit joint astrometry+RVs model, while dashed black curves show the best-fit RV-only model. Lower sub-panels show res…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Comparison of parameters for systems in the astrometric sample inferred from the Gaia solutions alone compared to those constrained by our RV follow-up. Blue points show results of joint astrometry+RV fits for sources with consistent RVs and astrometry. Orange points…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Comparison of the astrometric sample (Section 2.1; colored symbols) to the full DR3 astrometric orbit catalog (black points). Green circles mark sources whose Gaia astrometric orbits appear reliable, orange squares mark sources whose astrometric orbits were invalidat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Constraints on the flux ratio and parallax zeropoint from joint astrometry+RV fits. Upper-left panel shows the best-fit G-band flux ratios inferred with the raw DR3 parallaxes (blue dashed) and after applying the zeropoint correction from Lindegren et al. (2021) (red…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Effect of the Lindegren et al. (2021) parallax ze￾ropoint correction on the companion masses inferred from joint astrometry+RV fits. Applying the zeropoint correction decreases the inferred masses slightly but systematically because it places the binaries at smaller…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Observed and Gaia-predicted RVs for sources in the SB1 sample. Cyan curves show predictions for draws from the Gaia covariance matrix; red circles and purple squares show TRES and FEROS RVs. Gaia period labels are shown in red for the three sources whose SB1 solutio…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — RV-only orbital fits for 19 candidates in the SB1 sample with sufficient RV follow-up for an independent fit. Black curves show the maximum-likelihood solution; lower panels show residuals. Red circles and purple squares show TRES and FEROS RVs. The posterior median…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Best-fit SB1 solution parameters inferred from fits to our RVs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Three hierarchical triples in our sample. Top two rows show systems with Gaia SB1 orbits; bottom row shows a system with an astrometric orbit. Left panels compare our measured RVs to predictions of the Gaia solutions; right panels show TESS light curves that reveal …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Single-star SED fits for astrometric candidates with RV follow-up, sorted by Gaia orbital period. Blue points are measurements included in the fit; red points are predictions of the maximum-posterior model. Purple points and arrows show GALEX detections and upper li…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Single-star SED fits for SB1 candidates with RV follow-up. Symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Gim \'e nez A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...548A..79A 548, A79

    Alfonso-Garz \'o n J., Domingo A., Mas-Hesse J. M., Gim \'e nez A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220095 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...548A..79A 548, A79

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220095 2012

  2. [2]

    G., C \'o rsico A

    Althaus L. G., C \'o rsico A. H., Camisassa M. E., Torres S., Gil-Pons P., Rebassa-Mansergas A., Raddi R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.4492A 523, 4492

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1720 2023

  3. [3]

    arXiv:2302.02611

    Andrae R., Rix H.-W., Chandra V., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2302.02611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230202611A p. arXiv:2302.02611

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.02611 2023

  4. [4]

    J., Taggart K., Foley R., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2207.00680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220700680A p

    Andrews J. J., Taggart K., Foley R., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2207.00680 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220700680A p. arXiv:2207.00680

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.00680 2022

  5. [5]

    W., Jorissen A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3888B 517, 3888

    Bashi D., Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Faigler S., Dong S., El-Badry K., Rix H. W., Jorissen A., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3888B 517, 3888

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2928 2022

  6. [6]

    Bianchi L., Shiao B., Thilker D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..230...24B 230, 24

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 2017

  7. [7]

    V., 2025, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773725700616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AstL...51..516B 51, 516

    Bobylev V. V., 2025, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773725700616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AstL...51..516B 51, 516

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773725700616 2025

  8. [8]

    Bodensteiner J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038682 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..43B 641, A43

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038682 2020

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    C., M \'e sz \'a ros S., Fleming S

    Bohlin R. C., M \'e sz \'a ros S., Fleming S. W., Gordon K. D., Koekemoer A. M., Kov \'a cs J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153..234B 153, 234

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Brahm R., Jord \'a n A., Espinoza N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5455 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129c4002B 129, 034002

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720.1118B 720, 1118

    Buchhave L. A., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/720/2/1118 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...720.1118B 720, 1118

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    Budding E., Erdem A., C i c ek C., Bulut I., Soydugan F., Soydugan E., Baki s V., Demircan O., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...417..263B 417, 263

    2004 doi

  5. [13]

    Buder S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..150B 506, 150

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1060C 452, 1060

    Campbell H. C., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1224 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.1060C 452, 1060

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  8. [16]

    S., Johns-Krull C

    Carvalho A. S., Johns-Krull C. M., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2305.09693 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230509693C p. arXiv:2305.09693

    2023 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chen X., Wang S., Deng L., de Grijs R., Yang M., Tian H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249...18C 249, 18

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    R., Mitnyan T., Rappaport S

    Czavalinga D. R., Mitnyan T., Rappaport S. A., Borkovits T., Gagliano R., Omohundro M., Kristiansen M. H. K., P \'a l A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245300 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..75C 670, A75

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    De Silva G. M., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv327 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.449.2604D 449, 2604

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    T., Mandushev G., Torres G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/3/850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..850D 135, 850

    Devor J., Charbonneau D., O'Donovan F. T., Mandushev G., Torres G., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/135/3/850 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AJ....135..850D 135, 850

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Do T., et al., 2019, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.aav8137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Sci...365..664D 365, 664

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    El-Badry K., 2025, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.138448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025OJAp....8E..62E 8, 62

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    El-Badry K., Quataert E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.3436E 502, 3436

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.1266E 515, 1266

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2269E 506, 2269

    El-Badry K., Rix H.-W., Heintz T. M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab323 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.2269E 506, 2269

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2422 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3602E 516, 3602

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.1057E 518, 1057

    doi

  22. [30]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad799 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4323E 521, 4323

    doi

  23. [31]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2024a, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.121261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..58E 7, 58

    doi

  24. [32]

    El-Badry K., Lam C., Holl B., Halbwachs J.-L., Rix H.-W., Mazeh T., Shahaf S., 2024b, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.125461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E.100E 7, 100

    doi

  25. [33]

    El-Badry K., et al., 2024c, @doi [Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.116675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..27E 7

    doi

  26. [34]

    M., et al., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A

    Faber S. M., et al., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. pp 1657--1669, @doi 10.1117/12.460346

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Fu J.-B., Gu W.-M., Zhang Z.-X., Yi T., Qi S.-Y., Zheng L.-L., Liu J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b4c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...940..126F 940, 126

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Furesz G., 2008, PhD thesis, University of Szeged

    2008

  30. [38]

    GRAVITY Collaboration et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625L..10G 625, L10

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

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

    doi

  34. [42]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..33G 674, A33

    doi

  35. [43]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023c, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..34G 674, A34

    doi

  36. [44]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449763 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...686L...2G 686, L2

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Schaffenroth V., Heber U., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..11G 677, A11

    Geier S., Dorsch M., Dawson H., Pelisoli I., Munday J., Marsh T. R., Schaffenroth V., Heber U., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...677A..11G 677, A11

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Gomel R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243626 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..19G 674, A19

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Gosset E., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450600 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...693A.124G 693, A124

    2025 doi

  40. [48]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    Groenewegen M. A. T., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140862 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..20G 654, A20

    2021 doi

  42. [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

  43. [51]

    G., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJS...30..491H 30, 491

    Henize K. G., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJS...30..491H 30, 491

    1976 doi

  44. [52]

    I., Harrison T

    Hoffman D. I., Harrison T. E., McNamara B. J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/2/466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138..466H 138, 466

    2009 doi

  45. [53]

    Holl B., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245353 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..25H 674, A25

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Zhang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910L...5H 910, L5

    Huang Y., Yuan H., Beers T. C., Zhang H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe69a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910L...5H 910, L5

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Janssens S., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141866 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    M., Thompson T

    Jayasinghe T., Rowan D. M., Thompson T. A., Kochanek C. S., Stanek K. Z., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad909 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.5927J 521, 5927

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Kaufer A., Stahl O., Tubbesing S., N rregaard P., Avila G., Francois P., Pasquini L., Pizzella A., 1999, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4008, Optical and IR Telescope Instrumentation and Detector...

    1999 doi

  50. [58]

    Kervella P., Arenou F., Mignard F., Th \'e venin F., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...623A..72K 623, A72

    2019 doi

  51. [59]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    2017 doi

  52. [60]

    arXiv:2604.20314

    Kovalev M., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2604.20314 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260420314K p. arXiv:2604.20314

    2026 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

    M., 2004, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AcA....54..207K 54, 207

    Kreiner J. M., 2004, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AcA....54..207K 54, 207

    2004

  54. [62]

    L., 1979, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/190589 , 40, 1

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

    1979 doi

  55. [63]

    L., 1992, in Barbuy B., Renzini A., eds, Vol

    Kurucz R. L., 1992, in Barbuy B., Renzini A., eds, Vol. 149, The Stellar Populations of Galaxies. p. 225

    1992

  56. [64]

    L., Katz D., Arenou F., Valette B., Hottier C., Capitanio L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.135L 625, A135

    Lallement R., Babusiaux C., Vergely J. L., Katz D., Arenou F., Valette B., Hottier C., Capitanio L., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.135L 625, A135

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Y., El-Badry K., Simon J

    Lam C. Y., El-Badry K., Simon J. D., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/addac2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...987..215L 987, 215

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    Lejeune T., Cuisinier F., Buser R., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1998405 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&AS..130...65L 130, 65

    1998 doi

  59. [67]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...4L 649, A4

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa784d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....154...94M 154, 94

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    L., et al., 2008, in McLean I

    Marshall J. L., et al., 2008, in McLean I. S., Casali M. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II. p. 701454 ( @eprint arXiv 0807.3774 ), @doi 10.1117/12.789972

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L...1M 619, L1

    Martin D. C., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426387 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619L...1M 619, L1

    2005 doi

  63. [71]

    Mowlavi N., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A..16M 674, A16

    2023 doi

  64. [72]

    M \"u ller-Horn J., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A

    2025 doi

  65. [73]

    Nagarajan P., El-Badry K., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136i4203N 136, 094203

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Nagarajan P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad1ba7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136a4202N 136, 014202

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    A., Wils P., 2005, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005IBVS.5644....1O 5644, 1

    Otero S. A., Wils P., 2005, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005IBVS.5644....1O 5644, 1

    2005

  68. [76]

    Ren F., Chen X., Zhang H., de Grijs R., Deng L., Huang Y., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abf359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...911L..20R 911, L20

    2021 doi

  69. [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

  70. [78]

    M., Thompson T

    Rowan D. M., Thompson T. A., Jayasinghe T., Kochanek C. S., Stanek K. Z., 2024, @doi [The Open Journal of Astrophysics] 10.33232/001c.116170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024OJAp....7E..24R 7, 24

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    Schanche N., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz2064 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488.4905S 488, 4905

    2019 doi

  72. [80]

    Seeburger R., Rix H.-W., El-Badry K., Xiang M., Fouesneau M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae982 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.530.1935S 530, 1935

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    J., Henneco J., Villase \ n or J

    Seeburger R., Rix H.-W., El-Badry K., M \"u ller-Horn J., Dimoff A. J., Henneco J., Villase \ n or J. I., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...705A.146S 705, A146

    2026 doi

  74. [82]

    Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Faigler S., Holl B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1636 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.487.5610S 487, 5610

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2991S 518, 2991

    Shahaf S., Bashi D., Mazeh T., Faigler S., Arenou F., El-Badry K., Rix H. W., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.2991S 518, 2991

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  77. [85]

    I., Bolte M., Epps H

    Sheinis A. I., Bolte M., Epps H. W., Kibrick R. I., Miller J. S., Radovan M. V., Bigelow B. C., Sutin B. M., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/341706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PASP..114..851S 114, 851

    2002 doi

  78. [86]

    Shenar T., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...639L...6S 639, L6

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    D., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260320371S p

    Simon J. D., et al., 2026, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20371 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026arXiv260320371S p. arXiv:2603.20371

    2026 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    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

  81. [89]

    Stef \'a nsson G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ada9e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025AJ....169..107S 169, 107

    2025 doi

  82. [90]

    Steinmetz M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/506564 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132.1645S 132, 1645

    2006 doi

  83. [91]

    Steinmetz M., et al., 2020, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160...83S 160, 83

    2020

  84. [92]

    G., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201512172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AN....336..324S 336, 324

    Strassmeier K. G., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201512172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AN....336..324S 336, 324

    2015 doi

  85. [93]

    pp 129--133

    Szentgyorgyi A., Furesz G., 2007, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. pp 129--133

    2007

  86. [94]

    Tanikawa A., Hattori K., Kawanaka N., Kinugawa T., Shikauchi M., Tsuna D., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acbf36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...946...79T 946, 79

    2023 doi

  87. [95]

    Tanikawa A., Tajitsu A., Honda S., Maehara H., Sato B., Masuda K., Omiya M., Izumiura H., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psag041 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026PASJ...78.1046T 78, 1046

    2026 doi

  88. [96]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  89. [97]

    R., Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Andrae R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136h4202Y 136, 084202

    Yamaguchi N., El-Badry K., Rees N. R., Shahaf S., Mazeh T., Andrae R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6809 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136h4202Y 136, 084202

    doi

  90. [98]

    Yamaguchi N., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad4005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.52711719Y 527, 11719

    doi

  91. [99]

    H., Chu Y

    Zhao G., Zhao Y. H., Chu Y. Q., Jing Y. P., Deng L. C., 2012, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RAA....12..723Z 12, 723

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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