Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Bernhard-1: An Eccentric Binary Periodically Obscured by its Misaligned Circumbinary Disk

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New radial-velocity measurements show that Bernhard-1's 191-day periodic dimming is caused by a highly eccentric binary (e = 0.80 ± 0.09) being occulted by a circumbinary disk tilted by roughly 50° or 130° relative to the binary orbit.

desk verdict Solid confirmation of a third CBO system; the mutual-inclination claim is more model-dependent than the abstract lets on. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10779 v1 pith:ULWIZGUR submitted 2026-08-11 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

Zhecheng Hu , Wei Zhu , Ping Chen , Richard Post , Weicheng Zang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords CircumstellardisksVariablestarsSpectroscopyPre-mainsequencecircumbinarydiskoccultationeccentricbinaryradialvelocitymutualinclination
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

Bernhard-1 is a star that dims by more than two magnitudes every 191 days, and this paper presents the observations that explain why: radial velocities show it is actually a highly eccentric binary ($e = 0.80 \pm 0.09$) of two young K-type stars, and the periodic dimming comes from a circumbinary disk that sweeps across the binary because it is tilted relative to the binary orbit. The paper derives a disk–binary mutual inclination of roughly $50^\circ$ or $130^\circ$ by combining the Keplerian orbit with a semi-transparent screen model for the occulting edge, with the two values reflecting the unknown direction of disk rotation. This makes Bernhard-1 the third spectroscopically confirmed circumbinary-disk occultation system, after KH 15D and Bernhard-2. A sympathetic reader would care because the geometry of a young, highly misaligned circumbinary disk around an eccentric binary is exactly the kind of measurement that constrains where circumbinary planets form and whether they can end up in polar orbits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the semi-transparent occultation screen: a straight edge on the sky plane with optical depth $\tau(s) = \tau_0 \exp(-s/s_0)$, where $s$ is the signed perpendicular distance from the edge and $s_0 \approx 0.033$ AU is the characteristic scale length. Fitting this screen to the multi-band light curves pins its projected offset $d_0 \approx 0.41$ AU and orientation angle $\theta_0 \approx 129^\circ$ while the binary motion is held fixed to the RV-derived Keplerian orbit. Treating the screen edge as a tangent of a nearly edge-on circular ring of the circumbinary disk, the mutual inclination follows from $\cos i_{\rm mut} = \pm \sin i_b \cos \theta_0$, where $i_b \approx 54^\circ$ is the binary inclination; the $\pm$ sign is the disk rotation-direction degeneracy. The RV orbit supplies the eccentricity, periastron timing, and stellar masses needed to fix the binary's three-dimensional shape, so the photometric screen geometry can be turned into a disk–binary angle.

What would settle it

Resolve the circumbinary disk around Bernhard-1 with millimeter interferometry (for example, CO line emission) and measure the disk's true inclination and position angle. If the disk plane is not nearly edge-on (inclination $\gtrsim 80^\circ$) or its projected ring does not match the fitted screen edge with $\theta_0 \approx 129^\circ$, the geometric inversion to $i_{\rm mut} \approx 50^\circ$ or $130^\circ$ fails. Independently, a longer radial-velocity baseline that fits the binary period rather than fixing it at 191.41 days would test whether the photometric period is truly the orbital period.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Bernhard-1 is a pre-main-sequence binary—two K dwarfs of roughly 1.1 and 0.8 solar masses, about 10 Myr old, probably belonging to the open cluster Dolidze 42—with an eccentric orbit $e \approx 0.80$ and a circumbinary disk whose orbital plane is tilted by roughly $50^\circ$ or $130^\circ$ from the binary plane. The tilt is large enough that the disk periodically passes in front of the stars, producing the observed 191.41-day eclipse-like light curve. The light curve alone could not prove this picture; the paper's confirmation rests on seven radial-velocity epochs that trace the Keplerian motion, on phase-dependent spectra in which the cooler secondary dominates during occultation, and on the semi-transparent screen fit that converts the occultation geometry into a mutual inclination. The same data show the occultation duration shrinking between epochs, interpreted as disk precession at roughly $0.7^\circ$ per binary orbit, and H$\alpha$ profiles that develop inverse P-Cygni structure near periastron, indicating pulsed accretion.

Load-bearing premise

The inferred geometry rests on treating the occulter as a straight, static, semi-transparent screen that is the sky projection of an almost edge-on circular ring, and on taking the photometric period of 191.41 days as the binary period; if the occulting structure is warped, spiral-shaped, or far from edge-on, the $50^\circ$/$130^\circ$ mutual inclination would not capture the true disk–binary geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bernhard-1 becomes the third spectroscopically confirmed circumbinary-disk occultation system, showing that confirmed systems now span a range of periods, eccentricities, and mutual inclinations rather than being a single-object phenomenon.
  • The RV-plus-screen method gives a mutual inclination without resolved imaging of the disk, so any circumbinary-disk occultation candidate with an orbital solution can in principle yield the same geometric constraint.
  • A mutual inclination near $50^\circ$ (or its retrograde counterpart $130^\circ$) around an eccentric binary places Bernhard-1 in the dynamical regime where evolution toward a polar disk configuration is possible.
  • The shrinking occultation duration and inferred precession rate of about $0.7^\circ$ per binary orbit mean continued photometric monitoring should reveal the disk's precession period and warp structure.
  • Pulsed accretion near periastron, seen in H$\alpha$, indicates that the accretion modulation familiar from coplanar binaries also operates when the circumbinary disk is highly misaligned.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the geometric method generalizes to the other 30+ photometric candidates, the mutual-inclination distribution of young circumbinary disks could be mapped from the ground, complementing the transiting circumbinary-planet sample that is biased toward coplanar systems.
  • The $50^\circ$/$130^\circ$ degeneracy could be broken by a single resolved observation of the disk (for example, molecular-line emission revealing the disk rotation sense) or by measuring the sign of the disk's radial velocity across the occulting edge.
  • The tentative ~1000-day wiggle in the ingress and egress timings, if real, would mean the occulter has small-scale structure on top of smooth precession; continued monitoring should show whether that timescale repeats.
  • If Bernhard-1 is genuinely a Dolidze 42 member, its optically thick circumbinary disk surviving at roughly 10 Myr would push the typical disk dissipation timescale toward the high end for pre-main-sequence binaries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents new optical (GTC/OSIRIS) and near-infrared (MMT/MMIRS) spectroscopy together with ZTF and Post Observatory photometry of Bernhard-1, a previously proposed KH 15D-like circumbinary-disk occultation (CBO) candidate. A Keplerian fit to seven GTC radial velocities, with the period fixed at P = 191.41 d from a photometric occultation model, yields a highly eccentric binary (e = 0.80 ± 0.09, K1 = 27 +29/−7 km s−1). The authors jointly fit out-of-occultation and in-occultation SEDs to derive pre-main-sequence stellar parameters (M1 ≈ 1.11 M☉, M2 ≈ 0.82 M☉, age ≈ 10 Myr), model the multi-band light curves with a static semi-transparent exponential screen (θ0 = 128.94°, d0 = 0.41 AU), and combine the screen orientation with the binary inclination to infer a disk–binary mutual inclination of roughly 50° or 130°. Additional results include a ~30% statistical association with the open cluster Dolidze 42, a lithium-based age of 4–46 Myr, evidence for disk precession at ~0.7° per orbit, and phase-dependent Hα profiles suggesting pulsed accretion near periastron. The paper concludes that Bernhard-1 is the third spectroscopically confirmed CBO system.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable addition to a very small sample: Bernhard-1 would be only the third spectroscopically confirmed CBO system, and the inferred ~50°/130° mutual inclination would place it in the dynamical regime where polar evolution of the circumbinary disk is possible. The proposed method—combining an RV orbit with occultation-screen geometry to measure disk–binary misalignment—is genuinely transferable to other CBO candidates from ZTF/OGLE/ASAS-SN surveys, provided the screen-to-ring identification is validated. Strengths to credit explicitly: the observational design (ingress spectroscopy that isolates the secondary; exclusion of the Rossiter–McLaughlin-affected ingress RV; a documented custom MMIRS reduction pipeline released on GitHub), the screen model that resolves the unphysical transverse velocity of the earlier sharp-edge model, the iterated SED/spectral fitting, and the honest reporting of a robust lower limit i_mut ≳ 21°–26° even where the headline value is assumption-dependent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.3 (Eqs. 2–5)] The headline mutual inclination i_mut ≈ 50°/130° rests on identifying the straight, static, semi-transparent screen of Eqs. (2)–(4) with the sky projection of a nearly edge-on circular ring of the circumbinary disk, so that L̂ring = ±q̂θ and cos i_mut = ±sin i_b cos θ0 (Eq. 5). The screen fit constrains only a local tangent and the offset d0 ≈ 0.4 AU; it does not constrain ring curvature, ring inclination, or whether the occulter is a coherent ring, a warp, or a spiral arm. If the occulter is not a near-edge-on circular ring, Eq. (5) does not measure the disk–binary mutual inclination at all; the justification in Section 6.3 ("a warped circumbinary disk can be conceptualized as a series of concentric circular rings") asserts, but does not test, the required identification. Even within the ring hypothesis, the paper's own bound i_ring ≳ 80° (from d0 with R_ring = 2–3 ab) is not propagated: generalizing Eq. (5) to L̂ring = sin(i_ring) q̂θ ± cos(i_ring) ẑ with i_ring ∈ [76°, 90°] and i_b = 54 +8/−12 spreads the solution over roughly 50°–70° and 110°–130°, and the text does not show how the "d0 correction" turns the 60°/120° values of Eq. (5) into 50°/130°. I recommend fitting a ring-parameterized model with R_ring and i_ring free, or, failing that, presenting the robust 21°–26° lower limit as the headline measurement and labeling the Eq. (5) value as an assumption-dependent estimate with a systematic budget that includes the warp/spiral alternative.
  2. [Section 4] The Keplerian fit fixes P = 191.41 d, a value obtained from the photometric sharp-edge occultation model described in Section 5—the same periodic phenomenon whose orbital origin the RVs are used to confirm. Because the seven RVs span only ~64 days (0.33 P), they cannot determine the period on their own, so the derived e = 0.80 ± 0.09, ω1, and T_P are conditional on the photometric period being the true binary period. The RVs do demonstrate large phase-dependent velocity variation consistent with the adopted Keplerian and with the sharp periastron peak near T_P, which supports the binary interpretation, but the abstract's wording ("confirming that the periodic photometric variability arises from occultation") overstates the independence of the RV confirmation. I ask the authors to state this limitation explicitly and to report a test with P free, or a grid over plausible alternatives (P/2, 2P, and the tentative ~1000-day precession timescale), to document what the RVs alone can and cannot establish.
  3. [Table 2 (Section 4)] The RV solution is quantitatively weak: K1 = 27 +29/−7 km s−1, with five free parameters constrained by only seven epochs (one at σ_RV = 5.1 km s−1), and the upper tail of the K1 posterior implies sin i_b > 1 under the adopted masses, indicating that the SED and RV constraints are not jointly propagated. The derived inclination i_b = 54 +8/−12 and separation a_b = 0.79 +0.07/−0.03 AU inherit this degeneracy, and because i_b enters Eq. (5) through sin i_b cos θ0, the mutual-inclination estimate carries asymmetric, correlated uncertainties that are not currently quoted. The eccentricity itself is better pinned by the sharp periastron peak of the RV curve and can be reported more confidently than K1. The authors should propagate the full RV posterior into all geometric quantities or explicitly condition the conclusions on it, ideally through a joint SED-plus-RV fit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section 6.1] The abstract describes Bernhard-1 as "probably a member" of Dolidze 42, but the GMM analysis in Section 6.1 yields a ~30% membership probability against ~70% for the field; "probably" overstates this evidence and should be softened (e.g., to "possibly" or "tentatively").
  2. [Section 3.1 / Figure 1] The text states that the secondary contributes ~0.16 of the total flux in the GTC bandpass, while the Figure 1 caption reports F1/F2 = 4.0, which corresponds to a secondary fraction of ~0.20; this inconsistency should be reconciled, and a two-star fit to the coadded GTC spectrum would usefully quantify the phase-dependent RV bias expected from the 16–20% contamination.
  3. [Section 5] The static screen is fitted to photometry spanning a full orbital cycle (JD 2460775–2460975), during which the screen orientation changes by ~0.7° at the paper's own inferred precession rate; this systematic exceeds the quoted statistical uncertainty on θ0 (0.08°) by an order of magnitude and should be incorporated into the screen-parameter error budget.
  4. [Section 6.3] The sentence "Using the measured values of i_b and θ0 gives i_mut ≃ 120° or 180° − i_mut ≃ 60°" defines one solution branch in terms of the other and is confusing; the two branches should be stated directly as i_mut ≈ 60° and i_mut ≈ 120°, with the ± sign convention for L̂ring explained once.
  5. [Formatting (Sections 1, 3.1, 6.5, 7)] Formatting and typos: "Hαline" is missing a space in Sections 1, 6.5, and 7; "R V" and "RV" are used inconsistently throughout; and the "T able 1" label in Section 3.1 has a formatting artifact that should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The RV 'confirmation' of the photometric period is partly circular because P is fixed from the occultation model being confirmed; the rest of the derivation has substantial independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 (RV modeling), Table 2; abstract]
    "We fix P= 191.41 days, obtained by refitting the W. Zhu et al. (2022) sharp-edge occultation model to the combined archival and new photometry."

    The orbital period is the quantity that connects the photometric periodicity to a binary clock, yet it is fixed from the sharp-edge occultation model that the paper is also presenting as confirmed. The subsequent Keplerian RV fit therefore cannot independently establish that the photometric period equals the binary period; this equality is an input, not an output. The abstract's statement that the RVs 'confirm' that the periodic photometric variability arises from a circumbinary disk accordingly overstates the independence of the period link. The RVs do independently contribute the large amplitude, e = 0.80, T_P, and omega, so the eccentric-binary detection is not fabricated; only the periodicity-to-orbit identification is partly circular.

full rationale

One genuine but limited circularity exists at the period level. Section 4 fixes P = 191.41 d from a refit of the Zhu et al. (2022) sharp-edge occultation model, uses that P in the Keplerian RV fit, and then presents the RVs as confirming that the periodic photometric variability is the binary period. That specific link is input used to confirm the model that produced the input. The rest of the derivation is not circular: the seven GTC RVs independently determine the large velocity amplitude, e ≈ 0.80, periastron timing, and argument of periastron; the screen model independently constrains θ0 and d0 from multi-band photometry; and the mutual-inclination estimate is a derived geometric combination of fitted parameters (Eq. 5), not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main caveat on the 50°/130° value is model-dependence, not circularity: Section 6.3 explicitly acknowledges the edge-on circular-ring assumption with i_ring ≳ 80° and uses a fiducial R_ring = 3a_b for the d0 correction. That is an honest stated physical assumption and should be weighed as a correctness risk, not as a circular step. Self-citations to Zhu et al. (2022) and Hu et al. (2024) are used for candidate identification and the period model, but the period is refit to the combined data, so this is not a citation-only load-bearing chain. Score 4 reflects the partially forced period identification while recognizing the substantial independent content in the RV eccentricity and the screen geometry.

Assumptions & free parameters 16 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on standard stellar models (MIST, ATLAS9), the identification of the occulting screen as a circular ring of the circumbinary disk, and a period fixed from photometry. No new physical entities are introduced; the model parameters are ordinary fitted quantities. The main ad hoc elements are the screen parameterization and the fixed photometric period.

free parameters (16)
  • Binary eccentricity e = 0.80 +0.09/-0.08
    Fitted to 7 GTC RVs (Section 4, Table 2).
  • RV semi-amplitude K1 = 27 +29/-7 km/s
    Weakly constrained; drives the binary inclination and mass-function uncertainty.
  • Argument of periastron omega1 = 4 +4/-10 deg
    Fitted in the Keplerian RV model.
  • Periastron time T_P = BJD' 863.9 +0.9/-3.3
    Fitted in the Keplerian RV model.
  • Systemic velocity gamma = -5.8 +1.3/-1.5 km/s
    Fitted in the Keplerian RV model.
  • Screen orientation theta0 = 128.94 +/- 0.08 deg
    Fitted to ZTF and Post Observatory light curves (Section 5).
  • Screen offset |d0| = 0.4094 +/- 0.0004 AU
    Fitted; sets the ring inclination lower limit.
  • Screen opacity scale s0 = 0.03336 +/- 0.00018 AU
    Fitted; must be several stellar radii to justify point-source treatment.
  • Primary EEP = 175 +/- 4
    Fitted in the MIST-based SED model.
  • Secondary EEP = 165 +/- 5
    Fitted in the SED model.
  • Log10 age = 6.99 +/- 0.13
    Fitted in the SED model; age about 10 Myr.
  • Metallicity [Fe/H] = -0.22 +/- 0.10
    Constrained jointly by GTC spectra and SED.
  • Distance d = 1.20 +/- 0.12 kpc
    Fitted with Gaia parallax prior.
  • Extinction A_V = 3.17 +/- 0.14 mag
    Fitted in the SED model.
  • Fiducial disk ring radius R_ring = 3 a_b ~ 2.4 AU
    Hand-chosen fiducial for the mutual inclination correction; 2-3 a_b range gives similar results.
  • RV jitter = 1 km/s
    Adopted noise floor; a free-jitter test piles up near zero.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The two stars are coeval and share distance, extinction, and metallicity in the SED fit.
    Section 3.2: the joint SED model gives the two stars 'all parameters except their EEPs' in common.
  • domain assumption MIST isochrones, ATLAS9 model atmospheres, and the Cardelli et al. (1989) R_V=3.1 extinction law describe the system.
    Section 3.1-3.2; used to convert photometry and spectra into masses, radii, and age.
  • domain assumption The photometric period P=191.41 d is the binary orbital period.
    Section 4: 'We fix P=191.41 days, obtained by refitting the W. Zhu et al. (2022) sharp-edge occultation model'.
  • domain assumption The occulter is a static straight screen with exponential optical depth profile; the stars are point sources.
    Section 5, Eqs. 2-4.
  • domain assumption The occulting screen edge is the projection of a nearly edge-on circular ring of the circumbinary disk with negligible local curvature.
    Section 6.3; i_ring >= 80 deg from d0/R_ring and the straight-tangent approximation.
  • standard math Standard Keplerian mechanics and radiative transfer.
    Used throughout; standard background.
  • domain assumption In-occultation photometry is produced by the secondary star alone.
    Section 3.2; assumes the primary is fully occulted in the in-occultation SED.
  • domain assumption The empirical H-alpha width to accretion rate relation (Alcala et al. 2014) applies at order-of-magnitude level.
    Section 6.5; only used as a rough accretion diagnostic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bernhard-1: An Eccentric Binary Periodically Obscured by its Misaligned Circumbinary Disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULWIZGUR

@misc{pith2026260810779,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bernhard-1: An Eccentric Binary Periodically Obscured by its Misaligned Circumbinary Disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULWIZGUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10779}
}
abstract

Bernhard-1 is a proposed KH 15D-like circumbinary disk occultation (CBO) system, but its binary nature and disk geometry have not previously been confirmed. We present new optical and near-infrared spectroscopy together with multi-band photometric monitoring of the system. The radial velocities confirm that Bernhard-1 hosts a highly eccentric binary with $e = 0.80 \pm 0.09$, confirming that the periodic photometric variability arises from occultation by a misaligned circumbinary disk. Joint modeling of the spectra and phase-dependent spectral energy distributions yields pre-main-sequence components with masses of $\sim 1.1\,M_\odot$ and $\sim 0.8\,M_\odot$. Combining stellar isochrones with the measured lithium abundance yields a system age of $\sim$ 10 Myr. Together with the spatial, astrometric, and metallicity properties of Bernhard-1, this suggests that Bernhard-1 is probably a member of the open cluster Dolidze 42. By combining the RV orbit with a semi-transparent occultation-screen model, we infer a disk--binary mutual inclination of roughly $50^\circ$ or $130^\circ$, with the degeneracy arising from the unknown disk rotation direction. This geometric method can be applied to any CBO system once radial velocity monitoring yields an orbital solution. The new light curves deviate from earlier model predictions, consistent with ongoing disk precession, while the phase-dependent H$\alpha$ profiles indicate pulsed accretion near periastron. Bernhard-1 therefore joins KH 15D and Bernhard-2 as a rare spectroscopically confirmed CBO system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10779 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between the combined GTC/OSIRIS spectra, obtained out of occultation, and the MMT/MMIRS spectrum, obtained at the end of ingress. The upper panel shows the combined GTC spectrum, in which the flux ratio between the primary and the secondary F1/F2 in the corresponding wavelength range is about 4.0. The lower panel shows the MMT/MMIRS observation, which was obtained when F1/F2 ∼ 0.6 in the corresponding wav… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photometric measurements and the best-fit SED models of Bernhard-1. The red, purple, and pink markers represent data from Pan-STARRS, 2MASS, and WISE, re￾spectively. Circles show the out-of-occultation photometry, fit by the total, i.e., primary plus secondary, model SED, and squares show the in-occultation photometry, fit by the secondary-only model SED. The WISE W3 and W4 mea￾surements are excluded from the fit du… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radial velocity and photometric data, best-fit models, and the geometric configuration of Bernhard-1. (a) Radial velocity curve. The black line and gray shading show the best-fit Keplerian model and its 1σ uncertainty. Blue circles are the GTC/OSIRIS measurements used in the fit. Numbers label the epoch indices. (b) Multi-band light curves. Green diamonds, red circles, pink squares, and purple triangles denote ZTF g… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The astrometric properties of Bernhard-1 and nearby clusters, together with the comparison of metallicity between Bernhard-1 and Dolidze 42. Panel a: The sky distribution of four closest open clusters, where the solid lines represent the 50% cluster membership and dash…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The combined GTC spectrum and synthetic spectra around the 6708 ˚ALi I line, together with the age determination from the lithium abundance. Left panel: The black solid line represents the combined data, with the gray region indicating the 1σ uncertainty. The black das…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic geometry of the binary orbit and a misaligned circumbinary disk with imut = 52◦ . The lower panel shows the sky-plane projection of the binary orbits and the circumbinary disk, with the primary and secondary shown in blue and orange, respectively. The black d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The light curve with the new model and W. Zhu et al. (2022) model, together with the corresponding color magnitude variation for the occultation process in panels (b) and (c). The label in panel (a) is the same as in panel (b) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the occultation morphology across different orbital cycles, shown as a river plot. The color represents the visible fraction of the primary-star flux, with blue corresponding to nearly complete occultation and red corresponding to an unobscured primary. Ri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The RV fitting result (upper panel) and the corresponding spectral profiles near the accretion indicators (lower panels). The description for the data and model in the upper panel is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Myeong, G

    Aguado, D. S., Myeong, G. C., Belokurov, V., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 889, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3250 Alcal´ a, J. M., Natta, A., Manara, C. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322254 Alonso-Garc ´ ıa, J., Mateo, M., Sen, B., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 70, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/70

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3250 2021

  2. [2]

    J., Osborn, H

    Armstrong, D. J., Osborn, H. P., Brown, D. J. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 1873, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1570

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1570 2014

  3. [3]

    Artymowicz, P., & Lubow, S. H. 1996, ApJL, 467, L77, doi: 10.1086/310200

    doi:10.1086/310200 1996

  4. [4]

    A., Herbst, W., Cody, A

    Arulanantham, N. A., Herbst, W., Cody, A. M., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 90, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/90 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collabo...

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/4/90 2016

  5. [5]

    M., & Mathieu, R

    Basri, G., Johns-Krull, C. M., & Mathieu, R. D. 1997, AJ, 114, 781, doi: 10.1086/118510

    work page doi:10.1086/118510 1997

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  7. [7]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz549

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  8. [8]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofr´ e, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    2001, A&A, 374, 733, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010730

    Bouchy, F., Pepe, F., & Queloz, D. 2001, A&A, 374, 733, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010730

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    Brandt, T. D. 2024a, PASP, 136, 045004, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad38d9

    doi

  3. [11]

    Brandt, T. D. 2024b, PASP, 136, 045005, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad38da

    doi

  4. [12]

    K., Hogerheijde, M

    Brinch, C., Jørgensen, J. K., Hogerheijde, M. R., Nelson, R. P., & Gressel, O. 2016, ApJL, 830, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/830/1/L16

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray, A20, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087

    2003 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Cepa, J. 2010, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2010

  8. [16]

    14, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics V, ed

    Proceedings, Vol. 14, Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics V, ed. J. M. Diego, L. J. Goicoechea, J. I. Gonz´ alez-Serrano, & J. Gorgas, 15, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11250-8 2

    doi

  9. [17]

    S., et al

    Chen, P., Dong, S., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac50b7

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1246

    Chen, Z., & Kipping, D. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5162, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1246

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Chiang, E. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 607, 913, doi: 10.1086/383522

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    C., & Martin, R

    Childs, A. C., & Martin, R. G. 2021, ApJL, 920, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2957

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    Chilingarian, I., Beletsky, Y., Moran, S., et al. 2015, PASP, 127, 406, doi: 10.1086/680598

    2015 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

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

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Green, G. M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 812, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/2/128

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    M., et al

    Czekala, I., Chiang, E., Andrews, S. M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab287b

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Carter, J

    Doyle, L. R., Carter, J. A., Fabrycky, D. C., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1602, doi: 10.1126/science.1210923 16 Duchˆ ene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 269, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    2006, ApJ, 646, 319, doi: 10.1086/504832

    Edwards, S., Fischer, W., Hillenbrand, L., & Kwan, J. 2006, ApJ, 646, 319, doi: 10.1086/504832

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Schneider, P

    Erkal, J., Manara, C. F., Schneider, P. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A188, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244254 Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Zapata, L. A., & Gabbasov, R. 2017, ApJ, 845, 10, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7d51

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 For´ es-Toribio, R., JoHantgen, B., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2025, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 8, 114, doi: 10.33232/001c.143105

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S., & Sinukoff, E. 2018, PASP, 130, 044504, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8 Garc ´ ıa Soto, A., Ali, A., Newmark, A., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 135, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab6efd

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    V., et al

    Goldberg, M., Fabrycky, D., Martin, D. V., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4628, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2568

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Gray, D. F. 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316036570

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    O., & Corbally, C

    Gray, R. O., & Corbally, C. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 742, doi: 10.1086/116893

    1994 doi

  27. [35]

    Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161, doi: 10.1023/A:1005161325181

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Johns-Krull, C

    Hamilton, C. M., Johns-Krull, C. M., Mundt, R., Herbst, W., & Winn, J. N. 2012, ApJ, 751, 147, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/751/2/147

    2012 doi

  29. [37]

    2024, ApJL, 977, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad94e8

    Hu, Z., Zhu, W., Dai, F., et al. 2024, ApJL, 977, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad94e8

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Hu, Z., Zhu, W., Wang, S., & Wang, S. X. 2026, ApJS, 284, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae5d41

    2026 doi

  31. [39]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Jackson, R

    Jeffries, R. D., Jackson, R. J., Wright, N. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 802, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1293

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

    A., Marcy, G

    Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., Hamilton, C. M., Herbst, W., & Johns-Krull, C. M. 2004, AJ, 128, 1265, doi: 10.1086/422735

    2004 doi

  35. [43]

    E., & Herbst, W

    Kearns, K. E., & Herbst, W. 1998, AJ, 116, 261, doi: 10.1086/300426

    1998 doi

  36. [44]

    M., Wyatt, M

    Kennedy, G. M., Wyatt, M. C., Sibthorpe, B., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2264, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20448.x

    2012

  37. [45]

    M., Matr` a, L., Facchini, S., et al

    Kennedy, G. M., Matr` a, L., Facchini, S., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 230, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0667-x

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    A., Gonz´ alez Picos, D., Elizondo, E., et al

    Kenworthy, M. A., Gonz´ alez Picos, D., Elizondo, E., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243441

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 K¨ ohler, R. 2011, A&A, 530, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016327

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    B., Orosz, J

    Kostov, V. B., Orosz, J. A., Feinstein, A. D., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 253, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab8a48

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    2007, ApJ, 657, 897, doi: 10.1086/511057

    Kwan, J., Edwards, S., & Fischer, W. 2007, ApJ, 657, 897, doi: 10.1086/511057

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    2016, A&A, 590, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527863

    Lacour, S., Biller, B., Cheetham, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A90, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527863

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    W., Smith, L

    Lucas, P. W., Smith, L. C., Guo, Z., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 1789, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3929

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    V., & Triaud, A

    Martin, D. V., & Triaud, A. H. M. J. 2014, A&A, 570, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323112

    2014 doi

  45. [53]

    V., Triaud, A

    Martin, D. V., Triaud, A. H. M. J., Udry, S., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833669

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    G., & Lubow, S

    Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2017, ApJL, 835, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/835/2/L28

    2017 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    McLaughlin, D. B. 1924, ApJ, 60, 22, doi: 10.1086/142826

    1924 doi

  49. [57]

    2012, PASP, 124, 1318, doi: 10.1086/669044

    McLeod, B., Fabricant, D., Nystrom, G., et al. 2012, PASP, 124, 1318, doi: 10.1086/669044

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, NewA, 15, 433, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2009.12.002

    2010 doi

  51. [59]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1450

    Miranda, R., & Lai, D. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2396, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1450

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Morton, T. D. 2015, isochrones: Stellar model grid package,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1503.010 Mu˜ noz, D. J., & Lai, D. 2016, ApJ, 827, 43, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/43

    2015 doi

  53. [61]

    A., & Mead, R

    Nelder, J. A., & Mead, R. 1965, The Computer Journal, 7, 308, doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308

    1965 doi

  54. [62]

    J., & Zhu, W

    Poon, M., Zanazzi, J. J., & Zhu, W. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1599, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab575

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020a, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    doi

  56. [64]

    X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J., Cooke, R., et al. 2020b, pypeit/PypeIt: Release 1.0.0, v1.0.0 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3743493

    doi

  57. [65]

    A., Henry, T

    Raghavan, D., McAlister, H. A., Henry, T. J., et al. 2010, ApJS, 190, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/190/1/1 17

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    Ragusa, E., Alexander, R., Calcino, J., Hirsh, K., & Price, D. J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 3362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2954

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Rossiter, R. A. 1924, ApJ, 60, 15, doi: 10.1086/142825

    1924 doi

  60. [68]

    L., et al

    Ryabchikova, T., Piskunov, N., Kurucz, R. L., et al. 2015, PhyS, 90, 054005, doi: 10.1088/0031-8949/90/5/054005

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Mateo, M., & Saha, A

    Schechter, P. L., Mateo, M., & Saha, A. 1993, PASP, 105, 1342, doi: 10.1086/133316

    1993 doi

  62. [70]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    L., Lubow, S

    Smallwood, J. L., Lubow, S. H., & Martin, R. G. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 1249, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1416

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    L., Martin, R

    Smallwood, J. L., Martin, R. G., & Lubow, S. H. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 2952, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad338

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Tofflemire, B. M., Mathieu, R. D., Ardila, D. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/8

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2003, AcA, 53, 291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401123

    Udalski, A. 2003, AcA, 53, 291, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0401123

    2003 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    1997, AcA, 47, 319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710091

    Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., & Szymanski, M. 1997, AcA, 47, 319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710091

    1997 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    K., & Szyma´ nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., & Szyma´ nski, G. 2015, AcA, 65, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966

    2015 doi arXiv

  69. [77]

    A., Soszy´ nski, I., Pietrukowicz, P., et al

    Urbanowicz, M. A., Soszy´ nski, I., Pietrukowicz, P., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.08470, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.08470

    2026 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    N., Hamilton, C

    Winn, J. N., Hamilton, C. M., Herbst, W. J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 510, doi: 10.1086/503417

    2006 doi

  72. [80]

    N., Holman, M

    Winn, J. N., Holman, M. J., Johnson, J. A., Stanek, K. Z., & Garnavich, P. M. 2004, ApJL, 603, L45, doi: 10.1086/383089

    2004 doi

  73. [81]

    S., Liu, X

    Xiang, M. S., Liu, X. W., Yuan, H. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 822, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2692

    2015 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Adamane Pallathadka, G., Bizyaev, D., et al

    Zakamska, N. L., Adamane Pallathadka, G., Bizyaev, D., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.05367, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05367

    2025 doi

  75. [83]

    J., & Lai, D

    Zanazzi, J. J., & Lai, D. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2375

    2018 doi

  76. [84]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 933, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b2d

    Zhu, W., Bernhard, K., Dai, F., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 933, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac7b2d

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.