Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 28 references

S301 is the only known star that matches the predicted signature of the former companion of the hypervelocity star S5-HVS1.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:30 UTC pith:BBAK5NMS

load-bearing objection Careful, well-scoped test makes a plausible case for S301 as the captured companion, but the uniqueness claim is softer than it looks once photometric-mass systematics and the order-unity catalog Bayes factor are taken seriously.

arxiv 2607.22517 v1 pith:BBAK5NMS submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR

Is S301 the Captured Companion of the Hypervelocity Star S5-HVS1?

Andrea Caputo , Giovanni Maria Tomaselli This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SR
keywords Hills mechanismhypervelocity starS5-HVS1S301S-starsgalactic centerbinary disruptionBayes factor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that S301, a faint star on a tight 8.7-year orbit around the Milky Way's central black hole, is the only known star that fits the signature of the bound companion of S5-HVS1, the fastest known star with a confirmed galactic-center origin. The argument runs through two robust 'fossils' of the binary-disruption event: an energy relation that links the companion's mass to its orbital size, and a characteristically high orbital eccentricity left by the Hills mechanism. S301 sits on the mass–semi-major axis relation (photometric mass 1.1–1.5 solar masses vs. 1.37 predicted) and has 1−e ≈ 1.7×10⁻², matching the predicted capture eccentricity, while the other three highly eccentric S-stars fail the energy test. A Bayesian comparison gives S301 an individual Bayes factor of 42–90, though the catalog-level factor is still of order unity, leaving the association not yet established. If confirmed, this would be the first observed ejected-captured pair from a Hills disruption.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the claim is that among the known S-stars, only S301 cleanly satisfies both (i) the energetic requirement encoded in Eq. (1), m_b ≈ (a_b/500 AU) M_sun, and (ii) the 'fresh-capture' eccentricity expected immediately after a Hills disruption, 1−e ∼ (m_bin/M_BH)^{1/3} ∼ 10⁻², with the measured orbit's angular momentum diffusing only mildly over the 4.8 Myr flight time. With a = 687±6 AU and e = 0.9832±0.0010, S301's predicted companion mass is 1.37 M_sun, inside the photometric range of 1.1–1.5 M_sun; the other high-eccentricity stars S14, S29 and S175 have photometric masses that place them well off the relation. The paper further constructs a forward model of the Hil

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of 'fossil' relations from the Hills mechanism. Energy conservation between the ejected and captured stars gives the mass–semi-major axis line a_b ≈ 500 AU × (m_b/M_sun), Eq. (1), which maps the companion's current orbital size to its mass and vice versa. The second is the capture eccentricity relation 1−e ∼ (m_bin/M_BH)^{1/3} ∼ 10⁻², derived from the tidal break-up distance; together with angular-momentum diffusion over the flight time it tells when an orbit is 'fresh' enough to be a captured companion. The statistical engine is a forward model that samples binary populations, evolves them under resonant relaxation, and computes the Bayes factor of the pa

Load-bearing premise

The placement of S301 on the required mass–semi-major axis line rests on photometric mass estimates from K-band magnitudes; if the systematic offset is as large as seen in bright S-stars, S301 could fall off the line or S14 could move onto it.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic measurement of S301's mass that puts it outside 1.1–1.5 solar masses would remove it from the energy relation (1); alternatively, a multi-element abundance comparison showing S301 and S5-HVS1 differ chemically would falsify the co-natal binary hypothesis.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If S301 is the captured companion, the S5-HVS1–S301 system becomes the first observed complete Hills pair, directly linking a hypervelocity star to its bound sibling.
  • The identification would confirm that S5-HVS1 was ejected from the galactic center by a binary disruption rather than by some other acceleration mechanism, since the companion's orbit would quantitatively match the energy and eccentricity left by that event.
  • The mass–semi-major axis relation (Eq. 1) becomes a testable predictive tool: any future star discovered on a tight orbit with the right mass could be vetted as a candidate companion of a known HVS.
  • The forward-modeled Bayes factors give a practical template for assessing association claims in crowded stellar catalogs, with the catalog-level factor showing why selection functions are essential.
  • Precision spectroscopy of S301 could either pin it to the line or reject it—an explicit test the paper calls for.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The photometric mass systematics are the hinge: the paper notes that for bright S-stars the K-band relation overestimates masses by ~10% with 30% outliers, and if S301's mass is actually below ~1.1 solar masses it slips off the line, while S14 (already 0.5–0.8 mag fainter than required) could drift onto it with the same systematics.
  • A matching multi-element abundance pattern between S301 and S5-HVS1 would be hard to fake and could push the catalog-level Bayes factor to the decisive range; conversely a mismatch would kill the association even if the orbit fits.
  • The method is portable: interferometric surveys that map the S-star cluster should keep the mass–semi-major axis line (1) as a screening filter for new eccentric orbits, since the relation is parameter-free once the ejecta mass and velocity are measured.
  • The catalog-level Bayes factor's dependence on p_det shows that the real bottleneck is the selection function: only the observing team can inject artificial stars to measure what fraction of bound companions would actually be recovered, turning a 'compelling candidate' into a statistical claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the newly discovered GRAVITY star S301 is the captured companion of the hypervelocity star S5-HVS1, which was ejected from the Galactic center ~4.8 Myr ago. The authors use energy conservation in the Hills mechanism to derive a quantitative relation between the mass and semi-major axis of the captured companion, Eq. (1), and show that S301's photometrically inferred mass and measured orbit place it on this relation. They then build a forward model for the binary disruption, including an initial eccentricity prior calibrated to Galactic-center simulations and angular-momentum diffusion, and compute Bayes factors for S301 and for the whole S-star catalog. They find a large individual Bayes factor for S301 (B301 = 42–90 for two density slopes) but a catalog-level Bayes factor of order unity (Bcat = 1 + 1.6–4.2 pdet), and they conclude that S301 is a compelling candidate whose association with S5-HVS1 is not yet established. The paper includes a public GitHub implementation of the analysis.

Significance. If the association is confirmed, this would be the first identified ejected-captured binary pair from the Hills mechanism and would provide a direct probe of the binary disruption process near Sgr A*. The paper has several notable strengths: Eq. (1) is a clean, nearly parameter-free energy-conservation relation with ~3% uncertainty; the forward model is explicit and the eccentricity prior is calibrated to external simulations; a catalog-level look-elsewhere correction is applied rather than relying on the single best candidate; and the authors transparently disclose the main limitations, including photometric-mass systematics and the unmeasured detection/survival probability pdet. The individual Bayes factor for S301 is large, but the catalog-level factor is modest, so the current evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive. This is an appropriate, well-scoped contribution for a letter, and the released code is an asset for reproducibility.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §Other stars] The abstract states that S301 is 'the only compelling candidate,' but §Other stars concludes that S14 is 'disfavored but not definitely excluded' after applying the K-band mass relation. Given the quoted 10–30% photometric-mass systematics, a 30% downward correction to S14's lower bound brings it to ~5.2 M⊙ against the 4.8 M⊙ required by Eq. (1). To avoid overclaiming, I suggest rewording to 'the most promising candidate' or adding 'within current photometric uncertainties' in the abstract.
  2. [§Statistical tests] The calibration of the eccentricity prior, 1−e = κ(m_bin/M•)^{1/3} with κ lognormal(median 1.5, σ_lnκ=0.45), is stated to reproduce the simulations of Ref. [21], but no comparison is shown. Since B301 depends on this prior, a brief figure or table in the appendix or GitHub repository showing the calibration, together with a sensitivity test over σ_lnκ, would substantially strengthen confidence in the quoted Bayes factors.
  3. [§Statistical tests, Eq. (6)] The symbol pdet is described as the probability that the companion 'survives for a time t_f and is detected in the catalog,' but the detection part is implicitly assumed independent of the star's orbital parameters. The authors note this later when discussing GRAVITY's selection function, but it would be clearer to state explicitly next to Eq. (6) that pdet is an average over the catalog selection function and is treated as a constant here.
  4. [§S301: a new candidate; §Other stars] There is a small inconsistency in the mass ranges quoted for S301: §S301 states m_K = 19.3 gives 1.1–1.5 M⊙, while §Other stars states 'for S301, this procedure gives 1.3–1.5 M⊙.' Please reconcile the ranges and state whether the difference arises from the choice of extinction (2.4–2.7 mag) or from the adopted isochrone relation.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Mikly Way' (Motivation), 'galactic galo' (Motivation), and inconsistent spacing around 'GRAVITY.' A careful proofread would be beneficial.
  6. [§Statistical tests, Table] The table of Bayes factors is informative, but it would aid interpretation to add a row or column evaluating Bcat for a few representative values of pdet (e.g., 0.05, 0.25, 0.5), especially since the survival probability from Ref. [4] is 5–50%.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central relation and priors come from independent measurements and external simulations, not from S301 itself.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Equation (1), a_b ≈ 500 AU (m_b/M_sun), follows from energy conservation applied to the measured mass and velocity of S5-HVS1 (m_e = 2.35 ± 0.06 M_sun, v_inf = 1799 km/s) and Sgr A*'s independently measured mass; it is not fitted to S301. S301's mass is inferred from its K-band magnitude using main-sequence isochrones, an independent observational input. The eccentricity expectation 1−e ~ 10^-2 is derived from tidal-disruption physics, with the order-unity prefactor calibrated to external Galactic-center binary-disruption simulations (Ref. [21]), not to S301's orbit. The Bayes factor calculation uses priors from Kroupa's IMF, mass-ratio distributions, and diffusion timescales from the literature, and the catalog-level Bayes factor explicitly corrects for the look-elsewhere effect, so the statistical comparison does not reduce to a fitted input. The paper's self-citations are limited to the GitHub repository and are not load-bearing. The acknowledged photometric-mass uncertainties (e.g., the 10–30% K-band overestimate for bright S-stars) affect the strength of the 'only clean candidate' claim, but this is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity. Overall, no step in the derivation equates its output to its input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; S301 is an observed GRAVITY star. The genuinely unconstrained degrees of freedom are the eccentricity prior's κ distribution, the mass-window cuts, pdet, and γ. The energy relation and diffusion model are built on prior measurements and simulations, not on new ad hoc physics.

free parameters (4)
  • κ lognormal parameters for initial 1−e = median 1.5, σ_lnκ = 0.45
    Calibrated to reproduce captured-star eccentricities in Generozov et al. (2025) simulations; sets the f_pair(e) likelihood and is not derived from S301.
  • m_b sampling window = 1.1–7 M⊙
    Chosen lower bound by GRAVITY visibility (m_K ≳ 20) and upper bound by ~50 Myr main-sequence lifetime; defines the semi-major axis support of f_pair(a).
  • pdet (survival + detection probability) = unconstrained (bare survival 5–50% per [4])
    Bcat = (1−pdet) + pdet/N Σ B_i depends linearly on pdet; without GRAVITY injection/recovery the catalog-level evidence cannot be calibrated. Left free rather than fitted to S301.
  • γ (stellar density slope) = 1.1 and 1.75
    Two literature values bracket the null-hypothesis a-distribution and the t_j scaling; the paper computes results for both rather than fitting γ.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Hills energy balance m_e ε_e + m_b ε_b = 0, neglecting the binary's initial kinetic and potential energies
    Underlies Eq. (1) and all mass–semi-major-axis relations; ~3% systematics from initial binary energy are acknowledged but not fully modelled.
  • domain assumption S5-HVS1 originated at the Galactic center via the Hills mechanism, with mass 2.35±0.06 M⊙, velocity 1799 km/s, and flight time 4.8 Myr
    From [3,4]; anchors the quantitative prediction for the companion. If the origin or mass is wrong, the target relation shifts.
  • domain assumption Mass and semi-major axis of the captured star are approximately fossils: two-body relaxation time t_E ≳ 1 Gyr and Δa_b/a_b ∼ 7%
    Justifies using today's a to test Eq. (1) and S301's current semi-major axis as the Hills value.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum evolves by a random walk with diffusion time t_j = (2–3)×10^7 yr for S301-like orbits, scaled by (a/a301)^{γ−3/2}
    From [8]; resonant relaxation is assumed quenched by Schwarzschild precession. This diffusion governs the eccentricity likelihood under the pairing hypothesis.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial captured eccentricity follows 1−e = κ(m_bin/M•)^{1/3} with κ lognormal(median 1.5, σ_lnκ=0.45), calibrated to Galactic-center binary-disruption simulations [21]
    A bespoke probabilistic model for the order-unity ambiguity in Eq. (3); the choice shapes f_pair(e).
  • domain assumption Tidal disruption of the captured star below 3 AU during the 4.8 Myr flight is an absorbing boundary
    From [4]; stars that diffuse to r_p < 3 AU are removed from the surviving companion sample.
  • domain assumption Null hypothesis: thermal eccentricity p(e)=2e and semi-major axes drawn from ρ∝r^{-γ} (γ=1.1 or 1.75), normalized over a∈[550,3500] AU
    Defines f_0(a,e); the normalization interval is set by f_pair support, affecting the individual Bayes factors.
  • ad hoc to paper The catalog contains N=18 bound stars in [550,3500] AU, exchangeable with prior 1/N and a single survival/detection probability pdet
    Used for the look-elsewhere-corrected Bcat; equal weights are a simplifying assumption that could be refined with GRAVITY injection/recovery.
  • domain assumption K-band photometric main-sequence masses (with foreground extinction 2.4–2.7 mag) are reliable enough to place S301 on Eq. (1) and exclude S14, S29, S175
    The paper notes 10% typical and up to 30% offsets for bright S-stars, making S14 disfavored but not excluded; this is the main mass-systematics risk.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 7701 in / 18618 out tokens · 176892 ms · 2026-08-01T04:30:08.355133+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Stellar binary disruptions through the Hills mechanism produce two fossils: a hypervelocity star (HVS), and a star tightly bound to the supermassive black hole. Among known galactic HVSs, only S5-HVS1 has unambiguous galactic-centre origin. Its measured mass and velocity determine a relation between the mass and semi-major axis of its captured companion. GRAVITY has now discovered S301, whose orbit and photometrically inferred mass satisfy this relation, making it the only compelling candidate for the captured companion of S5-HVS1. We build a forward model for the Hills origin and compare it to the null hypothesis. This confirms that S301's orbit aligns much more closely with that of S5-HVS1's companion than a typical S-star. However, the catalog-level Bayes factor remains of order unity and dependent on the probabilities of survival and detection. S301 is thus a compelling candidate, but establishing its association with S5-HVS1 will require improved mass measurements, chemical comparisons and GRAVITY-calibrated selection functions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. G. Hills, Hyper-velocity and tidal stars from binaries disrupted by a massive Galactic black hole, Nature331, 687 (1988)

    1988

  2. [2]

    Yu and S

    Q. Yu and S. Tremaine, Ejection of hypervelocity stars by the (binary) black hole(s) in the galactic center, As- trophys. J.599, 1129 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0309084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    S. E. Koposovet al., Discovery of a nearby 1700 km/s star ejected from the Milky Way by Sgr A*, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491, 2465 (2020), arXiv:1907.11725 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    W. Lu, J. Fuller, Y. Raveh, H. B. Perets, T. S. Li, M. W. Hosek, and T. Do, The former companion of hyper- velocity star S5-HVS1, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 603 (2021), arXiv:2005.12300 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Abuteret al.(GRA VITY), Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits, Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(GRA VITY), Mass distribution in the Galactic Center based on interferometric astrometry of multiple stellar orbits, Astron. Astrophys.657, L12 (2022), arXiv:2112.07478 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Hopman and T

    C. Hopman and T. Alexander, Resonant relaxation near a massive black hole: the stellar distribution and grav- itational wave sources, Astrophys. J.645, 1152 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601161

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Binney and S

    J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dynamics(Prince- ton Series in Astrophysics, 1987)

    1987

  8. [8]

    Abd El Dayemet al.(GRA VITY Collaboration), Dis- covery of a star sensitive to the spin of Sgr A* (2026), arXiv:2607.12664 [astro-ph.GA]

    K. Abd El Dayemet al.(GRA VITY Collaboration), Dis- covery of a star sensitive to the spin of Sgr A* (2026), arXiv:2607.12664 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    M. J. Pecaut and E. E. Mamajek, Intrinsic Colors, Temperatures, and Bolometric Corrections of Pre-Main Sequence Stars, Astrophys. J. Suppl.208, 9 (2013), arXiv:1307.2657 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Sch¨ odel, E

    R. Sch¨ odel, E. Gallego-Cano, H. Dong, F. Nogueras-Lara, A. T. Gallego-Calvente, P. Amaro-Seoane, and H. Baum- gardt, The distribution of stars around the Milky Way’s central black hole. II. Diffuse light from sub-giants and dwarfs, Astronomy & Astrophysics609, A27 (2018), arXiv:1701.03817 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    J. N. Bahcall and R. A. Wolf, Star distribution around a massive black hole in a globular cluster., Astrophys. J. 209, 214 (1976)

    1976

  12. [12]

    Gillessen, P

    S. Gillessen, P. M. Plewa, F. Eisenhauer, R. Sari, I. Wais- berg, M. Habibi, O. Pfuhl, E. George, J. Dexter, S. von Fellenberg, T. Ott, and R. Genzel, An Update on Mon- itoring Stellar Orbits in the Galactic Center, Astrophys. J.837, 30 (2017), arXiv:1611.09144 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Abd El Dayemet al.(GRA VITY), Improving con- straints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits, Astron

    K. Abd El Dayemet al.(GRA VITY), Improving con- straints on the extended mass distribution in the Galactic center with stellar orbits, Astron. Astrophys.692, A242 (2024), arXiv:2409.12261 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Peißker, A

    F. Peißker, A. Eckart, M. Zajaˇ cek, B. Ali, and M. Parsa, S62 and S4711: Indications of a Population of Faint Fast-moving Stars inside the S2 Orbit—S4711 on a 7.6 yr Orbit around Sgr A*, Astrophys. J.899, 50 (2020), arXiv:2008.04764 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Abuter, A

    GRA VITY Collaboration, R. Abuter, A. Amorim, M. Baub¨ ock, J. P. Berger, H. Bonnet, W. Brandner, Y. Cl´ enet, Y. Dallilar, R. Davies, P. T. de Zeeuw, J. Dex- ter, A. Drescher, F. Eisenhauer, N. M. F¨ orster Schreiber, P. Garcia, F. Gao, E. Gendron, R. Genzel, S. Gillessen, M. Habibi, X. Haubois, G. Heißel, T. Henning, S. Hip- pler, M. Horrobin, A. Jim´ e...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Abuter, N

    GRA VITY Collaboration, R. Abuter, N. Aimar, A. Amorim, P. Arras, M. Baub¨ ock, J. P. Berger, H. Bon- net, W. Brandner, G. Bourdarot, V. Cardoso, Y. Cl´ enet, R. Davies, P. T. de Zeeuw, J. Dexter, Y. Dallilar, A. Drescher, F. Eisenhauer, T. Enßlin, N. M. F¨ orster Schreiber, P. Garcia, F. Gao, E. Gendron, R. Gen- zel, S. Gillessen, M. Habibi, X. Haubois, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    E. E. Mamajek, A Modern Mean Dwarf Stellar Color and Effective Temperature Sequence (2022), Version 2022.04.16.https://www.pas.rochester.edu/ ~emamajek/EEM_dwarf_UBVIJHK_colors_Teff.txt

    2022

  18. [18]

    Habibi, S

    M. Habibi, S. Gillessen, F. Martins, F. Eisenhauer, P. M. Plewa, O. Pfuhl, E. George, J. Dexter, I. Wais- berg, T. Ott, S. v. Fellenberg, M. Baub¨ ock, A. Jimenez- Rosales, and R. Genzel, Twelve years of spectroscopic monitoring in the galactic center: The closest look at s- stars near the black hole, The Astrophysical Journal847, 120 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Kroupa, On the variation of the initial mass func- tion, Mon

    P. Kroupa, On the variation of the initial mass func- tion, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.322, 231 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0009005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    Moe and R

    M. Moe and R. Di Stefano, Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Dis- tributions of Binary Stars, Astrophys. J. Suppl.230, 15 (2017), arXiv:1606.05347 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Generozov, H

    A. Generozov, H. B. Perets, M. S. Bordoni, G. Bourdarot, A. Drescher, F. Eisenhauer, R. Genzel, S. Gillessen, F. Mang, T. Ott, D. C. Ribeiro, and R. Sch¨ odel, The S stars’ zone of avoidance in the Galactic center, Astron. Astrophys.696, A68 (2025), arXiv:2412.02752 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Sutherland and W

    W. Sutherland and W. Saunders, On the likelihood ratio for source identification., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 259, 413 (1992)

    1992

  23. [23]

    Ashton, E

    G. Ashton, E. Burns, T. D. Canton, T. Dent, H. B. Eggenstein, A. B. Nielsen, R. Prix, M. Was, and S. J. Zhu, Coincident detection significance in mul- timessenger astronomy, Astrophys. J.860, 6 (2018), arXiv:1712.05392 [astro-ph.HE]. 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. M. Tomaselli, S301–S5-HVS1–Bayes, https://github.com/gimmytomas/S301_S5-HVS1_Bayes (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, Bayes factors, Journal of the American Statistical Association90, 773 (1995)

    1995

  26. [26]

    Ramsay, M

    S. Ramsay, M. Casali, P. Amico, N. Bezawada, M. Cira- suolo, R. Conzelmann, S. Egner, C. Frank, E. George, J. C. Gonz´ alez Herrera, P. Hammersley, C. Haupt, J. Heijmans, D. Ives, G. Jakob, F. Kerber, B. Koehler, V. Mainieri, A. Manescau, E. Marchetti, S. Oberti, P. Padovani, C. Schmid, J. Schimpelsberger, R. Sieben- morgen, R. Tamai, and J. Vernet, Instr...

    2018

  27. [27]

    J. J. Andrews, B. Anguiano, J. Chanam´ e, M. A. Ag¨ ueros, H. M. Lewis, C. R. Hayes, and S. R. Majewski, Us- ing APOGEE Wide Binaries to Test Chemical Tag- ging with Dwarf Stars, Astrophys. J.871, 42 (2019), arXiv:1811.12032 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Hawkins, M

    K. Hawkins, M. Lucey, Y.-S. Ting, A. Ji, D. Katzberg, M. Thompson, K. El-Badry, J. Teske, T. Nelson, and A. Carrillo, Identical or fraternal twins? The chem- ical homogeneity of wide binaries fromGaiaDR2, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society492, 1164–1179 (2020)

    2020