Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Photometric Determination of Unresolved Main-sequence Binaries in the Pleiades: Binary Fraction and Mass Ratio Distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A complete photometric census of unresolved binaries in the Pleiades gives a binary fraction of 0.34 and a mass-ratio distribution that rises, falls, and rises again across three power-law segments.

desk verdict A genuinely useful photometric binary census of the Pleiades, but the three-segment mass-ratio distribution needs a forward-model completeness test before being trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01617 v1 pith:FLWUYPNX submitted 2025-01-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Rongrong Liu , Zhengyi Shao , Lu Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords openstarclustersbinarystarsmassratiodistributionfractionPleiadesphotometricbinariesBayesianstatisticsmain-sequence
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

The paper attempts to establish a complete census of unresolved main-sequence binaries in the Pleiades: not just binaries with a massive companion, but all binaries down to the lowest stellar mass that can add light to the system. It combines optical and near-infrared magnitudes in a Bayesian six-band fit, using an empirical photometric model built by fitting the cluster's own single-star main sequence. The headline results are a binary fraction of $f_{\rm b}=0.34\pm0.02$ and a mass-ratio distribution that is not a single power law: it rises to $q\simeq0.32$, falls to $q\simeq0.79$, and rises again, with exponents $0.8\pm0.2$, $-1.0\pm0.3$, and $3.1\pm1.0$. A complete low-mass-ratio census matters because low-$q$ binaries are the ones most sensitive to dynamical disruption, so the shape of the $q$ distribution is a direct test of how star formation and cluster dynamics shape binary populations.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is an empirical photometric model, $M_{\rm emp}(M_s)=M_{\rm model}(M_s)+\Delta m(M_s)$, built for each band by fitting the ridgeline of the $\delta m$--$M_s$ plane with a robust regression that discards outliers; this calibrates the theoretical isochrone to the actual single-star main sequence. A binary's combined magnitude is then $-2.5\log_{10}(10^{-0.4M_{\rm emp}(M_1)}+10^{-0.4M_{\rm emp}(qM_1)})$, leaving only the primary mass $M_1$ and mass ratio $q$ as free parameters for each member. Individual Bayesian posterior densities $p_i(M_1,q)$ are stacked into a cluster-wide density $P(M_1,q)$, and all binary statistics, including $f_{\rm b}$, the mass-ratio distribution, and their primary-mass dependence, are computed by integrating this stacked density rather than by thresholding best-fit values.

What would settle it

Measure radial velocities or take high-resolution images of the Pleiades stars classified as low-mass single stars, especially those with inferred masses near the bottom of the main sequence where the near-infrared corrections are about 0.5 mag; if a significant fraction show companions with $q\simeq0.2$--$0.4$, then the empirical ridgeline is biased and the claimed low-$q$ shape of the mass-ratio distribution is not physical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that unresolved main-sequence binaries in the Pleiades can be detected photometrically down to the theoretical lower mass limit, defined by a companion mass of $0.09\,M_\odot$, if optical and near-infrared magnitudes are fitted together against an empirical model calibrated on the cluster's own main sequence. For the 1154 main-sequence members, the paper reports a binary fraction $f_{\rm b}=0.34\pm0.02$ for all mass ratios above $q_{\rm lim}(M_1)=0.09\,M_\odot/M_1$. Stacking the per-star posterior probability densities gives a mass-ratio distribution that rises as $q^{0.8\pm0.2}$ below $q\approx0.32$, falls as $q^{-1.0\pm0.3}$ between $q\approx0.32$ and $q\approx0.79$, and rises again as $q^{3.1\pm1.0}$ above $q\approx0.79$: a deficiency of low-$q$ binaries and an excess of high-$q$ binaries relative to a single $q^{-1}$ power law. The paper also claims that binary fraction increases from about 0.18 to 0.94 with primary mass, that high-$q$ binaries are mostly low-mass primaries, and that using the Gaia RUWE value as a binary indicator catches only about one-third of photometric binaries.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ridgeline used to define single-star magnitudes is a true picture of single stars at every mass, including the low-mass range where the near-infrared corrections reach about 0.5 mag; if that ridgeline is pulled by unresolved binaries or model errors, the binary fraction and the low-mass-ratio rise would be biased without an independent check in that range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optical-plus-infrared photometry pushes the detectable mass ratio to the theoretical stellar-mass limit, roughly doubling the low-$q$ reach of optical-only color-magnitude analyses.
  • Within the same $q>0.6$ selection used by optical-only studies, the paper reproduces previously published binary fractions, so earlier discrepancies are largely a mass-ratio coverage effect rather than a contradiction.
  • The mass-ratio distribution requires a three-segment power law rather than a single exponent, described as a fiducial $q^{-1}$ law with a low-$q$ deficit and a high-$q$ excess.
  • Binary fraction rises monotonically with primary mass, and the rise sits mainly in low- and intermediate-mass-ratio binaries, consistent with dynamical disruption of weakly bound systems plus the $q_{\rm lim}$ selection effect.
  • The Gaia RUWE value flags only about one-third of the photometric binaries in this sample, so RUWE-based binary censuses are strongly incomplete.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: rebuilding the empirical model using only spectroscopically confirmed single stars would provide an independent check of whether the low-$q$ upturn and the $0.34$ fraction are robust; this is a test the paper does not perform.
  • Editorial inference: because the empirical corrections are calibrated on the Pleiades itself, applying the same six-band procedure to other clusters requires re-deriving each cluster's ridgeline, so the method's conclusions should be read as cluster-specific until recalibrated.
  • Editorial inference: if the excess of high-$q$ binaries is dominated by low-mass primaries, as the paper's stacked densities indicate, deeper surveys of very-low-mass companions in the Pleiades should find a higher companion frequency around low-mass stars than around solar-mass stars.
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. The paper presents a multiband photometric fitting method for unresolved main-sequence binaries in the Pleiades, combining Gaia DR3 and 2MASS photometry with an empirical correction to the PARSEC model. The authors derive a Bayesian PDF for primary mass and mass ratio for each of 1154 members, stack the PDFs, and report a binary fraction fb = 0.34 ± 0.02, a rising binary fraction with primary mass, and a three-segment power-law mass-ratio distribution with exponents γ1 = 0.8 ± 0.2, γ2 = −1.0 ± 0.3, γ3 = 3.1 ± 1.0 and breakpoints at q = 0.32 ± 0.04 and q = 0.79 ± 0.05. The method is validated against 17 radial-velocity binaries from Torres et al. (2021) and is compared with several earlier determinations of the Pleiades binary fraction.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide the broadest photometric census of unresolved Pleiades binaries to date, reaching mass ratios close to the theoretical hydrogen-burning limit, and would furnish a clear empirical target for models of binary formation and dynamical evolution. The Bayesian stacking approach is a genuine methodological step beyond point-estimate analyses, and the external comparison with the Torres et al. (2021) dynamical mass ratios is a useful validation for moderate- and high-q binaries. However, the headline fb uncertainty is only Poisson, the empirical model is calibrated on the same cluster it is used to analyze, and the claimed three-segment mass-ratio distribution is not tested against a forward model of the smooth completeness or against simpler distributions. These issues are load-bearing for the main conclusions, so the paper needs major revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Fig. 3, Table 3] The empirical photometric model is calibrated on the same cluster it is then used to analyze, and the first calibration step assumes all members are single stars. At low masses the NIR corrections are large, up to about 0.5 mag (Table 3, low-Ms rows; Section 3.1.2), so if unresolved binaries or model errors bias the ITGP ridgeline, the derived M1 and q posteriors and hence the low-q part of the stacked PDFs are systematically biased. The external check against Torres et al. (2021) covers only 17 binaries and does not validate the q<0.3 regime in which the claimed low-q rise and the qb1 break occur. I request a simulation test: inject synthetic binaries with a known intrinsic q distribution into the sample and verify that the ITGP procedure recovers the true single-star ridgeline, or provide an independent low-mass NIR calibration from another cluster or from theoretical models.
  2. [Section 4.4, Fig. 12] The three-segment power-law claim is not tested against a single power law convolved with the actual, smooth completeness function. Equation (1) and the hard cutoff qlim(M1) = 0.09/M1 in Section 3.2.1 define a detectability boundary, but a secondary near qlim contributes only about 1–2% of the flux in the 2MASS bands for a 0.5 Msun primary, which is comparable to the adopted photometric error floors in Section 2.2; detectability is therefore a smooth, mass-dependent function of q. Because the number of primaries massive enough to probe q<0.3 is small and weighted by the steep mass function, a single intrinsic power law combined with this completeness can plausibly produce the apparent low-q rise and the qb1 break. The paper should forward-model the selection by simulating the full fitting and stacking procedure with a single power-law intrinsic q distribution, and should compare the three-segment fit against one- and two-segment models using an information criterion. Without this test, the existence of the three-segment distribution is not established.
  3. [Section 4.1–4.2, Eq. (7)] The reported uncertainty fb = 0.34 ± 0.02 is only the Poisson counting term nb^1/2 / n from Equation (7). It does not propagate the uncertainties from the empirical model corrections (Section 3.1), the adopted priors (log-uniform M1 and uniform q; Section 3.2.2), the membership probability cut Pk ≥ 0.5, the exclusion criterion χj^2 > 25 (Section 3.2.3), the Gaia error floors, or the assumed cluster parameters (age, AV, [Fe/H]) and individual distance moduli. Each of these can shift fb by several percent, and the large spread of previous measurements in Table 5 suggests that such systematics are non-negligible. I recommend a bootstrap over the sample and a marginalization over the calibration and nuisance parameters to produce a realistic systematic uncertainty alongside the Poisson term.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The title contains an obvious typo: 'Binary F raction' should be 'Binary Fraction'.
  2. [Abstract, Section 4.4] The phrase 'complete mass-ratio distribution' overstates the scope: the sample is limited to G<19, excludes MS+WD and higher-order multiples, and is restricted to q > qlim(M1). Suggest wording such as 'photometric mass-ratio distribution of unresolved MS+MS binaries with M1 > 0.11 Msun.'
  3. [Section 2.3] The MiMO fit for age and extinction assumes a flat mass-ratio distribution (γq = 0), which is later contradicted by the measured three-segment q distribution; the text should state explicitly why this prior choice does not feed back into the empirical model and the final results.
  4. [Figure 12] The gray histogram of nb(q) does not specify the bin width or the error prescription. Please state the binning and whether the error bars are Poisson errors on the integrated counts.
  5. [Section 4.5] The interpretive statement that 'the mass ratio of real binary systems, whether or not having an illuminated companion, might be monotonically decreasing' is speculative and is not directly tested by the data; it should be clearly labeled as an interpretation rather than a measurement, or supported by a quantitative model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical calibration targets the single-star ridgeline, the binary analysis is externally checked against Torres et al. (2021) RV binaries, and the qlim selection effect on the low-q break is explicitly stated as a limitation, not a circular input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The empirical photometric model is constructed by fitting a ridgeline on the delta_m-M_s plane after assuming all members are single and using iterative trimming to exclude outliers (Section 3.1.1); binaries are therefore not built into the calibration by construction. The multiband Bayesian fit then uses this empirical model to derive posterior PDFs, and the binary fraction and mass-ratio distribution are measured by integrating the stacked posteriors (Sections 3.2 and 4.1). The method is externally checked: 17 objects in common with Torres et al. (2021) all have Pb near 1 and show correlated q values (Section 3.2.3, Figure 8), giving independent grounding for the central binary-detection claim. The main caveat is the low-mass-ratio regime: the paper explicitly states that the observed low-q break qb1 is attributed to the detection limit qlim(M1) (Section 4.5), and it does not forward-model the smooth completeness function in that regime. That is a statistical-modeling limitation, not a circular step, because qlim is defined from the PARSEC lower mass limit (0.09 Msun) and is not fitted to the target distribution. The self-citations (Li & Shao 2022; Li et al. 2020, 2021; Shao et al. 2024) are method citations for membership, cluster-parameter fitting, and robust regression; none imports an unverified uniqueness theorem or defines the target result into the input. The overstatement in the conclusion calling the three-segment profile a 'complete mass ratio distribution' should be read with the stated selection-effect caveat, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a self-calibrated empirical isochrone, the SSP assumption for the cluster, the qlim definition at 0.09 solar masses, and the choice of Bayesian priors. None of these are independently pinned down outside this paper, and the systematic uncertainties from them are not propagated into the reported errors.

free parameters (6)
  • Cluster age = log(Age/yr) = 8.026
    Fitted by MiMO to the Pleiades CMD; fixes the fiducial PARSEC model used as the starting point for the empirical calibration.
  • Visual extinction A_V = 0.135 mag
    Fitted by MiMO to the Pleiades CMD; affects all model magnitudes in the fiducial model.
  • Metallicity [Fe/H] = 0.1
    Fixed from Fu et al. (2022); enters the fiducial PARSEC model magnitudes.
  • Empirical magnitude corrections delta_m(M_s) = Tabulated for six bands in Table 3
    GP+ITGP ridgeline fit to the same Pleiades photometry; this is the central calibration that the binary fitting depends on.
  • Gaia photometric error floor = 0.01 mag
    Added in quadrature to Gaia errors in Section 2.2; changes the likelihood weights in the multiband fit.
  • Intrinsic parallax dispersion sigma_varc = 0.17 mas
    Fitted from the kinematic member sample; used to compute individual distance moduli for each star.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The PARSEC1.2s theoretical model, after empirical correction, accurately represents single-star photometry in the Pleiades.
    Section 3.1; the entire binary analysis is calibrated against this empirical isochrone.
  • domain assumption The ridgeline of the delta_m-M_s plane traced by ITGP corresponds to single stars, with binaries and contaminants as outliers.
    Section 3.1.1; if unresolved binaries skew the ridgeline, the binary fraction is biased.
  • domain assumption Companions with mass below 0.09 solar masses contribute negligible flux, so qlim = 0.09/M1 defines photometric binaries.
    Equation (1); brown dwarfs actually contribute some flux, so the binary fraction may be a lower limit.
  • domain assumption All Pleiades members share the cluster age, metallicity, and extinction.
    Section 2.3; the empirical model is built on the single-stellar-population assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform prior on q and log-uniform prior on M1 are appropriate for the Bayesian stacking.
    Section 3.2.2; no sensitivity analysis to prior choice is presented.
  • standard math Photometric errors are independent and Gaussian after applying error floors.
    Equation (3); the likelihood is exp(-chi^2/2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometric Determination of Unresolved Main-sequence Binaries in the Pleiades: Binary Fraction and Mass Ratio Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLWUYPNX

@misc{pith2026250101617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometric Determination of Unresolved Main-sequence Binaries in the Pleiades: Binary Fraction and Mass Ratio Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLWUYPNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01617}
}
abstract

Accurate determination of binary fractions ($f_{\rm b}$) and mass ratio ($q$) distributions is crucial for understanding the dynamical evolution of open clusters. We present an improved multiband fitting technique to enhance the analysis of binary properties. This approach enables an accurate photometric determination of $f_{\rm b}$ and $q$ distribution in a cluster. The detectable mass ratio can be down to the $q_{\rm lim}$, limited by the minimum stellar mass in theoretical models. First, we derived an empirical model for magnitudes of Gaia DR3 and 2MASS bands that match the photometry of single stars in the Pleiades. We then performed a multiband fitting for each cluster member, deriving the probability density function (PDF) of its primary mass ($\mathcal{M}_1$) and $q$ in the Bayesian framework. 1154 main-sequence (MS) single stars or unresolved MS+MS binaries are identified as members of the Pleiades. By stacking their PDFs, we conducted a detailed analysis of binary properties of the cluster. We found the $f_{\rm b}$ of this sample is $0.34 \pm 0.02$. The $q$ distribution exhibits a three-segment power-law profile: an initial increase, followed by a decrease, and then another increase. This distribution can be interpreted as a fiducial power-law profile with an exponent of -1.0 that is determined in the range of $0.3 < q < 0.8$, but with a deficiency of binaries at lower $q$ and an excess at higher $q$. The variations of $f_{\rm b}$ and $q$ with $\mathcal{M}_1$ reveal a complex binary distribution within the Pleiades, which might be attributed to a combination of primordial binary formation mechanisms, dynamical interactions, and the observational limit of photometric binaries imposed by $q_{\rm lim} (\mathcal{M}_1)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributions of equatorial coordinates (a), proper motions (b), and parallaxes (c) for stars in the Pleiades region. The crosses denote field stars with kinematic membership probability Pk < 0.5. The gray points represent kinematic member stars with Pk ≥ 0.5. The black circle in panel (a) shows the half-number radius R50 = 1.37◦ of the kinematic members. corresponding to about 0.05 mag in distance modulus (DM), or … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of stars in the Pleiades region on CMDs of Gaia (a), 2MASS (b), and combined optical and NIR bands (c). The crosses denote stars with kinematic membership probability Pk < 0.5. The gray points show stars with Pk ≥ 0.5. The star symbols mark the stars with neighbors in 5 arcsec. The error bars represent original observational errors. The black solid and dashed lines represent isochrones for q = 0 and 1,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. δm − Ms planes and ridgelines of six photometric bands for the Pleiades. Ms represents the mass derived from the single-star Multiband fitting. δm represents the magnitude difference between the observational data and the best-fit model in each band. Each error bar corresponds to an individual star, with the length indicating the observational error. The solid black line shows the ridgeline that represents the Ms − … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lower limit of the detectable mass ratio (qlim) varying with primary mass. The blue line denotes the thresh￾old where the secondary mass is 0.09M⊙. Stars with mass ratios above this line are binary stars, and those below are considered “single stars”. where Memp(M1) an…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability density functions (PDFs) of three members. The contour plots in panels (a), (b), (c) illustrate the PDFs of stars with different binary probabilities: Pb = 0, 0.6, 1, respectively. The SourceIds of Gaia DR3 are marked in each panel. Each contour corresponds…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of binary probability (Pb) of main￾sequence members. However, a lot of intermediate Pb values are found for massive stars, which implies that, by using current pho￾tometric data, it is still difficult to definitively determine whether or not they have a lo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of binary probability (Pb) for Pleiades kinematic members on CMDs of Gaia, 2MASS, and the combined data. The star symbols mark the stars with neighbors in 5 arcsec. The gray crosses show the stars excluded after multiband fitting. The colored points repre…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of mass ratio from this work with double-line binaries (Torres et al. 2021). All these stars have Pb ≈ 1. The black line indicates y=x, and the gray line shows an offset of -0.10. PDF of the main-sequence stars in the cluster, denoted as P(M1, q), where the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Combined probability density function (PDF) of primary mass and mass ratio for our sample. The left panel shows the direct result, with grayscale representing probability density. The dashed blue line indicates the position of the binary star with a secondary mass of 0…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of binary fraction from this work with other works. The blue point indicates the comparison with a result using spectroscopic observations. Orange and green points represent comparisons with results using Gaia photometric data, with green points specificall…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Binary fraction (fb) as a function of primary mass for different mass ratios in the Pleiades. Panel (a) shows the total binary fraction for q > qlim. Panels (b-d) represent the binary fractions for q = 0 − 0.3, 0.3 − 0.8, 0.8 − 1, respectively. Dashed lines indicate i…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Mass ratio distribution and best-fit model for the Pleiades. The gray histogram and error bars show the mass ratio distribution. The black line represents the best￾fit model. The model is divided into three segments. Each segment follows a power law. The dark gray are…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of mass ratio distribution from this work with other works. The light gray histograms represent the total mass ratio distribution across all mass ranges, whereas the dark gray ones represent the distributions within specific mass ranges for comparison. The …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Mass ratio distributions in different mass ranges. Panels (a-f) show distributions in different mass ranges: M1 = 0.11 − 0.18, 0.18 − 0.3, 0.3 − 0.5, 0.5 − 0.9, 0.9 − 1.6, 1.6 − 4.9M⊙. Within each panel, the dotted lines indicate the peak and valley of the total mass …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The initial conditions and initial mass functions of Alpha Persei, Pleiades and Praesepe

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For Alpha Persei, the Pleiades, and Praesepe, the initial mass function is top-light (α_high ≈ 2.98 ± 0.22) and shows possible cluster-to-cluster scatter, based on Gaia DR3 plus N-body emulator inference.

  2. Analysis of Newly Catalogued Open Star Cluster UPK~220 with Gaia DR3 and TESS: Discovering Member Variable Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper reports eight variable member stars in the open cluster UPK 220 and derives its age (140 Myr), distance (0.83 to 0.97 kpc), and sub-solar metallicity, though the internal consistency of these results is weak.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Almeida, A., Monteiro, H., & Dias, W. S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2291 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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2291 2023

  2. [2]

    2023, A&A, 674, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243790

    Babusiaux, C., Fabricius, C., Khanna, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A32, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243790

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243790 2023

  3. [3]

    Bate, M. R. 2000, MNRAS, 314, 33, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03333.x

    arXiv 2000

  4. [4]

    1997, A&A, 323, 139

    Bouvier, J., Rigaut, F., & Nadeau, D. 1997, A&A, 323, 139

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    2020, A&A, 633, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936691

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Anders, F. 2020, A&A, 633, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936691

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936691 2020

  7. [7]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1281 2015

  8. [8]

    2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 2525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1605

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1605 2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    Chen, Y., Girardi, L., Fu, X., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A105, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936612

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Geller, A

    Childs, A. C., Geller, A. M., von Hippel, T., Motherway, E., & Zwicker, C. 2024, ApJ, 962, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18c0

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, AJ, 168, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7025

    Chulkov, D. 2024, AJ, 168, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad7025

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    E., Geller, A

    Cohen, R. E., Geller, A. M., & von Hippel, T. 2020, AJ, 159, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab59d7

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Marino, A

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245457 De Angeli, F., Weiler, M., Montegriffo, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243680

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    2023, A&A, 675, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    Donada, J., Anders, F., Jordi, C., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245219

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al

    Evans, D. W., Riello, M., De Angeli, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832756

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A

    Farris, B. D., Duffell, P., MacFadyen, A. I., & Haiman, Z. 2014, ApJ, 783, 134, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/134

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Barnes, S

    Fritzewski, D. J., Barnes, S. A., James, D. J., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833587

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty235 —

    Fu, X., Bressan, A., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 496, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty235 —. 2016, IAU Focus Meeting, 29B, 144, doi: 10.1017/S1743921316004634

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fu, X., Bragaglia, A., Liu, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 6...

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    M., de Grijs, R., Li, C., & Hurley, J

    Geller, A. M., de Grijs, R., Li, C., & Hurley, J. R. 2013a, ApJ, 779, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/30 —. 2015, ApJ, 805, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/11

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Hurley, J

    Geller, A. M., Hurley, J. R., & Mathieu, R. D. 2013b, AJ, 145, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/8

    doi

  14. [22]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 20

    1975 doi

  15. [23]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    V., Roy, K., Joshi, N., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., Roy, K., Joshi, N., & Subramaniam, A. 2021, AJ, 162, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2571

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3181, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2441

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    2022, ApJ, 930, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f4f

    Li, L., & Shao, Z. 2022, ApJ, 930, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f4f

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef3

    Li, L., Shao, Z., Li, Z.-Z., et al. 2020, ApJ, 901, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef3

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, Astronomy and Computing, 36, 100483, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100483

    Li, Z.-Z., Li, L., & Shao, Z. 2021, Astronomy and Computing, 36, 100483, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2021.100483

    2021

  22. [30]

    D., Deacon, N

    Lodieu, N., Dobbie, P. D., Deacon, N. R., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 712, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12106.x

    2007

  23. [31]

    L., & Silvotti, R

    Lodieu, N., P´ erez-Garrido, A., Smart, R. L., & Silvotti, R. 2019, A&A, 628, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935533

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Seleznev, A. F. 2023, AJ, 165, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca666

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Seleznev, A

    Malofeeva, A. A., Seleznev, A. F., & Carraro, G. 2022, AJ, 163, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac47a3

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    2011, MNRAS, 417, 1684, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19257.x Mart ´ ın, E

    Marks, M., Kroupa, P., & Oh, S. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1684, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19257.x Mart ´ ın, E. L., Barrado y Navascu´ es, D., Baraffe, I., Bouy, H., & Dahm, S. 2003, ApJ, 594, 525, doi: 10.1086/376938

    2011

  27. [35]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ab

    Matsumoto, T., Saigo, K., & Takakuwa, S. 2019, ApJ, 871, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ab

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Mioduszewski, A

    Melis, C., Reid, M. J., Mioduszewski, A. J., Stauffer, J. R., & Bower, G. C. 2014, Science, 345, 1029, doi: 10.1126/science.1256101

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016384

    2012 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    2023, A&A, 674, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243880

    Montegriffo, P., De Angeli, F., Andrae, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243880

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d6

    Niu, H., Wang, J., & Fu, J. 2020, ApJ, 903, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb8d6

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Offner, S. S. R., Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka, Y. Aikawa, T. Muto, K. Tomida, & M. Tamura, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10066

    2023 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    J., Dobbie, P

    Pinfield, D. J., Dobbie, P. D., Jameson, R. F., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1241, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06630.x

    2003

  35. [43]

    W., et al

    Riello, M., De Angeli, F., Evans, D. W., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039587

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    2019, MNRAS, 489, 3093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2317

    Shao, Z., & Li, L. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3093, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2317

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    1996, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 37, 377

    Shao, Z., & Zhao, J. 1996, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 37, 377

    1996

  38. [46]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    1944, ApJ, 100, 360, doi: 10.1086/144677

    Smith, B., & Struve, O. 1944, ApJ, 100, 360, doi: 10.1086/144677

    1944 doi

  40. [48]

    Southworth, J., Maxted, P. F. L., & Smalley, B. 2005, A&A, 429, 645, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041867

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Stauffer, J. R. 1982, AJ, 87, 1507, doi: 10.1086/113241

    1982 doi

  42. [50]

    A., & Jameson, R

    Steele, I. A., & Jameson, R. F. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/272.3.630

    1995 doi

  43. [51]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    A., Frinchaboy, P

    Thompson, B. A., Frinchaboy, P. M., Spoo, T., & Donor, J. 2021, AJ, 161, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abde4c

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, ApJ, 901, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb136

    Torres, G. 2020, ApJ, 901, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb136

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    W., & Quinn, S

    Torres, G., Latham, D. W., & Quinn, S. N. 2021, ApJ, 921, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1585

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Weiler, M., Jordi, C., Fabricius, C., & Carrasco, J. M. 2018, A&A, 615, A24, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732489 21 APPENDIX A. BAYESIAN INFERENCE OF PARALLAX FOR NEARBY CLUSTER MEMBERS For nearby star clusters, both the scale of the line-of-sight distribution and the parallax me...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.