Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Identifying Hierarchically Triple Star Systems with Gaia DR3 and LAMOST

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-matching Gaia DR3 with LAMOST spectra reveals 23 hierarchical triple star systems, 18 of them new, and yields full orbital models for two.

desk verdict A useful candidate-list paper with two well-worked orbital solutions; the 21 remaining 'triples' are not yet established beyond candidate status because the false-positive rate for chance blends is never modeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02625 v1 pith:M5GYNSOJ submitted 2024-12-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA

Tongyu He , Jiao Li , Jiangdan Li , Jianping Xiong , Xiaobin Zhang , Mikhail Kovalev , Qiyuan Cheng , Sufen Guo
show 3 more authors
Mingkuan Yang Xuefei Chen Zhanwen Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EPastro-ph.GA
keywords triplestarsystemshierarchicaltriplesradialvelocityGaiaDR3non-singlecatalogLAMOSTmedium-resolutionspectracross-correlationfunctionTESSlightcurveseclipsingbinaries
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 sets out to show that combining the Gaia DR3 non-single star catalog with LAMOST DR10 medium-resolution spectra can efficiently uncover hierarchical triple star systems, a class that remains rare among spectroscopically confirmed multiples. Using cross-correlation functions with temperature-matched template spectra, the authors report 23 triple systems, 18 of them new discoveries, each showing three distinct velocity peaks in at least two independent observations. For two systems with the richest data, they combine radial-velocity fitting with TESS light-curve modeling to determine complete orbital parameters, with inner periods of 1.26 and 3.42 days and outer periods of 656 and 422 days. They also quantify the method's limits: velocity separations below roughly 45 km/s in binaries and 90 km/s in inner binaries are hard to resolve, restricting efficient detection to inner periods between 0.2 and 20 days. This matters because a larger, well-characterized sample of short-period triples is needed to test theories of stellar formation, dynamics, and the production of compact-object mergers.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the cross-correlation function (CCF) of the observed spectrum against synthetic template spectra, where each gravitationally bound component produces a peak at its radial velocity; a spectrum with three peaks signals a candidate triple. The authors improve on earlier solar-template CCF studies by generating templates from 4000 K to 8000 K in 50 K steps with iSpec, and by retaining only candidates that show clear three-peak structure in two or more LAMOST epochs. They then fold in the Gaia DR3 non-single star catalog to define the parent sample, use the Lomb-Scargle periodogram on TESS light curves to get inner periods, fit radial velocities with the Radvel package, and model the eclipses with PHOEBE, sampling all parameters with MCMC. The stability criterion for hierarchical triples is the period ratio of outer to inner orbit exceeding about 5, which the two fully characterized systems satisfy.

What would settle it

Obtain high-resolution, multi-epoch spectroscopy of the 21 systems that are not fully parameterized and check whether the three CCF-peak velocities follow coherent Keplerian motion around a common centre of mass; if any 'third' component instead shows a stationary or unrelated velocity, or vanishes in higher-resolution spectra, that system's triple classification fails. A second check is to use Gaia astrometric excess noise or renormalized unit-weight error for these targets: a genuine bound triple should show astrometric signatures consistent with the spectroscopic periods and mass ratios.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cross-matching the Gaia DR3 non-single star catalog with LAMOST DR10 spectra and applying a temperature-matched cross-correlation analysis identifies 23 hierarchical triple star systems, of which 18 are new discoveries. The identification criterion is the appearance of three CCF peaks in two or more LAMOST epochs, interpreted as three stars contributing light to the same fiber. For two systems, Gaia DR3 249662295687401216 and Gaia DR3 2077667962475652864, the paper derives full sets of orbital and stellar parameters by fitting radial-velocity curves and TESS light curves, obtaining inner and outer periods of 1.26 and 656 days for the first system and 3.42 and 422 days for the second, with masses, radii, and eccentricities that are consistent with earlier work where such work exists. The paper also claims that the survey's sensitivity window is set by spectral resolution, with inner periods from 0.2 to 20 days detectable and the highest efficiency below 10 days, and it demonstrates on the j03 system that template matching can recover the inner-binary mass ratio (0.600) in agreement with spectral disentangling.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of 21 of the 23 systems as bound triples rests on seeing three distinct cross-correlation peaks in two or more LAMOST spectra, with no modeled false-positive rate for chance blends of three unrelated stars in the same fiber.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 18 new triple systems enlarge the census of spectroscopically confirmed triples and give follow-up programs concrete targets for dynamical, photometric, and high-resolution study.
  • The two fully modeled systems provide precise inner and outer periods, masses, and eccentricities that can be tested against hierarchical-triple stability criteria and formation scenarios.
  • Because the method cannot resolve velocity differences below about 45 km/s in binaries and 90 km/s in inner binaries, the reported sample is incomplete; the true population of short-period triples is larger than these 23 systems.
  • The complementary sensitivity of Gaia astrometry to wide and long-period orbits and LAMOST spectroscopy to short-period inner binaries makes the joint survey approach an efficient template for future triple searches.
  • For j03, matching the secondary star's radial-velocity curve gives an inner mass ratio of 0.600, consistent with spectral disentangling, showing the method can measure inner-binary mass ratios when both velocity curves are visible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to quantify the false-positive rate of the three-CCF-peak criterion, since no model for chance blends of three unrelated stars in a single fiber is given; such a calculation would strengthen or bound every 'new discovery' claim.
  • The same pipeline could be run on other large spectroscopic surveys and on Gaia's own RVS spectra, likely yielding a much larger sample of short-period triples without new telescope time.
  • The stated detection limits can be converted into a completeness function, allowing an estimate of the intrinsic rate of short-inner-period hierarchical triples among Gaia NSS stars.
  • For the 21 systems without full orbital solutions, additional LAMOST epochs and TESS light curves could upgrade most of them to fully parameterized triples, and future Gaia astrometry may independently confirm the outer orbits.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript cross-matches the Gaia DR3 non-single-star (NSS) catalog with LAMOST DR10 medium-resolution spectra, uses temperature-dependent template matching and CCF analysis to identify 23 hierarchical triple candidates, and claims 18 of these are new discoveries. For two systems with many epochs, the authors fit radial-velocity curves with Radvel and TESS light curves with PHOEBE, deriving orbital and stellar parameters, and compare the results with Pan et al. (2022). The paper also discusses the distribution of velocity differences in the 23 systems and fits the inner binary of the additional system j03, obtaining a mass ratio consistent with Kovalev et al. (2024).

Significance. If the sample identification is robust, the paper would provide a useful set of short-inner-period hierarchical triple candidates and a clear demonstration that combining Gaia NSS astrometry with LAMOST spectroscopy is an efficient discovery route. The two fully characterized systems are a genuine strength: the RV tables are given in the appendix, the light-curve fits are shown, and the results agree with independent work by Pan et al. (2022) and Kovalev et al. (2024), which supports the internal consistency of the fitting methodology. However, the central quantitative claim of 18 new discoveries currently rests on CCF peak detections for 21 systems for which no epoch-resolved data or false-positive analysis is presented, so the significance of the full sample is not yet established at the claimed level.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1 / Table 1 / Footnote 1] For 21 of the 23 systems, the SB3 classification is supported only by the statement that three CCF peaks were seen in two or more LAMOST epochs; Table 1 lists a single MJD per object, and no epoch-resolved RVs or spectra are provided for these systems. The most plausible contaminant for the claimed new systems is an unrelated star lying inside the ~3.3-arcsec LAMOST fiber along the line of sight to a genuine Gaia-NSS binary; such a star would produce a roughly constant-velocity third CCF peak in every epoch, so the two-epoch criterion does not remove it. The paper neither measures nor models this blend rate, even though the parent sample is deliberately enriched in NSS stars, and Footnote 1 defers discussion of the non-retained samples to 'next work'. The abstract's central claim that 18 systems are new discoveries is therefore not yet established beyond candidate status; a quantitative false-positive estimate (e.g., computed from Gaia density maps at the fiber positions) or release of the multi-epoch CCF/RV tables is needed before that claim can be accepted.
  2. [Section 2.1 / Section 5] No validation of the three-peak CCF interpretation is presented: there is no injection/recovery test, no control sample of known single or SB2 stars, no check for template-mismatch sidelobes, and no minimum peak separation tied to the LAMOST-MRS resolution. The 0.2 CCF threshold is adopted from Li et al. (2021), and the temperature-grid improvement is demonstrated on one example (Figure 1), but the false-positive rate of the full pipeline is not quantified. A simple test on stars known to be single or SB2, or a synthetic-spectrum injection, would establish whether three peaks above 0.2 are specific to genuine triples; without it, the Section 5 detection-efficiency claims (inner periods 0.2-20 days, highest efficiency below 10 days) are also hard to calibrate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and text] The notation is inconsistent: the abstract says 'a range of V from approximately 40 km/s to 210 km/s' but the quantity analyzed in Section 5 is ΔV, the velocity difference between components; please make this consistent throughout.
  2. [Section 2] The cross-matching criteria are not stated: the matching radius between Gaia DR3 sources and LAMOST spectra, and the choice of Gaia NSS sub-catalogues (astrometric, SB1, SB2, eclipsing) are missing, so the parent sample of 32,305 candidates cannot be reproduced.
  3. [Table 1] Since Table 1 lists only one epoch per system, the caption should state explicitly that the tabulated MJD is one representative epoch and direct readers to a machine-readable table with all epochs, or to a repository containing the multi-epoch CCF measurements.
  4. [Section 3] The label 'new discoveries' should be justified by a search against comprehensive multiple-star catalogues (e.g., Tokovinin 2018) in addition to Li et al. (2021), especially for systems that already have Gaia NSS solutions.
  5. [Various] There are several typographical and formatting issues: the title contains a stray space ('T riple'); Section 6 heading reads 'CONSLUSION'; Table 1 has a stray 'v' in '59597.65278v'; Table 3 has 'Outter inclination'; and the text near Equation 9 contains 'q2 = 0.0.427...' with a double decimal point.
  6. [References] The reference Duchêne & Kraus (2013) appears twice in the reference list with nearly identical titles; please merge the duplicate entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: detections rest on measured CCF peaks, orbital fits use independent Gaia/TESS inputs, and the two detailed systems are checked against external studies.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The 23 triple classifications rest on measured CCF peaks in LAMOST spectra, not on fitted values of the target orbital parameters. Orbital periods for the two modelled triples come from the Gaia NSS catalog (outer period) and a TESS Lomb-Scargle periodogram (inner period), which are independent inputs; the RV and light-curve fits use these periods as inputs and produce masses, radii, inclinations, and third-light fractions. The resulting parameters for Gaia DR3 2077667962475652864 are compared with Pan et al. (2022), and the j03 system is compared with Kovalev et al. (2024), providing external checks. Prior work by the authors (Li et al. 2021; He et al. 2023) is cited for methodology, including the template grid, CCF threshold, and detection-efficiency curve, and for five previously known SB3 systems; these citations are not used to force the new detections and are not equivalent to the claimed result. The absence of a false-positive analysis for chance line-of-sight blends is a validation and completeness concern, not a circularity. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claim is therefore self-contained with respect to its stated observational inputs.

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

The paper's central identification result rests on the CCF threshold choices and the interpretation of three peaks as a bound triple. The orbital parameters are honest fits with reported uncertainties, but the outer inclination for both systems is essentially unconstrained (89.90 +/- 27.29 deg and 89.90 +/- 6.46 deg), which limits the physical interpretation of the outer orbit.

free parameters (6)
  • S/N threshold = 20
    Spectra with signal-to-noise below 20 are discarded to keep CCF peaks reliable; this choice shapes the sample and the detection limits.
  • CCF detection threshold = 0.2
    As in Li et al. (2021), CCF peaks below 0.2 are disregarded, which sets the faintest component detectability.
  • Minimum number of observations = 2
    A system is retained only if SB3 features appear in two or more LAMOST epochs; this criterion is not motivated by a statistical false-positive model.
  • Inner period P_in = 1.26235 d and 3.421 d
    Derived from TESS Lomb-Scargle periodograms, then used as a fixed input for RV fitting and phase folding.
  • Outer period P_out = 656.47206 d and 422.559 d
    Taken from the Gaia DR3 NSS catalog rather than fitted to the RV data; the accuracy of the derived masses depends on this external period.
  • Photometric fit parameters = i_in=69.85 deg / 86.16 deg, T2/T1, R1/a, R2/a, L3
    Inclination, temperature ratio, fractional radii, and third light are MCMC-fitted with PHOEBE and jointly determine masses and radii.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Keplerian orbits and Newtonian point-mass dynamics describe the inner binary and the outer tertiary orbit.
    Used throughout Section 4 to convert RV amplitudes and periods into masses and semi-major axes.
  • domain assumption The outer period from the Gaia NSS catalog is the orbital period of the tertiary about the inner binary.
    Invoked in Section 4.1.1 when folding RV data on P_out=656.47 d and deriving outer-orbit parameters.
  • domain assumption The stability criterion of Eggleton and Kiseleva (1995), P_out/P_in greater than about 5, applies to all 23 systems.
    Used in Section 4.1.2 to assert consistency of the observed period ratios with hierarchical stability.
  • domain assumption Three CCF peaks in two or more epochs are interpreted as three physically bound stars rather than a chance blend of unrelated objects.
    This is the basis for classifying all 23 objects as triples; no false-positive estimate is given.
  • domain assumption Synthetic template spectra from iSpec with temperatures 4000-8000 K at 50 K steps adequately represent the observed stellar spectra for CCF analysis.
    The template grid is the core of the identification method; abundances, rotation, and microturbulence are not specified.
  • domain assumption Single-star Teff and log g estimates for unresolved binaries carry errors below 200 K and 0.1 dex (El-Badry et al. 2018), so fixing T1 from LAMOST is safe.
    Used in the PHOEBE light-curve fitting in Section 4.1.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Hierarchically Triple Star Systems with Gaia DR3 and LAMOST." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5GYNSOJ

@misc{pith2026241202625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Hierarchically Triple Star Systems with Gaia DR3 and LAMOST},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5GYNSOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02625}
}
abstract

Triple star systems are critical for understanding stellar dynamics and compact objects in astrophysics, yet confirmed hierarchical triples identified via spectroscopy remain limited. In this study, we identified 23 triple systems by cross-matching the Gaia DR3 non-single star catalog with LAMOST DR10 spectroscopic data; 18 of them are new discoveries. For two well-observed triples, we performed radial velocity curve fitting and light curve analysis to determine their orbital parameters, with inner and outer periods of 1.26 days and 656 days for one triple, and 3.42 days and 422 days for the other. We compared the results with other studies. We also analyzed the radial velocities (RVs) of these 23 triples, revealing a range of $V$ from approximately 40~km~s$^{-1}$ to 210~km~s$^{-1}$. Due to spectral resolution and detection limitations, velocity differences below 45~km~s$^{-1}$ in binaries and below 90~km~s$^{-1}$ in the inner binaries of triple systems are challenging to detect. Consequently, our detection range for inner orbital periods is restricted to 0.2--20 days, with the highest efficiency for periods under 10 days. These findings underscore the advantage of spectroscopic observations for identifying triple systems with short inner orbital periods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the CCF peak values for Gaia DR3 2077667962475652864 using different template spectra. In the upper part of the figure shows the normalized spectra. In the lower part of the figure, we present the generated CCF, A1 = 0.53, V1= - 131km/s, A2 = 0.48, V2= 134 km/s, and A3 = 0.41, V3= 19 km/s. The black solid line represents a template spectrum with a temperature of 7862 K, while the grey dashed line repre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The color-magnitude graph of 23 triple-star systems (red stars) determined from Gaia DR3 and LAMOST (blue dots). The x-axis shows the colour difference between GBP and GRP, and the y-axis displays the absolute magnitudes MG . All photometric data are from Gaia DR3. 4.1. Determination of Orbital Parameters for Gaia DR3 249662295687401216 4.1.1. Fitting of radial velocity (RV) curve We used the laspec software package… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. RV variations of the triple star system Gaia DR3 249662295687401216 over time. Red circles indicate spectra where CCF analysis detected only one RV. Blue circles and stars represent spectra with two detected RVs, and green circles, stars, and triangles denote spectra with three different RVs. Given that both the outer and inner periods of the triple are known—where the outer periods are obtained from the Gaia NSS ca… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RV fitting for the triple star system Gaia DR3 249662295687401216. The black points and red stars represent the observed data after phase folding, and the red line indicates the fitted RV curve. The blue points show the velocity of the inner binary’s center of mass, wh…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Light curve fitting for the triple star system Gaia DR3 249662295687401216. The blue dots indicate phase-folded observations, and the solid yellow line indicates the results of the fit. The horizontal axis indicates the phase, and the fitting residuals are shown at the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the number of ∆V s between any two components in the triples. The three velocities, ordered from lowest to highest, are labeled as V1, V2, and V3. The upper panel shows the ∆V distribution between any two components of the triple star sample from Sectio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RV fitting of inner binaries for the triple star system j03 Gaia DR3 669133613876714. The green circles show the velocity of the primary star, while blue squares represent the velocity of the secondary star. V1 and V2 denote the RV curves of the primary and secondary s…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The MCMC corner plot for the triple star system Gaia DR3 249662295687401216. The fitted model includes the binary parameters (inclination incl i, temperature ratio T2/T1, R1/a, R2/a) and the third light fraction L3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MCMC corner plot for the triple-star system Gaia DR3 249662295687401216. The fitted model parameters are: for the nner binary: q1 = 0.919±0.006, K1 = 138.798+0.727 −0.749, √ e1 cos ω1 = 0, √ e1 sin ω1 = 0.0014±0.001; Outer binary: √ e2 cos ω2 = −0.008+0.015 −0.008, √ e…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: RV fitting for the triple star system Gaia DR3 2077667962475652864.The black points and red stars represent the observed data after phase folding, and the red line indicates the fitted RV curve. The blue points show the velocity of the inner binary’s center of mass, w…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MCMC corner plot for the triple-star system Gaia DR3 2077667962475652864. The fitted model parameters are: for the inner binary, q1 = 0.937 ± 0.003, K1 = 91.971+0.160 −0.153, √ e1 cos ω1 = 0, √ e1 sin ω1 = 0.009 ± 0.001; for the outer binary, √ e2 cos ω2 = 0.028+0.001…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Light curve of the triple Gaia DR3 2077667962475652864. The blue dots indicate phase-folded observations, and the solid yellow line indicates the results of the fit. The horizontal axis indicates the phase, and the fitting residuals are shown at the bottom of the plot…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The MCMC corner plot for the triple system j03, representing the results of inner orbital fitting. The fitted parameters are: q1 = 0.600+0.008 −0.009, K1 = 96.693+0.615 −0.610, √ e1 cos ω1 = 0.001, √ e1 sin ω1 = −0.032+0.005 −0.006 and the systemic velocity γ = 14.538…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Antonini , F., Toonen , S., & Hamers , A. S. 2017, , 841, 77, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e 2017

  2. [2]

    2019, , 486, 2075, 10.1093/mnras/stz549

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

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz549 2019

  3. [3]

    2014, , 569, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    Blanco-Cuaresma , S., Soubiran , C., Heiter , U., & Jofr \'e , P. 2014, , 569, A111, 10.1051/0004-6361/201423945

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423945 2014

  4. [4]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X., Zhao, Y., Chu, Y., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003 2012

  5. [5]

    R., Mitnyan , T., Rappaport , S

    Czavalinga , D. R., Mitnyan , T., Rappaport , S. A., et al. 2023, , 670, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245300

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245300 2023

  6. [7]

    2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    Duch \^ e ne, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 269, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081710-102602 2013

  7. [8]

    1995, , 455, 640, 10.1086/176611

    Eggleton , P., & Kiseleva , L. 1995, , 455, 640, 10.1086/176611

    doi:10.1086/176611 1995

  8. [9]

    P., & Tokovinin , A

    Eggleton , P. P., & Tokovinin , A. A. 2008, , 389, 869, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13596.x

    arXiv 2008

Show all 53 references
  1. [10]

    2010, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/389/869

    ---. 2010, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/MNRAS/389/869

    2010

  2. [11]

    2018, , 473, 5043, 10.1093/mnras/stx2758

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2018, , 473, 5043, 10.1093/mnras/stx2758

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    A., Covey , K

    Fernandez , M. A., Covey , K. R., De Lee , N., et al. 2017, , 129, 084201, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa77e0

    2017 doi

  4. [13]

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

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

    J., Petigura , E

    Fulton , B. J., Petigura , E. A., Blunt , S., & Sinukoff , E. 2018, , 130, 044504, 10.1088/1538-3873/aaaaa8

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    2023 b , , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243782

    2023 doi

  8. [17]

    2023, , 674, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    Halbwachs , J.-L., Pourbaix , D., Arenou , F., et al. 2023, , 674, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243969

    2023 doi

  9. [18]

    2023, , 958, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf8c4

    He , T., Li , J., Chen , X., et al. 2023, , 958, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf8c4

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    G., Ukita , N., Kambe , E., et al

    He miniak , K. G., Ukita , N., Kambe , E., et al. 2017, , 468, 1726, 10.1093/mnras/stx385

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    E., Horvat , M., et al

    Jones , D., Conroy , K. E., Horvat , M., et al. 2020, , 247, 63, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7927

    2020 doi

  12. [21]

    Knigge , C., Toonen , S., & Boekholt , T. C. N. 2022, , 514, 1895, 10.1093/mnras/stac1336

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    2024, , 527, 346, 10.1093/mnras/stad3185

    Kovalev , M., Chen , X., & Han , Z. 2024, , 527, 346, 10.1093/mnras/stad3185

    2024 doi

  14. [23]

    L., & Hillenbrand , L

    Kraus , A. L., & Hillenbrand , L. A. 2009, , 704, 531, 10.1088/0004-637X/704/1/531

    2009 doi

  15. [24]

    2021, , 256, 31, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac22a8

    Li, C., Shi, J., Yan, H., et al. 2021, , 256, 31, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac22a8

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac731d

    Li, J., Li, J., Liu, C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 933, 119, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac731d

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    2024, , 964, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20e6

    Li , J., Liu , C., Luo , C., et al. 2024, , 964, 86, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20e6

    2024 doi

  18. [27]

    L., Zhao , Y.-H., Zhao , G., et al

    Luo , A. L., Zhao , Y.-H., Zhao , G., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  19. [28]

    1988, European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, Vol

    Merkle , F., ed. 1988, European Southern Observatory Conference and Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 29, High-resolution imaging by interferometry

    1988

  20. [29]

    2017, , 608, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730442

    Merle , T., Van Eck , S., Jorissen , A., et al. 2017, , 608, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730442

    2017 doi

  21. [30]

    G., Marcadon , F., et al

    Moharana , A., He miniak , K. G., Marcadon , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.12136, 10.48550/arXiv.2405.12136

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [31]

    2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 075014, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac712f

    Pan , Y., Fu , J.-N., Zhang , X.-B., Wang , J.-X., & Li , C.-Q. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 075014, 10.1088/1674-4527/ac712f

    2022 doi

  23. [32]

    B., & Fabrycky , D

    Perets , H. B., & Fabrycky , D. C. 2009, , 697, 1048, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1048

    2009 doi

  24. [33]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Podsiadlowski , P. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 238, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 104.02

    2021

  25. [34]

    2005, , 628, 426, 10.1086/430591

    Pr s a , A., & Zwitter , T. 2005, , 628, 426, 10.1086/430591

    2005 doi

  26. [35]

    E., Horvat , M., et al

    Pr s a , A., Conroy , K. E., Horvat , M., et al. 2016, , 227, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/227/2/29

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    A., Henry , T

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

    2010 doi

  28. [37]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    Sana , H., & Evans , C. J. 2011, in Active OB Stars: Structure, Evolution, Mass Loss, and Critical Limits, ed. C. Neiner , G. Wade , G. Meynet , & G. Peters , Vol. 272, 474--485, 10.1017/S1743921311011124

    2011 doi

  30. [39]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  31. [40]

    2017, , 836, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729

    Silsbee , K., & Tremaine , S. 2017, , 836, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    W., Winn , J

    Sullivan , P. W., Winn , J. N., Berta-Thompson , Z. K., et al. 2015, , 809, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/77

    2015 doi

  33. [42]

    2014, , 147, 87, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

    Tokovinin , A. 2014, , 147, 87, 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/87

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    2018, , 235, 6, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa1a5

    ---. 2018, , 235, 6, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa1a5

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    2020, , 491, 5158, 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    Tokovinin , A., & Moe , M. 2020, , 491, 5158, 10.1093/mnras/stz3299

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    2006, , 450, 681, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427

    Tokovinin , A., Thomas , S., Sterzik , M., & Udry , S. 2006, , 450, 681, 10.1051/0004-6361:20054427

    2006 doi

  37. [46]

    Toonen , S., Boekholt , T. C. N., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2022, , 661, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141991

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    Toonen , S., Hamers , A., & Portegies Zwart , S. 2016, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 3, 6, 10.1186/s40668-016-0019-0

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    VanderPlas , J. T. 2017, ArXiv e-prints. 1703.09824

    2017 arXiv

  40. [49]

    E., & Devinney , E

    Wilson , R. E., & Devinney , E. J. 1971, , 166, 605, 10.1086/150986

    1971 doi

  41. [50]

    2024, , 270, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0ceb

    Xiong , J., Ding , X., Li , J., et al. 2024, , 270, 20, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad0ceb

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    2023, , 165, 30, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca288

    Xiong , J., Liu , C., Li , J., et al. 2023, , 165, 30, 10.3847/1538-3881/aca288

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    2020, , 246, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ef

    Zhang , B., Liu , C., & Deng , L.-C. 2020, , 246, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ef

    2020 doi

  44. [54]

    2021 b , , 256, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    ---. 2021 b , , 256, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    2021 doi

  45. [55]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao , G., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., Jing , Y.-P., & Deng , L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.