Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Binary properties of the globular cluster 47 Tuc (NGC 104). A dearth of short-period binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The massive globular cluster 47 Tuc has almost no short-period binaries, in direct conflict with dynamical simulations.

desk verdict Solid first spectroscopic binary census of 47 Tuc with a robust empirical dearth of short-period binaries; the 'surprising vs. models' claim is softer than the abstract implies because the CMC initial period distribution is doing much of the work. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13189 v1 pith:ZZE75LLF submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Johanna Müller-Horn , Fabian Göttgens , Stefan Dreizler , Sebastian Kamann , Sven Martens , Sara Saracino , Claire S. Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersspectroscopicbinariesradialvelocities47TucbluestragglersstellarremnantsMonteCarlosimulationsbinaryfraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the binary population of the massive globular cluster 47 Tuc lacks the short-period systems and massive dark companions that state-of-the-art dynamical simulations predict. Using eight years of MUSE spectroscopy of 21,699 member stars, it measures a total binary fraction of (2.4±1.0)% and a binary fraction among blue stragglers about three times the cluster average. The 30 binaries with well-constrained orbits have periods between 2.7 and 425 days, peaking at weeks to months, and none shows evidence of a companion above about 0.49 solar masses. Because the survey is most sensitive to short-period and high-companion-mass systems, the absence of such systems is the paper's central finding: the period and companion-mass distributions in 47 Tuc differ from Cluster Monte Carlo predictions, pointing to missing physics in the simulations' initial conditions and binary evolution.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the radial-velocity variability analysis of a large MUSE spectroscopic sample: 245,522 spectra of 21,699 member stars taken over eight years, each star assigned a variability probability via the Giesers et al. (2019) chi-squared method, and 708 stars identified as binary candidates. For the 30 binaries with well-constrained orbits, orbital parameters come from nested-sampling (UltraNest) posteriors cross-checked with The Joker. The comparison engine is a Cluster Monte Carlo simulation of 47 Tuc (Ye et al. 2022), used to generate mock radial-velocity observations with the same time sampling, noise, and detection threshold; this forward model yields the detection efficiency as a function of period, mass ratio, and stellar type, showing that sensitivity is highest for short-period and massive-companion systems. That selection function, applied to both the simulated and observed period distributions, is what makes the deficit of short-period and high-companion-mass binaries a meaningful discrepancy rather than an observational artifact.

What would settle it

A high-cadence photometric search for eclipsing or ellipsoidally modulated binaries with periods below three days across the same MUSE field, reaching the same brightness limit, that turned up a substantial population of such systems would refute the claimed dearth, as would the recovery of many short-period orbits from longer radial-velocity baselines with additional epochs per star.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that spectroscopic binaries in 47 Tuc are rare overall and are systematically shifted toward longer periods than dynamical simulations of the cluster predict. The discovery binary fraction in the MUSE field is (3.3±1.1)%, which translates to a total binary fraction of (2.4±1.0)% after correcting for incompleteness using mock observations. Among stars with ten or more epochs, only 30 binaries have well-constrained Keplerian orbits, with periods spanning 2.7 to 425 days and a log-normal distribution peaked near weeks to months; there are very few binaries with periods below three days and none with a massive dark companion. The highest inferred minimum companion mass is m2 sin i = 0.49 M☉, and the absence of stars with high radial-velocity scatter or high mass functions contradicts the CMC prediction that short-period binaries and binaries with white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole companions should be abundant and preferentially detected.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison relies on the Cluster Monte Carlo simulation of Ye et al. (2022) being a faithful representation of 47 Tuc's real binary population, since it supplies both the incompleteness correction and the expected period distribution; if its assumed initial binary fraction or period distribution is wrong, the quoted total binary fraction and the significance of the short-period deficit would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total binary fraction of 47 Tuc is (2.4±1.0)%, consistent with previous photometric estimates and confirming that old, massive clusters retain a low fraction of binaries.
  • Blue straggler stars have a binary fraction of (10.9±4.8)%, about three times the cluster average, supporting their formation through mass transfer or collisions in binary systems.
  • The observed period distribution, log-normal with mean log P = 1.5 and σ = 0.6 for P in days, peaks at weeks to months rather than days, implying the primordial period distribution adopted in CMC simulations needs revision.
  • The absence of binaries with observed RV semi-amplitudes above about 90 km/s and with companion masses above the hydrogen-burning limit suggests very few spectroscopically detectable dark remnants exist in binaries with luminous stars in 47 Tuc.
  • The discrepancy with CMC predictions points to the common-envelope and binary-evolution prescriptions in the models as the likely source of the overproduction of very tight binaries and remnant companions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dearth is real, the dynamical energy budget of 47 Tuc's core relies less on hard binaries than models assume, which could shift predictions for core collapse and for the production of millisecond pulsars and cataclysmic variables.
  • A testable extension would be a high-cadence photometric search for eclipsing or ellipsoidally modulated binaries with periods below three days across the same MUSE field; a substantial population there would independently confirm or refute the short-period deficit.
  • Applying the same spectroscopic pipeline to other old globular clusters would reveal whether the short-period deficit is a general property of dense clusters or peculiar to 47 Tuc, with NGC 3201 already showing cluster-to-cluster variation.
  • If CMC models systematically overproduce short-period binaries with remnants, the inferred rates of black-hole mergers from globular clusters in gravitational-wave data may also be overestimated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-epoch VLT/MUSE spectroscopic survey of 21,699 stars in the globular cluster 47 Tuc, identifies 708 RV-variable binary candidates, and derives orbital parameters for 30 well-constrained binaries. It reports a total binary fraction of (2.4±1.0)%, an enhanced binary fraction among blue stragglers, a period distribution peaking at weeks to months rather than days, and no binaries with massive dark companions. These results are compared with Cluster Monte Carlo (CMC) simulations of 47 Tuc, and the paper concludes that the absence of short-period binaries and massive-companion binaries is surprising.

Significance. The empirical data set is unusually large and homogeneous, and the analysis is careful: it includes mock-observation tests, cross-checks between UltraNest and The Joker, a model-independent RV-scatter distribution, and a detailed treatment of contamination and variable stars. If the empirical result holds, it provides strong constraints on the binary population of a massive globular cluster and on the formation of blue stragglers and compact-object binaries. The central weakness is that the headline 'surprising' comparison with CMC simulations is partly a test of the CMC initial period distribution, which the paper itself identifies as the source of the short-period peak. The discrepancy is therefore less decisive for dynamics than the abstract suggests, and the statistical significance of the null detections is not quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1–6.2, Fig. 13] The comparison in Fig. 13 uses the 30 well-constrained MUSE orbits, but the CMC curve is based on all 'hypothetically detectable' simulated binaries (839 after P(χ²)>0.5), not on the CMC subset that passes the same well-constrained selection (≥10 epochs plus UltraNest/The Joker convergence). Section 4.3 explicitly notes that the well-constrained subset is biased toward high RV amplitudes, and this selection is period-dependent. Please forward-model the full selection chain for the CMC prediction, or compare against a CMC period distribution that includes the same convergence criteria, and report the expected number of P<3 d binaries in that matched subset.
  2. [§7.3, §4.1] The paper states in §7.3 that the CMC short-period peak is 'an artifact of the initial period distribution, which already favored shorter periods,' and §4.1 specifies that initial periods are drawn flat in log from Roche-lobe overflow to the hard/soft boundary, a choice not independently constrained by 47 Tuc observations. Consequently, the observed dearth of P<3 d binaries tests the assumed primordial period distribution more directly than it tests dynamical or binary-evolution physics. I recommend rephrasing the abstract and conclusions to say that the dearth constrains the initial conditions assumed in current CMC models, and adding a comparison with an alternative initial period distribution (e.g., field-like) to separate initial-condition sensitivity from evolutionary predictions.
  3. [§6.4, §7.4] The null results for massive dark companions and for short-period binaries are not accompanied by expected counts under the CMC model. The paper reports f(M)<0.2 M⊙ for all 30 binaries and small posterior probabilities for neutron-star or black-hole companions, but it does not state how many BH/NS binaries the CMC forward model predicts should appear in the MUSE FoV with enough epochs to enter the well-constrained sample. Please compute the expected number of detectable systems with f(M)>0.25 M⊙ and with P<3 d, and give a Poisson or posterior-predictive significance for observing zero or very few. Without this, the comparison is only qualitative.
  4. [§5.4, §7.5] The total binary fraction of (2.4±1.0)% is derived using a CMC-based scaling factor and a CMC-based radial and magnitude extrapolation. The paper's own robustness test in §7.5, reducing mock RV amplitudes by 30%, shifts the value to 2.9%, and §5.4 acknowledges additional model dependence. Because the abstract presents 2.4% without this caveat, I recommend presenting the total binary fraction as explicitly CMC-dependent and quoting the robustness range as part of the headline result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.5.3, Table A.1] The RGB binary with P≈94 d is described as a likely false positive caused by asteroseismic jitter, yet it remains in Table A.1 and in the period distribution of Fig. 13; please either exclude it or test how the period distribution changes if it is removed.
  2. [§2.3] The isochrone fit uses an age of 14.9 Gyr while the text notes that a lower, more physically motivated age yields consistent parameters; the adopted age and its effect on the assigned primary masses should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Appendix A.4] The per-pointing variability-probability correction removes 47% of the initial binary candidates and is central to the binary fraction, so it deserves a more prominent summary in the main text than a footnote-style remark in §3.2.
  4. [Fig. 13] The caption states that the field-like prediction is scaled to the number of well-constrained MUSE binaries, but the scaling procedure and the normalization of the CMC curve are not described; please clarify both in the caption.
  5. [§2.2] There is a typo: 'demonstrats' should be 'demonstrates'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical MUSE RV analysis is self-contained, and the CMC-based comparisons are explicit model benchmarks whose short-period excess the paper itself traces to an assumed initial period distribution.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical results (708 RV-variable candidates, discovery fraction 3.3±1.1%, the 30 well-constrained orbits, the period and mass-function distributions) are derived directly from MUSE RVs via chi-square variability probabilities and nested-sampling orbital fits; none of these steps is defined in terms of the CMC model. The total binary fraction estimate does use the CMC mock data as a detection-efficiency and scaling calibrator (Sect. 5.4), but this is an openly stated model-dependent correction, explicitly qualified ('always under the assumption that the distribution of binaries in the CMC simulations is comparable to that of the real binary population'), and its sensitivity is quantified in Sect. 7.5 (reducing mock RV amplitudes by 30% shifts fbin,total from 2.4% to 2.9%, within errors). The CMC model of Ye et al. (2022) is co-authored by one of the present authors, which is a legitimate self-citation; however, it is an externally benchmarked simulation (fit to surface brightness, velocity dispersion, pulsar accelerations, and compact-object counts), not an unverified uniqueness theorem, so the comparison does not reduce to the citation. The apparent 'surprising' short-period deficit is a model comparison, not a circular derivation: the observed period distribution is measured independently, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the CMC short-period peak is 'an artifact of the initial period distribution, which already favored shorter periods' (Sect. 7.3), i.e., the discrepancy constrains the model's assumed flat-in-log initial period distribution rather than being forced by it. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; no derivation step equals its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on standard statistical assumptions, the fidelity of the CMC model (which includes a co-author), and calibrated noise models. The most consequential assumptions are the CMC initial conditions, since they drive both the completeness correction and the baseline for the period distribution comparison.

free parameters (6)
  • CMC initial binary fraction = 0.022
    Input to the CMC model used for completeness corrections and total binary fraction extrapolation; if wrong, the corrected binary fraction shifts within the quoted uncertainty.
  • CMC initial period distribution = flat in log P from Roche-lobe to hard/soft boundary
    Determines the simulated period distribution against which the observed dearth is measured; the model's short-period peak is the basis of the discrepancy claim.
  • CMC initial mass ratio distribution = flat q in 0.1-1
    Affects the mock detection efficiency as a function of companion mass and the predicted companion mass distribution.
  • S/N-dependent RV uncertainty scaling factors = calibrated per S/N bin
    Fitted in Appendix A.1 to make normalized velocity differences have unit variance; used in variability probabilities and binary fraction.
  • Contamination uncertainty inflation relation = sigma_v,scaled = (1.25 - 0.125 d1mag) sigma_v
    Calibrated in Appendix A.4 to remove the correlation between variability probability and proximity to bright neighbors; affects which stars are classified as binaries.
  • Variability probability threshold = P(chi^2) > 0.5
    Chosen as a compromise between completeness and false positives; varied between 0.4 and 0.6 for uncertainty estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Single-star RV scatter follows a chi-square null distribution with Gaussian errors.
    Basis for the variability probability P(chi^2) used to identify binary candidates (Section 3.1, Appendix A.3).
  • domain assumption Known photometric variables and pulsating stars do not contaminate the binary sample after the applied cuts.
    The paper removes 39 known variables and stars flagged for photometric variability, but Hubble Catalog of Variables matches are only flagged, not removed; residual pulsational RV jitter could mimic binaries.
  • domain assumption The CMC model represents the spatial, luminosity, and binary distributions of 47 Tuc realistically.
    Used to derive detection efficiencies and the FoV-to-total extrapolation factor (Sections 4.1, 5.4); the authors acknowledge the model's period distribution is discrepant (Section 7.5).
  • domain assumption The flux-ratio damping factor (1 - F2/F1) correctly describes MUSE RV amplitude attenuation for unresolved binaries.
    Applied in mock observations to mimic the observed RV amplitude (Section 4.2); if the actual damping differs, detection efficiencies for high-q binaries could be misestimated.
  • domain assumption The HST ACS completeness function applies to the MUSE detection of stars.
    Used to select hypothetically observable CMC binaries (Section 4.2); the completeness varies per pointing and magnitude.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binary properties of the globular cluster 47 Tuc (NGC 104). A dearth of short-period binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZE75LLF

@misc{pith2026241213189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binary properties of the globular cluster 47 Tuc (NGC 104). A dearth of short-period binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZE75LLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13189}
}
abstract

Spectroscopic observations of binary stars in globular clusters are essential to shed light on the poorly constrained period, eccentricity, and mass ratio distributions and to develop an understanding of the formation of peculiar stellar objects. 47 Tuc (NGC 104) is one of the most massive Galactic globular clusters, with a large population of blue stragglers and with many predicted but as-yet elusive stellar-mass black holes. This makes it an exciting candidate for binary searches. We present a multi-epoch spectroscopic survey of 47 Tuc with the VLT/MUSE integral field spectrograph to determine radial velocity variations for 21,699 stars. We find a total binary fraction in the cluster of $(2.4\pm1.0)\%$, consistent with previous photometric estimates, and an increased binary fraction among blue straggler stars, approximately three times higher than the cluster average. We find very few binaries with periods below three days, and none with massive dark companions. A comparison with predictions from state-of-the-art models shows that the absence of such short-period binaries and of binaries with massive companions is surprising, highlighting the need to improve our understanding of stellar and dynamical evolution in binary systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MUSE pointing chart of the globular cluster 47 Tuc with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MUSE observational completeness for 47 Tuc as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Histogram of the number of observations per star in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color-magnitude diagram of the stars contained in the filtered MUSE data set, generated using ACS HST photometry. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Binary system with a well-constrained unimodal orbit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histograms of the orbital parameters for the GC 47 Tuc derived from the CMC simulation. The panels show the orbital period, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Stellar types of the 839 binary systems in the CMC sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Detected fraction of RV-variable simulated binaries with variability probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variability probabilities (Giesers et al. 2019) for all stars in the cleaned RV data set of 47 Tuc computed per pointing. 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 observed binary fraction [%] MS BSS SGB RGB/RC 3.1±0.8 10.9±4.8 3.4±1.2 3.6±1.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Observed binary fractions across various stellar evo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Period distribution of binaries with well-constrained orbits in 47 Tuc (shown in blue). The dotted line represents the subset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Period-eccentricity distribution of the 30 well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Binary mass function f(M) for the 30 well-constrained binaries in 47 Tuc. All binaries are characterized by f(M) ≪ 1 M⊙. sence of such binaries in the MUSE sample makes the presence of dark companions among the observed binaries unlikely. Direct computation of the act…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Inferred minimum companion masses and mass ratios of binaries with well-constrained orbits. Left: Minimum companion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Normalized mass ratio distribution of the subset of well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Color-magnitude diagram of 47 Tuc. The binaries with well-constrained orbital parameters are highlighted and color-coded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Spectroscopic binary fractions and respective uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Observed RV semi-amplitudes, 0.5(vrad,max − vrad,min), for all stars observed with MUSE (gray), the 708 MUSE bi￾naries (blue), and the hypothetically observable CMC binaries from the best-fit model (dark blue line). For reference, the his￾togram of observed RV amplitu…

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. Something new under the Sun: A magnetically driven CH/CN anti-correlation

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The solar magnetic cycle produces a CH/CN anti-correlation in the integrated solar spectrum, which the authors scale up to argue that surface magnetism could mimic globular cluster multi-population signatures.

  2. Are binary-star populations regionally different? --in memory of Sverre Aarseth--

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review arguing that stars form mostly as binaries and that cluster dynamics, not star formation conditions, explains most observed differences in binary populations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039

    2023

  4. [4]

    D., Gilliland , R

    Albrow , M. D., Gilliland , R. L., Brown , T. M., et al. 2001, , 559, 1060

    2001

  5. [5]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane , P., Audley , H., Babak , S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    R., et al

    Anderson , J., Sarajedini , A., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2008, , 135, 2055

    2008

  7. [7]

    I., Sippel , A

    Aros , F. I., Sippel , A. C., Mastrobuono-Battisti , A., et al. 2021, , 508, 4385

    2021

  8. [8]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bacon , R., Accardo , M., Adjali , L., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 773508

    2010

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    O., Tudor , V., et al

    Bahramian , A., Heinke , C. O., Tudor , V., et al. 2017, , 467, 2199

    2017

  2. [10]

    T., Watkins , L

    Baldwin , A. T., Watkins , L. L., van der Marel , R. P., et al. 2016, , 827, 12

    2016

  3. [11]

    2022, , 658, A69

    Banyard , G., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2022, , 658, A69

    2022

  4. [12]

    & Lardo , C

    Bastian , N. & Lardo , C. 2018, , 56, 83

    2018

  5. [13]

    & Hilker , M

    Baumgardt , H. & Hilker , M. 2018, , 478, 1520

    2018

  6. [14]

    2021, , 652, A70

    Bodensteiner , J., Sana , H., Wang , C., et al. 2021, , 652, A70

    2021

  7. [15]

    Z., Yang , M., Sokolovsky , K

    Bonanos , A. Z., Yang , M., Sokolovsky , K. V., et al. 2019, , 630, A92

    2019

  8. [16]

    A., Bedin , L

    Brogaard , K., VandenBerg , D. A., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2017, , 468, 645

    2017

  9. [17]

    2014, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383

    Buchner , J. 2014, Statistics and Computing, 26, 383

    2014

  10. [18]

    2019, , 131, 108005

    Buchner , J. 2019, , 131, 108005

    2019

  11. [19]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

    Buchner , J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001

    2021

  12. [20]

    L., & Rasio , F

    Chatterjee , S., Rodriguez , C. L., & Rasio , F. A. 2017, , 834, 68

    2017

  13. [21]

    Cioni , M. R. L., Clementini , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2011, , 527, A116

    2011

  14. [22]

    M., Muzzin , A., Dufton , Q., et al

    Clement , C. M., Muzzin , A., Dufton , Q., et al. 2001, , 122, 2587

    2001

  15. [23]

    D., Fletcher , J

    Cote , P., Pryor , C., McClure , R. D., Fletcher , J. M., & Hesser , J. E. 1996, , 112, 574

    1996

  16. [24]

    K., Yadav , R

    Dattatrey , A. K., Yadav , R. K. S., Rani , S., et al. 2023, , 943, 130

    2023

  17. [25]

    J., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., Gieles , M., & Baumgardt , H

    Dickson , N., Smith , P. J., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., Gieles , M., & Baumgardt , H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.13037

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R., Dufton, P

    Dunstall, P. R., Dufton, P. L., Sana, H., et al. 2015, , 580, A93

    2015

  19. [27]

    & Mayor , M

    Duquennoy , A. & Mayor , M. 1991, , 248, 485

    1991

  20. [28]

    Eggleton , P. P. 1983, , 268, 368

    1983

  21. [29]

    2018, , 479, 5491

    Eker , Z., Bak s , V., Bilir , S., et al. 2018, , 479, 5491

    2018

  22. [30]

    N., Primini , F

    Evans , I. N., Primini , F. A., Glotfelty , K. J., et al. 2010, , 189, 37

    2010

  23. [31]

    R., Mucciarelli , A., Lanzoni , B., et al

    Ferraro , F. R., Mucciarelli , A., Lanzoni , B., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 2584

    2023

  24. [32]

    M., G \"u rkan , M

    Fregeau , J. M., G \"u rkan , M. A., Joshi , K. J., & Rasio , F. A. 2003, , 593, 772

    2003

  25. [33]

    M., Leiner , E

    Geller , A. M., Leiner , E. M., Bellini , A., et al. 2017, , 840, 66

    2017

  26. [34]

    & Heggie , D

    Giersz , M. & Heggie , D. C. 2011, , 410, 2698

    2011

  27. [35]

    2018, , 475, L15

    Giesers , B., Dreizler , S., Husser , T.-O., et al. 2018, , 475, L15

    2018

  28. [36]

    2019, , 632, A3

    Giesers , B., Kamann , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2019, , 632, A3

    2019

  29. [37]

    & Hut , P

    Goodman , J. & Hut , P. 1989, Nature, 339, 40

    1989

  30. [38]

    Hansen , B. M. S., Kalirai , J. S., Anderson , J., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 51

    2013

  31. [39]

    Harris , W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487

    1996

  32. [40]

    Harris , W. E. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3224

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Heggie , D. C. 1975, , 173, 729

    1975

  34. [42]

    C., Trenti , M., & Hut , P

    Heggie , D. C., Trenti , M., & Hut , P. 2006, , 368, 677

    2006

  35. [43]

    O., Grindlay , J

    Heinke , C. O., Grindlay , J. E., Edmonds , P. D., et al. 2005, , 625, 796

    2005

  36. [44]

    2020, , 491, 113

    H \'e nault-Brunet , V., Gieles , M., Strader , J., et al. 2020, , 491, 113

    2020

  37. [45]

    Hills , J. G. & Fullerton , L. W. 1980, , 85, 1281

    1980

  38. [46]

    2016, , 588, A148

    Husser , T.-O., Kamann , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2016, , 588, A148

    2016

  39. [47]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A6

    2013

  40. [48]

    1983, , 272, L29

    Hut , P. 1983, , 272, L29

    1983

  41. [49]

    & Giersz , M

    Hypki , A. & Giersz , M. 2017, , 466, 320

    2017

  42. [50]

    M., & Rasio , F

    Ivanova , N., Belczynski , K., Fregeau , J. M., & Rasio , F. A. 2005, , 358, 572

    2005

  43. [51]

    & Bregman , J

    Ji , J. & Bregman , J. N. 2015, , 807, 32

    2015

  44. [52]

    C., et al

    Kains , N., Calamida , A., Sahu , K. C., et al. 2018, , 867, 37

    2018

  45. [53]

    2020, , 635, A65

    Kamann , S., Giesers , B., Bastian , N., et al. 2020, , 635, A65

    2020

  46. [54]

    2016, , 588, A149

    Kamann , S., Husser , T.-O., Brinchmann , J., et al. 2016, , 588, A149

    2016

  47. [55]

    2018, , 473, 5591

    Kamann , S., Husser , T.-O., Dreizler , S., et al. 2018, , 473, 5591

    2018

  48. [56]

    Kamann , S., Wisotzki , L., & Roth , M. M. 2013, , 549, A71

    2013

  49. [57]

    Kipping , D. M. 2013, , 434, L51

    2013

  50. [58]

    2017, Nature, 542, 203

    K z ltan , B., Baumgardt , H., & Loeb , A. 2017, Nature, 542, 203

    2017

  51. [59]

    L., & Rasio , F

    Kremer , K., Chatterjee , S., Rodriguez , C. L., & Rasio , F. A. 2018, , 852, 29

    2018

  52. [60]

    D., & Geller , A

    Leiner , E., Mathieu , R. D., & Geller , A. M. 2017, , 840, 67

    2017

  53. [61]

    2022, , 934, 150

    Libralato , M., Bellini , A., Vesperini , E., et al. 2022, , 934, 150

    2022

  54. [62]

    & Fischer, D

    Lovis, C. & Fischer, D. 2011, Exoplanets, edited by S. Seager. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 2011, 526 pp. ISBN 978-0-8165-2945-2., p.27-53

    2011

  55. [63]

    R., Richer , H., Heyl , J., et al

    Mann , C. R., Richer , H., Heyl , J., et al. 2019, , 875, 1

    2019

  56. [64]

    McCrea , W. H. 1964, , 128, 147

    1964

  57. [65]

    Miller-Jones , J. C. A., Strader , J., Heinke , C. O., et al. 2015, , 453, 3918

    2015

  58. [66]

    P., Piotto , G., Bedin , L

    Milone , A. P., Piotto , G., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2012, , 540, A16

    2012

  59. [67]

    & Di Stefano , R

    Moe , M. & Di Stefano , R. 2017, , 230, 15

    2017

  60. [68]

    A., & Umbreit , S

    Morscher , M., Pattabiraman , B., Rodriguez , C., Rasio , F. A., & Umbreit , S. 2015, , 800, 9

    2015

  61. [69]

    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

    2023

  62. [70]

    Paduano, A., Bahramian, A., Miller-Jones, J. C. A., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 54

    2024

  63. [71]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa , F., Varoquaux , G., Gramfort , A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  64. [72]

    M., Hogg , D

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Hogg , D. W., Foreman-Mackey , D., & Rix , H.-W. 2017, , 837, 20

    2017

  65. [73]

    M., Hogg , D

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Hogg , D. W., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2020, , 895, 2

    2020

  66. [74]

    A., Henry , T

    Raghavan , D., McAlister , H. A., Henry , T. J., et al. 2010, , 190, 1

    2010

  67. [75]

    W., Clark , J

    Ritchie , B. W., Clark , J. S., Negueruela , I., & Najarro , F. 2022, , 660, A89

    2022

  68. [76]

    E., van den Berg , M., Heinke , C

    Rivera Sandoval , L. E., van den Berg , M., Heinke , C. O., et al. 2018, , 475, 4841

    2018

  69. [77]

    C., Reyl \'e , C., Derri \`e re , S., & Picaud , S

    Robin , A. C., Reyl \'e , C., Derri \`e re , S., & Picaud , S. 2003, , 409, 523

    2003

  70. [78]

    L., Weatherford , N

    Rodriguez , C. L., Weatherford , N. C., Coughlin , S. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 22

    2022

  71. [79]

    & Weiss , A

    Salaris , M. & Weiss , A. 2002, , 388, 492

    2002

  72. [80]

    2023 a , , 526, 299

    Saracino , S., Kamann , S., Bastian , N., et al. 2023 a , , 526, 299

    2023

  73. [81]

    G., et al

    Saracino , S., Kamann , S., Guarcello , M. G., et al. 2022, , 511, 2914

    2022

  74. [82]

    2023 b , , 521, 3162

    Saracino , S., Shenar , T., Kamann , S., et al. 2023 b , , 521, 3162

    2023

  75. [83]

    R., Chaboyer , B., et al

    Sarajedini , A., Bedin , L. R., Chaboyer , B., et al. 2007, , 133, 1658

    2007

  76. [84]

    2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Skilling , J. 2004, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, ed. R. Fischer...

    2004

  77. [85]

    2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833

    Skilling, J. 2006, Bayesian Analysis, 1, 833

    2006

  78. [86]

    2009, , 493, 947

    Sommariva , V., Piotto , G., Rejkuba , M., et al. 2009, , 493, 947

    2009

  79. [87]

    & Davis , M

    Tonry , J. & Davis , M. 1979, , 84, 1511

    1979

  80. [88]

    C., Chatterjee , S., Kremer , K., & Rasio , F

    Weatherford , N. C., Chatterjee , S., Kremer , K., & Rasio , F. A. 2020, , 898, 162

    2020

  81. [89]

    M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al

    Weilbacher , P. M., Palsa , R., Streicher , O., et al. 2020, , 641, A28

    2020

  82. [90]

    Weldrake , D. T. F., Sackett , P. D., Bridges , T. J., & Freeman , K. C. 2004, , 128, 736

    2004

  83. [91]

    S., Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C

    Ye , C. S., Kremer , K., Rodriguez , C. L., et al. 2022, , 931, 84

    2022

  84. [92]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L9

    Zaris , J., Veske , D., Samsing , J., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L9

    2020

Pith tools

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