Robo-AO M-dwarf Multiplicity Survey: Catalog*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We analyze observations from Robo-AO’s field M dwarf survey taken on the 2.1 m Kitt Peak telescope and perform a multiplicity comparison with Gaia DR2. Through its laser-guided, automated system, the Robo-AO instrument has yielded the largest adaptive optics M dwarf multiplicity survey to date. After developing an interface to visually identify and locate stellar companions, we selected 11 low-significance Robo-AO detections for follow-up on the Keck II telescope using NIRC2. In the Robo-AO survey we find 553 candidate companions within 4″ around 534 stars out of 5566 unique targets, most of which are new discoveries. Using a position cross-match with DR2 on all targets, we assess the binary recoverability of Gaia DR2 and compare the properties of multiples resolved by both Robo-AO and Gaia. The catalog of nearby M dwarf systems and their basic properties presented here can assist other surveys which observe these stars, such as the NASA TESS mission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".