Papers › The breakdown of current gyrochronology as evidenced by old coeval stars
The breakdown of current gyrochronology as evidenced by old coeval stars
Joaquín Silva-Beyer, Diego Godoy-Rivera, Julio Chanamé
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Gyrochronology can yield useful ages for field main-sequence stars, a regime where other techniques are problematic. Typically, gyrochronology relations are calibrated using young (≲2 Gyr) clusters, but the constraints at older ages are scarce, making them potentially inaccurate and imprecise. In order to test the performance of existing relations, we construct samples of stellar pairs with coeval components, for a range of ages and with available rotation periods. These include randomly paired stars in clusters, and wide binaries in the Kepler field. We design indicators that, based on the measured rotation periods and expectations from gyrochronology, quantify the (dis)agreement between the coeval pairs and the gyrochronology calibrations under scrutiny. Our results show that wide binaries and cluster members are in better concordance with gyrochronology than samples of randomly paired field stars, confirming that the relations have predicting power. However, the agreement with the examined relations decreases for older stars, revealing a degradation of the examined relations with age, in agreement with recent works. This highlights the need for novel empirical constraints at older ages that may allow revised calibrations. Notably, using coeval stars to test gyrochronology poses the advantage of circumventing the need for age determinations while simultaneously exploiting larger samples at older ages. Our test is independent of any specific age-rotation relation, and it can be used to evaluate future spin-down models. In addition, taking gyrochronology at face value, we note that our results provide new empirical evidence that the components of field wide binaries are indeed coeval.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2210.01137")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · violated contract; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 2 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from jsilvabeyer/wbgyro23. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
09df61919336402e · report
44db0fc84d8993c1 · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections