ner_tags: O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O B-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation I-Citation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O B-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula I-Formula O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tokens: our current understanding on the formation of wide binaries, when comparing the abundances of their components, we would expect both stars to have similar metallicities, as both stars come from the same parental material. Empirical evidence for this expectation has been reported in the works of Andrews et al. ( 2018a ), Desidera et al. ( 2004 ), and Desidera et al. ( 2006 ), reinforcing the idea that wide binaries can be thought of as the smallest versions of open clusters (cochemical and coeval stars). Fig. 7 shows the metallicity comparison of the data sample pairs on the left (blue), and of the random alignments pairs on the right (red). The 1:1 relation, and a ±0.1 dex displacement from it, are shown as the solid and dashed lines, respectively. It can be seen that the data pairs tend to follow the 1:1 relation, while the random alignments pairs do not. We take this result as a confirmation that our multiple-parameter criteria used to select the data sample pairs is indeed recovering promising wide binary candidates, as for most of the components of the pairs their metallicities tend to be similar (even though the metallicity was not used as a criterion). This result is in agreement with the expectations. In spite of these promising results, some contamination might still be present in our nominal data sample. For instance, one pair in Fig. 7 is located well off the 1:1 relation, with [Fe/H] 1 = −0.132 dex and [Fe/H] 2 = +0.24 dex. Because of this, we decide to assign qualitative flags to our candidates depending on how consistent or inconsistent they appear to be when taking all the parameters into account. For any given pair, we assign it one of three types of flags: ‘ a ’, when it is consistent in all the parameters and most likely is a real binary; ‘ b ’, when it appears to be consistent in some regards but not in others; and ‘ c ’, when even though it passed all the required criteria of the search, it shows clear inconsistencies under a more detailed inspection, and most likely correspond to a chance alignment. Out of the 10 pairs obtained in the 4th row of Fig. 6 , we classify three of them as ‘ a ’, five of them as ‘ b ’, and two of them as ‘ c ’. Fig. 7 also shows the data sample pairs labelled according to this classification. We report the ‘ a ’ and ‘ b ’ pairs in the first block of Table 2 , where we also provide the parameters associated with the pairs and their component stars. The pairs assigned with flag=‘ c ’ are discarded from our candidate list and not further analysed. Table 2. List of our wide binary candidates in the Subsample 1 : ‘PM-π-RV’. We only report the pairs qualitatively flagged as ‘ a ’ and ‘ b ’, as the pairs flagged as ‘ c ’ have been discarded from our candidate list. The table is separated in three blocks, each one of them containing the candidates found in Section 5.1 , Section 5.2 , and Section 5.3 , respectively. In any given block of the table, the pairs are separated by horizontal lines. For each