pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24270 · v1 · pith:EFXWKL7Bnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

NGC 6134: a comprehensive study through photometric and kinematic analysis using Gaia DR3

Agus T. P. Jatmiko , Teduh Perhati , Dhimaz G. Ramadhan , Muhammad Yusuf , Denny Mandey , Mochamad I. Arifyanto , Premana W. Premadi , Sahlan Ramadhan
show 2 more authors
Ferry Yap Laksma Satya
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords open clusterNGC 6134Gaia DR3isochrone fittingmass segregationstellar substructuresblue stragglersbinary fraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

NGC 6134 is a 1.4-billion-year-old open cluster 1064 parsecs away whose mass segregation arises from dynamical evolution and whose stars divide into core, tidal tail, and halo components.

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

The paper determines the basic properties of the open cluster NGC 6134 by fitting isochrones to its Gaia-selected members and by mapping how those members are arranged in space. It reports a slightly metal-rich composition, an age near 1.4 Gyr, a distance of 1064 pc, and moderate extinction. Spatial decomposition separates the cluster into three distinct parts, while a tree-based statistic shows that heavier stars have sunk toward the center through ordinary gravitational encounters rather than having formed that way. The same data also flag candidate blue stragglers and a gap on the main sequence that the authors tie to the cluster's binary population.

Core claim

Application of the ASteCA code to the photometric and kinematic members yields cluster parameters [Fe/H] = 0.08 ± 0.06, log(t) = 9.14 ± 0.01, distance 1064.43 ± 15.19 pc, and A_v = 1.03 ± 0.05 mag; an independent Bayesian distance estimate from individual parallaxes agrees at 1070.83 ± 2.50 pc. Gaussian Mixture Models decompose the three-dimensional positions into core, tidal tail, and halo components. Minimum Spanning Tree analysis demonstrates that the observed mass segregation is produced by dynamical evolution. The color-magnitude diagram additionally contains probable blue stragglers and a main-sequence gap linked to the binary fraction.

What carries the argument

ASteCA isochrone fitting together with Gaussian Mixture Model decomposition of positions and Minimum Spanning Tree ordering of stellar masses.

If this is right

  • The derived age, distance, and metallicity supply a calibrated reference for testing correlations between cluster environment and exoplanet occurrence.
  • The three-component spatial model supplies a template for tracking how open clusters lose stars to the Galactic field.
  • Attributing mass segregation to dynamical processes rather than formation conditions favors evolutionary models that begin with a uniform initial mass function.
  • The reported main-sequence gap supplies an observable constraint on the cluster binary fraction that can be checked with radial-velocity surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Repeating the same ASteCA-plus-GMM-plus-MST pipeline on other Gaia clusters would allow a uniform comparison of dynamical states across different ages and environments.
  • Spectroscopic follow-up of the candidate blue stragglers could test whether the main-sequence gap is produced by mass transfer in binaries.
  • The close match between the two independent distance methods suggests that Gaia parallaxes can be trusted for similar clusters once field contamination is controlled.

Load-bearing premise

The membership list and photometric measurements inherited from the earlier study contain few enough field stars and unresolved binaries that they do not shift the fitted isochrone or the substructure decomposition by a detectable amount.

What would settle it

A new, independent membership catalog or deeper photometry that returns a metallicity differing by more than 0.15 dex, an age outside log t = 9.10-9.20, or a mass-segregation signal whose Minimum Spanning Tree length is consistent with a primordial rather than dynamical origin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24270 by Agus T. P. Jatmiko, Denny Mandey, Dhimaz G. Ramadhan, Ferry Yap, Laksma Satya, Mochamad I. Arifyanto, Muhammad Yusuf, Premana W. Premadi, Sahlan Ramadhan, Teduh Perhati.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Fractional parallax errors (f) distribution of NGC 6134. Most of the data points have a good f values (f < 0.05) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: — Distance estimation distribution of NGC 6134 star members using Bayesian inference with King prior. The average distance (or cluster’s distance) from this work is shown alongside with average distance from Cantat-Gaudin & Anders (2020) and Tarricq et al. (2022) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — The 3D heliocentric cartesian distribution projected into XY, XZ, and YZ space. The marker size represents the G-band magnitude from Gaia DR3, with larger markers indicating brighter stars, while membership probabilities are color-coded according to the color bar. The cluster appears elongated due to distance uncertainties of individual member stars, which smear their distribution along the line of sight… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Color–magnitude diagram of NGC 6134. The color scale shows the member probability of each star. Then the triangle– marked stars are blue straggler (BSS) according to Jadhav & Sub￾ramaniam (2021) and cross–marked are BSS according to Rain et al. (2021) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Comparison of the NGC 6134 cluster parameters [Fe/H], log(t), d, and AV from this study (represented by black dots) with other studies. The shaded area indicates the parameter values obtained in this study. 20 40 60 80 100 NMST 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 ΛMSR P&G15 caution 1σ Random Sampling Uncertainty 1σ Mass Propagation Spread Median ΛMSR No Segregation Baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Mass Segregation Ratio as a function of N number the most massive star members. The geometric caution zone where NMST < 20 is highlighted in yellow. The solid black line represents the median ΛMSR across 100 Monte Carlo mass iterations, while the shaded bands represent the 1σ confidence intervals for random sampling uncertainty (light blue) and mass propagation spread (grey) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — PDMF of NGC 6134 derived from stellar masses es￾timated with ASteCA. The PDMF exhibits a break at Mc = 0.95+0.02 −0.02, M⊙ (log10(M/M⊙) = −0.05+0.01 −0.01), separating the intermediate-to-low-mass regime with slope αA = −2.1 +0.11 −0.11 from the high-mass regime with slope αB = 1.68+0.15 −0.16. The orange shaded region denotes the 68% credible interval of the best-fit bro￾ken power-law model inferred fro… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Structural decomposition of NGC 6134 using a multi￾component Gaussian mixture. The distribution is partitioned into a central Core (blue), a diffuse Halo (red), and peripheral Tails/Sub-structures (green and purple), classified according to the hierarchical density and scale criteria described in Subsection 5.3. Ellipses represent the 95% Credible Intervals (or 2σ) covariance for each identified componen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: There are some deviations in distance for clus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — The GMM clustering results using a 3-component Gaus￾sian model applied to the 3D distribution of the cluster members of NGC 6134 are shown, with each substructure represented by a distinct color. 6. CONCLUSION We present a comprehensive photometric and kine￾matic analysis of the open cluster (OC) NGC 6134 using data from the Gaia DR3 catalog. We provide a brief overview of the membership determination fr… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — The GMM clustering results on the 3D data are projected onto the XY, YZ, and XZ planes, with each substructure represented by a distinct color. membership sample—rather than aggressively truncat￾ing the spatial coordinates—has yielded critical struc￾tural insights. Our results are broadly consistent with and complementary to the independent study of Zeng et al. (2025). Both studies confirm significant m… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Open clusters provide a unique laboratory for precisely constraining stellar age, distance, and metallicity, facilitating studies on exoplanet-host star correlations. Building on our previous membership study, we analyze photometric data to comprehensively characterize the open cluster NGC 6134 by determining its fundamental parameters, 3D spatial distribution, substructures, and mass segregation. Using the ASteCA code, we derive the cluster's parameters: $\mathrm{[Fe/H]} = 0.08 \pm 0.06$, $\log(t) = 9.14 \pm 0.01$, $d = 1064.43 \pm 15.19$ pc, and $A_\mathrm{v} = 1.03 \pm 0.05$ mag. Independent Bayesian inference of individual member distances yields a cluster distance of $1070.83 \pm 2.50$ pc, in excellent agreement with the ASteCA results. Spatial substructures are successfully mapped using Gaussian Mixture Models, revealing a three-component distribution corresponding to the cluster's core, tidal tail, and halo. Furthermore, Minimum Spanning Tree analysis indicates that the observed mass segregation is driven by dynamical evolution rather than primordial origins. Finally, our analysis of the cluster's Color--Magnitude Diagram identifies probable blue straggler stars and a main-sequence gap, which we conclude is strongly linked to the cluster's binary fraction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the open cluster NGC 6134 using Gaia DR3 photometry and kinematics, building on a prior membership study. It derives fundamental parameters via ASteCA ([Fe/H] = 0.08 ± 0.06, log(t) = 9.14 ± 0.01, d = 1064.43 ± 15.19 pc, A_v = 1.03 ± 0.05 mag) and reports an independent Bayesian distance of 1070.83 ± 2.50 pc in agreement. GMM identifies three spatial components (core, tidal tail, halo); MST analysis attributes observed mass segregation to dynamical evolution; the CMD shows probable blue stragglers and a main-sequence gap linked to binary fraction.

Significance. If the adopted membership list is reliable, the work supplies well-constrained parameters for NGC 6134 together with a multi-method view of its spatial structure and dynamical state. The reported agreement between two distance estimates is a concrete strength. Such cluster characterizations can support broader studies of open-cluster evolution and binary populations when the input data quality is independently verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (membership and input data)] The analysis adopts the membership list from the prior study without new membership probabilities, contamination fractions, or sensitivity tests to field-star or unresolved-binary contamination. This assumption is load-bearing for the ASteCA parameter fit, the GMM spatial decomposition, and the MST mass-segregation conclusion, yet no quantitative assessment of its impact is provided.
  2. [Results (distance comparison)] The Bayesian distance (1070.83 ± 2.50 pc) is presented as independent confirmation of the ASteCA distance, but both determinations use the identical member list; the quoted uncertainties therefore do not capture possible systematic bias from that list.
  3. [Discussion (mass segregation and CMD features)] The claim that mass segregation is driven by dynamical evolution (rather than primordial) rests on the MST analysis, and the MS-gap interpretation is tied to binary fraction, but neither conclusion includes quantitative tests against contamination scenarios or N-body simulations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and tables] Ensure all reported parameter values and uncertainties match exactly between the abstract, tables, and text.
  2. [Methods (ASteCA configuration)] Clarify whether the ASteCA run used default priors or any user-specified settings for the isochrone grid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. We respond to each major comment below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (membership and input data)] The analysis adopts the membership list from the prior study without new membership probabilities, contamination fractions, or sensitivity tests to field-star or unresolved-binary contamination. This assumption is load-bearing for the ASteCA parameter fit, the GMM spatial decomposition, and the MST mass-segregation conclusion, yet no quantitative assessment of its impact is provided.

    Authors: The membership list originates from our prior Gaia DR3 study, where probabilistic membership was assigned using astrometric and photometric criteria (detailed in that work). The present manuscript focuses on downstream analysis of those members. To address the concern, we will add a dedicated subsection on membership robustness, including sensitivity tests that vary the probability threshold and inject simulated field-star or binary contaminants to quantify effects on ASteCA parameters, GMM components, and MST results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (distance comparison)] The Bayesian distance (1070.83 ± 2.50 pc) is presented as independent confirmation of the ASteCA distance, but both determinations use the identical member list; the quoted uncertainties therefore do not capture possible systematic bias from that list.

    Authors: We agree that both distance methods share the same input member list, so the Bayesian result functions as an internal consistency check rather than a fully independent validation. We will revise the relevant section to explicitly state this shared dependence, reframe the agreement as supporting robustness of the ASteCA solution, and note that the reported uncertainties do not include membership-related systematics. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion (mass segregation and CMD features)] The claim that mass segregation is driven by dynamical evolution (rather than primordial) rests on the MST analysis, and the MS-gap interpretation is tied to binary fraction, but neither conclusion includes quantitative tests against contamination scenarios or N-body simulations.

    Authors: The MST analysis follows established literature methods for open clusters and supports dynamical evolution given the cluster age. We acknowledge the absence of new N-body simulations or explicit contamination Monte Carlo tests. In revision we will expand the discussion to include literature comparisons with N-body results for similar-age clusters, add caveats on possible contamination effects, and strengthen the binary-fraction link for the MS gap with additional references. Full quantitative simulations lie beyond the scope of this observational study. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation applies external tools to prior membership input without redefinition or self-referential fitting

full rationale

The paper applies the external ASteCA package to a membership list obtained from a prior study, performs GMM spatial decomposition and MST mass-segregation analysis on that list, and cross-validates distance via an independent Bayesian inference on the same members. No equation or procedure redefines a fitted parameter as a prediction, imports a uniqueness theorem via self-citation, or renames an empirical pattern as a new derivation. The membership list is treated as an external input whose cleanliness is an assumption (correctness risk), not a quantity derived inside this paper's chain. The reported parameters and structures therefore do not reduce to the paper's own outputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents exhaustive ledger construction. Typical assumptions in such work include standard PARSEC or similar isochrones, Gaussian mixture modeling validity for spatial components, and that MST length statistics correctly distinguish dynamical from primordial mass segregation. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly introduced beyond the fitted cluster parameters themselves.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5838 in / 1305 out tokens · 18346 ms · 2026-06-25T23:56:42.802737+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references

  1. [1]

    M., Bendary, R., Samir, R., & Elhosseiny, E

    Ahmed, N. M., Bendary, R., Samir, R., & Elhosseiny, E. 2024, Scientific Reports, 14, 23777

    2024

  2. [2]

    V., Cignoni, M., Bragaglia, A.,et al

    Ahumada, A. V., Cignoni, M., Bragaglia, A.,et al. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 430, 221

    2013

  3. [3]

    2002, in Observed HR Diagrams and Stellar

    Ahumada, J. 2002, in Observed HR Diagrams and Stellar

    2002

  4. [4]

    J., Goodwin, S

    Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J.,et al. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 395, 1449

    2009

  5. [5]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 956

    Angelo, M., Santos Jr, J., Maia, F., & Corradi, W. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 956

    2023

  6. [6]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2015, PASP, 127, 994

    2015

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., & Fouesneau, M. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  8. [8]

    Covey, K

    Bastian, N. Covey, K. R., & Meyer, M. R. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 339

    2010

  9. [9]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascu´ es, D.,et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277

    2008

  10. [10]

    1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

    Binney, J., & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)

    1998

  11. [11]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    2008

  12. [12]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A108

    Bossini, D., Vallenari, A., Bragaglia, A.,et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 623, A108

    2019

  13. [13]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L.,et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127

    2012

  14. [14]

    1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 140, 135

    Bruntt, H., Frandsen, S., Kjeldsen, H., & Andersen, M. 1999, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 140, 135

    1999

  15. [15]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A99

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Anders, F. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 633, A99

    2020

  16. [16]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A1

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A.,et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A1

    2020

  17. [17]

    Carrera, R., Pasquato, M., & Vallenari, A. e. a. 2019, A&A, 627, A119

    2019

  18. [18]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 422, 951

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., & Tosi, M. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 422, 951

    2004

  19. [19]

    2024, AJ, 167, 12

    Cavallo, L., Spina, L., Carraro, G.,et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 12

    2024

  20. [20]

    2003, PASP, 115, 763

    Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763

    2003

  21. [21]

    J., & Mermilliod, J.-C

    Claria, J. J., & Mermilliod, J.-C. 1992, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series (ISSN 0365-0138), vol. 95, no. 3, p. 429-436., 95, 429

    1992

  22. [22]

    Conroy, C., & Van Dokkum, P. G. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 760, 71

    2012

  23. [23]

    P., Marino, A

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F.,et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A29 D’Antona, F., Di Criscienzo, M., Decressin, T.,et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 453, 2637

    2023

  24. [24]

    S., Alessi, B

    Dias, W. S., Alessi, B. S., Moitinho, A., & L´ epine, J. R. D. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 389, 871

    2002

  25. [25]

    S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A.,et al

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A.,et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 356

    2021

  26. [26]

    Dib, S., Schmeja, S., & Parker, R. J. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 849

    2018

  27. [27]

    Dinnbier, F., Kroupa, P., & Anderson, R. I. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A61

    2022

  28. [28]

    A., & Valenti, J

    Fischer, D. A., & Valenti, J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 1102

    2005

  29. [29]

    Friel, E. D. 1995, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 33, 381 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J.,et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A.,et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, A1

    1995

  30. [30]

    M., Tumlinson, J.,et al

    Geha, M., Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J.,et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 771, 29

    2013

  31. [31]

    M., Tucio, P., Fajrin, M.,et al

    Ghosh, E. M., Tucio, P., Fajrin, M.,et al. 2022, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2214, 012009

    2022

  32. [32]

    2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 394, L74

    Girardi, L., Rubele, S., & Kerber, L. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 394, L74

    2009

  33. [33]

    Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2021, A&A, 654, A20

    2021

  34. [34]

    Harris, D. C. 2010, Quantitative chemical analysis (Macmillan)

    2010

  35. [35]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 561, A93 14 Jatmiko et

    Heiter, U., Soubiran, C., Netopil, M., & Paunzen, E. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 561, A93 14 Jatmiko et. al

    2014

  36. [36]

    V., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., & Subramaniam, A. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507, 1699

    2021

  37. [37]

    Joshi, Y. C. 2005, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 362, 1259

    2005

  38. [38]

    2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A53

    Kharchenko, N., Piskunov, A., Schilbach, E., R¨ oser, S., & Scholz, R.-D. 2013, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 558, A53

    2013

  39. [39]

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., & Stassun, K. G. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 279

    2020

  40. [40]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231 —

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231 —. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    2001

  41. [41]

    Lange, J. U. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 3181

    2023

  42. [42]

    Li, C., De Grijs, R., Deng, L., & Milone, A. P. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 844, 119

    2017

  43. [43]

    1972, Astronomy and Astrophysics Suppl., Vol

    Lindoff, U. 1972, Astronomy and Astrophysics Suppl., Vol. 7, p. 231, 7, 231

    1972

  44. [44]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 32

    Liu, L., & Pang, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 32

    2019

  45. [45]

    Luri, X., Brown, A. G. A., & Sarro, L. M. e. a. 2018, A& A, 616, A9

    2018

  46. [46]

    2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1127, 012051

    Mandey, D., Yusuf, M., & Putra, M. 2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1127, 012051

    2019

  47. [47]

    W., Gaidos, E., Mace, G

    Mann, A. W., Gaidos, E., Mace, G. N.,et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 64

    2017

  48. [48]

    2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Astels, S. 2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205

    2017

  49. [49]

    2013, Nature, 499, 55 Mikolaitis, ˇS., Tautvaiˇ sien˙ e, G., Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., &

    Meibom, S., Torres, G., Fressin, F.,et al. 2013, Nature, 499, 55 Mikolaitis, ˇS., Tautvaiˇ sien˙ e, G., Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., &

    2013

  50. [50]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1866

    Carretta, E. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 407, 1866

    2010

  51. [51]

    E., & Scalo, J

    Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, and JM Scalo. Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 41, Nov. 1979, p. 513-547., 41, 513

    1979

  52. [52]

    W., & Harrison, M

    Miller, J. W., & Harrison, M. T. 2013, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, & K. Weinberger, Vol. 26 (Curran

    2013

  53. [53]

    2010, New Astronomy, 15, 433

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P., Emerson, J.,et al. 2010, New Astronomy, 15, 433

    2010

  54. [54]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3767

    Nardiello, D., Deleuil, M., Mantovan, G.,et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 3767

    2021

  55. [55]

    M., & Bouy, H

    Olivares, J., Sarro, L. M., & Bouy, H. e. a. 2020, A&A, 644, A7

    2020

  56. [56]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 617, A15

    Olivares, J., Sarro, L., Moraux, E.,et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 617, A15

    2018

  57. [57]

    Pang, X., Tang, S.-Y., & Li, Y. e. a. 2022, ApJ, 931, 156

    2022

  58. [58]

    J., & Goodwin, S

    Parker, R. J., & Goodwin, S. P. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 3381

    2015

  59. [59]

    2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 385, 867 Pe˜ na Ram´ ırez, K., Smith, L., Ram´ ırez Alegr´ ıa, S.,et al

    Paunzen, E., & Maitzen, H. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 385, 867 Pe˜ na Ram´ ırez, K., Smith, L., Ram´ ırez Alegr´ ıa, S.,et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 5799

    2002

  60. [60]

    I., Vazquez, R

    Perren, G. I., Vazquez, R. A., & Piatti, A. E. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 576, A6

    2015

  61. [61]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A67

    Rain, M., Ahumada, J., & Carraro, G. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A67

    2021

  62. [62]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A33

    Rain, M., Pera, M., Perren, G.,et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A33

    2024

  63. [63]

    Covey, K. R. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 195

    2018

  64. [64]

    2016, BASE-9: Bayesian Analysis for Stellar Evolution with nine variables, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.007, ascl:1608.007

    Robinson, E., von Hippel, T., Stein, N.,et al. 2016, BASE-9: Bayesian Analysis for Stellar Evolution with nine variables, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.007, ascl:1608.007

    2016

  65. [65]

    Rukhin, A. L. 2009, Metrologia, 46, 323

    2009

  66. [66]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, Astrophysics Journal, 121, 161S

    1955

  67. [67]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 581, A39

    Schilbach, E. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 581, A39

    2015

  68. [68]

    2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163

    Skrutskie, M., Cutri, R., Stiening, R.,et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163

    2006

  69. [69]

    C., & Caillo, A

    Soubiran, C., Le Campion, J.-F., De Strobel, G. C., & Caillo, A. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 515, A111

    2010

  70. [70]

    1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    1987

  71. [71]

    Sun, W., de Grijs, R., Deng, L., & Albrow, M. D. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 4350

    2021

  72. [72]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A59

    Tarricq, Y., Soubiran, C., Casamiquela, L.,et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 659, A59

    2022

  73. [73]

    1997, aap, 324, 549

    Trullols, E., & Jordi, C. 1997, aap, 324, 549

    1997

  74. [74]

    Vallenari, A., & Brown, A. G. A. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    2023

  75. [75]

    2019, MNRAS, 2030

    Vasiliev, E. 2019, MNRAS, 2030

    2019

  76. [76]

    Vesperini, E., & Heggie, D. C. 1997, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 289, 898

    1997

  77. [77]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 116

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 877, 116

    2019

  78. [78]

    1974, Highlights of Astronomy, 3, 395

    Wielen, R. 1974, Highlights of Astronomy, 3, 395

    1974

  79. [79]

    2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1127, 012045

    Yusuf, M., Mahasena, P., Jatmiko, A.,et al. 2019, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1127, 012045

    2019

  80. [80]

    2024, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2773, 012004

    Yusuf, M., Ramadhan, D., Jatmiko, A.,et al. 2024, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2773, 012004

    2024

Showing first 80 references.