Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

The evolutionary state of the red giant star L$_2$ Puppis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read L2 Puppis is probably a first-ascent red giant, not an AGB star.

desk verdict A careful, likely correct reclassification of L2 Pup from AGB to likely RGB, but the load-bearing Tc-poor claim needs quantitative support before the hard exclusion of TP-AGB is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13388 v1 pith:HZAFWTF3 submitted 2024-11-20 astro-ph.SR

S. Uttenthaler This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarevolutionredgiantbranchasymptotictechnetiumthirddredge-uplong-periodvariablesL2Puppiscircumstellardisk
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 sets out to settle whether the nearby red giant L2 Puppis, often called the second-closest asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star, is really on the AGB. The author analyzes high-resolution archive spectra and finds no sign of technetium, an element produced by the third dredge-up that should appear in a thermally-pulsing AGB star. A luminosity of about 1500 solar luminosities, derived from the Gaia parallax, places the star below the red-giant-branch tip, while its fundamental-mode pulsation is compatible with both the RGB and early AGB stages. Comparing evolutionary rates, the author concludes L2 Pup is probably a first-ascent red giant (about 85% probability) and cannot be a thermally-pulsing AGB star.

What carries the argument

Technetium (Tc) is the central object: an element with no stable isotopes, whose longest-lived s-process isotope 99Tc has a half-life of about 2e5 years, far shorter than the upper-AGB lifetime, so its presence in a cool giant's atmosphere is a reliable marker of recent third dredge-up. The paper also uses the RGB tip luminosity (about 3000 solar luminosities) as a threshold, the period-absolute K magnitude diagram with pulsation sequences to identify the fundamental mode, and the Gaia-2MASS Wesenheit-index diagram to locate L2 Pup relative to model AGB grids.

What would settle it

Take a high-resolution spectrum of L2 Pup during a phase when the disk is not occulting the star, measure the signal-to-noise, and search for the three technetium lines at 4238.191, 4262.270, and 4297.058 Å; if any of them appears with equivalent width above the noise, the Tc-poor conclusion fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that L2 Pup has not undergone third dredge-up and is therefore not a thermally-pulsing AGB star. The evidence is the absence of technetium resonance lines in a high-resolution optical spectrum, a luminosity below the RGB tip, and a position in the period-luminosity diagram consistent with fundamental-mode pulsation but disconnected from the Tc-rich variables. The author revises the earlier 'probably' or 'possibly' Tc-rich classifications to Tc-poor, and excludes a white-dwarf companion on the grounds that no ZrO bands are seen. The conclusion is that L2 Pup could be an RGB or an early AGB star, with the RGB more likely on a purely statistical basis.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion assumes the missing technetium lines are genuinely absent from the star's spectrum and not hidden by dust veiling from the circumstellar disk that has dimmed L2 Pup since 1995.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • L2 Pup should not be cited as the second-closest AGB star; it is a nearby example of a red giant with a dust disc and companion in an earlier phase.
  • The absence of technetium means scenarios that require thermal pulses for the disc material are disfavored.
  • The companion is not a white dwarf that polluted the primary through a previous AGB phase, because no ZrO bands are present; a K giant or substellar companion remains possible.
  • The star's large Wesenheit index points to significant circumstellar extinction even before the 1995 dimming, so disk reddening must be accounted for in interpreting its photometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Tc-plus-luminosity test could sort other nearby dusty red giants whose AGB status rests on older, uncertain classifications; faint Tc-poor semi-regular variables with unusually red Wesenheit indices are natural candidates for having disks like L2 Pup's.
  • If L2 Pup is genuinely on the first ascent, its edge-on disk would be a rare example of a disk around an RGB star, which would test theories of when such disks can form and survive.
  • A quantitative re-analysis of the 2015 spectrum, measuring equivalent widths and signal-to-noise, would either tighten the Tc-poor conclusion or reveal that veiling hid weak lines.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reassesses whether L2 Puppis is on the first-ascent red giant branch (RGB) or on the asymptotic giant branch (AGB). The author searches ESO/FEROS archive spectra for the third dredge-up indicator technetium (Tc), revising the earlier 'Tc-rich' classification of L2 Pup to 'Tc-poor' on the basis of a visual comparison with the Tc-rich star o Cet and the Tc-poor star g Her. Combining a Gaia DR3 parallax with pre-dimming DIRBE near-infrared photometry and literature luminosity estimates, the paper derives L = 1490 +/- 150 L_sun for L2 Pup, below the nominal RGB-tip luminosity of about 3000 L_sun, and places the star in a period-K magnitude diagram as a fundamental-mode pulsator among Tc-poor Miras and semi-regular variables. The paper concludes that L2 Pup could be an RGB or early AGB star, is more likely RGB than AGB (about 85% versus 15% from an evolutionary-rate argument), and cannot be a TP-AGB star because it lacks Tc and is fainter than the RGB tip.

Significance. If the main result holds, the paper corrects a widely repeated classification and affects the interpretation of the L2 Pup disk, companion, and mass-loss history. The manuscript has real strengths: it uses a homogeneous 282-star comparison sample with Tc observations and SED-based luminosities, it checks the evolutionary state with several independent diagnostics (Tc, luminosity, pulsation mode, Gaia-2MASS location), and it explicitly revises the author's own earlier Tc classification. The strongest conclusion (exclusion of TP-AGB) is nevertheless stronger than the current quantitative evidence supports, because the Tc non-detection is not quantified and because TP-AGB stars are not required to be Tc-rich or to lie above the RGB tip at all times. With a quantitative Tc detection limit, a clearer treatment of pre-dimming extinction, and a softened final claim, this would be a solid and useful A&A contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 and Fig. 1] The Tc-poor classification rests entirely on visual inspection of a single post-dimming FEROS spectrum. No signal-to-noise ratio, no equivalent widths, and no upper limit on the Tc I line strengths are given; the 2004 FEROS observation is dismissed as unusable around 4238 Å, and the comparison spectra have different resolution (FEROS R=48,000 versus HEROS R=22,000) and unknown phases. Because the star has been dimming through variable line-of-sight disk opacity since 1995, and because the paper argues in Sect. 6 that even the pre-dimming light was affected by circumstellar extinction, continuum dilution or veiling of the weak Tc resonance lines is a real alternative to a true absence of Tc. A quantitative detection limit, for example equivalent-width upper limits with a template or synthetic line-depth analysis, is needed before the absence of Tc can be treated as established.
  2. [Section 4 and Table 2] The adopted luminosity L = 1490 +/- 150 L_sun ('This work') is not derived in the text, and it is based on pre-dimming DIRBE 2.2 micron photometry that the paper itself, in Sect. 6, says was already affected by significant circumstellar extinction. If A_K at the pre-dimming epoch is non-negligible, the derived K-band luminosity and hence L are lower limits. The paper should quantify the pre-dimming extinction, state the SED integration and reddening assumptions used for the 'This work' value, and show that L remains below the RGB tip under a conservative extinction correction, since the 'fainter than the RGB tip' claim is load-bearing.
  3. [Section 7] The categorical statement that L2 Pup 'cannot be a TP-AGB star because it lacks Tc in its atmosphere and is fainter than the RGB tip' is logically stronger than the presented evidence. A TP-AGB star may be Tc-poor if third dredge-up has not occurred, and it may fall below the RGB tip during a thermal-pulse luminosity minimum; the paper itself cites V915 Aql in Sect. 4 as a Tc-rich TP-AGB star at 1800 L_sun, below the RGB tip. The defensible conclusion is that L2 Pup shows no evidence of being a TP-AGB star with recent third dredge-up and is more likely an RGB or early AGB star; the conclusion should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] Please report the signal-to-noise ratio per pixel of the 2015 FEROS spectrum and give the epochs or pulsation phases of the L2 Pup, o Cet, and g Her spectra shown in Fig. 1.
  2. [Section 4] The 85% RGB probability derived from Delta L / Delta t should name the PARSEC track versions, the mass range and averaging interval used, and the resulting uncertainty; currently the 5.5 factor and the 85/15 split cannot be reproduced from the text.
  3. [Section 6 and Fig. 4] The figure caption should state explicitly that the K-band magnitude is pre-dimming while the Gaia photometry used in the Wesenheit index is post-dimming, so that the plotted point is not misread as a single-epoch measurement.
  4. [Section 1] The sentence 'AGB stars can be unambiguously distinguished by the presence of Tc, luminosities above the RGB tip, and large-amplitude variability' presents sufficient indicators as if they were necessary criteria; a brief clarification would prevent the logical overreach discussed in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Tc-poor reclassification, Gaia-based luminosity, and PARSEC-track RGB/AGB probability are independent diagnostic strands, and the paper explicitly revises rather than assumes its central classification.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that L2 Pup is more likely an RGB than an AGB star rests on several independent pieces of evidence, none of which reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain. First, the Tc-poor classification is based on a new analysis of archival FEROS spectra compared with independent template stars o Cet (Tc-rich) and g Her (Tc-poor), and it explicitly revises the author's own earlier classification in Uttenthaler et al. (2019): the text states 'we revise the classification of L2 Pup to be Tc-poor' based on the spectral comparison. This is the opposite of circularity, since the earlier assumption is discarded on new evidence. Second, the luminosity of L2 Pup is derived from the Gaia DR3 parallax and SED integration, with literature values transformed to the same parallax; it is not obtained from the evolutionary-state conclusion. Third, the 85% RGB versus 15% AGB probability is computed from independent PARSEC evolutionary tracks via the evolutionary rate dL/dt, not from the Tc result. The comparison sample is taken from the author's own earlier compilation (Uttenthaler et al. 2019; 2024), but this is a data collection of literature Tc observations and luminosities, not a theorem or uniqueness argument, and the sample is used as context rather than as the logical foundation of the Tc-poor classification. No equation is shown to be equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no parameter is fitted to L2 Pup and then presented as a prediction. Scientific caveats, such as the visual nature of the Tc inspection or possible veiling by the circumstellar disk, are empirical robustness concerns and are not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. Its central claim rests on standard astrophysical assumptions about technetium as a dredge-up indicator, the RGB tip luminosity, and the use of published evolutionary tracks, plus one paper-specific assumption about combining pre-dimming and post-dimming photometry.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Technetium resonance line wavelengths at 4238.191, 4262.270, and 4297.058 Angstrom and its presence indicate recent third dredge-up.
    Used in Sect. 3 to classify L2 Pup as Tc-poor by comparing with o Cet and g Her.
  • domain assumption The RGB tip luminosity is about 3000 solar luminosities for solar metallicity and depends little on mass or metallicity.
    Used in Sect. 4 as the threshold separating stars that must be on the AGB from stars that could be on the RGB or early AGB.
  • domain assumption PARSEC evolutionary tracks with Z = 0.014, Y = 0.273, and initial masses between 1.0 and 1.5 solar masses provide reliable dL/dt values on the RGB and AGB.
    Used in Sect. 4 to estimate that a star at L2 Pup's luminosity is 85% likely to be on the RGB and 15% on the AGB.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax inversion with a zero-point offset of -21 microarcseconds gives the correct distance to L2 Pup.
    Adopted in Sect. 4; the paper notes alternative zero-point prescriptions change the results negligibly.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre-dimming DIRBE 2.2 micron photometry represents the stellar photosphere and can be combined with post-dimming Gaia photometry.
    Adopted in Sects. 4 and 6 to derive MK0 and Wesenheit indices; the resulting large WKsRP offset is interpreted as circumstellar extinction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The evolutionary state of the red giant star L$_2$ Puppis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZAFWTF3

@misc{pith2026241113388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The evolutionary state of the red giant star L$_2$ Puppis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZAFWTF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13388}
}
abstract

Context: L$_2$ Puppis (L$_2$ Pup) is a nearby red giant star and an important object in late-type star research because it has a dust disc and potentially a companion. Aims: L$_2$ Pup is often called the second-closest Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) star to the sun, second only to R Doradus. However, whether the star is indeed on the AGB or the Red Giant Branch (RGB) is questionable. We review its evolutionary state. Methods: We analyse high-resolution optical archive spectra to search for absorption lines of the third dredge-up indicator technetium (Tc) in L$_2$~Pup. We also compare the star to a sample of well-known AGB stars in terms of luminosity and pulsation properties and place it in a Gaia-2MASS diagram. Results: L$_2$ Pup is found to be Tc-poor. Thus, it is not undergoing third dredge-up events. The star is fainter than the RGB tip and fainter than all Tc-rich stars in the comparison sample. L$_2$ Pup pulsates in the fundamental mode, similar to Mira variables, but its pulsation properties do not allow us to distinguish between the RGB and AGB stages. Conclusions: In conclusion, L$_2$ Pup could be an RGB or early AGB star, but it is more likely to be an RGB than an AGB star. Our findings are important for a better understanding of the L$_2$ Pup system and its past and future evolution

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spectra of L2 Pup and the comparison stars o Cet and g Her around the three Tc resonance transitions at 4238.191 (left panel), 4262.270 (middle panel), and 4297.058 Å (right panel), indicated by the vertical dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Luminosity functions of the AGB comparison stars with Tc ob￾servations from Uttenthaler et al. (2019). ever, the more precise Gaia DR3 parallaxes place these stars at larger distances, so they must be more luminous than reported by Shetye et al. (2019), whereas V915 Aql’s parallax remained almost unchanged in Gaia DR3. Note also that V915 Aql must be a TP-AGB star because it is Tc-rich, although it does not ful￾fil … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Period – absolute K magnitude diagram of the comparison sample of Uttenthaler et al. (2019). The symbol colours indicate the Tc classification and the chemical spectral type, see the legend. The symbol shape represents the variability type: circles for Miras and triangles for SRVs. The location of L2 Pup is shown by the hourglass symbol. Over-plotted are LPV sequences from Soszynski et al. (2007): dashed lines: ´ se… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gaia-2MASS diagram of Galactic LPVs, including L2 Pup. Symbols as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, A&A, 664, A45

    Abia, C., de Laverny, P., Romero-Gómez, M., & Figueras, F. 2022, A&A, 664, A45

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Ake, T. B. 1979, ApJ, 234, 538

    work page 1979

  3. [3]

    Andriantsaralaza, M., Ramstedt, S., Vlemmings, W. H. T., & De Beck, E. 2022, A&A, 667, A74

    2022

  4. [4]

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

    2021

  5. [5]

    R., Zijlstra, A

    Bedding, T. R., Zijlstra, A. A., Jones, A., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 79

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    2008, A&A, 484, 815

    Bertelli, G., Girardi, L., Marigo, P., & Nasi, E. 2008, A&A, 484, 815

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Boeshaar, P. C. & Keenan, P. C. 1979, in IAU Colloq. 47: Spectral Classification of the Future, ed. M. F. McCarthy, A. G. D. Philip, & G. V . Coyne, V ol. 9, 39

    work page 1979

  8. [8]

    R., Corliss, C

    Bozman, W. R., Corliss, C. H., & Tech, J. 1968, National Institute of Standards and Technology Journal of Research, 72A, 559

    work page 1968

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    W., D’Orazi, V ., Yong, D., et al

    Campbell, S. W., D’Orazi, V ., Yong, D., et al. 2013, Nature, 498, 198

    2013

  2. [10]

    Carpenter, J. M. 2001, AJ, 121, 2851

    2001

  3. [11]

    M., Robertson, B

    Catchpole, R. M., Robertson, B. S. C., Lloyd Evan, T. H. H., et al. 1979, South African Astronomical Observatory Circular, 1, 61

    1979

  4. [12]

    2020, A&A, 633, A34

    Charbonnel, C., Lagarde, N., Jasniewicz, G., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A34

    2020

  5. [13]

    G., & Balick, B

    Chen, Z., Nordhaus, J., Frank, A., Blackman, E. G., & Balick, B. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 4182

    2016

  6. [14]

    Cioni, M. R. L., van der Marel, R. P., Loup, C., & Habing, H. J. 2000, A&A, 359, 601

    2000

  7. [15]

    S., Avelino, P

    Cunha, M. S., Avelino, P. P., & Chaplin, W. J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 4687

    2020

  8. [16]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2012, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products De Nutte, R., Decin, L., Olofsson, H., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A71

    2012

  9. [17]

    C., Huchra, J., et al

    Ferrarese, L., Ford, H. C., Huchra, J., et al. 2000, ApJS, 128, 431

    2000

  10. [18]

    1992, A&AS, 93, 151 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Fouque, P., Le Bertre, T., Epchtein, N., Guglielmo, F., & Kerschbaum, F. 1992, A&AS, 93, 151 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1 García-Hernández, D. A., Zamora, O., Yagüe, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, L3

    1992

  11. [19]

    A., Joyce, M., & Molnár, L

    Goldberg, J. A., Joyce, M., & Molnár, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.09089

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gontcharov, G. A. 2017, Astronomy Letters, 43, 472

    2017

  13. [21]

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

    2021

  14. [22]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435

    2005

  15. [23]

    H., Lebzelter, T., Joyce, R

    Hinkle, K. H., Lebzelter, T., Joyce, R. R., & Fekel, F. C. 2002, AJ, 123, 1002

    2002

  16. [24]

    T., Nhung, P

    Hoai, D. T., Nhung, P. T., Darriulat, P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 2363

    2022

  17. [25]

    2017, A&A, 601, A5

    Homan, W., Richards, A., Decin, L., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A5

    2017

  18. [26]

    2010, A&A, 514, A1

    Ishihara, D., Onaka, T., Kataza, H., et al. 2010, A&A, 514, A1

    2010

  19. [27]

    2009, A&A, 498, 489

    Jorissen, A., Frankowski, A., Famaey, B., & van Eck, S. 2009, A&A, 498, 489

    2009

  20. [28]

    T., Johnson, H

    Jorissen, A., Frayer, D. T., Johnson, H. R., Mayor, M., & Smith, V . V . 1993, A&A, 271, 463

    1993

  21. [29]

    2002, ApJ, 569, 964

    Jura, M., Chen, C., & Plavchan, P. 2002, ApJ, 569, 964

    2002

  22. [30]

    1995, A&AS, 113, 441

    Kerschbaum, F. 1995, A&AS, 113, 441

    1995

  23. [31]

    & Hron, J

    Kerschbaum, F. & Hron, J. 1994, A&AS, 106, 397

    1994

  24. [32]

    1996, A&A, 311, 273

    Kerschbaum, F., Olofsson, H., & Hron, J. 1996, A&A, 311, 273

    1996

  25. [33]

    Kervella, P., Homan, W., Richards, A. M. S., et al. 2016, A&A, 596, A92

    2016

  26. [34]

    2015, A&A, 578, A77

    Kervella, P., Montargès, M., Lagadec, E., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A77

    2015

  27. [35]

    T., et al

    Kervella, P., Montargès, M., Ridgway, S. T., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A88

    2014

  28. [36]

    R., Pourbaix, D., Platais, I., & Jorissen, A

    Knapp, G. R., Pourbaix, D., Platais, I., & Jorissen, A. 2003, A&A, 403, 993

    2003

  29. [37]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  30. [38]

    & Hron, J

    Lebzelter, T. & Hron, J. 1999, A&A, 351, 533

    1999

  31. [39]

    2023, A&A, 674, A15

    Lebzelter, T., Mowlavi, N., Lecoeur-Taibi, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A15

    2023

  32. [40]

    2018, A&A, 616, L13

    Lebzelter, T., Mowlavi, N., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L13

    2018

  33. [41]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4

    2021

  34. [42]

    J., Little-Marenin, I

    Little, S. J., Little-Marenin, I. R., & Bauer, W. H. 1987, AJ, 94, 981

    1987

  35. [43]

    J., et al

    MacLeod, M., Blunt, S., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.11332

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488

    2013

  37. [45]

    A., & Watson, R

    McDonald, I., Zijlstra, A. A., & Watson, R. A. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 770

    2017

  38. [46]

    Merrill, P. W. 1952, ApJ, 116, 21

    1952

  39. [47]

    2019, in The Gaia Universe, 62

    Mowlavi, N., Trabucchi, M., & Lebzelter, T. 2019, in The Gaia Universe, 62

    2019

  40. [48]

    J., van Duinen, R., et al

    Neugebauer, G., Habing, H. J., van Duinen, R., et al. 1984, ApJ, 278, L1

    1984

  41. [49]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126

    2022

  42. [50]

    2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al

    Pastorelli, G., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3283 Pietrzy´nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200

    2020

  43. [51]

    D., Smith, B

    Price, S. D., Smith, B. J., Kuchar, T. A., Mizuno, D. R., & Kraemer, K. E. 2010, ApJS, 190, 203 Samus’, N. N., Kazarovets, E. V ., Durlevich, O. V ., Kireeva, N. N., & Pas- tukhova, E. N. 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 80

    2010

  44. [52]

    Sanders, J. L. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 2369

    2023

  45. [53]

    F., Meisner, A

    Schlafly, E. F., Meisner, A. M., & Green, G. M. 2019, ApJS, 240, 30

    2019

  46. [54]

    Schmitt, J. H. M. M., Schröder, K. P., Rauw, G., et al. 2014, Astronomische Nachrichten, 335, 787

    2014

  47. [55]

    2019, A&A, 625, L1

    Shetye, S., Goriely, S., Siess, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L1

    2019

  48. [56]

    2021, A&A, 650, A118

    Shetye, S., Van Eck, S., Jorissen, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A118

    2021

  49. [57]

    Skiff, B. A. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, B/mk

    2014

  50. [58]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  51. [59]

    J., Price, S

    Smith, B. J., Price, S. D., & Baker, R. I. 2004, ApJS, 154, 673

    2004

  52. [60]

    Smith, V . V . & Lambert, D. L. 1988, ApJ, 333, 219

    1988

  53. [61]

    Smolders, K., Neyskens, P., Blommaert, J. A. D. L., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, A72 Soszy´nski, I., Dziembowski, W. A., Udalski, A., et al. 2007, Acta Astron., 57, 201 Soszy´nski, I., Olechowska, A., Ratajczak, M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, L22 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., Kubiak, M.,...

    2012

  54. [62]

    2021, A&A, 656, A66

    Trabucchi, M., Mowlavi, N., & Lebzelter, T. 2021, A&A, 656, A66

    2021

  55. [63]

    R., Montalbán, J., et al

    Trabucchi, M., Wood, P. R., Montalbán, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 139

    2017

  56. [64]

    2019, A&A, 622, A120

    Uttenthaler, S., McDonald, I., Bernhard, K., Cristallo, S., & Gobrecht, D. 2019, A&A, 622, A120

    2019

  57. [65]

    2024, A&A, 690, A393

    Uttenthaler, S., Shetye, S., Nanni, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A393

    2024

  58. [66]

    2011, A&A, 531, A88 Van de Sande, M., Walsh, C., Danilovich, T., De Ceuster, F., & Ceulemans, T

    Uttenthaler, S., van Stiphout, K., V oet, K., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A88 Van de Sande, M., Walsh, C., Danilovich, T., De Ceuster, F., & Ceulemans, T. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 734 Van Eck, S. & Jorissen, A. 1999, A&A, 345, 127 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653

    2011

  59. [67]

    2000, MNRAS, 319, 728

    Whitelock, P., Marang, F., & Feast, M. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 728

    2000

  60. [68]

    1994, MNRAS, 267, 711

    Whitelock, P., Menzies, J., Feast, M., et al. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 711

    1994

  61. [69]

    A., Feast, M

    Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., Marang, F., & Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 751

    2006

  62. [70]

    A., Feast, M

    Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., & Van Leeuwen, F. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 313

    2008

  63. [71]

    Wood, P. R. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3829

    2015

  64. [72]

    Wood, P. R. & Zarro, D. M. 1981, ApJ, 247, 247

    1981

  65. [73]

    W., Gao, J., et al

    Xue, M., Jiang, B. W., Gao, J., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 23 Article number, page 8 of 8

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.