Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Isolated neutron stars as Science Validation for XMM2ATHENA: Ensuring robust data for future X-ray Astronomy

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a new spectral source-detection method for stacked XMM-Newton observations can reliably select isolated neutron star candidates and reject extragalactic impostors, validating it on five followed-up candidates.

desk verdict Useful follow-up data on five XINS candidates, but the ESC validation claim is weaker than advertised because the spectral comparison pins four sources at the grid boundary. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03870 v1 pith:5AJZJZ7J submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.HE

Adriana Mancini Pires , Christian Motch , Axel Schwope , Iris Traulsen , Jean Ballet , Sudip Chakraborty , David Homan , Jan Kurpas
show 4 more authors
Ada Nebot Gomez-Moran Francois-Xavier Pineau Hugo Tranin Natalie Webb
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords isolatedneutronstarsX-raysurveysXMM-Newtoncataloguesoftsourcesspectralsourcedetectionmultiwavelengthcross-matchingmachinelearningclassification
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

The paper aims to show that the XMM2ATHENA spectral source-detection method, combined with multiwavelength cross-matching and machine-learning classification, can reliably find isolated neutron star (XINS) candidates and reject contaminants. The authors validate the method on five soft X-ray sources from the 4XMM-DR9 catalogue that were re-observed with XMM-Newton. The analysis sorts the sample into one confirmed XINS, one still-plausible candidate, and three extragalactic objects, and argues that spectral parameters from the new detection method agree with full spectral fits. If the method holds, future wide-area X-ray surveys could select extremely soft, point-like, counterpart-free sources directly from stacked catalogues without case-by-case spectral extraction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ESC spectral source detection: simultaneous PSF fitting over multiple energy bands, cameras, and overlapping sky areas, assuming a single absorbed power-law spectrum ($\Gamma$, $N_{\mathrm{H}}$) that is constant across stacked epochs. Precomputed grids of energy conversion factors and per-band flux ratios allow the fitter to turn count rates into fluxes and to report spectral parameters for every catalogue entry. Supporting machinery includes probability-based multiwavelength cross-matching and a machine-learning classifier applied to X-ray and counterpart properties. Together these components select soft ($\Gamma=5$), point-like (EXTENT=0) sources with no counterparts as XINS candidates.

What would settle it

Re-run the ESC detection on the five stacked fields with an ECF grid extended to photon indices above 5 (e.g., up to 7) and compare the recovered $\Gamma$, $N_{\mathrm{H}}$, and flux for J0221 and J1403 against the XSPEC fits; if the parameters shift outside the quoted errors or the agreement disappears, the reliability claim for the softest sources fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Enhanced Stacked Catalogue (ESC) spectral detection method, which fits a constant absorbed power-law spectrum to stacked EPIC images, reliably recovers the spectral parameters of soft X-ray sources. In the five-source XINS follow-up sample, the ESC run correctly flagged J1233 as extended and multiwavelength matching identified it as a radio galaxy/AGN, while J0221 and J1403 were point-like and counterpart-free. The paper classifies J0221 as a confirmed XINS and J1403 as a retained candidate, with J2251 and J0103 assigned to extragalactic or transient classes. The proof offered is the consistency statement in the discussion: the spectral parameters from source detection and those from spectral analysis agree, confirming the reliability of the new method.

Load-bearing premise

The method's grid for converting X-ray counts to energy only goes up to a photon index of 5, and most of the softest candidate stars are even steeper, so the claimed accuracy depends on how well that grid behaves at its edge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future XINS searches could select candidates directly from stacked XMM-Newton catalogues using criteria such as $\Gamma \approx 5$, EXTENT=0, and no multiwavelength counterpart, without individual spectral extraction.
  • The method's correct rejection of J1233 as an extended radio galaxy and J2251 as an optically identified quasar demonstrates that contamination can be filtered out in the same pipeline.
  • The pilot study shows that robust spectral information is still available at the low count levels typical of eROSITA XINS candidates, supporting upcoming all-sky searches.
  • The re-observed sample yields a cleaner list for population studies: one confirmed XINS, one candidate needing deeper optical limits, and three non-neutron-star objects.
  • The improved source localisation from second-epoch, on-axis stacking directly feeds catalogue-based searches and follow-up planning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ECF grid boundary at $\Gamma=5$ is the weakest point: both retained XINS candidates have their photon index pinned to that unconstrained boundary, so the reliability claim for the softest sources rests on the grid's accuracy exactly at its edge.
  • A direct testable extension would be to rerun the ESC detection with an ECF grid extended to higher photon indices (e.g., up to 7) and check whether J0221 and J1403 keep their parameters and classifications.
  • The same detection-plus-matching-plus-classification pipeline could be applied to other soft X-ray populations, such as supersoft sources or quiescent low-mass X-ray binaries, where point-like, counterpart-free, soft spectra are the defining traits.
  • The paper's assertion that the method gives more accurate fluxes than the standard $\Gamma=1.7$ conversion could be quantified by comparing ESC fluxes for a larger set of known soft sources against deep spectral fits.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports XMM-Newton follow-up observations of five isolated neutron star (XINS) candidates drawn from the 4XMM-DR9 catalogue. For each target, the authors use paired serendipitous and pointed observations to improve astrometry, perform XSPEC spectral fitting with power-law and blackbody models, and test new XMM2ATHENA pipeline tools: the Enhanced Stacked Catalogue (ESC) spectral source detection, the ARCHES multiwavelength cross-matching tool, and a machine-learning classifier. On the basis of the combined analysis, J1233 is identified as an extended radio galaxy, J2251 as a quasar with an optical counterpart, J0103 as a variable source likely associated with a tidal disruption event, and J1403 and J0221 remain viable XINS candidates. The paper's central validation claim is that ESC-derived spectral parameters and fluxes agree with those from standard XSPEC spectral analysis, thereby establishing the reliability of the new method for selecting soft, point-like, counterpart-free sources without individual spectral extraction.

Significance. If the validation holds, the ESC method would be a valuable tool for future XMM-Newton and Athena surveys, enabling efficient and sensitive selection of very soft X-ray sources such as XINSs from stacked observations. The paper also delivers concrete scientific gains: improved positions for five rare candidates, the secure classification of two contaminants, and the identification of a likely variable source. These results are useful for the XINS community and for the XMM2ATHENA project. However, the central methodological claim is currently not fully demonstrated because, for the very sources the method is designed to find (Gamma > 5), the ESC photon index is pinned at the edge of the calibrated ECF grid and is marked unconstrained. The validation is therefore weaker than stated, though the underlying approach remains plausible and the paper's candidate triage is generally well supported by the multiwavelength and variability data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Tables 3 and 4] The central validation claim that 'the consistency between spectral parameters obtained from source detection and those from spectral analysis confirms the reliability of this new method' is not supported for the softest sources. In Table 4, four of five targets (J1233, J1403, J0221, J2251) have ESC photon indices fixed at the upper ECF-grid boundary of Gamma = 5 and are explicitly marked as unconstrained, while the XSPEC power-law fits in Table 3 give Gamma = 7.7, 12.6, 8.47, and 4.4 respectively. A parameter pinned at a grid boundary cannot provide a meaningful consistency test against a freely fitted value. Moreover, the ESC and XSPEC column densities differ by factors of roughly 2-10 for J1233, J1403, and J0221, so the statement that spectral parameters 'align closely' is quantitatively overstated. Because the paper explicitly motivates ESC as a way to select sources with Gamma > 5, the validation must either extend the ECF grid to cover the relevant spectral range, demonstrate through simulations or an alternative analysis that the boundary placement does not bias the parameters, or explicitly restrict the reliability claim to sources within the calibrated grid.
  2. [Section 2, Table 2 and Figure 2] The classification of J0103 as a strongly variable source (nearly three times dimmer in the second epoch) and the resulting 'TDE candidate' interpretation rest on a second observation whose good-time interval is only 29% of the total duration (8700 s out of 30000 s), with the paper noting over 70% data loss to high background. The detected counts in the second epoch are 83 +/- 14 versus 205 +/- 18 in the first epoch, but with such severe background flaring the effective exposure and background subtraction could significantly bias the flux measurement. The authors should demonstrate that the variability persists under a more robust treatment, for example by comparing count rates in similarly filtered time intervals, checking the background-subtracted light curve, or at minimum explicitly characterizing the systematic uncertainty introduced by the flaring. Without this, the J0103 variability claim, which is used to argue against an XINS classification, remains tentative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The manuscript header lists 'Received 26 April 2016; Revised 6 June 2016; Accepted 6 June 2016', which is inconsistent with the arXiv submission date of December 2024 and appears to be a template artifact; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3, Table 4] For J2251, the XSPEC power-law photon index is 4.4 ± 0.5, which lies within the nominal ECF grid range (0-5), yet the ESC photon index is still fixed at 5 and marked unconstrained; the reasons for this boundary pinning at a value consistent with the grid interior should be explained.
  3. [Section 3, text after Table 4] The phrase 'most candidates – except for the long-term variable J0103 – exceed this range' is somewhat ambiguous because J0103's ESC photon index of 3.62 is also near the upper boundary; the sentence could be clarified to state which sources have photon indices unconstrained at the grid limit.
  4. [Figure 3] The scatter plot of Gamma versus N_H for 820 sources uses color and size for flux and extent, but the figure caption does not clearly state which axis corresponds to which quantity; the labels in the plot should be made self-explanatory in the caption.
  5. [References] Several references in the list lack full bibliographic details (e.g., volume and page numbers for Demasi et al., Dey et al., and Gaia Collaboration), and the duplicated 'How cite this article' lines should be removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the ESC spectral-parameter 'validation' for the softest XINS candidates reduces to the ECF grid boundary (Gamma=5), so the claimed consistency with XSPEC is not an independent test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Table 4; Section 3 paragraph 2; Section 4 opening paragraph]
    "The spectral parameters derived from the new method align closely with those from spectral analysis, highlighting its reliability. However, the ECF grid is currently limited to photon indices between 0 and 5, and most candidates – except for the long-term variable J0103 – exceed this range, restricting full optimisation of their spectral parameters."

    In Table 4, for J1233, J1403, J0221, and J2251 the ESC photon index is listed as 5 with the footnote 'star Parameter is unconstrained', while Table 3 XSPEC power-law fits give Gamma = 7.7, 12.6, 8.47, and 4.4 for these sources. Because the ESC ECF grid is restricted to photon indices between 0 and 5, the value Gamma=5 is the grid boundary imposed by the fitting input, not a freely fitted or predicted parameter. The paper nevertheless uses these boundary-pinned values to claim that the spectral parameters 'align closely' with XSPEC spectral fits and to confirm the reliability of the new method.

full rationale

The central validation statement in Section 4, 'The consistency between spectral parameters obtained from source detection and those from spectral analysis confirms the reliability of this new method', is not circular in its entirety: the ESC detection pipeline, ARCHES cross-matching, and the machine-learning classifier are compared against standard XSPEC spectral fits and against external catalogues such as Gaia DR3, Legacy Survey DR10, NVSS, and GALEX, which provide independent anchors for the classifications. However, the most load-bearing part of the validation, the comparison of ESC spectral parameters with XSPEC free fits, becomes degenerate for the four candidates whose true photon indices lie above the ECF grid maximum. Their ESC photon indices are pinned at the grid boundary and marked unconstrained, so the 'alignment' claim is not a measurement but an artifact of the input ECF range. This is a real reduction-by-construction for the softest, XINS-like sources, exactly the regime the method is meant to validate. The paper does explicitly disclose the ECF grid limitation, but it does not propagate that limitation into the validation claim, and it still uses the boundary values in the classification table. The external anchors prevent a higher score, but the partial circularity in the central spectral-parameter consistency claim warrants a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard spectral models, public catalogues, and previously published classification tools. No new physical entities or ad hoc theory parameters are introduced; the listed free parameters are standard measurement assumptions rather than theory input.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed distance for blackbody radius = 1 kpc
    Table 3 reports emitting radii R*(1 kpc) normalized to an assumed distance of 1 kpc; the physical radius scales with the unknown distance.
  • Photon index boundary = Gamma = 5
    In Table 4 the ECF grid is limited to photon indices 0 to 5, and for four candidates the best-fit photon index is pegged at the boundary and marked unconstrained.
  • Standard detection flux conversion = Gamma = 1.7, NH = 3e20 cm-2
    Default power-law conversion used in standard XMM catalogue detection (Mateos et al. 2009), quoted in Section 3 as the baseline the ESC method improves upon.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Absorbed power-law and blackbody models describe the X-ray spectra of these sources
    Section 2 uses tbabs times power-law or blackbody in XSPEC; the soft thermal model is the standard XINS emission model.
  • domain assumption X-ray source emission is constant over time for stacked detection
    Section 3 states the ESC detection assumes constant emission over time, reducing degrees of freedom; this is violated for the variable candidate J0103.
  • domain assumption Machine learning classifier trained on external samples generalizes to XINS candidates
    Section 3 applies the Tranin et al. (2022) classifier to the XINS sample; classification quality depends on the training set being representative of soft X-ray sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isolated neutron stars as Science Validation for XMM2ATHENA: Ensuring robust data for future X-ray Astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AJZJZ7J

@misc{pith2026241203870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isolated neutron stars as Science Validation for XMM2ATHENA: Ensuring robust data for future X-ray Astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AJZJZ7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03870}
}
read the original abstract

The discovery of radio-quiet, X-ray thermally emitting isolated neutron stars (XINSs) in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey revealed a previously overlooked component of the neutron star population. Advancements in X-ray instrumentation and the availability of deep, wide-area optical surveys now enable us to explore XINSs at fainter X-ray fluxes and greater distances. In this study, we investigated candidates selected from the 4XMM-DR9 catalogue using XMM-Newton, focusing on long-term flux stability, spectral characterisation, and astrometry. By leveraging resources from the XMM2ATHENA project -- including updated catalogues, multiwavelength characterisation and machine learning classification -- we refined our understanding of this sample of soft X-ray emitters. Our findings enhance the characterisation of XINS candidates, laying the groundwork for more targeted investigations and future catalogue searches.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , Anderson , S F

    2024ApJ...961...36D APACrefauthors Demasi , S. , Anderson , S F. \ Ag \"u eros , M A. APACrefauthors \ 2024 01 , 961 1 36 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad03e7 APACrefDOI

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad03e7 2024

  2. [2]

    , Schlegel , D J

    2019AJ....157..168D APACrefauthors Dey , A. , Schlegel , D J. , Lang , D. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2019 05 , 157 5 168 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d APACrefDOI

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab089d 2019

  3. [3]

    , Vallenari , A

    2021A&A...649A...1G APACrefauthors Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A G A. , Vallenari , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2021 05 , 649 A1 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 2021

  4. [4]

    APACrefauthors \ 2007 04 , 308 1-4 181-190

    2007Ap&SS.308..181H APACrefauthors Haberl , F. APACrefauthors \ 2007 04 , 308 1-4 181-190 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9342-x APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1007/s10509-007-9342-x 2007

  5. [5]

    , Fl \"o er , L

    2016A&A...594A.116H APACrefauthors HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N. , Fl \"o er , L. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2016 10 , 594 A116 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629178 2016

  6. [6]

    APACrefauthors \ 2008 02 , Nearby, Thermally Emitting Neutron Stars Nearby, Thermally Emitting Neutron Stars

    2008AIPC..983..331K APACrefauthors Kaplan , D L. APACrefauthors \ 2008 02 , Nearby, Thermally Emitting Neutron Stars Nearby, Thermally Emitting Neutron Stars . C. Bassa , Z. Wang , A. Cumming \ . \ ( ), 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More 40 Years of Pulsars: Millisecond Pulsars, Magnetars and More \ 983, 331-339. AIP . APACrefDOI...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2900177 2008

  7. [7]

    \ Kramer , M

    2008MNRAS.391.2009K APACrefauthors Keane , E F. \ Kramer , M. APACrefauthors \ 2008 12 , 391 4 2009-2016 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14045.x APACrefDOI

    work page arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    , Goyal , A

    2020ApJS..247...53K APACrefauthors Kozie -Wierzbowska , D. , Goyal , A. \ \.Z ywucka , N. APACrefauthors \ 2020 04 , 247 2 53 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab63d3 APACrefDOI

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab63d3 2020

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    , Schwope , A D

    2024A&A...683A.164K APACrefauthors Kurpas , J. , Schwope , A D. , Pires , A M. \ Haberl , F. APACrefauthors \ 2024 1 03 , 683 A164 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347967 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    , Schwope , A D

    2024A&A...687A.251K APACrefauthors Kurpas , J. , Schwope , A D. , Pires , A M. \ Haberl , F. APACrefauthors \ 2024 2 07 , 687 A251 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450248 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    , Schwope , A D

    2023A&A...674A.155K APACrefauthors Kurpas , J. , Schwope , A D. , Pires , A M. , Haberl , F. \ Buckley , D A H. APACrefauthors \ 2023 06 , 674 A155 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346375 APACrefDOI

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    , Lattanzi , M G

    2008AJ....136..735L APACrefauthors Lasker , B M. , Lattanzi , M G. , McLean , B J. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2008 08 , 136 2 735-766 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735 APACrefDOI

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    , Saxton , R D

    2009A&A...496..879M APACrefauthors Mateos , S. , Saxton , R D. , Read , A M. \ Sembay , S. APACrefauthors \ 2009 03 , 496 3 879-889 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200811409 APACrefDOI

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    , Lamer , G

    2024A&A...682A..34M APACrefauthors Merloni , A. , Lamer , G. , Liu , T. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2024 02 , 682 A34 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347165 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    , Carrera , F

    2017ASPC..512..165M APACrefauthors Motch , C. , Carrera , F. , Genova , F. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2017 12 , The ARCHES Project The ARCHES Project . N P F. Lorente , K. Shortridge \ R. Wayth \ ( ), Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV Astronomical Data Analysi...

    2017 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    , Viitanen , A

    2024A&A...683A.172M APACrefauthors Mountrichas , G. , Viitanen , A. , Carrera , F J. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2024 03 , 683 A172 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348204 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    , Derriere , S

    2017A&A...597A..89P APACrefauthors Pineau , F X. , Derriere , S. , Motch , C. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2017 01 , 597 A89 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629219 APACrefDOI

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    , Motch , C

    2009A&A...504..185P APACrefauthors Pires , A M. , Motch , C. \ Janot-Pacheco , E. APACrefauthors \ 2009 09 , 504 1 185-197 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912180 APACrefDOI

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    , Motch , C

    2022A&A...666A.148P APACrefauthors Pires , A M. , Motch , C. , Kurpas , J. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2022 10 , 666 A148 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244514 APACrefDOI

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    , Zyuzin , D A

    2020MNRAS.496.5052P APACrefauthors Potekhin , A Y. , Zyuzin , D A. , Yakovlev , D G. , Beznogov , M V. \ Shibanov , Y A. APACrefauthors \ 2020 08 , 496 4 5052-5071 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1871 APACrefDOI

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    , Webb , N A

    2024A&A...687A.250Q APACrefauthors Quintin , E. , Webb , N A. , Georgantopoulos , I. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2024 07 , 687 A250 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348317 APACrefDOI

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    , Mereghetti , S

    2022MNRAS.509.1217R APACrefauthors Rigoselli , M. , Mereghetti , S. \ Tresoldi , C. APACrefauthors \ 2022 01 , 509 1 1217-1226 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2974 APACrefDOI

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    , Schlafly , E F

    2023ApJS..264...28S APACrefauthors Saydjari , A K. , Schlafly , E F. , Lang , D. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2023 02 , 264 2 28 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aca594 APACrefDOI

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    , Meisner , A M

    2019ApJS..240...30S APACrefauthors Schlafly , E F. , Meisner , A M. \ Green , G M. APACrefauthors \ 2019 02 , 240 2 30 . APACrefDOI doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aafbea APACrefDOI

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    , Godet , O

    2022A&A...657A.138T APACrefauthors Tranin , H. , Godet , O. , Webb , N. \ Primorac , D. APACrefauthors \ 2022 01 , 657 A138 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141259 APACrefDOI

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    , Schwope , A D

    2020A&A...641A.137T APACrefauthors Traulsen , I. , Schwope , A D. , Lamer , G. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2020 09 , 641 A137 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037706 APACrefDOI

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    , Augu \`e res , J L

    2001A&A...365L..51W APACrefauthors Watson , M G. , Augu \`e res , J L. , Ballet , J. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2001 01 , 365 L51-L59 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000067 APACrefDOI

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    , Carrera , F J

    2023AN....34420102W APACrefauthors Webb , N A. , Carrera , F J. , Schwope , A. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2023 09 , Astronomische Nachrichten 344 7 e20220102 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1002/asna.20220102 APACrefDOI

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    , Coriat , M

    2020A&A...641A.136W APACrefauthors Webb , N A. , Coriat , M. , Traulsen , I. \ et al. APACrefauthors \ 2020 09 , 641 A136 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937353 APACrefDOI

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    , Allen , A

    2000ApJ...542..914W APACrefauthors Wilms , J. , Allen , A. \ McCray , R. APACrefauthors \ 2000 10 , 542 2 914-924 . APACrefDOI doi:10.1086/317016 APACrefDOI

    2000 doi

  23. [31]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot :...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.