Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

GRB241107A: a Giant Flare from a close-by extragalactic Magnetar?

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 A 0.2-second gamma-ray burst detected by INTEGRAL is consistent with being a giant flare from a magnetar in the nearby galaxy PGC 86046.

desk verdict A solid, well-hedged observational report of a new short burst with a plausible extragalactic magnetar giant flare interpretation; worth sending to review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06668 v3 pith:I4J5VWL7 submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.HE

James Craig Rodi , Dominik Patryk Pacholski , Sandro Mereghetti , Edoardo Arrigoni , Angela Bazzano , Lorenzo Natalucci , Ruben Salvaterra , Pietro Ubertini This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords shortgamma-rayburstmagnetargiantflareINTEGRALIBISPGC86046spectralevolutionpeakenergyextragalacticmagnetars
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 reports the discovery of a short, hard gamma-ray burst, GRB 241107A, and argues that it is a candidate giant flare from a magnetar in the nearby galaxy PGC 86046. The argument rests on three pieces of evidence: the burst's position, known to within 3 arcminutes, falls on the galaxy; at the galaxy's 4.1 Mpc distance the burst's isotropic energy would be 1.6 x $10^{45}$ erg, in the magnetar giant flare range; and the burst's spectrum evolves from hard to soft with the peak energy rising then falling, as seen in other magnetar giant flare candidates. The authors caution that an ordinary short gamma-ray burst at redshift above 0.1 cannot be excluded, but conclude that the properties are consistent with a magnetar giant flare origin.

What carries the argument

The key instrument is the IBIS coded-mask imager on INTEGRAL, whose arcminute localization places the burst inside a 3-arcmin error circle that contains the galaxy PGC 86046. The argument is then carried by the chance-coincidence probability for that galaxy (2.9% in B, 5.5% in I), the conversion of the measured fluence into an isotropic energy at the galaxy's distance, and the comparison of the burst's spectral evolution (E_p rising then falling) with those of known MGF candidates. An additional supporting element is the E_p–L_iso correlation: the measured exponent 0.32 ± 0.15 matches the values seen in other candidates.

What would settle it

Searching the position for the periodic X-ray tail that follows a magnetar giant flare would confirm the interpretation, while a redshift greater than about 0.1 would place the energy far above the giant-flare range and refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GRB 241107A is a magnetar giant flare (MGF), a brief release of up to ~$10^{46}$ erg from a strongly magnetized neutron star, rather than a canonical short gamma-ray burst from a merger. The evidence is the positional coincidence with the galaxy PGC 86046 at 4.1 Mpc, the resulting isotropic energy of 1.6 x $10^{45}$ erg, and a spectral evolution in which the peak energy E_p rises to ~890 keV near the light-curve peak and then falls, closely matching the behavior of the two best-studied extragalactic MGF candidates, GRB 200415A and GRB 231115A. The paper concludes that the burst's properties are consistent with an MGF origin while leaving open the possibility of a more distant short GRB.

Load-bearing premise

The positional match between the burst and PGC 86046 is not a coincidence, so the burst lies at 4.1 Mpc and its energy is 1.6 x $10^{45}$ erg.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, GRB 241107A adds to the small sample of extragalactic magnetar giant flare candidates, currently only a handful of events.
  • It strengthens the evidence that a fraction of short gamma-ray bursts originate from magnetar giant flares rather than compact-object mergers.
  • Observations of such events help constrain the rate of magnetar giant flares and the magnetic-field evolution of magnetars.
  • The similarity of the E_p–L_iso slope across candidates suggests a common emission mechanism that can be tested with future bursts.
  • Rapid follow-up localization of such bursts, as the authors note, would be needed to confirm or reject the association.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The chance-coincidence probability is only a few percent, so the association is plausible but not secure; a more precise localization or a search for the magnetar's periodic X-ray tail could settle the question.
  • If confirmed, this event would imply that magnetar giant flares can be discovered routinely by gamma-ray instruments with arcminute localizations, increasing the expected rate of such discoveries.
  • The hard-to-soft spectral evolution with a rising then falling E_p may be a distinct observational signature that could be used to identify MGF candidates in archival short-GRB data.
  • A testable extension is to search for a soft X-ray counterpart at the position of PGC 86046 that could reveal the quiescent magnetar or a decaying tail.
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. This paper reports the detection and analysis of the short gamma-ray burst GRB 241107A by the IBIS instrument on INTEGRAL. The burst has a duration of about 0.2 s, a fluence of 8e-7 erg cm^-2 in the 20 keV–10 MeV band, and a hard cutoff power-law spectrum with peak energy Ep ≈ 680 keV. The IBIS/ISGRI localization, with a 3 arcmin radius error circle, contains the nearby galaxy PGC 86046 at 4.1 Mpc. The authors compute a chance-coincidence probability of 2.9% (B band) and 5.5% (I band) for finding such a galaxy in the error region, and derive an isotropic energy Eiso = 1.6e45 erg at that distance, which falls in the range of magnetar giant flares (MGFs). Time-resolved spectroscopy shows an Ep increase followed by a decrease, qualitatively similar to the MGF candidates GRB 200415A and GRB 231115A. The paper concludes that GRB 241107A is a candidate extragalactic MGF, while explicitly acknowledging that an ordinary short GRB at redshift ≳0.1 cannot be excluded.

Significance. If the association with PGC 86046 holds, this would add a new extragalactic MGF candidate, contributing to the still-small sample of such events and to estimates of the MGF rate and their contribution to the short GRB population. The paper is careful to present the claim as a candidate rather than a definitive identification, and it provides a quantitative, if basic, estimate of the chance coincidence. The timing and spectral analysis is standard and includes error estimates. A notable strength is the search for repeated bursts from the same position using 9 Ms of archival INTEGRAL data, yielding no additional events. The main quantitative support for the MGF interpretation, however, rests entirely on the positional association with PGC 86046, and the chance-probability calculation is not independently checked at the burst's low Galactic latitude.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The chance-coincidence probability is computed with the galaxy number counts of Ferguson et al. (2000), which are based on deep high-Galactic-latitude fields. The burst direction (R.A. 111.336 deg, Dec. -24.4439 deg) has a Galactic latitude of about -4 deg, i.e., inside the Zone of Avoidance. Because the PGC 86046 magnitudes (mB=16.336, mI=14.634) are observed magnitudes, Galactic extinction and stellar crowding affect the local galaxy surface density, but the sign and size of the correction are not quantified. The paper quotes no uncertainty on sigma(<m) or on the resulting P(<mB)=2.9% and P(<mI)=5.5%. Since this probability is the principal quantitative support for the association with PGC 86046 and hence for the MGF interpretation, the authors should either recompute sigma(<m) using a galaxy catalog that covers low-latitude sky or provide a quantitative argument that the correction does not change the conclusion.
  2. [Section 2.2, Table 1] The five time-interval spectral fits fix the photon index alpha to the time-averaged value of 0.07. The separate peak and tail fits with alpha free give alpha = 0.71(+0.42,-0.31) and alpha = -0.02(+0.48,-0.39), which are consistent with 0.07 only at about the 1-2 sigma level. The claim that Ep rises and then falls (Fig. 2D) is used to support the similarity with GRB 200415A and GRB 231115A. To make this supporting evidence robust, the authors should check whether the Ep evolution persists when alpha is allowed to vary (or, at minimum, show confidence contours analogous to Fig. 4 for the five intervals). Currently the time-resolved Ep values in Table 1 may be partly driven by the fixed-alpha assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The 6.7 sigma detection significance is quoted after selecting the 30-180 keV energy range and the T0+0.17 to T0+0.40 s time interval, but no trials factor is described. Since the burst is independently visible in the PICsIT light curve, the detection itself is not in question, but the significance should be labeled as post-selection or a trials-corrected value should be provided.
  2. [Section 2.2] The distance uncertainty from Tully et al. (2016) is not propagated into Eiso; quoting Eiso with its corresponding range would be useful for comparison with the MGF energy band.
  3. [Section 2.1] There is a typo in the phrase 'provided by PiIC-sIT' - it should read 'PICsIT'.
  4. [Section 2.2] The word 'possibile' should be 'possible' in the sentence 'we searched for other possibile bursts from this position'.
  5. [Abstract] The grammar in the sentence 'The presence of the nearby galaxy PGC 86046 in the 3 arcmin radius error region, suggests' needs correction (remove the comma).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MGF classification is tested against an external galaxy-association probability and external burst samples, not derived from the assumed distance.

full rationale

The derivation chain is observational and externally benchmarked. The burst position is measured from ISGRI imaging (6.7 sigma; Section 2.1) with a 3 arcmin error circle; the fluence and E_p come from independent ISGRI+PICsIT spectral fits (Section 2.2, Table 1). The positional association with PGC 86046 is quantified with Eq. (1) using galaxy counts from Ferguson et al. (2000) and magnitudes from the HIPASS catalogue, giving P(<m_B)=2.9% and P(<m_I)=5.5%; this is an external statistical test, not a fit to the burst data. E_iso = 1.6e45 erg is then computed by taking the Tully et al. (2016) distance as an input; placing the burst in the E_p-E_iso plane and comparing with external MGF and short GRB samples (Pacholski et al. 2024; Svinkin et al. 2016; Minaev & Pozanenko 2020) is a consistency check of the MGF hypothesis, not a construction of it. Likewise, the time-resolved E_p-L_iso slope (0.32 +/- 0.15) is derived from this burst's own spectra and compared with externally measured slopes for GRB 200415A and GRB 231115A. The self-citations (Mereghetti et al. 2024b, 2021; Pacholski et al. 2024) supply analysis methods and published comparison data; they do not assume the MGF conclusion. The paper's own caveat in Section 3, 'although we cannot exclude that GRB 241107A is an ordinary short GRB at redshift >~0.1', correctly identifies the PGC 86046 association as the vulnerable premise; if that association were false, the distance-scaled energy would change, which is a testable scientific assumption rather than a circular definition. The quantitative concern that the chance probability is based on high-latitude galaxy counts at a low-Galactic-latitude direction and has no quoted uncertainty is a robustness caveat, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard spectral fitting models, a distance to PGC 86046 taken from prior literature, a galaxy count model, and the assumption that the burst is positionally associated with the galaxy. No new physics entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Cutoff power-law photon index alpha = 0.07 (+0.27, -0.24) time-averaged
    Fitted to the joint ISGRI+PICsIT spectrum (Table 1). The value is typical of short GRBs and MGFs, but the MGF argument does not hinge on the exact alpha.
  • Peak energy E_p = 678 (+125, -90) keV time-averaged; time-resolved 352-889 keV
    Fitted peak energy used in the E_p-E_iso plane (Fig. 5) and the E_p evolution (Fig. 2D) to argue consistency with magnetar giant flares.
  • 20 keV-10 MeV flux (normalization) = (3.4 +/- 0.5) x 10^-6 erg cm^-2 s^-1
    Fitted flux; combined with the assumed distance gives E_iso = 1.6 x 10^45 erg, a key quantity in the MGF interpretation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The burst spectrum is well described by an exponentially cutoff power law (CPL) model.
    Adopted in Section 2.2 and Table 1. The CPL is a standard phenomenological model for GRB spectra; the blackbody fit is worse, so the CPL is used for the central spectral parameters.
  • domain assumption The distance to PGC 86046 is 4.1 Mpc (Tully et al. 2016).
    Used in Section 3 to compute the isotropic energy E_iso = 1.6 x 10^45 erg. If the distance is wrong or the galaxy is not the host, the E_iso argument collapses.
  • domain assumption The galaxy number counts of Ferguson et al. (2000) are applicable to compute the chance coincidence probability.
    Used in Eq. (1) in Section 3 with PGC 86046 magnitudes from the HIPASS catalogue to estimate P(<m_B)=2.9% and P(<m_I)=5.5%.
  • domain assumption The burst is at the distance of PGC 86046 (positional association).
    The association is inferred from the 3 arcmin error circle. The paper acknowledges the chance coincidence is not negligible, so this is a load-bearing assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRB241107A: a Giant Flare from a close-by extragalactic Magnetar?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4J5VWL7

@misc{pith2026241206668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRB241107A: a Giant Flare from a close-by extragalactic Magnetar?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4J5VWL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06668}
}
abstract

We report the results on the short gamma-ray burst GRB 241107A, obtained with the IBIS instrument on board the INTEGRAL satellite. The burst had a duration of about 0.2 s, a fluence of $8 \times 10^{-7}$ erg cm-2 in the 20 keV-10 MeV range and a hard spectrum, characterized by a peak energy of 680 keV. The position of GRB 241107A has been precisely determined because it fell inside the imaging field of view of the IBIS coded mask instrument. The presence of the nearby galaxy PGC 86046 in the 3 arcmin radius error region, suggests that GRB 241107A might be a giant flare from a magnetar rather than a canonical short GRB. For the 4.1 Mpc distance of PGC 86046, the isotropic energy of $1.6 \times 10^{45}$ erg is in agreement with this hypothesis, that is also supported by the time resolved spectral properties similar to those of the few other extragalactic magnetars giant flares detected so far.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pan-STARRS1 optical image of the location of GRB 241107A with the i-band, r-band, and g-band used as RGB colours. The circle with radius 3 arcmin is the IBIS/ISGRI position (90% c.l.). The galaxy PGC 86046 is clearly visible at coordinates R.A.=7:25:22, Dec.=–24:28:23 burst had a total duration of ∼250 ms and consisted of an initial pulse lasting ∼50 ms followed by a fainter tail. An image extracted from the ISGRI d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time averaged IBIS spectrum of GRB 241107A (from T0+0.17 s to T0+0.40 s). ISGRI data are plotted as black diamonds and PICsIT data as red triangles. The best fit cutoff power-law model is overplotted as a solid blue line. 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Alpha 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Epeak [keV] T0+0.17-T0+0.20 T0+0.20-T0+0.40 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Background subtracted light curves of GRB 241107A in three energy bands, with T0=2024-11-07 23:30:00 UT. The ISGRI (40-200 keV) light curve has been binned to have at least 18 counts in each bin (A panel). The PICsIT light curves (200-468.2 keV, B panel and 468.2-2600 keV, C panel) have the original bin size of 3.9 ms. Panel D shows the evolution of Ep during the burst [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Position of GRB 241107A (red square) in the Ep versus Eiso plane. The sample of short GRBs (blue) is taken from Minaev & Pozanenko (2020). The three con￾firmed magnetar giant flares and the extragalactic MGF can￾didates are indicated by the green stars (data from Pacho…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Direct evidence for r-process nucleosynthesis in delayed MeV emission from the SGR 1806-20 magnetar giant flare

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The delayed MeV emission after the SGR 1806-20 giant flare matches the predicted radioactive decay signal of about 10^-6 solar masses of newly synthesized r-process nuclei.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16846

    Beniamini, P., Wadiasingh, Z., Trigg, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.16846, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16846

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.16846 2024

  2. [2]

    2021, ApJL, 907, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    Burns, E., Svinkin, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c8 2021

  3. [3]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  4. [4]

    C., Gupta, R., et al

    Chand, V., Joshi, J. C., Gupta, R., et al. 2021, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 236, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/236

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/21/9/236 2021

  5. [5]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38177, 1

    DeLaunay, J., Tohuvavohu, A., Ronchini, S., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38177, 1

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    T., Drinkwater, M

    Doyle, M. T., Drinkwater, M. J., Rohde, D. J., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 34, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09159.x

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    C., Dickinson, M., & Williams, R

    Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M., & Williams, R. 2000, ARA&A, 38, 667, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.667

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.38.1.667 2000

  8. [8]

    D., Palshin, V

    Frederiks, D. D., Palshin, V. D., Aptekar, R. L., et al. 2007, Astronomy Letters, 33, 19, doi: 10.1134/S1063773707010021

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773707010021 2007

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    2003, A&A, 411, L223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031395

    Goldwurm, A., David, P., Foschini, L., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L223, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031395

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    E., Smith, D

    Hurley, K., Boggs, S. E., Smith, D. M., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1098, doi: 10.1038/nature03519

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    S., Golovin, D

    Kozyrev, A. S., Golovin, D. V., Litvak, M. L., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38165, 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    2003, A&A, 411, L149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031356

    Labanti, C., Di Cocco, G., Ferro, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L149, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031356

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    P., Lavocat, P., et al

    Lebrun, F., Leray, J. P., Lavocat, P., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L141, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031367

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    P., Golenetskii, S

    Mazets, E. P., Golenetskii, S. V., Gurian, I. A., & Ilinskii, V. N. 1982, Ap&SS, 84, 173, doi: 10.1007/BF00713635

    1982 doi

  7. [15]

    P., Golentskii, S

    Mazets, E. P., Golentskii, S. V., Ilinskii, V. N., Aptekar, R. L., & Guryan, I. A. 1979, Nature, 282, 587, doi: 10.1038/282587a0

    1979 doi

  8. [16]

    P., Aptekar, R

    Mazets, E. P., Aptekar, R. L., Cline, T. L., et al. 2008, ApJ, 680, 545, doi: 10.1086/587955

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    2003, A&A, 411, L291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031289

    Pedersen, H. 2003, A&A, 411, L291, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031289

    2003 doi

  10. [18]

    2021, ApJL, 921, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee7

    Mereghetti, S., Topinka, M., Rigoselli, M., & G¨ otz, D. 2021, ApJL, 921, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ee7

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2024b, Nature, 629, 58, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07285-4

    Mereghetti, S., Rigoselli, M., Salvaterra, R., et al. 2024b, Nature, 629, 58, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07285-4

    doi

  12. [20]

    Y., & Pozanenko, A

    Minaev, P. Y., & Pozanenko, A. S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3611

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    P., et al

    Mohan, T., Waratkar, G., Saikia, A. P., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38187, 1

    2024

  14. [22]

    Nakar, E., Gal-Yam, A., Piran, T., & Fox, D. B. 2006, ApJ, 640, 849, doi: 10.1086/498229

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    Ofek, E. O. 2007, ApJ, 659, 339, doi: 10.1086/511147 6

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    P., Arrigoni, E., Mereghetti, S., & Salvaterra, R

    Pacholski, D. P., Arrigoni, E., Mereghetti, S., & Salvaterra, R. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2517

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    J., Veres, P., Baring, M

    Roberts, O. J., Veres, P., Baring, M. G., et al. 2021, Nature, 589, 207, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03077-8

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38164, 1

    Rodi, J., Ubertini, P., Bazzano, A., & Natalucci, L. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38164, 1

    2024

  19. [27]

    2021, Nature, 589, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03076-9

    Svinkin, D., Frederiks, D., Hurley, K., et al. 2021, Nature, 589, 211, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03076-9

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Hurley, K., Aptekar, R

    Svinkin, D. S., Hurley, K., Aptekar, R. L., Golenetskii, S. V., & Frederiks, D. D. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 1028, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2436

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Frederiks, D

    Svinkin, D. S., Frederiks, D. D., Aptekar, R. L., et al. 2016, ApJS, 224, 10, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/224/1/10 SVOM/GRM Team, Wang, C.-W., Zheng, S.-J., et al. 2024, GRB Coordinates Network, 38125, 1

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Stewart, R., van Kooten, A., et al

    Trigg, A. C., Stewart, R., van Kooten, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.06056, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.06056

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, AJ, 152, 50, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    2003, A&A, 411, L131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031224

    Ubertini, P., Lebrun, F., Di Cocco, G., et al. 2003, A&A, 411, L131, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031224

    2003 doi

Pith tools

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