Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Formation of massive star clusters with and without iron abundance spreads in a dwarf galaxy merger

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A high-resolution simulation of a dwarf-dwarf galaxy merger produces 13 young massive star clusters that split into two types: those with iron abundance spreads and those that stay chemically homogeneous, with the split set by whether…

desk verdict Dwarf-dwarf merger simulation shows a plausible but provisional split between Fe-spread and non-Fe-spread clusters, weakened by a post-hoc reclassification. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12658 v1 pith:6FBRTDH5 submitted 2025-01-22 astro-ph.GA

Hidenori Matsui , Kenji Bekki , Madeleine McKenzie , Takayuki R. Saitoh This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords dwarfgalaxymergerstarclusterformationglobularmultiplepopulationsTypeIIclustersnucleardynamicalfrictionsupernovafeedbacknumericalsimulation
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 simulates a head-on merger of two gas-rich dwarf galaxies at high resolution and reports that the young massive star clusters formed during the merger come in two kinds. Some clusters show a significant spread in iron abundance because the first generation of stars contaminates surrounding gas with Type II supernova ejecta and that gas then falls back into the cluster to form a second, more metal-rich generation. Other clusters show no iron spread because the same supernova energy blows the contaminated gas away before it can fall back. The paper also finds that most clusters formed in the later encounters sink to the center by dynamical friction and merge into a nuclear star cluster with mixed ages and metallicities. The result matters because it offers a direct formation route for the two observational classes of globular clusters within a single dwarf-dwarf merger event.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the 13 resolved young star clusters, identified as concentrations of collisionless star particles around local potential minima within 20 pc and with total masses above $10^{5}$ solar masses. The mechanism that sorts them into iron-spread and iron-pure classes is the competition between gas fallback and gas expulsion, set by the subgrid star-formation and feedback prescriptions: stars form only in gas colder than 100 K and denser than 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter, and each Type II supernova deposits $10^{51}$ erg of thermal energy into the surrounding gas particles. Whether the supernova-contaminated gas is retained and recaptured, which is decided by the cluster's gravitational potential and the local gas abundance, determines whether a second generation of stars with elevated [Fe/H] appears. Metal enrichment is tracked with a chemical evolution library using standard Type II supernova yield tables, with a metal diffusion coefficient of 0.01.

What would settle it

Run the same merger with twice the supernova energy per event or a different star-formation density threshold: if clusters that were Type II become Type I or vice versa, the claimed dichotomy is a product of the prescriptions. Observationally, a single measurement of the iron abundance distribution in a young massive cluster embedded in dense, supernova-enriched gas within a dwarf-dwarf merger remnant would settle it, because the fallback path requires that such gas actually produces a second, more metal-rich stellar generation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a high-resolution N-body/SPH simulation of a dwarf-dwarf galaxy merger, the authors find that 13 young massive star clusters form, and these naturally divide into two classes distinguished by their iron abundance distributions. Clusters such as IDs 2 and 3 form when the first-generation stars, born in the compressed gas of the collision interface, inject Type II supernova ejecta into the surrounding gas; because the supernova energy injection is too weak to expel this gas, the contaminated gas falls back and gives rise to a second stellar generation with higher [Fe/H]. Clusters such as ID 8 follow the opposite path: the supernova-driven outflows evacuate the surrounding gas before fallback, so only one, chemically homogeneous generation forms. Nine of the clusters, formed in the central region after the second encounter, sink into the galactic center through dynamical friction; close encounters tidally disrupt the more loosely bound ones, while the survivors merge to assemble a nuclear star cluster containing several stellar generations with a range of [Fe/H] and ages. The authors argue this behavior reproduces the observational Type I/Type II dichotomy of globular clusters and demonstrates that dwarf-dwarf mergers can build nuclear star clusters through cluster merging alone.

Load-bearing premise

The reported split between clusters with and without iron spreads rests on the adopted subgrid rules for when stars form and how much energy each supernova deposits, and on the single galaxy merger orbit simulated, so a different choice of these rules might erase the dichotomy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mechanism is right, dwarf-dwarf mergers are a viable birthplace for both Type I and Type II globular cluster analogs, with the same competing processes of fallback and outflow determining the class.
  • Nuclear star clusters can be assembled purely by the merger-driven infall and coalescence of young massive star clusters, without a pre-existing nuclear cluster, and will then contain multiple stellar generations that reflect the encounter history.
  • The deepest-potential clusters are the most likely to retain supernova-contaminated gas and become Type II, linking cluster mass and binding energy to the presence of iron spreads, as broadly seen in observations.
  • In the simulated remnant, the gas blowout after the final encounter quenches further cluster formation, so the nuclear star cluster in this case contains no young stellar population, whereas more massive mergers with sustained gas inflow would add in-situ generations.
  • Clusters formed at the first encounter survive in the outer halo on highly eccentric orbits, while later-formed clusters are gradually destroyed or merged into the center, explaining a radial segregation of cluster types.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper runs a single merger model with one set of feedback and star-formation parameters; extending the same analysis to varying supernova energies, density thresholds, metal diffusion coefficients, or galaxy mass ratios would test whether the Type I/Type II dichotomy survives or is an artifact of the chosen prescriptions.
  • The retention-versus-expulsion threshold implies a continuous metric, the ratio of supernova energy injection to the binding energy of the gas reservoir, that could be computed across simulations and compared directly with the observed fraction of clusters showing iron spreads.
  • If the nuclear star cluster is assembled mostly from one dominant cluster (ID 1 contributes about 87 percent of its mass within 20 pc), then the chemical and kinematic properties of the nuclear cluster in dwarf remnants should strongly resemble the most massive cluster, a prediction testable in nearby compact dwarf mergers.
  • The authors classify ID 12 as Type I despite a 0.32 dex iron dispersion because only a minor fraction of its stars are metal-rich; this highlights that the mapping between simulated [Fe/H] spreads and observed Type II classification depends on the fraction of enriched stars and on detection limits, an observational selection effect worth quantifying.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper presents a single high-resolution Tree+GRAPE SPH simulation of a dwarf-dwarf galaxy merger, using the ASURA code with chemical evolution through CELib and Type II SN yields. From this run, 13 young massive star clusters are identified, and the paper argues that they split into two types: Type II clusters with [Fe/H] spreads, formed when Type II SN-contaminated gas falls back onto a seed cluster and forms second-generation stars, and Type I clusters without such spreads, formed when SN feedback expels the surrounding gas before fallback can occur. The paper further claims that nine clusters sink into the galactic center by dynamical friction and merge to build a nuclear star cluster with mixed ages and metallicities.

Significance. If the claims are robust, the simulation offers an appealing mechanism for the observed dichotomy between Type I and Type II globular clusters in the context of dwarf-dwarf mergers, and provides an explicit formation path for nuclear star clusters through cluster assembly. The work uses established codes and chemical yield tables, and the qualitative mechanism (deeper potential wells retain contaminated gas) is physically plausible. However, the significance is strongly tempered by the reliance on a single realization with no resolution or subgrid-parameter variations, and by an internally inconsistent classification of one cluster in the defining table.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, §3.2] The central Type I/Type II dichotomy is controlled by the subgrid star-formation thresholds (T<100 K, n_H>100 cm^-3), the thermal SN energy input (10^51 erg per SN), and the adopted metal diffusion coefficient (0.01). The paper presents exactly one simulation and no resolution or feedback-parameter variations. In SPH, thermal feedback is known to be resolution dependent, so the claimed retention/outflow switch may be a numerical artifact rather than a robust physical result. The authors should add a resolution study or a small parameter exploration (at least varying the feedback energy or the density threshold) to demonstrate that the dichotomy does not depend on these choices, or explicitly qualify the claim as a single-realization result.
  2. [Table 1, ID 12] The classification rule stated in §3.2 is that clusters with σ([Fe/H]) > 0.1 are Type II. Cluster ID 12 has σ=0.32, yet it is classified as Type I because the high-[Fe/H] stars are a 'minor fraction.' This exception is introduced post hoc in the same table that defines the criterion. If the distinction is based on the distribution shape rather than σ alone, the criterion should be defined quantitatively (e.g., a minimum fraction of high-[Fe/H] stars) and applied uniformly to all clusters. As written, the exception undermines the claim of a clean two-type separation and suggests the underlying distribution may be continuous.
  3. [§3.2, §4.1] The paper explains the Type I/II outcome as a competition between SN energy injection and the ability of the cluster's gravitational potential to retain the contaminated gas, but it does not quantify this balance for the individual clusters. For example, comparing the total SN energy injected in the seed cluster to the binding energy of the surrounding gas (or to the virial energy of the cluster) would provide a direct test of the proposed mechanism and help distinguish it from timing or subgrid artifacts. The qualitative snapshots in Figures 4 and 5 support the narrative, but a quantitative energy-budget analysis is needed to make the mechanism convincing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 3] The [Fe/H] histograms are plotted with a fixed bin width of 0.25 dex. For clusters with small particle counts (e.g., ID 12, with mass ~1e5 Msun and ~150 particles), the measured σ is sensitive to this binning. Please report the number of star particles per cluster and consider showing Poisson error bars or adaptive binning.
  2. [§3.3] The nuclear star cluster mass is quoted at a radius of 20 pc (1.75e6 Msun) and also at 100 pc (2.0e6 Msun). The definition of 'nuclear star cluster' and the radius dependence should be stated more explicitly, since the mass fraction of each contributing cluster changes substantially between these two radii.
  3. [§2.2] The text says a newly formed star particle is treated as a single stellar population with a Kroupa IMF, but it does not specify how Type II SN yields are realized for a particle of 666 Msun (i.e., whether the SN rate is sampled stochastically or averaged). Please clarify the implementation.
  4. [General] The header still shows 'Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan (2018)' as the journal year; this should be updated to the intended publication year. Also ensure consistent spelling of 'Lahén et al.' in the text and references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a forward simulation with externally adopted subgrid physics and an observational classification threshold.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward numerical simulation: initial dwarf galaxy models, star formation criteria, Type II SN thermal feedback, and metal yields are specified in Section 2.2 using external references (ASURA, CELib, Nomoto et al. 2013, Seitenzahl et al. 2013, Kroupa 2001). The Type I/II classification is not fitted to make clusters appear Type II; it uses the observational threshold sigma > 0.1 dex from Milone et al. (2017), applied after the simulation output. The proposed formation mechanisms for clusters with and without [Fe/H] spreads are read off the simulation through snapshots and time evolution, not imposed by the input definitions. The nuclear star cluster assembly follows from dynamical friction and cluster merging, again emergent from the simulation. Self-citations to Saitoh et al. (2008, 2009), Matsui et al. (2012, 2019), and Hirai & Saitoh (2017) are methodological references for the code and chemical library; they are not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing arguments that force the paper's conclusions. The notable limitations are robustness-related, not circularity-related: only one simulation is run with no resolution or feedback-parameter variations, and the classification of cluster ID 12 as Type I despite sigma = 0.32 is a post-hoc exception to the stated threshold. These affect the strength of the two-type claim but do not make any prediction reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on hand-chosen initial conditions, star formation thresholds, feedback energy injection, and a classification threshold. None of these are fitted to the target result, but several are resolution-dependent and untested, which weakens the robustness of the Type I/II split and the NSC mass budget.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial gas metallicity [Fe/H]_init = -1.6
    Sets the zero point for all later enrichment; taken from observations of local dwarfs (Kirby et al. 2013), not fitted to cluster outcomes.
  • Star formation thresholds (T<100 K, nH>100 cm^-3, div v<0)
    Chosen by hand; determines where and when star particles spawn, and is resolution-dependent (each star particle is 1/3 of an SPH particle mass).
  • Type II SN energy per event = 10^51 erg
    Standard value, but the way energy is distributed to neighbors and the assumed efficiency determines whether gas is expelled or retained.
  • Type I/II classification threshold sigma([Fe/H]) > 0.1 dex = 0.1 dex
    Conventional delimiter from Milone et al. (2017); cluster ID 12 is manually re-classified as Type I despite sigma=0.32, so the threshold is not applied uniformly.
  • Metal diffusion coefficient = 0.01
    Adopted from Hirai & Saitoh (2017); controls how uniformly the SN ejecta are mixed into the surrounding gas.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ASURA code accurately solves the collisional N-body and SPH equations with the adopted subgrid prescriptions.
    Invoked throughout; the code is published (Saitoh et al. 2008) but the run itself is not reproduced or validated in the paper.
  • domain assumption Kroupa (2001) IMF for newly formed stellar populations and its SN yields.
    Used to compute the number and energy of Type II SNe from each star particle; this affects the feedback strength and enrichment.
  • domain assumption Type II SNe dominate iron enrichment on the simulation timescale.
    Type Ia, AGB, and NSM yields are included, but the analysis attributes the Fe spreads to Type II SNe; the contribution of longer-delay channels to the cluster abundances is not separately quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The adopted mass and spatial resolution (m_particle=2e3 Msun, softening 1 pc) is sufficient to capture the gas infall and supernova feedback balance that controls self-enrichment.
    No resolution convergence tests are shown; the authors assert the resolution is sufficient because it is higher than previous studies (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of massive star clusters with and without iron abundance spreads in a dwarf galaxy merger." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FBRTDH5

@misc{pith2026250112658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of massive star clusters with and without iron abundance spreads in a dwarf galaxy merger},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FBRTDH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12658}
}
abstract

To study the formation of star clusters and their properties in a dwarf-dwarf merging galaxy, we have performed a numerical simulation of a dwarf-dwarf galaxy merger by using the Tree+GRAPE $N$-body/SPH code ASURA. In our simulation, 13 young star clusters are formed during the merger process. We show that our simulated star clusters can be divided into two types: with and without [Fe/H] abundance variations. The former is created by a seed star cluster (the first-generation stars) formed in compressed gas. These stars contaminate the surrounding gas by Type II supernovae (SNe). At that time, the energy injection is insufficient to induce an outflow of the surrounding gas. After that, the contaminated gas falls into the seed, thereby forming a new generation of stars from the contaminated gas. We also show that most star clusters are formed in the galactic central region after the second encounter and fall into the galactic center due to dynamical friction within several hundred Myr. As a result, close encounters and mergers between the clusters take place. Although the clusters with shallower gravitational potential are tidally disrupted by these close encounters, others survive and finally merge at the center of the merged dwarf galaxies to create a nuclear star cluster. Therefore, the nuclear star cluster is comprised of various stellar components in [Fe/H] abundance and age. We discuss our work in the context of observations and demonstrate the diagnostic power of high-resolution simulations in the context of star cluster formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time evolution of the SFR and distance of two galaxies. The black and red lines show SFR and distance of two galactic centers, respectively. The centers of galaxies are decided by the potential minimums in the dark halos. contaminated gas falls into the cluster and the 2P stars are formed from such gas in the cluster. • Nine star clusters fall into the galactic center due to dy￾namical friction. Although a portion o… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Snapshots of the formation of the star cluster with ID 3 from 831 Myr to 855 Myr. The upper, middle, and bottom panels show the gas surface density, [Fe/H] of SPH particles, and [Fe/H] of stars constituting the star cluster, respectively. The size of each panel is 500 pc × 500 pc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stellar distribution map (upper panels) and star clusters (bottom pan￾els). The upper right panel zooms in on the square region in the upper left panel. In these panels, green circles show positions of star clusters. Cluster IDs are attached to the circles. The sizes of the upper left and right panels are 20 kpc×20 kpc and 300 pc×300 pc, respectively. The 13 lower panels show individual star clusters. The size of ea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of stellar populations of each star cluster in [Fe/H]. The upper left number in each panel corresponds to star cluster ID in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Snapshots of close encounters between the cluster with ID 12 and the other clusters from 1809 Myr to 1824 Myr. The color map shows sur￾face density of stars. Red points are written on the color map and represent stars of the cluster with ID 12. The green circles repre…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Formation time v.s. [Fe/H] of the inner stars formed from 1400 Myr to 1460 Myr in the star cluster with ID 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: [Fe/H] v.s. [(C + N + O)/Fe] of the inner stars in each star cluster. The upper left number in each panel shows the cluster ID [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The upper panels show the surface density map of newly formed stars. The middle and right panels zoom in on the red squares of the right panel and the middle panel, respectively. In the panels, the IDs are attached to the clusters. The right panel shows the nuclear st…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2011, , 729, 35

    Agarwal , M., & Milosavljevi \'c , M. 2011, , 729, 35

    2011

  2. [2]

    2015, , 812, 72

    Antonini , F., Barausse , E., & Silk , J. 2015, , 812, 72

    2015

  3. [3]

    2018, , 56, 83

    Bastian , N., & Lardo , C. 2018, , 56, 83

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2008, , 388, L10

    Bekki , K. 2008, , 388, L10

    2008

  5. [5]

    J., & Shioya , Y

    Bekki , K., Couch , W. J., & Shioya , Y. 2006, , 642, L133

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Bekki , K., & Freeman , K. C. 2003, , 346, L11

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    P., et al

    Bellini , A., Anderson , J., van der Marel , R. P., et al. 2017, , 842, 7

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    2019, , 489, 3269

    Calura , F., D'Ercole , A., Vesperini , E., Vanzella , E., & Sollima , A. 2019, , 489, 3269

    work page 2019

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    W., & Lattanzio , J

    Campbell , S. W., & Lattanzio , J. C. 2008, , 490, 769

    2008

  2. [10]

    2015, , 810, 148

    Carretta , E. 2015, , 810, 148

    2015

  3. [11]

    2009 a , , 508, 695

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., Gratton , R., D'Orazi , V., & Lucatello , S. 2009 a , , 508, 695

    2009

  4. [12]

    2009 b , , 505, 139

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., Gratton , R., & Lucatello , S. 2009 b , , 505, 139

    2009

  5. [13]

    G., et al

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., Gratton , R. G., et al. 2009 c , , 505, 117

    2009

  6. [14]

    E., Kewley , L

    Chien , L.-H., Barnes , J. E., Kewley , L. J., & Chambers , K. C. 2007, , 660, L105

    2007

  7. [15]

    L., Gil-Pons , P., Lau , H

    Doherty , C. L., Gil-Pons , P., Lau , H. H. B., Lattanzio , J. C., & Siess , L. 2014, , 437, 195

    2014

  8. [16]

    G., Cortesi , A., Faifer , F

    Escudero , C. G., Cortesi , A., Faifer , F. R., et al. 2022, , 511, 393

    2022

  9. [17]

    2022, , 667, A101

    Fahrion , K., Bulichi , T.-E., Hilker , M., et al. 2022, , 667, A101

    2022

  10. [18]

    Freeman , K. C. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 48, The Globular Cluster-Galaxy Connection, ed. G. H. Smith & J. P. Brodie , 608

    1993

  11. [19]

    L., Lau , H., et al

    Gil-Pons , P., Doherty , C. L., Lau , H., et al. 2013, , 557, A106

    2013

  12. [20]

    Y., Ostriker , J

    Gnedin , O. Y., Ostriker , J. P., & Tremaine , S. 2014, , 785, 71

    2014

  13. [21]

    2019 a , , 27, 8

    Gratton , R., Bragaglia , A., Carretta , E., et al. 2019 a , , 27, 8

    2019

  14. [22]

    2019 b , , 27, 8

    ---. 2019 b , , 27, 8

    2019

  15. [23]

    2004, , 42, 385

    Gratton , R., Sneden , C., & Carretta , E. 2004, , 42, 385

    2004

  16. [24]

    G., Carretta , E., & Bragaglia , A

    Gratton , R. G., Carretta , E., & Bragaglia , A. 2012, , 20, 50

    2012

  17. [25]

    G., Johnson , C

    Gratton , R. G., Johnson , C. I., Lucatello , S., D'Orazi , V., & Pilachowski , C. 2011, , 534, A72

    2011

  18. [26]

    G., Bonifacio , P., Bragaglia , A., et al

    Gratton , R. G., Bonifacio , P., Bragaglia , A., et al. 2001, , 369, 87

    2001

  19. [27]

    Hirai , Y., & Saitoh , T. R. 2017, , 838, L23

    2017

  20. [28]

    F., Cox , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Cox , T. J., Hernquist , L., et al. 2013, , 430, 1901

    2013

  21. [29]

    T., Schiavon , R

    Horta , D., Mackereth , J. T., Schiavon , R. P., et al. 2021, , 500, 5462

    2021

  22. [30]

    I., & Pilachowski , C

    Johnson , C. I., & Pilachowski , C. A. 2010, , 722, 1373

    2010

  23. [31]

    Kaneko , H., Kuno , N., & Saitoh , T. R. 2018, , 860, L14

    2018

  24. [32]

    Karakas , A. I. 2010, , 403, 1413

    2010

  25. [33]

    N., Cohen , J

    Kirby , E. N., Cohen , J. G., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2013, , 779, 102

    2013

  26. [34]

    I., & Lugaro , M

    Kobayashi , C., Karakas , A. I., & Lugaro , M. 2020, , 900, 179

    2020

  27. [35]

    2001, , 322, 231

    Kroupa , P. 2001, , 322, 231

    2001

  28. [36]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.09518

    Lah \'e n , N., Naab , T., & Sz \'e csi , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.09518

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S., Brodie , J

    Larsen , S. S., Brodie , J. P., Grundahl , F., & Strader , J. 2014, , 797, 15

    2014

  30. [38]

    F., Sneden , C., Kraft , R

    Marino , A. F., Sneden , C., Kraft , R. P., et al. 2011, , 532, A8

    2011

  31. [39]

    F., Yong , D., Milone , A

    Marino , A. F., Yong , D., Milone , A. P., et al. 2018, , 859, 81

    2018

  32. [40]

    F., Milone , A

    Marino , A. F., Milone , A. P., Renzini , A., et al. 2019, , 487, 3815

    2019

  33. [41]

    2021, , 923, 22

    ---. 2021, , 923, 22

    2021

  34. [42]

    L., Smolinski , J

    Martell , S. L., Smolinski , J. P., Beers , T. C., & Grebel , E. K. 2011, , 534, A136

    2011

  35. [43]

    L., Shetrone , M

    Martell , S. L., Shetrone , M. D., Lucatello , S., et al. 2016, , 825, 146

    2016

  36. [44]

    Matsui , H., Tanikawa , A., & Saitoh , T. R. 2019, , 71, 19

    2019

  37. [45]

    R., Makino , J., et al

    Matsui , H., Saitoh , T. R., Makino , J., et al. 2012, , 746, 26

    2012

  38. [46]

    2021 a , , 507, 834

    McKenzie , M., & Bekki , K. 2021 a , , 507, 834

    2021

  39. [47]

    2021 b , , 500, 4578

    ---. 2021 b , , 500, 4578

    2021

  40. [48]

    F., et al

    McKenzie , M., Yong , D., Marino , A. F., et al. 2022, , 516, 3515

    2022

  41. [49]

    D., Thatte , N

    Mengel , S., Lehnert , M. D., Thatte , N. A., et al. 2008, , 489, 1091

    2008

  42. [50]

    G., et al

    M \'e sz \'a ros , S., Masseron , T., Fern \'a ndez-Trincado , J. G., et al. 2021, , 505, 1645

    2021

  43. [51]

    2016, , 817, 20

    Mezcua , M., Civano , F., Fabbiano , G., Miyaji , T., & Marchesi , S. 2016, , 817, 20

    2016

  44. [52]

    Mezcua , M., & S \'a nchez , H. D. 2024, , arXiv:2401.15152

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    2018, , 475, 2269

    Miki , Y., & Umemura , M. 2018, , 475, 2269

    2018

  46. [54]

    P., & Marino , A

    Milone , A. P., & Marino , A. F. 2022, Universe, 8, 359

    2022

  47. [55]

    P., Piotto , G., Renzini , A., et al

    Milone , A. P., Piotto , G., Renzini , A., et al. 2017, , 464, 3636

    2017

  48. [56]

    M., Wyse , R

    Nataf , D. M., Wyse , R. F. G., Schiavon , R. P., et al. 2019, , 158, 14

    2019

  49. [57]

    F., Frenk , C

    Navarro , J. F., Frenk , C. S., & White , S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563

    1996

  50. [58]

    D., Seth , A

    Nguyen , D. D., Seth , A. C., den Brok , M., et al. 2017, , 836, 237

    2017

  51. [59]

    D., Seth , A

    Nguyen , D. D., Seth , A. C., Neumayer , N., et al. 2019, , 872, 104

    2019

  52. [60]

    S., Neumayer , N., Clontz , C., et al

    Nitschai , M. S., Neumayer , N., Clontz , C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.02503

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2013, , 51, 457

    Nomoto , K., Kobayashi , C., & Tominaga , N. 2013, , 51, 457

    2013

  54. [62]

    Norris , J., & Freeman , K. C. 1979, , 230, L179

    1979

  55. [63]

    J., Calder \'o n-Castillo , P., & Duc , P.-A

    Paudel , S., Smith , R., Yoon , S. J., Calder \'o n-Castillo , P., & Duc , P.-A. 2018, , 237, 36

    2018

  56. [64]

    R., Anderson , J., et al

    Piotto , G., Bedin , L. R., Anderson , J., et al. 2007, , 661, L53

    2007

  57. [65]

    2019, , 626, A56

    Posti , L., Fraternali , F., & Marasco , A. 2019, , 626, A56

    2019

  58. [66]

    2015, , 446, 2038

    Renaud , F., Bournaud , F., & Duc , P.-A. 2015, , 446, 2038

    2015

  59. [67]

    P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al

    Rey , M. P., Pontzen , A., Agertz , O., et al. 2022, , 511, 5672

    2022

  60. [68]

    M., Knapen , J

    Rom \'a n , J., S \'a nchez-Alarc \'o n , P. M., Knapen , J. H., & Peletier , R. 2023, , 671, L7

    2023

  61. [69]

    Saitoh , T. R. 2017, , 153, 85

    2017

  62. [70]

    R., Daisaka , H., Kokubo , E., et al

    Saitoh , T. R., Daisaka , H., Kokubo , E., et al. 2008, , 60, 667

    2008

  63. [71]

    2009, , 61, 481

    ---. 2009, , 61, 481

    2009

  64. [72]

    R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann , F., R \"o pke , F

    Seitenzahl , I. R., Ciaraldi-Schoolmann , F., R \"o pke , F. K., et al. 2013, , 429, 1156

    2013

  65. [73]

    Trancho , G., Bastian , N., Schweizer , F., & Miller , B. W. 2007, , 658, 993

    2007

  66. [74]

    D., Ostriker , J

    Tremaine , S. D., Ostriker , J. P., & Spitzer , Jr., L. 1975, , 196, 407

    1975

  67. [75]

    R., et al

    van Donkelaar , F., Mayer , L., Capelo , P. R., et al. 2024, , 529, 4104

    2024

  68. [76]

    2014, , 789, L39

    Wanajo , S., Sekiguchi , Y., Nishimura , N., et al. 2014, , 789, L39

    2014

  69. [77]

    L., van der Marel , R

    Watkins , L. L., van der Marel , R. P., Bellini , A., & Anderson , J. 2015, , 812, 149

    2015

  70. [78]

    C., & Schweizer , F

    Whitmore , B. C., & Schweizer , F. 1995, , 109, 960

    1995

  71. [79]

    L., Bekki , K., & McKenzie , M

    Williams , M. L., Bekki , K., & McKenzie , M. 2022, , 512, 4086

    2022

  72. [80]

    2008, , 672, L29

    Yong , D., & Grundahl , F. 2008, , 672, L29

    2008

  73. [81]

    2020, , 900, 152

    Zhang , H.-X., Smith , R., Oh , S.-H., et al. 2020, , 900, 152

    2020

  74. [82]

    Computer Modern (defalt font)

    \@bibitem \@bib@author\@prev@author \@set@biblabel \@lbibitem[#1] \@bib@parse#1()\@nil \@set@biblabel \@bib@parse#1(#2)#3\@nil \@bib@author #1 @edef\@bib@year @space#2 \@empty \@set@biblabel#1 \@bib@author\@empty \@latex@warning Author name should be given for reference entry ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.