Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Enhancing SED-Based Astrometric, Photometric, and Kinematic Studies of SAI 72 and SAI 75 Using Gaia DR3

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using Gaia DR3, the paper determines that open clusters SAI 72 and SAI 75 are young disc clusters born beyond the solar circle, with distances near 3.2 kpc, ages near 300 Myr, and masses of a few hundred Suns.

desk verdict A useful but uneven cluster analysis; SAI 75's kinematics are undermined by a proper motion that conflicts with the paper's own cited Gaia catalogs. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15341 v1 pith:C2LDNHJF submitted 2025-04-21 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Anwar Yousef Alzahrani , Aly Haroon , Waleed Elsanhoury , Deniz Cennet Ç{i}nar This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords openclustersSAI7275GaiaDR3stellarmembershipprobabilitiesspectralenergydistributionfittingGalacticorbitintegrationbirthradius
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 works out, in one consistent pipeline, the structural, photometric, and kinematic properties of two open clusters that have so far appeared mainly in survey catalogues. Using Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry, it identifies 112 members of SAI 72 and 115 of SAI 75, fits their colour-magnitude diagrams and spectral energy distributions, and integrates their orbits in a model Milky Way potential. The conclusion a sympathetic reader should take away is that both clusters are young thin-disc groups born outside the solar circle, at about 10.8 and 9.6 kpc from the Galactic centre, with nearly circular present-day orbits. That matters because well-characterised young clusters with known birth radii are direct tracers of where and how the outer disc is forming stars today.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a chain: membership selection by an automated cluster-analysis pipeline, using Bayesian membership probabilities from spatial and proper-motion distributions plus kernel-density centring and King-profile radial-density fits, produces a clean member list; Bayesian SED fitting with model averaging refines $E(B-V)$, metallicity, and distance; and the AD-diagram equations convert each member's proper motion, distance, and radial velocity into space-velocity components, whose apex gives the convergent point. That same mean motion, fed with position and distance into orbit integration in an axisymmetric Galactic potential with $R_\odot=8.20$ kpc and $V_\mathrm{rot}=220$ km s$^{-1}$, yields the orbital elements, $Z_{\max}$, and $R_\mathrm{Birth}$. The central identity doing the work is the proper-motion-to-space-velocity transformation; if the mean proper motion is wrong, the whole kinematic chain for that cluster is wrong.

What would settle it

For SAI 75, remeasure the cluster's mean proper motion using all 115 adopted members with full error covariance and a 2.19 arcmin radius mask; if the mean lands near $(-1.3,\+1.35)$ mas yr$^{-1}$ instead of $(-0.26,\+0.22)$ mas yr$^{-1}$, the cluster's velocities, orbit, and birth radius would need to be recalculated. The same check with measured radial velocities for a handful of members would settle which moving group the cluster belongs to.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the two little-studied open clusters SAI 72 and SAI 75 are coeval young stellar groups in the Milky Way's thin disc, and that combining Gaia DR3 astrometry with SED and isochrone fitting gives a self-consistent parameter set: 112 and 115 probable members, limiting radii of 2.35 and 2.19 arcmin, ages 316 and 302 Myr, distances 3160±80 and 3200±200 pc, total masses 612±174 and 465±90 $M_\odot$, and near-solar metallicities. From the mean proper motions and distances, the AD-diagram method yields convergent points, and backward orbit integration in a standard Milky Way potential returns nearly circular orbits: SAI 72 has eccentricity 0.02 and SAI 75 has eccentricity 0.24. The paper's headline conclusion is that both clusters were born beyond the solar circle, at $R_\mathrm{Birth}=10.825\pm0.068$ kpc and $9.583\pm0.231$ kpc, and reach maximum heights above the plane of only 109±9 pc and 232±24 pc, which places them in the young stellar disc population.

Load-bearing premise

The entire kinematic and birth-radius story for SAI 75 stands or falls on whether the cluster's true mean motion is about $(-0.26,\+0.22)$ milliarcseconds per year, as this paper assumes, or about $(-1.3,\+1.35)$, as the two most recent Gaia-based catalogues in its own Table 1 report.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SAI 72 and SAI 75 become two more well-measured young open clusters with homogeneous Gaia-based ages, distances, masses, and orbits at roughly 3.2 kpc.
  • Their small $Z_{\max}$ values, 109±9 pc and 232±24 pc, strengthen their assignment to the young thin disc and add kinematic tracers of that population.
  • Birth radii beyond the solar circle imply that star formation occurred in the outer disc and the clusters subsequently arrived at their present locations, a trajectory that models of radial migration and orbit evolution should reproduce.
  • The mass-function slopes of $\alpha=2.50\pm0.02$ and $2.26\pm0.01$ are close to the standard Salpeter value, so the estimated total masses are probably not dominated by dynamical stripping of low-mass stars.
  • The convergent points provide a reference for future radial-velocity and proper-motion follow-up of these clusters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the SAI 75 result is to recompute its mean proper motion from the full Gaia DR3 member sample inside the 2.19 arcmin radius with full covariance weighting; if the mean sits near the catalogue values of about $(-1.3,\+1.35)$ mas yr$^{-1}$ rather than the adopted $(-0.26,\+0.22)$ mas yr$^{-1}$, the cluster's orbital elements and birth radius would need to be re-derived.
  • Running the same pipeline over the other SAI clusters in the same sky region would show whether SAI 72 and SAI 75 are typical outer-disc clusters or unusual in their nearly circular orbits and birth radii.
  • If the birth radii hold up, these clusters become empirical anchors for the outer-disc metallicity gradient: near-solar-metallicity stars formed beyond the solar circle only about 300 Myr ago constrain how steep the gradient was at that epoch.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the open clusters SAI 72 and SAI 75 using Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry. It applies the ASteCA pipeline for membership selection, structural parameters, isochrone fitting, and mass/luminosity functions; ARIADNE for SED fitting; the AD-diagram method for convergent-point kinematics; and galpy orbit integration for Galactic orbital elements. The headline results are cluster parameters (112 and 115 members, limiting radii 2.35 and 2.19 arcmin, ages 316 and 302 Myr, distances 3160 and 3200 pc, masses 612 and 465 M_sun) and the dynamical claim that both clusters belong to the young stellar disk, with birth radii R_Birth = 10.825 +/- 0.068 kpc and 9.583 +/- 0.231 kpc.

Significance. If the derived kinematic parameters are correct, the paper would add two moderately characterized open clusters to the Gaia-era census of young disk clusters and demonstrate the use of SED fitting as a cross-check on isochrone distances. The study makes use of public, reproducible tools (ASteCA, ARIADNE, galpy) and provides extensive comparison tables against previous catalogues, which are strengths. However, the kinematic half of the paper is currently unsupported for SAI 75 because the proper motion adopted for that cluster is roughly 10 sigma away from the Gaia DR3-based catalog values quoted in the paper itself, and because the distance estimates used in different sections are internally inconsistent. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on resolving these discrepancies.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1.1, Tables 1 and 5] Table 5 adopts (mu_alpha*cos(delta), mu_delta) = (-0.26 +/- 0.05, 0.22 +/- 0.04) mas/yr for SAI 75, while Table 1 lists Castro-Ginard et al. (2022) values of (-1.31 +/- 0.09, 1.36 +/- 0.06) and Hunt & Reffert (2024) values of (-1.29, 1.35) mas/yr. This is an unaddressed ~10-sigma discrepancy in both components. Section 3.3.4 explicitly feeds the Table 5 proper motion into the galpy orbit integration, so the reported U, V, W, R_Birth, Z_max, eccentricity, and convergent point for SAI 75 all depend on this input. At the adopted distance of 3.2 kpc, the difference corresponds to roughly 15-17 km/s per transverse component, which is more than enough to change the orbital and birth-radius conclusions. The authors must either justify their proper motion measurement against these catalogues or re-run the kinematic analysis using the catalogue values and discuss the result.
  2. [§3.1.1, §3.2.2, Table 5] The paper reports three mutually inconsistent distance estimates for SAI 72: the parallax-based distance d_pi = 3548 +/- 60 pc in §3.1.1, the SED distance 3353 +/- 233 pc in §3.2.2, and the adopted isochrone distance 3160 +/- 80 pc in Table 5. The parallax value differs from the adopted value by 388 pc, about 3.9 sigma when the errors are combined, yet the text asserts consistency without quantitative explanation. Since the distance enters R_gc, X_sun, Y_sun, Z_sun, and the orbit integration, this discrepancy must be reconciled or the adopted distance explicitly justified.
  3. [§4] The conclusion states that 'SAI 72 formed within the solar circle, with a birth radius of 10.824 +/- 0.068 kpc', but 10.824 kpc is beyond the adopted solar Galactocentric radius of 8.20 kpc, and the abstract states that both clusters originated beyond the solar circle. This contradiction in the headline result needs to be fixed, and the wording in the conclusion is misleading as printed.
  4. [§3.3.2, Eqs. (9)-(11)] Equation (10) as printed appears to be a typo: the expression for V_y has the same angular structure as V_x, with only the leading sign changed, whereas the standard transformation requires terms such as +4.74 d mu_alpha* cos(alpha) and -4.74 d mu_delta sin(delta) sin(alpha). Because these equations feed the AD-diagram convergent point and the (U,V,W) components, the kinematic results should be re-derived from the correct transformation. In addition, the paper never specifies the radial velocities V_r used in these equations for individual members, so the input data for the space-velocity calculation are not fully documented.
  5. [§3.2.3, Table 6] Table 6 reports mean stellar masses of 5.46 +/- 1.55 M_sun for SAI 72 and 4.04 +/- 0.78 M_sun for SAI 75. For clusters with ages of 316 Myr and 302 Myr, such high mean masses are physically implausible: the turnoff mass at these ages is around 2-3 M_sun, and a 5.4 M_sun star would not be on the main sequence at 300 Myr. Since the total cluster masses in the same table are consistent with these means multiplied by the member counts, the mass function and mass-luminosity relation need to be re-examined, and the notation MC used for both total and mean mass should be clarified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The table header reads 'SAI 71 and SAI 75' but the paper studies SAI 72 and SAI 75; correct the typo.
  2. [§3.2.1] The sentence 'The color excess is found to be 0.376 +/- 0.043' is ambiguous because the preceding sentences quote E(B-V) = 0.292 +/- 0.034; specify that 0.376 is E(GBP-GRP).
  3. [Table 2] For SAI 75, the mean photometric errors in the (20,21] and (21,23] G-magnitude bins are 0.516 and 4.686 mag in GBP-GRP; the authors should comment on how these large uncertainties affect the completeness-limit choice at G = 20.5.
  4. [§3.2.2] The paper does not provide a machine-readable membership list or per-star SED parameters; including an electronic table would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Figure 13] The caption describes filled yellow circles and triangles, but the text in §3.3.4 does not explicitly identify these symbols; please align the caption with the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain uses independent data and standard transformations, with no load-bearing reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's main results (membership, radius, age, distance, mass, kinematics, orbit, birth radius) are produced by a multi-stage pipeline in which each stage consumes independent inputs: Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry are fed to ASteCA for membership and isochrone fitting; SED parameters are obtained with ARIADNE using Gaia EDR3 geometric distance priors from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) and then compared with, rather than derived from, the isochrone results; and orbital quantities are computed with galpy's MWPotential2014 from the adopted positions, distances, and mean proper motions. The 'within 1 sigma' consistency between SED and isochrone estimates is a cross-check, not a self-definitional equivalence. Self-citations are used for standard conversions such as E(GBP-GRP)=1.289xE(B-V) and Cartesian Galactic coordinate transformations, but those relations are not the target claims and are not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the cluster parameters. The large discrepancy between the fitted SAI 75 proper motion and the catalog values in Table 1 is a serious accuracy/validation concern, not a circularity, because the orbital conclusions follow from the adopted input rather than from assuming the conclusions. No step in the paper reduces, by construction, to its own input or to an unverified self-citation chain, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central claims rest on a chain of fitted quantities (age, distance, reddening, metallicity), on the adopted membership algorithm, on stellar model grids, and on an assumed Galactic potential. The heaviest unverified load is the membership/proper-motion assumption for SAI 75, which contradicts published Gaia-based catalogs cited in the paper itself.

free parameters (11)
  • log(age) SAI 72 = 8.50 +/- 0.013
    Fitted by ASteCA genetic-algorithm isochrone fitting; adopted as a result in Table 5.
  • log(age) SAI 75 = 8.48 +/- 0.066
    Fitted by ASteCA isochrone fitting; adopted as a result in Table 5.
  • distance SAI 72 = 3160 +/- 80 pc
    Adopted from ASteCA CMD distance-modulus fit (Table 5); parallax-based distance 3548 +/- 60 pc is not adopted.
  • distance SAI 75 = 3200 +/- 200 pc
    Adopted from ASteCA CMD fit (Table 5); SED Gaussian mean gives 3407 +/- 290 pc.
  • E(B-V) SAI 72 = 0.81 +/- 0.029 mag
    Fitted by ASteCA; SED mean gives 0.77 +/- 0.31 mag.
  • E(B-V) SAI 75 = 0.29 +/- 0.034 mag
    Fitted by ASteCA; SED mean gives 0.20 +/- 0.09 mag.
  • metallicity Z SAI 72 = 0.01349 +/- 0.0023
    Converted from SED [Fe/H] = -0.05 via the Bovy formula; used as input to the final isochrone fit.
  • metallicity Z SAI 75 = 0.01920 +/- 0.00028
    Converted from SED [Fe/H] = 0.10 via the Bovy formula; used as input to the final isochrone fit.
  • Mean stellar mass (MC) = 5.46 +/- 1.55 and 4.04 +/- 0.78 Msun
    Quoted in Table 6; these values are implausible for stars with MG ~ 5.2 and directly set the total cluster masses.
  • MF power-law slope alpha = 2.50 +/- 0.02 and 2.26 +/- 0.01
    Fitted to the mass distributions; quoted uncertainties are unrealistically small for ~110 member stars.
  • Mass-luminosity polynomial coefficients a0..a4 = not reported
    Eq. (5) gives the polynomial used to convert MG to mass, but the actual coefficients are omitted, preventing reproduction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometric and photometric measurements for sources in the 40-arcmin extraction fields are accurate at the quoted precisions.
    The membership, distance, and proper-motion analysis uses Gaia DR3 as ground truth; no external validation is provided beyond citing the catalog. Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption ASteCA membership probabilities with the P >= 50% threshold separate true cluster members from field stars.
    Membership is the backbone for CMD, SED, and orbit analysis; the threshold is taken from Perren et al. 2020 without a completeness check. Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption PARSEC v1.2S evolutionary tracks and Phoenix V2 atmosphere models reliably represent stars in these clusters.
    Age, distance, reddening, and SED-derived parameters depend on these model grids. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 with R0 = 8.20 kpc, Vrot = 220 km/s, and Z0 = 25 pc describes the Galactic potential for orbit integration.
    Birth radii, eccentricities, and Zmax are computed within this assumed potential. Section 3.3.4.
  • domain assumption Standard extinction conversions E(GBP-GRP) = 1.289 E(B-V) and AG = 2.74 E(B-V) hold along these sight lines.
    These empirical relations are adopted without per-cluster verification of the extinction law. Section 3.2.1.
  • domain assumption Radial velocities assigned to cluster members are appropriate for the AD-diagram and space-velocity calculations.
    The paper does not describe per-star Gaia RVS measurements, so the analysis appears to use catalog mean radial velocities for all members. Section 3.3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing SED-Based Astrometric, Photometric, and Kinematic Studies of SAI 72 and SAI 75 Using Gaia DR3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2LDNHJF

@misc{pith2026250415341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing SED-Based Astrometric, Photometric, and Kinematic Studies of SAI 72 and SAI 75 Using Gaia DR3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2LDNHJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15341}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the open clusters SAI 72 and SAI 75 using Gaia DR3 data, employing the Automated Stellar Cluster Analysis (ASteCA) tool to determine their structural and fundamental properties, including center coordinates, size, age, distance, mass, luminosity, and kinematics. Based on membership probabilities (P >= 50%), we identified 112 and 115 stars as probable members of SAI 72 and SAI 75, respectively. Radial density profile (RDP) analysis yielded cluster radii of 2.35 arcmin for SAI 72 and 2.19 arcmin for SAI 75. The spectral energy distribution (SED) fitting was performed to refine metallicity, distance, and color excess parameters, ensuring consistency within 1 sigma of isochrone-based estimates. Isochrone fitting of the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) suggests ages of 316 Myr and 302 Myr, with corresponding distances of 3160 +/- 80 pc and 3200 +/- 200 pc. We derived their Galactic positions, projected distances (X_sun, Y_sun), and vertical displacements (Z_sun). Mass function analysis estimates cluster masses of 612 +/- 174 solar masses for SAI 72 and 465 +/- 90 solar masses for SAI 75. Kinematic studies indicate that both clusters have reached dynamical equilibrium. The AD diagram method provided convergent point coordinates of (A, D)_o = (97.016 +/- 0.09, 4.573 +/- 0.05) for SAI 72 and (99.677 +/- 0.10, 1.243 +/- 0.09) for SAI 75. Orbital analysis confirms that both clusters follow nearly circular trajectories with low eccentricities and minor variations in apogalactic and perigalactic distances. Furthermore, we determine that SAI 72 and SAI 75 originated beyond the solar circle at R_Birth = 10.825 +/- 0.068 kpc and R_Birth = 9.583 +/- 0.231 kpc, respectively. Their maximum heights above the Galactic plane, Z_max, are 109 +/- 9 pc for SAI 72 and 232 +/- 24 pc for SAI 75, reinforcing their classification as part of the young stellar disc population.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Analysis of Newly Catalogued Open Star Cluster UPK~220 with Gaia DR3 and TESS: Discovering Member Variable Stars

    Akkaya Oralhan, ˙I., Kayhan, C., & Arslan, ¨O. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.03861

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    2003, Journal of The Astronomical Society of Egypt 11:27-38,2003, 11, 27

    Ali, A., Sharaf, M., & Abdel-Rhman, H. 2003, Journal of The Astronomical Society of Egypt 11:27-38,2003, 11, 27

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    L., Hendy, Y

    Badawy, W., Tadross, A. L., Hendy, Y. H., Ismail, M. N., & Mouner, A. 2023, Revista Mexicana de Astronomıa y Astrofısica, 59, 155

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  5. [5]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 482, 1471

    Bisht, D., Yadav, R., Ganesh, S., et al . 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 482, 1471

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1167

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., Sharma, S., Tepper-Garcia, T., et al . 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1167

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 89

    Bovy, J., & Tremaine, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 89

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al . 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A93

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Jordi, C., Vallenari, A., et al . 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, A93

    2018

  2. [10]

    A., & Moitinho, A

    Carraro, G., V´ azquez, R. A., & Moitinho, A. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 482, 777

    2008

  3. [11]

    Casagrande, L., & VandenBerg, D. A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety: Letters, 479, L102

    2018

  4. [12]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A118

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., et al . 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A118

    2022

  5. [13]

    2024, AJ, 167, 12 ¸ Cınar, D

    Cavallo, L., Spina, L., Carraro, G., et al. 2024, AJ, 167, 12 ¸ Cınar, D. C., Ta¸ sdemir, S., Koc, S., & Iyer, S. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 1

    2024

  6. [14]

    2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 371, 115

    Chupina, N., Reva, V., & Vereshchagin, S. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 371, 115

    2001

  7. [15]

    V., Reva, V

    Chupina, N. V., Reva, V. G., & Vereshchagin, S. V. 2006, A&A, 451, 909

    2006

  8. [16]

    S., & L´ epine, J

    Dias, W. S., & L´ epine, J. R. D. 2005, The Astro- physical Journal, 629, 825

    2005

  9. [17]

    2022, Journal of Astrophysics and As- tronomy, 43, 26

    Awad, Z. 2022, Journal of Astrophysics and As- tronomy, 43, 26

    2022

  10. [18]

    2016, New Astronomy, 49, 32

    Elsanhoury, W., Haroon, A., Chupina, N., et al . 2016, New Astronomy, 49, 32

    2016

  11. [19]

    2018, Astrophysics and space science, 363, 1

    Elsanhoury, W., Postnikova, E., Chupina, N.,et al. 2018, Astrophysics and space science, 363, 1

    2018

  12. [20]

    H., Haroon, A

    Elsanhoury, W. H., Haroon, A. A., Elkholy, E. A., & ¸ Cınar, D. C. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 21

    2025

  13. [21]

    S., & Santos, Jr., J

    Angelo, M. S., & Santos, Jr., J. F. C. 2021, MN- RAS, 502, L90 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al . 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al . 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et...

    2021

  14. [22]

    V., Koposov, S

    Glushkova, E. V., Koposov, S. E., Zolotukhin, I. Y., et al . 2010, Astronomy Letters, 36, 75

    2010

  15. [23]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A4

    Hao, C., Xu, Y., Wu, Z., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 660, A4

    2022

  16. [24]

    J., Xu, Y., Hou, L

    Hao, C. J., Xu, Y., Hou, L. G., et al . 2021, A&A, 652, A102

    2021

  17. [25]

    2017, Astrophysics, 60, 173

    Haroon, A., Ismaill, H., & Elsanhoury, W. 2017, Astrophysics, 60, 173

    2017

  18. [26]

    S., & ¸ Cınar, D

    Saad, A. S., & ¸ Cınar, D. C. 2025, Physica Scripta, 100, 055006

    2025

  19. [27]

    2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891 J

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891 J. Astrophys. Astr. (0000)000: #### Page 19 of # ####

    2019

  20. [28]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42

    2024

  21. [29]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al . 2013, A&A, 553, A6 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al . 2008, ApJ, 673, 864

    2013

  22. [30]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., R¨oser, S., & Scholz, R. D. 2016, A&A, 585, A101

    2016

  23. [31]

    1962, The Astronomical Journal, 67, 471

    King, I. 1962, The Astronomical Journal, 67, 471

    1962

  24. [32]

    King, I. R. 1966, The Astronomical Journal, 71, 64

    1966

  25. [33]

    Koposov, S., Glushkova, E., & Zolotukhin, I. Y. 2008, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 486, 771

    2008

  26. [34]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 57

    2003

  27. [35]

    Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., & Gieles, M. 2006, A&A, 455, L17

    2006

  28. [36]

    2024, A&A, 686, A215

    Li, C., Zhong, J., Qin, S., et al . 2024, A&A, 686, A215

    2024

  29. [37]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 46

    Liu, D., Xu, Y., Hao, C., et al . 2023, ApJS, 268, 46

    2023

  30. [38]

    V., & Popova, M

    Loktin, A. V., & Popova, M. E. 2017, Astrophysical Bulletin, 72, 257

    2017

  31. [39]

    2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 64

    Maurya, J., Joshi, Y., Elsanhoury, W., & Sharma, S. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 162, 64

    2021

  32. [40]

    1958, Ciel et Terre, Vol

    Melchior, P. 1958, Ciel et Terre, Vol. 74, p. 290, 74, 290

    1958

  33. [41]

    A., Dias, W

    Monteiro, H., Barros, D. A., Dias, W. S., & L´ epine, J. R. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, 656474

    2021

  34. [42]

    I., Giorgi, E., Moitinho, A., et al

    Perren, G. I., Giorgi, E., Moitinho, A., et al . 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 637, A95

    2020

  35. [43]

    I., Vazquez, R

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

    2015

  36. [44]

    G.,et al

    Prusti, T., De Bruijne, J., Brown, A. G.,et al. 2016, Astronomy & astrophysics, 595, A1

    2016

  37. [45]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, The Astrophysical Journal, 121, 161

    1955

  38. [46]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  39. [47]

    H., Ann, H

    Sim, G., Lee, S. H., Ann, H. B., & Kim, S. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06872

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163

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

    2006

  41. [49]

    2018, A&A, 619, A155

    Soubiran, C., Cantat-Gaudin, T., Romero-G´ omez, M., et al . 2018, A&A, 619, A155

    2018

  42. [50]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3132 Spitzer Jr, L., & Hart, M. H. 1971, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 166, p. 483, 166, 483 Ta¸ sdemir, S., & ¸ Cınar, D. C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17235 Ta¸ sdemir, S., ¸ Cınar, D. C., Canbay, R.,et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:250...

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    2021, A&A, 647, A19 Tun¸ cel G¨u¸ ctekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., & Ak, S

    Tarricq, Y., Soubiran, C., Casamiquela, L., et al . 2021, A&A, 647, A19 Tun¸ cel G¨u¸ ctekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., & Ak, S. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1360

    2021

  44. [52]

    I., & Jenkins, J

    Vines, J. I., & Jenkins, J. S. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2719 ˇSableviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e, I., Vanseviˇ cius, V., Kodaira, K.,et al. 2006, Baltic Astronomy, 15, 547

    2022

  45. [53]

    2014, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 35, 143

    Yadav, R., Leonova, S., Sagar, R., & Glushkova, E. 2014, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 35, 143

    2014

  46. [54]

    2023, Physics and As- tronomy Reports, 1, 65

    Yontan, T., & Canbay, R. 2023, Physics and As- tronomy Reports, 1, 65

    2023

  47. [55]

    2022, The Revista Mexicana de Astronom´ ıa y Astrof´ ısica, 58, 333

    Yontan, T., ¸ Cakmak, T., Bilir, S.,et al . 2022, The Revista Mexicana de Astronom´ ıa y Astrof´ ısica, 58, 333

    2022

  48. [56]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 624, A34

    Zhong, J., Chen, L., Kouwenhoven, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 624, A34

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.