Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Candidate red supergiants from Gaia DR3 BPRP spectra: From the Perseus to the Scutum-Crux spiral arms

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 335 new red supergiant candidates map the Milky Way's spiral arms

desk verdict Useful new catalog of 335 candidate RSGs, but the 'highly probable' label outruns the paper's own ~58% purity estimate; send to review with revision requests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07097 v1 pith:IMME3VC7 submitted 2025-06-08 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

M. Messineo (DIFA - Uni Bo , INAF - OAS Bo) This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords redsupergiantsGaiaDR3BPRPspectra2MASSMilkyWayspiralstructureinfraredextinctionstellarspectralclassification
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 enlarge the census of Milky Way red supergiants — the cool, luminous late stage of stars born with more than roughly eight solar masses — by selecting bright late-type stars from Gaia DR3 astrometry combined with 2MASS infrared photometry. It reports 335 K- and M-type candidates not included in earlier RSG catalogs, 135 of them classified here for the first time using Gaia's low-resolution BPRP spectra. Bolometric luminosities place 282 of the candidates in the region of the luminosity-temperature diagram that previous work treats as highly probable red supergiants, a 40 percent increase over the earlier count. The paper argues that the spatial distribution of the enlarged sample traces known spiral-arm over-densities and reveals a new population of highly probable red supergiants near the Scutum-Centaurus arm.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is a color-magnitude criterion: the absolute $K_s$ magnitude versus the extinction-free color $W_{\rm RP,BP-RP}-W_{K_s,J-K_s}$, with two boundary curves that separate RSGs from O-rich AGB stars on one side and C-rich stars on the other. For the 135 stars without published classifications, spectral types are inferred by dereddening Gaia BPRP spectra under an assumed M1 intrinsic color ($H-K_s=0.22$ mag) and a near-infrared extinction power law of index $-2.1$, then matching the result to reference spectra; temperatures are converted to luminosities through an established TiO-based temperature scale and a set of bolometric corrections. The paper also uses DUSTY radiative-transfer models of the infrared SED to estimate each candidate's circumstellar envelope optical depth at 2.2 $\mu$m, so interstellar extinction can be separated from the total.

What would settle it

High-resolution spectroscopy of the 135 candidates classified only from BPRP spectra would settle the claim: if a substantial fraction of them show surface gravities typical of ordinary giants rather than supergiants, or radial velocities that do not follow the terminal-velocity ridge near the Scutum-Centaurus tangent at $l\approx-50^\circ$, then part of the reported 40 percent census increase and the new spiral-arm population would be AGB contamination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a clean sample of 335 O-rich K/M-type red supergiant candidates can be pulled out of the Gaia DR3 and 2MASS catalogs using extinction-free colors, parallax quality, and spectral typing from BPRP spectra. After correcting for interstellar and circumstellar extinction, 282 candidates fall in the areas of the luminosity-versus-temperature plane reserved for highly probable RSGs, and their bolometric magnitudes are mostly $M_{\rm bol}<-5$ mag. Because only 12 of the 335 stars appear in a recent independent Gaia RSG catalog, the paper concludes that the known census was substantially incomplete. On the Galactic plane, the enlarged sample shows the populous Perseus arm association, a concentration at the Sagittarius arm tangent point, and a previously unseen group of highly probable RSGs at the Scutum-Centaurus arm tangent point.

Load-bearing premise

The selection depends on assigning a fixed intrinsic $H-K_s$ color of 0.22 mag to an M1 star and on dereddening with a near-infrared extinction power law of index $-2.1$; if that zero point or extinction law is wrong, the inferred spectral types, luminosities, and the claimed spiral-arm over-densities shift enough to admit AGB stars into the sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Gaia-based census of highly probable red supergiants grows by about 40 percent, giving upcoming spectroscopic surveys a larger target list of bona fide candidates.
  • The new stars extend the RSG map deeper into the inner Galaxy, adding a population at the Scutum-Centaurus arm that previous catalogs missed.
  • The overlap of only 12 stars with a recent independent RSG catalog indicates that Gaia-based photometric selection is far from saturated.
  • The longitude-velocity concentrations at the Sagittarius and Scutum-Centaurus tangent points provide independent anchors for models of Galactic spiral structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's own cluster-age statistics suggest that only about 58-66 percent of cluster-associated candidates are young enough to be red supergiants, the 40 percent census increase is best read as an upper envelope pending spectroscopic confirmation.
  • The same BPRP-matching pipeline could be pushed to fainter magnitudes once future Gaia releases improve parallaxes, which would likely enlarge the Scutum-Centaurus population and possibly reach the near side of the Galactic bar.
  • If the fixed M1 zero-point color is revised by future interferometric or spectroscopic studies, the entire sample's spectral types and luminosities can be re-derived without reselecting the stars, so the catalog remains useful even if individual classifications change.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Messineo presents a new sample of 335 candidate red supergiants (cRSGs) selected from Gaia DR3 and 2MASS using photometric color cuts, parallax quality, and an extinction-free Ks criterion. Literature spectral types are supplemented with BPRP-based spectral classification for 135 previously unclassified stars; extinctions are derived from infrared colors and DUSTY envelope models; luminosities are computed with three methods and Monte Carlo errors. Of the 335 stars, 282 fall in areas A and B of the Messineo & Brown luminosity-temperature diagram (39 in area A, 243 in area B). The paper claims this is a roughly 40% increase in the number of highly probable RSGs and identifies, by visual inspection, over-densities associated with the Perseus, Sagittarius, and a new Scutum-Centaurus arm population.

Significance. Strengths: the catalog is useful for planning spectroscopic follow-up and is delivered electronically; only 12 of the 335 candidates overlap with the Healy et al. (2024) catalog, so it adds substantially new candidates; the BPRP-based classification and the Monte Carlo propagation of photometric, distance, and spectral-type errors are clearly described; the comparison of total AKs with the Green et al. (2019) 3D map is a useful external check. If the high purity asserted for the sample were established, the paper would make a valuable contribution to the Galactic RSG census. However, the central claims, namely a 40% increase in highly probable RSGs and a novel Scutum-Centaurus overdensity, depend on sample purity and on a quantitative demonstration that the overdensity is not a selection artifact. These are not yet established by the analyses in Sections 2.4 and 3.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections 2.4 and 4] Section 2.4 finds that 18% of the new cRSGs are cluster members and that, among these, only 58% belong to clusters younger than 41 Myr while about 40% are in older clusters likely to contain AGB contaminants. Section 4 then states that 'by extrapolating these percentages to the entire sample, 58% should be true RSGs.' This extrapolation is not justified: the cluster-member subsample is selected by cluster membership and is not representative of the field population, so the field-star AGB contamination rate may differ. The abstract's 'highly probable RSGs' and the '40% increase' claim require a direct estimate of purity for the whole 282-star sample, for example by cross-matching with AGB/Mira or variable-star catalogs, by checking SiO/OH maser emission, or by spectroscopic follow-up of a random subset. Please also state the purity of the 135 BPRP-classified subset separately, since these stars have no independent literature classification.
  2. [Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3] The BPRP classification of the 135 previously unclassified stars assumes an intrinsic H-Ks=0.22 mag for an M1 star and a single NIR extinction law with index -2.1, with the classification and extinction estimates iterated to convergence. Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3 state that a change of one spectral subtype changes AKs by about 0.03 mag and Mbol by about 0.07-0.09 mag, and that the inferred types are uncertain by up to two subtypes; the implied systematic shifts can reach roughly 0.16 mag in AKs and 0.2 mag in Mbol. This is large enough to move stars across the area B boundary at Mbol=-5.0 mag and to change the membership of the claimed Scutum-Centaurus overdensity. Because the de-reddening and the spectral type are derived iteratively from the same data, agreement with literature types for the known subset does not by itself validate the extinction-law zero point. Please test the robustness of the final sample and of the overdensity to alternative intrinsic colors (for example, H-Ks=0.30 for later M types) and to extinction-law indices in the range -1.9 to -2.1, and report how many stars remain in areas A and B under these variations.
  3. [Section 3 and Figure 11] The claimed new population in the Scutum-Centaurus arm is identified by visual inspection of the XY and l-v diagrams, with the paper noting 'Despite the small numbers, this appearance shows a remarkable resemblance...'. No significance test, completeness correction, or selection-function model is provided, and the feature is not shown to survive after removing stars likely to be AGBs. Given that the sample is selected through Gaia parallax quality, 2MASS color cuts, and model-dependent extinction corrections, an apparent overdensity could arise from distance uncertainties, extinction gradients, or Galactic selection effects. Please quantify the orange feature relative to a control field or a synthetic/foreground model, and provide the number of stars and their area A/B membership before and after plausible AGB removal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract ends with the line 'Conclusions.' with no following text; either complete the conclusions or remove this placeholder.
  2. [Section 2.2.2] The section title 'Envelop extinction' should read 'Envelope extinction'.
  3. [Section 2.2] The text says spectral types were retrieved for 279 stars, but the listed numbers sum to 280 (185 M + 22 K + 20 C + 32 S + 14 F-G + 7 early-type); please correct the total or one of the individual counts.
  4. [Figure 4 and text] The red histogram is described in the text as stars with trimmed range mag g fov larger than 0.3 mag, while the figure caption says '< 0.5 mag'; please make the threshold and notation consistent.
  5. [Section 2.4] The sentence 'all but three cRSGs are younger than 300 Myr' should refer to clusters, not cRSGs, given the preceding discussion of cluster ages.
  6. [Abstract and Section 2.3] The phrase 'brighter than Mbol=-5 mag' is ambiguous; please use the explicit inequality Mbol < -5 mag, consistent with the area B definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new RSG-candidate sample is grounded in external photometry, parallaxes and literature spectral types; the self-citations are methodological calibration, not load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a catalog of 335 bright late-type stars selected from Gaia DR3 and 2MASS, with luminosities obtained from Bailer-Jones distances and three independent bolometric estimates (BC_Ks, trapezoidal SED integration, DUSTY models) that agree to within 0.23 mag. The selection cone, extinction-free color, and NIR extinction law are adopted from the author's prior work (Messineo & Brown 2019; Messineo 2023, 2024), and the envelope-correction factor in Sect. 2.2.2 is fitted so that AKs(int)=AKs(tot)-0.3*tau2.2 agrees with AKs(Bay19) and AKs(Mes24). These are calibration inputs, not predictions, and the resulting correction is small (<=0.27 mag), so they do not force the central sample claims. The BPRP spectral classifications for 135 stars are anchored to reference spectra and validated against 279 stars with literature types. The nearest thing to an internal circularity concern is quantitative, not definitional: Sect. 2.4 reports that only 58% of cluster-associated cRSGs have cluster ages younger than 41 Myr and then extrapolates this to the full sample, which weakens the 'highly probable RSG' label and the '40% increase' wording; the Scutum-Centaurus overdensity is also identified visually without a significance test. These are correctness/purity caveats, not cases where a derived quantity is equal to its input by construction.

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

The catalog depends on several externally supplied or hand-chosen quantities. The central claim does not introduce new physics, but the selection relies on assumptions inherited from prior work by the same author.

free parameters (4)
  • envelope_extinction_factor = 0.3
    Chosen to match AKs(Mes24) and AKs(Bay19) for 16 stars and to avoid negative interstellar extinction (§2.2.2).
  • extinction_law_index = -2.1
    Assumed power-law index for NIR extinction, adopted from Messineo (2024); affects all de-reddening and luminosities (§2.2.1).
  • intrinsic_H-Ks_M1 = 0.22 mag
    Initial assumed naked color of an M1 star used as a zero-point for extinction estimation (§2.2.1).
  • selection_cone_boundaries
    Hand-drawn curves in the MK versus W color diagram separating RSGs from AGBs (§2, Fig. 1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spectral types inferred from BPRP spectra are accurate to within two spectral subtypes
    Used to assign types to 135 stars and to propagate temperature and extinction errors (§2.2.1).
  • domain assumption Interstellar extinction can be approximated by total extinction for the majority of the sample
    Assumed in §2.2.2; envelope correction is applied only to a subset with visible infrared excess.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallactic distances from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) are reliable for these bright, red stars
    All distances and luminosities depend on these parallaxes (§2.1).
  • domain assumption The definitions of areas A and B (AGB limit at Mbol=-7.1) correctly separate RSGs from AGBs
    Used to define 'highly probable RSGs' and to compute the 40% increase (§1, §2.3).
  • domain assumption The Cordes & Lazio (2002) spiral arm model is adequate for interpreting the XY distribution
    Used as the background model for identifying arm over-densities (§3, Fig. 11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Candidate red supergiants from Gaia DR3 BPRP spectra: From the Perseus to the Scutum-Crux spiral arms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMME3VC7

@misc{pith2026250607097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Candidate red supergiants from Gaia DR3 BPRP spectra: From the Perseus to the Scutum-Crux spiral arms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMME3VC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07097}
}
read the original abstract

Context. Our position within the Galactic plane and the dust obscuration make it challenging to retrieve a true picture of the Milky Way's morphology. While the Milky Way has been recognized as a barred spiral galaxy since the 1960s, there is still uncertainty about the exact number of spiral arms it contains. Currently, our understanding of the Galaxy is evolving thanks to the unprecedented detail provided by Gaia's parallactic distances. Aims. To shed light on the spatial distribution of red supergiants (RSGs) on the Disk and their uniformity of parameters across it, a census of Galactic RSGs detected by Gaia is needed. Methods. Candidate RSGs were extracted from the combined Gaia DR3 and 2MASS catalogs using color criteria and parallactic distances. The sample includes 335 stars that were not included in catalogs of previously known RSGs detected by Gaia DR3. Interstellar and circumstellar extinction values were estimated from the infrared bands. Spectral types were collected from Simbad or VIZIER databases and, for 135 candidates, were inferred from the Gaia DR3 BPRP spectra. Stellar luminosities were inferred using photometric measurements and the Gaia DR3 distances. Results. The analysis yielded a genuine sample of O-rich late-type stars, and the calculated luminosities confirm that the sample is mostly made of stars brighter than Mbol=-5 mag. This new sample represents a 40% increase in the number of highly probable RSGs compared to previous studies. When looking at the X and Y distribution on the Galactic plane, beside the populous Perseus associations of RSGs and the Sagittarius group of RSGs, a novel population of highly probable RSGs populating the more distant Scutum-Centaurus arm appears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MK versus WRP,BP−RP−WKS,J−KS < 4 colors of 2MASS stars brighter than Ks−1.311 × (H−Ks−0.2) < 8 mag and with good Gaia parallax. Selected cRSGs (in red and orange) lie in the cone enclosed by the two curves. The dotted cyan curve indicates a rough separation between O-rich AGB stars and C-rich AGB stars (to the right). The long-dashed red curve separates RSGs from O-rich AGBs and S-type stars. Stars included in the c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two examples of BPRP spectra. The target spectrum is shown with a black curve, and the reference spectrum with the dashed red curve. The reference spectrum was brought to the target’s extinction, which is estimated in the infrared. Extinction variations of ∆AKs= ±0.05 mag and ±0.10 are indicated with orange dotted and green dashed curves, respectively. Gaia source ids are given in the figure labels. estimated with t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Estimated AKs (tot) values versus 3D dust map AKs (Bay19) values. Center panel: AKs (tot)-AKs (env) values versus 3D dust map AKs (Bay19) values. Right panel: For 16 stars with Teff< 3600 K and τ2.2 > 0.1, the AKs (tot)−AKs (env) values versus AKs (Mes24) values are plotted. K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 Spectral type 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 N 335 cRSGs trimmed_range_mag_rp > 0.3 [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of spectral types of 335 late-type stars an￾alyzed. The histogram of stars with trimmed range mag g fov < 0.5 mag is shown in red. Precisely, as seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Luminosities versus Teff of newly selected stars. Evolutionary tracks with solar metallicity and rotation by Ekstr ¨om et al. (2012) are over-plotted. temperature scale, and the BCK of Levesque et al. (2005). The infrared extinction curve was approximated with a power …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Empirical BCJ values (Mbol(DUSTY) − (2MASS.J − 3.208 × AKs (int) − DM)) are plotted versus inferred AK(env.). For supergiants (log(g)=0.5) of solar metallicity and Teff of 3200, 3900, and 4500 K, the theoretical BCJ calculated with the DUSTY simulation and Allard’s mod…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panel (a): Differences between BCs in J, H, and Ks bands inferred from the NextGen models of Allard et al. (2011) with log10(g)=0.5, [M/H]=0.5 dex, and Teff ranging from 2600 to 4500 K in steps of 100 K; and the BCs inferred from the same set of models, but with [M/H]=…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Right panel: XY view of stars located in areas A and B of Mbol versus Teff diagram of Messineo & Brown (2019) and newly selected Gaia-2MASS cRSGs, which are also located in areas A and B (red dots). The background grayscale image is the artistic XY view of the Galacti…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Upper panel: XY view of cRSGs from areas A and B of Messineo & Brown (2019), along with new Gaia-2MASS cRSGs. A distance of 8.5 kpc is adopted, as in the work of Ocker & Cordes (2024). Green filled circles indicate stars lo￾cated on the large over-density of RSGs of t…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, A&A, 664, A45

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

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 448, 16th Cambridge Worksho p on Cool

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2008, A&A, 492, 277

    Bayo, A., Rodrigo, C., Barrado Y Navascu´ es, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 492, 277

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Bessell, M. S. & Brett, J. M. 1988, PASP , 100, 1134

    work page 1988

  6. [6]

    & Anders, F

    Cantat-Gaudin, T. & Anders, F. 2020, A&A, 633, A99

    2020

  7. [7]

    2018, A&A, 618, A93

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Jordi, C., V allenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A93

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345 , 245

    1989

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Caron, G., Mo ffat, A. F. J., St-Louis, N., Wade, G. A., & Lester, J. B. 2003, AJ , 126, 1415

    2003

  2. [10]

    2022, A&A, 661 , A118

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

    2022

  3. [11]

    2023, ApJS, 266, 36

    Chi, H., Wang, F., Wang, W., Deng, H., & Li, Z. 2023, ApJS, 266, 36

    2023

  4. [12]

    2024, AJ, 167, 23 0

    Chun, S.-H., Myeong, G., Lee, J.-J., & Oh, H. 2024, AJ, 167, 23 0

    2024

  5. [13]

    L., Meade, M

    Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, PASP , 121, 213

    2009

  6. [14]

    S., Negueruela, I., Crowther, P

    Clark, J. S., Negueruela, I., Crowther, P . A., & Goodwin, S. P. 2005, A&A, 434, 949

    2005

  7. [15]

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv:astro-ph /0207156

    2002

  8. [16]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources

    2003

  9. [17]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P . 2001, ApJ, 547, 792

    2001

  10. [18]

    F., Kudritzki, R.-P ., et al

    Davies, B., Figer, D. F., Kudritzki, R.-P ., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 781

    2007

  11. [19]

    2013, ApJ, 767 , 3 de Jong, R

    Davies, B., Kudritzki, R.-P ., Plez, B., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767 , 3 de Jong, R. S., Bellido-Tirado, O., Chiappini, C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Seri es, V ol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astron...

    2013

  12. [20]

    S., Monteiro, H., & Assafin, M

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., & Assafin, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5184

    2018

  13. [21]

    & Levesque, E

    Dicenzo, B. & Levesque, E. M. 2019, AJ, 157, 167

    2019

  14. [22]

    P ., Price, S

    Egan, M. P ., Price, S. D., Kraemer, K. E., et al. 2003, VizieR O nline Data Catalog, 5114 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P ., et al. 2012, A&A,537, A146

    2003

  15. [23]

    & Gerhard, O

    Englmaier, P . & Gerhard, O. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 512

    1999

  16. [24]

    F., MacKenty, J

    Figer, D. F., MacKenty, J. W., Robberto, M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 643, 1166 Gaia Collaboration, V allenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 20 23, A&A, 674, A1

    2006

  17. [25]

    Z., Davies, B., Kudritzki, R., Bergemann, M., & Ple z, B

    Gazak, J. Z., Davies, B., Kudritzki, R., Bergemann, M., & Ple z, B. 2014, ApJ, 788, 58

    2014

  18. [26]

    1989, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Gehrz, R. 1989, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 135, Interstellar Dus t, ed. L. J. Allamandola & A. G. G. M. Tielens, 445

    1989

  19. [27]

    Y ., Pitts, P

    Gezari, D. Y ., Pitts, P . S., Schmitz, M., & Mead, J. M. 1996, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2209

    1996

  20. [28]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkb einer, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

    2019

  21. [29]

    Gutermuth, R. A. & Heyer, M. 2015, AJ, 149, 64

    2015

  22. [30]

    J., Sevenster, M

    Habing, H. J., Sevenster, M. N., Messineo, M., van de V en, G., & Kuijken, K. 2006, A&A, 458, 151

    2006

  23. [31]

    J., Xu, Y ., Wu, Z

    Hao, C. J., Xu, Y ., Wu, Z. Y ., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A4

    2022

  24. [32]

    2024, MNRA S, 529, 3630

    Healy, S., Horiuchi, S., Colomer Molla, M., et al. 2024, MNRA S, 529, 3630

    2024

  25. [33]

    Hou, L. G. & Han, J. L. 2014, A&A, 569, A125

    2014

  26. [34]

    Howarth, I. D. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1515

    2011

  27. [35]

    Hunt, E. L. & Re ffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42

    2024

  28. [36]

    1999, arXiv:astro-ph /9910475

    Ivezic, Z., Nenkova, M., & Elitzur, M. 1999, arXiv:astro-ph /9910475

    1999

  29. [37]

    2023, A&A, 674 , A5

    Katz, D., Sartoretti, P ., Guerrier, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674 , A5

    2023

  30. [38]

    1983, A&A, 128, 84

    Koornneef, J. 1983, A&A, 128, 84

    1983

  31. [39]

    Levesque, E. M. 2018, ApJ, 867, 155

    2018

  32. [40]

    M., Massey, P ., Olsen, K

    Levesque, E. M., Massey, P ., Olsen, K. A. G., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 973

    2005

  33. [41]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    Limongi, M. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabt i & P . Murdin, 513 Ma´ ız Apell´ aniz, J., Pantaleoni Gonz´ alez, M., & Barb´ a, R. H. 2021, A&A, 649, A13

    2017

  34. [42]

    E., Prsa, A., Torres, G., et al

    Mamajek, E. E., Prsa, A., Torres, G., et al. 2015, arXiv e-pri nts, arXiv:1510.07674

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2004, PhD thesis, University of Leiden, Nether lands

    Messineo, M. 2004, PhD thesis, University of Leiden, Nether lands

    2004

  36. [44]

    2023, A&A, 671, A148

    Messineo, M. 2023, A&A, 671, A148

    2023

  37. [45]

    2024, A&A, 686, A222

    Messineo, M. 2024, A&A, 686, A222

    2024

  38. [46]

    & Brown, A

    Messineo, M. & Brown, A. G. A. 2019, AJ, 158, 20

    2019

  39. [47]

    & Brown, A

    Messineo, M. & Brown, A. G. A. 2021, zenodo

    2021

  40. [48]

    F., et al

    Messineo, M., Davies, B., Figer, D. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 41

    2011

  41. [49]

    F., Kudritzki, R.-P ., et al

    Messineo, M., Figer, D. F., Kudritzki, R.-P ., et al. 2021, AJ , 162, 187

    2021

  42. [50]

    J., Menten, K

    Messineo, M., Habing, H. J., Menten, K. M., et al. 2005, A&A, 4 35, 575

    2005

  43. [51]

    J., Sjouwerman, L

    Messineo, M., Habing, H. J., Sjouwerman, L. O., Omont, A., & M enten, K. M. 2018, A&A, 619, A35

    2018

  44. [52]

    M., et al

    Messineo, M., Zhu, Q., Menten, K. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 65

    2017

  45. [53]

    & Maeder, A

    Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101

    2000

  46. [54]

    Ocker, S. K. & Cordes, J. M. 2024, Research Notes of the Americ an Astronomical Society, 8, 17

    2024

  47. [55]

    B., De Biasi, M

    Orellana, R. B., De Biasi, M. S., & Pa´ ız, L. G. 2021, MNRAS, 50 2, 6080

    2021

  48. [56]

    I., Pera, M

    Perren, G. I., Pera, M. S., Navone, H. D., & V´ azquez, R. A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4107

    2023

  49. [57]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 12

    Qin, S., Zhong, J., Tang, T., & Chen, L. 2023, ApJS, 265, 12

    2023

  50. [58]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 8 85, 131

    2019

  51. [59]

    S., Alfaro, E

    Sampedro, L., Dias, W. S., Alfaro, E. J., Monteiro, H., & Moli no, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3937

    2017

  52. [60]

    R., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al

    Sharma, S., Hayden, M. R., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2022, M NRAS, 510, 734 Skiff, B. A. 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1

    2022

  53. [61]

    F., Cutri, R

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

    2006

  54. [62]

    & Tombleson, R

    Smith, N. & Tombleson, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 598

    2015

  55. [63]

    1999, MNRAS, 304, 389

    Suh, K.-W. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 389

    1999

  56. [64]

    M., Dorda, R., Negueruela, I., & Gonz´ alez-Fe rn´ andez, C

    Tabernero, H. M., Dorda, R., Negueruela, I., & Gonz´ alez-Fe rn´ andez, C. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3106

    2018

  57. [65]

    2021, MNRAS, 5 02, 4210

    Taniguchi, D., Matsunaga, N., Jian, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 5 02, 4210

    2021

  58. [66]

    2025, A& A, 693, A163

    Taniguchi, D., Matsunaga, N., Kobayashi, N., et al. 2025, A& A, 693, A163

    2025

  59. [67]

    2022, A&A, 659, A59

    Tarricq, Y ., Soubiran, C., Casamiquela, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A59

    2022

  60. [68]

    2022, A&A, 659 , A95 van Groeningen, M

    Tsantaki, M., Pancino, E., Marrese, P ., et al. 2022, A&A, 659 , A95 van Groeningen, M. G. J., Castro-Ginard, A., Brown, A. G. A., Casamiquela, L., & Jordi, C. 2023, A&A, 675, A68

    2022

  61. [69]

    2024, ApJ, 976, 139 11

    Xia, T.-Y ., Shen, J., Li, Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 139 11

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.