Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Deriving physical parameters of unresolved star clusters. VIII. Limits of aperture photometry for star cluster studies

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 To get reliable physical parameters of unresolved star clusters from integrated light, colour indices must be measured with an aperture larger than the cluster's half-light radius, and for clusters around 10 Myr old the parameters cannot…

desk verdict A solid simulation study of aperture-photometry limits; the headline R50 rule is real but the abstract overstates it—the data suggest ~2*R50 and the parameter-recovery tests don't directly test per-cluster R50. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08674 v1 pith:RB74UT5P submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.GA

Karolis Daugevičius , Eimantas Kriščiūnas , Erikas Cicėnas , Rima Stonkutė , Vladas Vansevičius This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxies:starclusters:generalindividual:M31methods:numericaltechniques:photometricaperturephotometrystochasticinitialmassfunctionclusterparametersintegratedcolours
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 asks how accurately aperture photometry can recover the age, mass, extinction, and size of unresolved extragalactic star clusters when every error source except the clusters' own stochasticity is removed. The authors simulate 50,000 three-dimensional clusters spanning the parameter space of M 31 clusters, project each from 100 viewing directions, and measure the resulting images in six passbands, which gives 30 million synthetic images. They find that colour indices must be measured through an aperture larger than the cluster's half-light radius; smaller apertures bias recovered ages and masses by about +0.2 dex. They also find that clusters around 10 Myr old cannot be reliably parameterised at any aperture size, and that the random viewing direction alone contributes up to 0.1 mag of colour-index uncertainty. Because the simulations contain no sky background, these numbers are presented as the best achievable accuracy of the method, not a realistic end-to-end error budget.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a grid of stochastically sampled 3D cluster models: stellar masses are drawn from the Kroupa initial mass function, positions follow an Elson-Fall-Freeman (EFF) density profile, a power-law profile commonly used for young clusters, and magnitudes come from the PARSEC-COLIBRI stellar-evolution isochrone set at solar metallicity and zero extinction. Each cluster is projected onto the sky from 100 directions and rendered in six passbands matching an HST survey of M 31. The measurement procedure under test is adaptive aperture photometry, in which a small colour aperture is centred on the cluster to exclude bright field or evolved stars and its colours are transferred to the total flux via an aperture correction; the key control parameter is the ratio of the colour-aperture radius to the half-light radius, $R_C/R_{50}$.

What would settle it

Re-run the parameter-recovery tests in a blind setup where the fitting grid is built from an independent stellar-evolution isochrone set and a different initial-mass-function prescription; if ~10 Myr clusters are recovered with scatter well below ~0.2 dex in log age, or if small apertures below the half-light radius no longer bias ages and masses by ~0.2 dex, the claimed limits are an artefact of using the same simulation recipe on both sides of the test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, under idealised background-free conditions, the dominant limit on aperture-photometry parameters of unresolved star clusters is the stochastic sampling of the stellar initial mass function together with the cluster's orientation on the sky. Clusters of the same mass and age split into two photometrically distinct classes depending on whether at least one post-main-sequence star is present; the class with such stars is redder, brighter, and much more scattered in colour-colour and colour-magnitude space. Measuring colours through apertures smaller than roughly the half-light radius shifts recovered ages and masses by about +0.2 dex, so reliable parameter derivation requires colour apertures larger than the half-light radius, preferably near twice it. Even with large apertures, clusters near 10 Myr remain problematic, with age scatter around 0.2 dex and mass scatter around 0.3 dex, because the brightest stars are few and stochastically placed. The random projection direction alone contributes up to 0.1 mag of colour-index uncertainty for typical clusters at M 31 distance measured with apertures of 1.5 arcsec or smaller.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated clusters used both to make the images and to fit the parameters match real M 31 clusters closely enough; if real clusters differ in stellar composition, binarity, dust, or structure, the reported best-achievable limits would be too optimistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cluster catalogues built from integrated colours should adopt colour apertures larger than the half-light radius, and ideally near twice it; small-aperture photometry should be flagged as biased.
  • Ages and masses of clusters younger than roughly 30 Myr derived from aperture photometry should be cross-checked with colour-magnitude diagram fitting wherever the clusters are resolved.
  • The projection-orientation term, up to 0.1 mag in colours and about 10-20% in half-light radii, belongs in the error budget of extragalactic cluster photometry.
  • The adaptive aperture method passes a key test: there is no systematic colour bias between small colour apertures and large total apertures, so excluding bright field and evolved stars does not distort median colours.
  • Non-stochastic simple-stellar-population models are inadequate for young low-mass clusters; stochastic population models are required to interpret their integrated light.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper's tests, the same 100-projection simulation design could quantify how much binaries, mass segregation, or internal extinction gradients enlarge the orientation term, none of which are in the grid.
  • Because the reported limits come from fitting a grid built with the same stellar-evolution and IMF prescriptions used to generate the clusters, a natural extension is to repeat the recovery tests with an independent isochrone set; the paper's limits would likely widen if the models disagree.
  • The 0.1 mag orientation floor implies that single-projection simulations used to train photometric classifiers or infer star-formation histories carry an irreducible scatter that should be propagated into any machine-learning or Bayesian analysis.
  • A direct observational test would be to compare clusters of similar mass and age but different apparent elongations in a resolved M 31 cluster sample: the paper predicts their colour scatter should match the orientation term.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a large grid of three-dimensional stochastic star cluster models spanning the parameter space of M 31 clusters (masses log(M/M_sun)=2.0-4.0, ages log(t/yr)=7.0-10.0, EFF profiles with core radii 0.05-0.8 arcsec and gamma 2.2-7.0). Each cluster is projected from 100 viewing directions and simulated as PHAT-style HST images in six passbands, yielding 3e7 images. The authors apply aperture photometry, including the adaptive aperture procedure of Naujalis et al. (2021), measure flux growth curves and structural parameters, quantify uncertainties from aperture placement, projection, and stochastic IMF/spatial sampling, and run parameter-recovery tests against a large stochastic model grid. The main claims are that (i) there are no significant systematic colour gradients between total and colour apertures, (ii) reliable cluster parameters require colour measurements in apertures larger than the half-light radius, (iii) parameter determination is problematic for ~10 Myr clusters regardless of aperture, (iv) projection randomness can contribute up to ~0.1 mag of colour uncertainty, and (v) these are best-case limits because the simulations contain no sky background, field stars, or differential extinction.

Significance. The simulation campaign is large and carefully described, and separating the projection effect (ROT) from stochastic IMF/sampling effects (GEN) is a useful contribution to the aperture-photometry error budget. The authors are commendably explicit that their numbers are idealised limits obtained without sky background. However, the parameter-recovery accuracy estimates are self-consistency tests: the test clusters and the fitting grid are produced by the same code and the same physical assumptions. The headline aperture-size recommendation is also not directly tested by the fixed-aperture recovery experiment. If these two gaps are addressed, either by rephrasing the claims or by adding targeted tests, the paper will be a valuable reference for studies of unresolved clusters in the local Universe.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5] The parameter-recovery limits in Fig. 11 are computed by fitting simulated clusters against a model grid generated with the same stochastic simulation code and the same assumptions (Kroupa IMF, PARSEC-COLIBRI isochrones, EFF profiles, solar metallicity, zero background). The reported 'best achievable limits' are therefore self-consistency estimates of the forward model, not bounds on what aperture photometry can achieve for real clusters: any mismatch between the adopted model ingredients and a real cluster population is a systematic error that is absent by construction. The paper explicitly acknowledges the absence of sky background, but it does not acknowledge this grid-circularity. I recommend either calling these 'limits under the assumed model' or adding a validation test in which the recovery grid uses different stellar-population assumptions (e.g., a different IMF or a different isochrone set) to gauge the model-mismatch term.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 11, and Sec. 4.1] The headline recommendation that colour indices must be measured with an aperture radius larger than the cluster's half-light radius is not directly tested by the parameter-recovery experiment. That experiment uses fixed apertures of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 7.0 arcsec on clusters with core radii of 0.1 or 0.4 arcsec and gamma of 2.2, 2.8, or 7.0, and then merges the 1.0, 2.0, and 7.0 arcsec results after finding no dependence on rc and gamma. For the most extended models (e.g., rc=0.4 arcsec, gamma=2.2), the half-light radius is likely comparable to or larger than 1.0 arcsec, so the merged 'reliable' dataset includes apertures smaller than R50. The cleaner evidence in Figs. 8-9 is that the scatter in Delta(CI)_TC drops sharply near ~2*R50, not at R50, and the text itself recommends 'preferably ~2*R50'. The abstract and Section 5 should either implement a per-cluster scaling test (e.g., comparing recovery at Rap=R50, 1.5*R50, and 2*R50) or soften the rule to 'preferably at least about 2*R50' and state that the fixed-aperture recovery test only brackets this criterion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1] The abstract says the aperture must be 'larger than the cluster's half-light radius', while Section 4.1 says 'larger than R50, preferably ~2*R50'; these formulations should be harmonised.
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 11] The merging of the Rap=1.0, 2.0, and 7.0 arcsec data is justified by the absence of a dependence on rc and gamma, but the test grid includes only two core radii and three gamma values; reporting the R50 range of the 1920 test clusters would help the reader judge how far the fixed apertures are from the recommended R50 scaling.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The notation F^{-1}(Xi(m)=rnd_m) is nonstandard; it would be clearer to write m_j = Xi^{-1}(rnd_m) and to define Xi explicitly as the cumulative distribution function used for inversion.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 and Abstract] The statement that projection effects cause colour uncertainties 'up to 0.1 mag' should specify that this is an upper envelope seen for the most adverse low-mass/young-age combinations in Fig. 10, not a representative value for typical clusters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the aperture-photometry limits are emergent Monte Carlo statistics, and the self-citations that introduce the method are independently tested rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from a Monte Carlo simulation pipeline: 3D cluster realizations are generated from stated physical assumptions (Kroupa IMF, PARSEC-COLIBRI isochrones, EFF profiles), projected from 100 directions, rendered into PHAT-like images, and measured with aperture photometry. The resulting photometric scatter and parameter-recovery accuracies are emergent statistics, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The parameter-determination test in Sect. 4.3 feeds simulated clusters into a stochastic model grid, but the test clusters and the grid nodes are independent stochastic realizations (20 test clusters versus 10,000 grid models per node), so the recovery test can fail; it does fail for Rap = 0.5 arcsec and for 10 Myr clusters. The headline recommendation that CI apertures should exceed the half-light radius is not an input of the simulations; it is inferred from comparing fixed-aperture recovery and from the aperture-radius dependence of Delta(CI)_TC scatter. The self-citations to Naujalis et al. (2021), Kriskciunas et al. (2023), and de Meulenaer et al. (2013, 2017) provide the adaptive-aperture recipe and fitting algorithm being tested, but the present work independently tests those tools under controlled simulations, so the citations are not load-bearing. The explicit caveat that all images are background-free is a stated limitation, not circularity; it makes the reported limits optimistic but does not reduce the results to their inputs. The skeptical concern that the R50 rule is inferred from fixed apertures rather than per-cluster R50 scaling is a precision/validity issue, not a circularity, and does not warrant a higher score under the rules requiring a specific reduction. Overall, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no fitted free parameters or new entities. It rests on domain assumptions inherited from the simulation pipeline: the Kroupa IMF sampled stochastically, EFF structural profiles, PARSEC-COLIBRI isochrones at solar metallicity, TinyTim PSFs, and a clean background-free sky. The most consequential implicit assumption is that the fitting grid uses the same code as the mock observations, so the reported limits are self-consistency estimates.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Kroupa (2001) IMF and fully stochastic sampling describe star formation outcomes.
    Used in Sect. 2 to generate stellar masses (Eq. 1-4). Justified by citing Grudic et al. (2023), but it is still a model choice.
  • domain assumption EFF (Elson, Fall & Freeman 1987) profile describes young cluster radial structure; grid of rc and gamma spans real M31 clusters.
    Sect. 2, Eq. 5. Supported by literature (Larsen 1999 etc.) but not verified for all simulated cases.
  • domain assumption PARSEC-COLIBRI isochrones at fixed solar metallicity and zero interstellar extinction represent cluster stellar populations.
    Sect. 2, paragraph on isochrone interpolation. This is a strong assumption; real clusters have metallicity spread and extinction.
  • ad hoc to paper Simulated images contain no sky background, no field stars, and no differential extinction.
    Section 1, 'all experiments ... performed under idealised conditions'. This sets the 'best achievable' framing and means results are optimistic lower bounds on uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Aperture correction derived in F475W can be applied to all passbands (no colour gradients beyond the C aperture).
    Sect. 3, acknowledged as valid only for clusters without strong colour gradients; tested in Sect. 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The fitting grid used for parameter recovery is generated with the same simulation code and assumptions as the mock data, so the true model is in the grid.
    Sect. 4.3: the model grid is built with the same stochastic cluster simulation described in Sect. 2. This makes the recovery tests self-consistency checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deriving physical parameters of unresolved star clusters. VIII. Limits of aperture photometry for star cluster studies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RB74UT5P

@misc{pith2026250608674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deriving physical parameters of unresolved star clusters. VIII. Limits of aperture photometry for star cluster studies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RB74UT5P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08674}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, it has been noticed that the discrepancies in the integrated colour indices (CIs) between star clusters and models are mostly due to the projection of bright stars in the apertures. In order to reduce this problem, the method of adaptive aperture photometry has been proposed. This method has been applied to star clusters from the M 31 Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury (PHAT) survey, and studies show that the adaptive aperture photometry performs better than the conventional approach. The aim of this study is to determine the best achievable limits on the accuracy and applicability of the aperture photometry method for studying star clusters in the local Universe. We computed a large network of artificial 3D star clusters spanning the parameter space of the M 31 clusters. We then simulated images of these clusters by projecting each onto a 2D plane from 100 directions. Star cluster images were generated in six passbands to match the PHAT survey. To investigate the limiting accuracy of aperture photometry and the limits of its applicability to star cluster studies, we measured the simulated images and performed parameter determination tests. We demonstrate that star clusters with and without post-main-sequence stars have significant photometric differences. We show that in order to obtain reliable physical parameters of star clusters, the CIs must be measured using an aperture with a radius larger than the cluster's half-light radius. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the parameter determination of young clusters (~10 Myr) is problematic regardless of the aperture size used. Therefore, it is advisable to determine the parameters of these clusters using colour-magnitude diagram fitting methods, when possible. We also show that the randomness of the viewing angle can lead to a CI uncertainty of up to 0.1 mag, depending on cluster parameters and aperture size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stochastic stellar mass sampling of individual cluster stars. a) Cumulative mass distribution Ξ(m) in the range from 0.1 to 100 M⊙ (black line) and its application for stellar mass sampling (blue dashed line). b) Histogram – log(M/M⊙) = 5.0 cluster mass function matches a theoretical IMF with high accuracy – weak stochastic effects. c) and d) Histograms – two different generations of log(M/M⊙) = 2.5 cluster – low-ma… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sampling 3D distances of individual stars from the cluster centre. a) Three cumulative radial cluster mass profiles with different EFF pro￾file parameters; distances sampled with rndr = 0.6 are shown for each profile. b) 3D distance sampling result for log(M/M⊙) = 5.0 cluster. c) and d) Two different log(M/M⊙) = 3.0 cluster generations. In the case of low-mass clusters, the stellar spatial distribution exhibits sign… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CMDs of two simulated clusters of mass log(M/M⊙) = 2.5 and of age log(t/yr) = 7.0 (upper row) and log(t/yr) = 9.0 (bottom row). The generation in the left column is the same as shown in Fig. 1c, meanwhile the right column matches Fig. 1d. Red lines mark PARSEC￾COLIBRI isochrones. Open circles – individual stars. Realistic images of artificial clusters were modelled using a similar approach as in Bialopetravicius et … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FGCs in the F475W passband for the artificial star cluster (log(t/yr) = 8.0, log(M/M⊙) = 3.5, rc = 0.2 arcsec, and γ = 2.8) ob￾served from three viewing directions. The colour images (15×15 arcsec) were produced by combining F336W, F475W, and F814W data to￾gether with …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TCDs of simulated stochastic star clusters. Each panel shows aperture photometry results for different combinations of cluster mass (marked above the panels) and age (marked to the right of the panels). For the definitions of the G1 and G2 cluster groups, see the text.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differences of F336W − F475W, when measured through T and C apertures. The differences are shown as grey lines. The X-axis – the radius of C aperture. The T aperture radius of RT = 3.0 arcsec is used. Red markers show the median difference for a given RC, error bars ma…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Star cluster aperture photometry errors and uncertainties of CIs F336W − F475W and F475W − F814W versus aperture radii. Top pan￾els show the median of errors arising due to aperture positioning and size biases (σAPT ); middle panels – the median of scatter due to pro￾…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results of star cluster physical parameter determination tests. The provided differences are between the determined and input param￾eter values. Panel a) shows the median of age differences; b) – the me￾dian of mass differences; c) – the median of colour excess, E(B −…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Uncertainties, expressed in percent, of star cluster structural parameters versus cluster age. Left column – the median of uncertain￾ties arising due to stochastic IMF sampling and the spatial distribu￾tion of cluster stars, δGEN; right column – due to cluster project…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effects of stochastic IMF sampling and the spatial distribution of stars on cluster structural parameters depending on cluster mass and age. The X-axis represents R50/R80; the Y-axis – R30/R50. Results are shown for clusters with rc = 0.2 arcsec and γ = 2.8. Structura…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Effects of stochastic IMF sampling and the spatial distribu￾tion of stars on cluster structural parameters depending on cluster radial profile parameters, rc and γ. The X-axis represents R50/R80; the Y-axis – R30/R50. Results are shown for clusters with log(M/M⊙) = 3.…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Henon, M., & Wielen, R

    Aarseth, S. J., Henon, M., & Wielen, R. 1974, A&A, 37, 183

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    E., Messa, M., et al

    Adamo, A., Ryon, J. E., Messa, M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 131

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Adamo, A., Zeidler, P., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2020, Space Sci. Rev., 216, 69

    2020

  4. [4]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 138 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A

    Anders, P., Kotulla, R., de Grijs, R., & Wicker, J. 2013, ApJ, 778, 138 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2013

  5. [5]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 2606

    Bastian, N., Adamo, A., Gieles, M., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2606

    2012

  6. [6]

    C., Johnson, L

    Beerman, L. C., Johnson, L. C., Fouesneau, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 760, 104 Bialopetraviˇcius, J., Narbutis, D., & Vanseviˇcius, V . 2019, A&A, 621, A103 Bridžius, A., Narbutis, D., Stonkut ˙e, R., Deveikis, V ., & Vanseviˇcius, V . 2008, Baltic Astronomy, 17, 337

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    & Gnedin, O

    Brown, G. & Gnedin, O. Y . 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5935

    2021

  8. [8]

    2009, AJ, 137, 94

    Caldwell, N., Harding, P., Morrison, H., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 94

    work page 2009

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    & Romanowsky, A

    Caldwell, N. & Romanowsky, A. J. 2016, ApJ, 824, 42

    2016

  2. [10]

    A., & Harding, P

    Caldwell, N., Schiavon, R., Morrison, H., Rose, J. A., & Harding, P. 2011, AJ, 141, 61

    2011

  3. [11]

    C., Sabbi, E., et al

    Calzetti, D., Lee, J. C., Sabbi, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 51

    2015

  4. [12]

    O., Lee, J

    Cook, D. O., Lee, J. C., Adamo, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4897

    2019

  5. [13]

    D., Puerari, I., & Rosa-González, D

    Cuevas-Otahola, B., Mayya, Y . D., Puerari, I., & Rosa-González, D. 2020, MN- RAS, 492, 993 ˇCeponis, M., Stonkut ˙e, R., & Vansevi ˇcius, V . 2024, Lithuanian Journal of Physics, 64, 122

    2020

  6. [14]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18 de Meulenaer, P., Narbutis, D., Mineikis, T., & Vanseviˇcius, V . 2013, A&A, 550, A20 de Meulenaer, P., Narbutis, D., Mineikis, T., & Vanseviˇcius, V . 2014, A&A, 569, A4 de Meulenaer, P., Stonkut˙e, R., &...

    2012

  7. [15]

    C., Whitmore, B

    Deger, S., Lee, J. C., Whitmore, B. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 32

    2022

  8. [16]

    2008, Baltic Astronomy, 17, 351

    Deveikis, V ., Narbutis, D., Stonkut˙e, R., Bridžius, A., & Vansevi ˇcius, V . 2008, Baltic Astronomy, 17, 351

    2008

  9. [17]

    Elson, R. A. W., Fall, S. M., & Freeman, K. C. 1987, ApJ, 323, 54

    1987

  10. [18]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

    1999

  11. [19]

    J., Boily, C

    Fleck, J. J., Boily, C. M., Lançon, A., & Deiters, S. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1392

    2006

  12. [20]

    C., Weisz, D

    Fouesneau, M., Johnson, L. C., Weisz, D. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 117

    2014

  13. [21]

    & Lançon, A

    Fouesneau, M. & Lançon, A. 2010, A&A, 521, A22

    2010

  14. [22]

    Fouesneau, M., Lançon, A., Chandar, R., & Whitmore, B. C. 2012, ApJ, 750, 60

    2012

  15. [23]

    & Gieles, M

    Gaburov, E. & Gieles, M. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 190

    2008

  16. [24]

    Y ., Offner, S

    Grudic, M. Y ., Offner, S. S. R., Guszejnov, D., Faucher-Giguère, C.-A., & Hop- kins, P. F. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 48

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  18. [26]

    C., Seth, A

    Johnson, L. C., Seth, A. C., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 827, 33

    2016

  19. [27]

    C., Seth, A

    Johnson, L. C., Seth, A. C., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 127

    2015

  20. [28]

    C., Wainer, T

    Johnson, L. C., Wainer, T. M., Torresvillanueva, E. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 938, 81

    2022

  21. [29]

    1962, AJ, 67, 471 Krišˇci¯unas, E., Daugevi ˇcius, K., Stonkut ˙e, R., & Vansevi ˇcius, V

    King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471 Krišˇci¯unas, E., Daugevi ˇcius, K., Stonkut ˙e, R., & Vansevi ˇcius, V . 2023, A&A, 677, A100

    1962

  22. [30]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  23. [31]

    R., Fumagalli, M., da Silva, R

    Krumholz, M. R., Fumagalli, M., da Silva, R. L., Rendahl, T., & Parra, J. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1447

    2015

  24. [32]

    R., McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 227

    2019

  25. [33]

    Lada, C. J. & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    2003

  26. [34]

    Larsen, S. S. 1999, A&AS, 139, 393

    1999

  27. [35]

    Larsen, S. S. 2004, A&A, 416, 537

    2004

  28. [36]

    C., Whitmore, B

    Lee, J. C., Whitmore, B. C., Thilker, D. A., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 10

    2022

  29. [37]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77

    2017

  30. [38]

    W., Irwin, M

    McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 979

    2005

  31. [39]

    McLaughlin, D. E. & van der Marel, R. P. 2005, ApJS, 161, 304

    2005

  32. [40]

    D., Larsen, S

    Mora, M. D., Larsen, S. S., Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J. P., & Richtler, T. 2009, A&A, 501, 949

    2009

  33. [41]

    2014, A&A, 569, A30

    Narbutis, D., Semionov, D., Stonkut˙e, R., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A30

    2014

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 654, A6 Portegies Zwart, S

    Naujalis, R., Stonkut˙e, R., & Vanseviˇcius, V . 2021, A&A, 654, A6 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431

    2021

  35. [43]

    & Bressert, E

    Robitaille, T. & Bressert, E. 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in

    2012

  36. [44]

    E., Bastian, N., Adamo, A., et al

    Ryon, J. E., Bastian, N., Adamo, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 525

    2015

  37. [45]

    A., Haas, M

    Scheepmaker, R. A., Haas, M. R., Gieles, M., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 925 Šableviˇci¯ut˙e, I., Vanseviˇcius, V ., Kodaira, K., et al. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 397 Vanseviˇcius, V ., Kodaira, K., Narbutis, D., et al. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1872

    2007

  38. [46]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  39. [47]

    M., Johnson, L

    Wainer, T. M., Johnson, L. C., Seth, A. C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 928, 15

    2022

  40. [48]

    R., Johnson, L

    Weisz, D. R., Johnson, L. C., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 198

    2015

  41. [49]

    C., Chandar, R., Lee, J., et al

    Whitmore, B. C., Chandar, R., Lee, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 154

    2020

  42. [50]

    C., Chandar, R., Lee, J

    Whitmore, B. C., Chandar, R., Lee, J. C., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 63

    2023

  43. [51]

    F., Durbin, M

    Williams, B. F., Durbin, M. J., Dalcanton, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 53

    2021

  44. [52]

    1994, ApJS, 95, 107 Article number, page 14 of 14

    Worthey, G. 1994, ApJS, 95, 107 Article number, page 14 of 14

    1994

Pith tools

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