Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Exploring the Eclipsing Binary System IY Aur: First Photometric Insights

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 IY Aur is a semi-detached eclipsing binary whose secondary fills its Roche lobe; the first photometric solution yields a 6.5 and a 5.4 solar-mass pair at 1690 pc.

desk verdict A credible first photometric solution for IY Aur, but the absolute masses and radii are conditional on an adopted single-star mass and a photometric-only mass ratio; the internal inconsistencies need fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09158 v1 pith:LEEVP6GA submitted 2025-06-10 astro-ph.SR

N. Alan , M. Alpsoy , Y. Kilic This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords eclipsingbinaryIYAursemi-detachedWilson-Devinneymethodlight-curveanalysisTESSphotometryfundamentalstellarparametersmasstransfer
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 is the first targeted photometric study of IY Aur, a variable star previously known mainly from catalogues as an EB-type eclipsing binary. It claims that IY Aur is a semi-detached system whose secondary star fills its Roche lobe, and it derives the first fundamental parameters for both components by simultaneously fitting a TESS light curve with new ground-based UBVRI observations. The resulting masses, radii, surface gravities, and distance make IY Aur a concrete benchmark for a massive binary that is likely transferring mass. A sympathetic reader would care because such systems are rare test cases for binary evolution and mass-transfer models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Wilson-Devinney light-curve model in Mode 5, the configuration in which the secondary star fills its Roche lobe; it computes the combined flux of two tidally distorted stars as a function of orbital phase. The mass ratio is not measured spectroscopically but located by a q-search that steps $q$ from 0 to 3 in steps of 0.01, and the absolute scale is set by Kepler's third law once the adopted primary mass and the fitted fractional radii are combined. A hot spot on the primary (colatitude 90 degrees, longitude 297 degrees, angular radius 49 degrees, temperature factor 1.03) absorbs the out-of-eclipse flux variation that a spotless model cannot fit.

What would settle it

Take high-resolution spectra of both components across one orbit: the measured radial-velocity curve must yield the same mass ratio ($q = 0.828$) and semi-major axis ($a = 19.04 \pm 0.89\,R_\odot$) as the photometric solution if the derived secondary mass is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that IY Aur is a semi-detached eclipsing binary in which the secondary component fills its Roche lobe while the primary stays inside its critical lobe. From a simultaneous Wilson-Devinney fit to TESS and ground-based UBVRI light curves, the first stellar parameters are derived: $M_1 = 6.51 \pm 0.81\,M_\odot$, $M_2 = 5.39 \pm 0.87\,M_\odot$, $R_1 = 4.15 \pm 0.20\,R_\odot$, $R_2 = 6.88 \pm 0.33\,R_\odot$, and a distance of $1690 \pm 237$ pc. The secondary is the cooler, larger, lower-gravity star ($T_{2,\rm eff} \approx 9300$ K), and the out-of-eclipse light variations require a hot spot on the primary, which the authors interpret as evidence of ongoing or recent mass transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mass and distance scale rests on an adopted primary mass and temperature from a Gaia spectral catalogue and on a mass ratio derived from light-curve fitting alone, with no radial-velocity measurements to check them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the solution holds, IY Aur becomes a benchmark semi-detached system with a total mass near $12\,M_\odot$, a rare regime for close binaries with measured parameters.
  • The secondary's large radius and low surface gravity quantify how far it overflows its Roche lobe, providing a boundary condition for mass-transfer models.
  • The hot spot gives a photometric marker of where the transferred stream impacts the primary, which future spectroscopy can compare with stream-impact geometry.
  • The distance of $1690 \pm 237$ pc can be tested against astrometric parallax and used to place IY Aur in the Galaxy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper, if the photometric mass ratio is later confirmed by radial velocities, IY Aur would be a useful calibration point for judging how trustworthy q-searches are in semi-detached binaries.
  • The hot-spot interpretation is not unique; a starspot could mimic the out-of-eclipse variation, so high-resolution spectroscopy of line shapes is the decisive test the paper leaves for future work.
  • The roughly 230-pc difference between the photometric distance and the Gaia DR3 distance could be systematic or astrophysical; a dynamical orbit from radial velocities would help distinguish a biased parallax from an error in the adopted primary parameters.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first detailed photometric analysis of the eclipsing binary IY Aur, using a TESS light curve and new ground-based UBVRI observations from the TUBITAK T60 telescope. Wilson-Devinney modeling with a q-search and Monte Carlo uncertainties yields a semi-detached configuration in which the secondary fills its Roche lobe, with derived masses M1=6.51±0.81 M_sun, M2=5.39±0.87 M_sun, radii R1=4.15±0.20 R_sun, R2=6.88±0.33 R_sun, and a distance of 1690±237 pc. The primary mass and temperature are adopted from Khalatyan et al. (2024) Gaia XP spectral fits; no radial velocities are available for the system.

Significance. If the photometric solution is accepted with appropriate caveats, the paper fills a genuine gap as the first detailed light-curve model of IY Aur, combining space-based and ground-based photometry. The analysis follows standard W-D practice, reports Monte Carlo uncertainties, and provides complete parameter tables. The system is potentially interesting as a massive semi-detached binary with evidence for ongoing mass transfer. However, the absolute mass scale is not dynamically anchored: the primary mass is a single-star Gaia XP fit for an unresolved binary, and the mass ratio is photometric-only. The derived masses, radii, and distance are therefore conditional on these assumptions, and the uncertainty estimates do not fully include systematic effects. With explicit caveats and a systematic error budget, the photometric solution is a useful contribution, but the current presentation overstates the certainty of the absolute parameters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 / Table 3] The reported absolute masses, radii, semi-major axis, and distance are all propagated from the adopted primary mass M1=6.51±0.81 M_sun (Khalatyan et al. 2024) and the photometric mass ratio q=0.828±0.030. As the manuscript itself notes, no radial velocities are available; for an unresolved binary, the Gaia XP spectrum is a blend, so a single-star mass estimate may not represent either component. Furthermore, the uncertainty of 0.81 M_sun in Table 3 is ten times larger than the 0.0813 M_sun quoted from Khalatyan et al., and no explanation is provided for this inflation. The paper must explicitly state that the absolute scale is conditional and provide a systematic-error budget that propagates the adopted M1 and the q-search degeneracy, rather than quoting the Table 3 values as directly determined.
  2. [Section 3] The choice of the semi-detached MOD 5 configuration is not quantitatively supported. The text reports only that MOD 2 did not produce "physically meaningful" results and MOD 4 could not achieve an acceptable fit, without showing fit statistics or figures for those models. Since the semi-detached nature of IY Aur is central to the paper's conclusions, the authors should present best-fit chi-square (or a comparable metric) for each mode and test whether a detached model with a spot can reach a comparable fit to the spotted MOD 5 solution. The Delta-chi-square profile of the q-search (Figure 3) should also be shown with confidence intervals, given the known weakness of photometric mass ratios in semi-detached systems.
  3. [Section 3 / Table 2] The hot spot on the primary is introduced post hoc to model out-of-eclipse variations, and the reported spot parameters (co-latitude 90 degrees, longitude 297 degrees, angular radius 49 degrees, relative temperature 1.03) are given without uncertainties or a uniqueness test. The Monte Carlo uncertainties quoted in Table 2 do not appear to include spot-parameter degeneracies, which can correlate with q, i, and T2,eff. The authors should quantify the spot-parameter covariances or demonstrate that the spot model is uniquely required over alternative explanations (e.g., ellipsoidal variations or spots on the secondary).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The quoted "4.238±0.040 K" for the log Teff value is dimensionally wrong; it should be "log Teff = 4.238±0.040" (or T = 10^4.238 K).
  2. [Section 4] The description of the extinction determination ("same method explained in detail by Alan et al. 2025") is insufficient; specify the input quantities or formula used to derive AV,d = 0.784 mag.
  3. [Section 3 / Table 2] The claim that the spotted model is a "statistically notable improvement" rests solely on chi-square = 0.003 vs 0.008; without the number of free parameters and data points, the improvement cannot be evaluated, so the authors should report chi-square_red or an F-test.
  4. [Section 3 / Figure 3] The q-search figure is referenced but not shown in the manuscript text; ensure it displays the Delta-chi-square scale and marks the adopted q.
  5. [Section 4 / Table 3] The authors should clarify why the uncertainty on M1 is ±0.81 M_sun when the cited Khalatyan et al. value is 6.512±0.0813 M_sun; if the larger value includes systematic errors, that should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; light-curve q-search and Kepler scaling are independent of the claimed results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claim: the W-D simultaneous fit of TESS and T60 UBVRI light curves yields q, i, Omega1, T2, and fractional radii via a q-search that minimizes chi-square; M1 and T1 are adopted from an external Gaia DR3 XP catalog (Khalatyan et al. 2024), not from the light curve; M2 is then M2 = q*M1, and Kepler's third law converts the fitted fractional radii to physical radii. None of these steps assumes the final masses, radii, or distance. The semi-detached MOD5 geometry was selected after MOD2 and MOD4 failed to produce acceptable fits, so the Roche-lobe filling is a model-selection result rather than a premise smuggled into the fit. The self-citations (Kilic et al. 2016 for the MYRaf photometry tool; Alan et al. 2025 for the extinction method used in the distance estimate) are methodological and do not encode the target parameters. The principal caveat is that M1 is the output of a single-star fit to a blended Gaia XP spectrum of the binary, and q is purely photometric, so the absolute mass scale is conditional on those inputs; this is a provenance and robustness limitation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on a chain of adopted inputs: the primary temperature and mass come from an external Gaia DR3 survey, the mass ratio and geometry come from a photometric fit without radial velocities, and the distance uses an extinction value from the authors' prior method. The spot is an added entity with no independent confirmation.

free parameters (7)
  • mass ratio q = 0.828 ± 0.030 (spotted model)
    Found by q-search over 0.01 steps with all other parameters free; used to convert primary mass into secondary mass.
  • secondary effective temperature T2,eff = 9293 ± 1615 K
    Fitted in W-D solution; large uncertainty affects luminosity and radius estimates.
  • orbital inclination i = 73.835 ± 0.018 deg
    Fitted in W-D solution.
  • primary surface potential Omega1 = 5.443 ± 0.014
    Fitted in W-D solution; controls primary's size relative to Roche lobe.
  • phase shift = 0.0010 ± 0.0001
    Fitted to align eclipses with zero phase.
  • fractional luminosity L1/(L1+L2) = 0.458 (TESS), 0.774 (U), 0.581 (B), 0.530 (V), 0.499 (R), 0.459 (I)
    Fitted per passband; light ratios determine eclipsing depths.
  • hot spot parameters = colatitude 90 deg, longitude 297 deg, angular radius 49 deg, temperature factor 1.03
    Four parameters added to fit out-of-eclipse variations; improved chi-square from 0.008 to 0.003.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Primary effective temperature T1=17290 K and primary mass M1=6.51±0.81 M⊙ are adopted from Khalatyan et al. (2024) Gaia DR3 XP spectra.
    Used as fixed inputs in the W-D model and for converting q into absolute masses; not independently measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption Both stars are in synchronous rotation (F1=F2=1).
    Assumed without verification; affects spot and tidal modeling.
  • domain assumption Orbital eccentricity is zero.
    Assumed in the light curve model; no eclipse timing or radial velocities confirm it.
  • domain assumption Radiative atmosphere, gravity darkening exponent 1 (Lucy 1967), albedo 1 (Ruciński 1969).
    Standard for T_eff > 7200 K; used for both components.
  • standard math Limb darkening coefficients from van Hamme (1993).
    Model inputs based on temperatures and passbands.
  • standard math Kepler's third law and standard solar parameters (T_eff,⊙=5777 K, M_bol,⊙=4.74 mag) plus bolometric corrections from Eker et al. (2020).
    Used to convert fitted fractional radii into physical radii and luminosities.
  • domain assumption Interstellar extinction A_V=0.784 mag is adopted from the authors' earlier method (Alan et al. 2025).
    Entered the distance calculation; not derived from data in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Semi-detached geometry with the secondary filling its Roche lobe (W-D Mode 5).
    Selected after Mode 2 and Mode 4 failed to produce acceptable fits; this geometric assumption is the basis of the derived configuration.
invented entities (1)
  • Hot spot on the primary component
    purpose: Introduced to reproduce out-of-eclipse brightness variations; interpreted as a possible impact region of mass transfer.
    No independent observation such as Doppler imaging or spectroscopy confirms the spot; its parameters are fit to the light curve and are not uniquely constrained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Eclipsing Binary System IY Aur: First Photometric Insights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEEVP6GA

@misc{pith2026250609158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Eclipsing Binary System IY Aur: First Photometric Insights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEEVP6GA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09158}
}
abstract

Eclipsing binary systems play a vital role in astrophysics, as they provide a direct means of measuring fundamental stellar parameters. By combining high-precision space-based observations with ground-based multicolor photometric data, these parameters can be determined with greater accuracy. In this study, we present the first photometric analysis of the IY Aur eclipsing binary system, using a combination of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) light curve and new UBVRI CCD observations obtained with the 60 cm robotic telescope (T60) at the TUBITAK National Observatory. Through detailed photometric modeling, the masses and radii of the system's primary and secondary components were determined as $M_{1}=6.51\pm 0.81\,M_{\odot}$, $M_{2}=5.39\pm 0.87\,M_{\odot}$, and $R_{1}=4.15\pm 0.20\,R_{\odot}$, $R_{2}=6.88\pm 0.33\,R_{\odot}$, respectively. The logarithmic values of luminosity and surface gravity were calculated as $\log L_{1}=3.14\pm 0.20\,L_{\odot}$ and $\log g_{1}=4.01\pm 0.02$ cgs for the primary component, and $\log L_{2}=2.50 \pm 0.22\,L_{\odot}$ and $\log g_{2}=3.49\pm 0.03$ cgs for the secondary component. Furthermore, the distance to IY Aur was estimated as $d=1690\pm237$ pc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An image taken with the 𝑉 filter from the TUG-T60 telescope, with labels indicating the comparison and check stars, as well as IY Aur. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A phased TESS light curve. The zoomed-in panel displays noticeable differences in flux levels between phases 0.25 and 0.75. components are within their Roche lobes; however, this approach did not produce physically meaningful results. Subsequently, the solution was performed via MOD 4, in which the primary component fills its Roche lobe, yet an acceptable fit could not be achieved. Therefore, the modeling was repeat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the 𝑞-search analysis results for IY Aur. 4. FUNDAMENTAL PARAMETERS OF IY AUR The analysis of the light curve data enabled the estimation of the fundamental parameters of the IY Aur binary system’s components. The effective temperature and mass of the primary component were adopted as 𝑇1,eff = 17290±1600 K and 𝑀1 = 6.51±0.81 𝑀⊙ based on the findings of Khalatyan et al. (2024) using Gaia DR3 data. The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison between the theoretical light curves (red line) and the observed data (black dots) for IY Aur. The residuals are shown in the bottom panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Roche geometry of the IY Aur system in four different phases was constructed based on the best-fit light curve model parameters. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alan N., Ali c avu s F., Alpsoy M., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2025.102352 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025NewA..11702352A 117, 102352

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PASP..102.1181B 102, 1181

    Bessell M. S., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/132749 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990PASP..102.1181B 102, 1181

    doi:10.1086/132749 1990

  3. [3]

    Eker Z., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1659 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.3887E 496, 3887

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1659 2020

  4. [4]

    Khalatyan A., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451427 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...691A..98K 691, A98

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451427 2024

  5. [5]

    F., Yesilyaprak C., 2016, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series

    Kilic Y., Shameoni Niaei M., \"O zeren F. F., Yesilyaprak C., 2016, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. pp 38--39

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    B., 1967, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ZA.....65...89L 65, 89

    Lucy L. B., 1967, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ZA.....65...89L 65, 89

    1967

  7. [7]

    Parmaksizoglu M., Dindar M., Kirbiyik H., Helhel S., 2014, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series. p. 24

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    M., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AcA....19..245R 19, 245

    Ruci \'n ski S. M., 1969, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969AcA....19..245R 19, 245

    1969

  2. [10]

    N., Kazarovets E

    Samus' N. N., Kazarovets E. V., Durlevich O. V., Kireeva N. N., Pastukhova E. N., 2017, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772917010085 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ARep...61...80S 61, 80

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-005-4449-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Ap&SS.296..221T 296, 221

    Terrell D., Wilson R. E., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-005-4449-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Ap&SS.296..221T 296, 221

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Weber R., 1963, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963IBVS...21....1W 21, 1

    1963

  5. [13]

    E., Devinney E

    Wilson R. E., Devinney E. J., 1971, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150986 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971ApJ...166..605W 166, 605

    1971 doi

  6. [14]

    Zola S., et al., 2004, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AcA....54..299Z 54, 299

    2004

  7. [15]

    M., Ogloza W., Siwak M., Koziel-Wierzbowska D., Winiarski M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17129.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408..464Z 408, 464

    Zola S., Gazeas K., Kreiner J. M., Ogloza W., Siwak M., Koziel-Wierzbowska D., Winiarski M., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17129.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.408..464Z 408, 464

    2010

  8. [16]

    van Hamme W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116788 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ....106.2096V 106, 2096

    1993 doi

  9. [17]

    Alan, N., Aliçavuş, F., Alpsoy, M., 2025, NewA, 117, 102352

    2025

  10. [18]

    S., 1990, PASP, 102, 1181

    Bessell, M. S., 1990, PASP, 102, 1181

    1990

  11. [19]

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Bilir, S., Bak s , V., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3887

    2020

  12. [20]

    Gaia Collaboration\ 2022, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1357, I/357

    2022

  13. [21]

    Khalatyan, A., Anders, F., Chiappini, C., et al.\ 2024, A&A, 691, A98

    2024

  14. [22]

    F., Yesilyaprak, C., 2016, RMxAC, 48, 38

    Kilic, Y., Shameoni Niaei, M., \"O zeren F. F., Yesilyaprak, C., 2016, RMxAC, 48, 38

    2016

  15. [23]

    B., 1967, ZA, 65, 89

    Lucy, L. B., 1967, ZA, 65, 89

    1967

  16. [24]

    Parmaksizoglu, M., Dindar, M., Kirbiyik, H., Helhel, S., 2014, RMxAC, 45, 24

    2014

  17. [25]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al., 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1,014003

    2015

  18. [26]

    M., 1969, AcA, 19, 245

    Rucinski, S. M., 1969, AcA, 19, 245

    1969

  19. [27]

    N., Kazarovets E

    Samus N. N., Kazarovets E. V., Durlevich O. V., Kireeva N. N., Pastukhova E. N., 2017, ARep, 61, 80

    2017

  20. [28]

    E., 2005, Photometric Mass Ratios of Eclipsing Binary Stars, Astrophysics and Space Science, 296, 221

    Terrell D., Wilson R. E., 2005, Photometric Mass Ratios of Eclipsing Binary Stars, Astrophysics and Space Science, 296, 221

    2005

  21. [29]

    van Hamme, W., 1993, AJ, 106, 2096

    1993

  22. [30]

    Weber R., 1963, IBVS, 21, 1

    1963

  23. [31]

    E., Devinney, E

    Wilson, R. E., Devinney, E. J., 1971, ApJ, 166, 605

    1971

  24. [32]

    al., 2004, AcA, 54, 299

    Zola, S., Rucinski, S.M., Baran, A., et. al., 2004, AcA, 54, 299

    2004

  25. [33]

    al., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 464

    Zola, S., Gazeas, K., Kreiner, J.M., et. al., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 464

    2010

Pith tools

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