Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Hunting for UVdim stars in Galactic Open clusters. Clues from ultraviolet photometry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Only 5 of 35 Galactic open clusters host UVdim star candidates

desk verdict First census of UVdim stars in Galactic open clusters; the rarity claim is plausible but leans on an unvalidated HST-to-UVOT colour equivalence and a simplified non-detection simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21519 v1 pith:4P6553RL submitted 2025-06-26 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

G. Cordoni , A. P. Milone , L.Casagrande , L. Venuti , E. P. Lagioia , F. Muratore , A. F. Marino , G. S. Da Costa
show 2 more authors
F. Dell'Agli F. D'Antona
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords UVdimstarsopenclustersMagellanicCloudsSwift/UVOTSkyMapperGaiaDR3colour-colourdiagramssplitmainsequence
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 whether UVdim stars—a class of UV-absorbed stars found in nearly all young Magellanic Cloud clusters—also exist in the Milky Way's open clusters. By combining ultraviolet photometry from Swift/UVOT with SkyMapper and Gaia data, the authors build colour-colour diagrams analogous to the HST diagrams that define UVdim stars and search 35 Galactic open clusters younger than 2 Gyr. They find robust UVdim candidates in only five clusters, and only two of the fourteen clusters younger than 200 Myr. They conclude that UVdim stars are rare or absent in Galactic open clusters, suggesting a genuine environmental difference between Milky Way and Magellanic Cloud clusters, although they caution that cluster mass and photometric incompleteness weaken the significance for many of their non-detections.

What carries the argument

The central object is the UV-optical colour-colour diagram, specifically UVW1−uPSF versus uPSF−GRP, chosen by matching the transmission curves of Swift/UVOT, SkyMapper, and Gaia filters to the HST WFC3/UVIS F225W/F275W–F336W–F814W combination that defines UVdim stars in Magellanic Clouds clusters. Stars are classified as UVdim candidates when they fall more than 3σ below the LOESS-fitted fiducial colour-colour trend, where σ is estimated by bootstrapping. The second mechanism is the non-detection probability $P_{\mathrm{ND}}$: for each cluster the authors simulate synthetic clusters with 5% (or 2.5%) UVdim stars, cut them by the observed photometric completeness, and count the fraction of realisations that recover zero UVdim stars, converting that fraction into a significance in units of σ. This converts an absence of detected candidates into a quantitative statement about whether the absence is meaningful.

What would settle it

If HST WFC3/UVIS F225W/F275W–F336W–F814W photometry of the same 35 open clusters, or a deep NUV survey with a comparable filter set, recovered UVdim fractions similar to those in young Magellanic Cloud clusters, the central claim would be refuted. A cheaper test is to re-examine the five robust candidate clusters with existing HST data or with spectroscopy to confirm circumstellar disk signatures, which would distinguish genuine detections from photometric scatter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that UVdim stars, which are consistently observed in Magellanic Cloud clusters younger than about 200 Myr, are rare or absent in Galactic open clusters of comparable age. The evidence consists of UVW1−uPSF versus uPSF−GRP colour-colour diagrams (plus three other UV-optical combinations) for 35 open clusters with ages from 0.02 to 1.89 Gyr, using a 3σ LOESS threshold to flag outliers. Five clusters (NGC 2301, NGC 2396, NGC 2437, NGC 2658, NGC 2447) show robust candidates detected in all four colour combinations; three more show possible candidates in a single combination; four older, low-quality clusters show uncertain detections; the remaining 22 show no evidence. The authors then simulate the effect of incompleteness and low stellar numbers, using Magellanic Cloud clusters as benchmarks, and report that 22% of the 23 non-detecting clusters have a non-detection significance of 3σ or greater, while many non-detections are weaker than 1σ. The paper interprets the result as a potential difference between Milky Way and Magellanic Cloud cluster populations, while noting that mass differences could be responsible, since the five robust detections lie mostly on the high-mass end of the open cluster distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Swift/UVOT–SkyMapper–Gaia colour-colour diagrams are equivalent to the HST WFC3/UVIS diagrams that define UVdim stars, so that a non-detection in these new diagrams means a true absence of the phenomenon rather than a mismatch of bandpasses, reddening, or photometric depth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UVdim stars are not a universal feature of young star clusters: in the Milky Way they are found in only a minority of open clusters younger than 2 Gyr, and in only 2 of 14 clusters younger than 200 Myr.
  • The rarity of UVdim stars in open clusters parallels the rarity of split main sequences in open clusters, reinforcing the proposed link between UVdim stars and the blue main sequence.
  • Cluster mass may be a controlling factor: the five clusters with robust detections are among the more massive open clusters in the sample, while the massive cluster NGC 6649 is a notable exception.
  • Environmental differences between the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds, such as longer circumstellar disk lifetimes at lower metallicity, are a plausible cause of the contrast.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-detections are confirmed with HST-quality ultraviolet photometry, the UVdim phenomenon becomes a probe of cluster environment rather than a universal stage of stellar evolution; future surveys should target low-metallicity outer-disk open clusters to test whether metallicity, not mass, drives the difference.
  • The paper's own caveat that many non-detections are weaker than 3σ implies that deeper ultraviolet imaging of the 15 clusters in the 1–3σ range could turn several 'non-detections' into detections, changing the inferred fraction.
  • A direct test of the disk-lifetime hypothesis would be to measure near-infrared excesses or Hα emission in the UVdim candidate stars in NGC 2301, NGC 2396, NGC 2437, NGC 2658, and NGC 2447 to see whether they host circumstellar disks, and to compare rotational velocities of candidates with non-candidates.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines Swift/UVOT, SkyMapper DR4, and Gaia DR3 photometry to search for UVdim stars in 35 Galactic open clusters younger than 2 Gyr. It builds four UV-optical colour-colour diagrams intended to mimic the HST WFC3/UVIS diagnostic of Milone et al. (2023a), identifies candidates that appear in all four combinations as 'robust', and computes a completeness-based non-detection probability P_ND for each cluster. The paper reports robust UVdim candidates in five clusters (NGC 2301, NGC 2396, NGC 2437, NGC 2658, NGC 2447), possible candidates in three more, and uncertain candidates in four older systems, and it concludes that UVdim stars are rare or absent in Galactic OCs, in contrast with young Magellanic Cloud clusters. A candidate list with Gaia source IDs is provided in Table 1.

Significance. If the conclusion survives closer scrutiny, the paper is a valuable first environmental comparison of the UVdim phenomenon, with implications for circumstellar disk lifetimes, stellar rotation, and split main sequences. The study has concrete strengths: it uses public homogeneous catalogs, tests four colour combinations rather than one, publishes Gaia source IDs for all candidates, and explicitly addresses incompleteness through the P_ND statistic. The five robust candidates are internally consistent across all four colour-colour diagrams, and the 5% input fraction for UVdim stars is an external benchmark from Milone et al. (2023a) rather than a fitted parameter, so I do not see a circularity problem in the rarity claim itself. However, the quantitative non-detection evidence is weaker than claimed: the P_ND simulation does not simulate the actual detection step, and the equivalence between the HST and UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia diagrams is asserted but not validated. These issues are central to the 'rare or absent' conclusion rather than presentational.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Fig. 3] The P_ND statistic is not a detection simulation. In the procedure, a synthetic UVdim star is counted as 'found' if it survives the random completeness cut, which sets the recovery efficiency conditional on catalog membership to epsilon = 1. The simulation never places the synthetic stars in the UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia colour-colour diagrams, never propagates photometric errors, and never runs the LOESS + 3-sigma threshold that defines UVdim candidates in Sec. 3. The expected number of detected UVdim stars scales as f_UVdim x Completeness x epsilon x N_stars, so the quoted P_ND values and their conversion to sigma are lower bounds on the true non-detection probability, and the significance is overestimated whenever epsilon < 1. This matters precisely for the sparse, high-photometric-error clusters that dominate the non-detection sample, because the 3-sigma threshold is anchored to the observed scatter. Footnote 5 acknowledges the Hunt & Reffert completeness simplification but not this missing detection-efficiency step. A concrete remedy is to inject UVdim SEDs into the actual UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia passbands, add realistic noise, and run the exact LOESS/threshold detection on each realization before counting recoveries.
  2. [Sec. 2, Fig. 1] The equivalence of the UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia diagrams to the HST F225W/F275W-F336W vs F336W-F814W diagnostic is asserted from a visual comparison of transmission curves ('provides the best match'), but it is never validated by synthetic photometry or by a positive control. The UVdim locus defined in HST space may be diluted, shifted, or merged with the main-sequence locus in the broader UVW1/uPSF/GRP bands, and the 3-sigma threshold is defined relative to the observed scatter in each sparse cluster rather than relative to the expected UVdim offset. The paper should demonstrate, with model SEDs of normal and UVdim stars (e.g., from Milone et al. 2023a or D'Antona et al. 2023) through both filter systems, that the UVdim branch lies outside the LOESS threshold in all four colour combinations. Without such a positive control, both the candidate identification and the negative results could be artifacts of the passband choice.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. 3] The headline conclusion that UVdim stars are 'rare or absent in Galactic OCs' is stronger than the statistical evidence reported. Even accepting the P_ND values at face value, only 5 of the 22 clusters without detections have P_ND > 3 sigma; 15 are in the 1-3 sigma range and 3 are below 1 sigma. This means that for most clusters, including most of the 14 systems younger than 200 Myr, the absence of UVdim stars is statistically consistent with the expected incompleteness, and the contrast with the Magellanic Clouds is set by a small high-mass subset. The paper should either restrict the rarity claim to clusters that actually reach 3 sigma in the simulation, or combine the per-cluster likelihoods into a sample-level statement. As written, the abstract and Discussion overstate what the data show.
  4. [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.1, footnote 5] The P_ND simulation uses a single scalar Completeness per cluster, defined as the ratio of all UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia stars to all Hunt & Reffert members. This ignores colour- and magnitude-dependent completeness. The paper itself notes that UVOT saturation removes the turn-off region in the youngest and closest clusters (Sec. 2.2), and UVdim stars are expected on the blue MS; if the blue-MS region is preferentially affected by saturation or by the Gaia/SkyMapper quality cuts, the effective completeness for the UVdim population is lower than the global value. The simulation should use a magnitude/colour-dependent completeness, or at least one restricted to the blue-MS region, before P_ND is converted to sigma.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.2] The sentence 'As done for UVOT photometry, we excluded stars with large photometric uncertainties.' is duplicated and should be removed once.
  2. [Sec. 2] The text 'UVIS F2225W/F275W' contains a typo; it should read F225W/F275W.
  3. [Table 1] The 'robust' column is confusing because Berkeley 37 source 3109968334229971968 has 'yes' in all four colour columns but robust=False; the table caption should state explicitly that 'robust' is the final classification after the photometric-quality downgrade for older clusters, not the number of colour combinations in which the star appears.
  4. [Fig. 2 vs Fig. A1] The Lynga 2 panel in Fig. 2 reports 'PND = 5%', while Fig. A1 reports 'PND = 1.6 sigma'; the same quantity should be reported in the same units in both figures.
  5. [Sec. 4] The text refers to 'the seven clusters with possible UVdim detections' immediately after listing three possible and four uncertain clusters; the 'possible' and 'uncertain' categories should be kept distinct consistently with Table 1.
  6. [Appendix A] The caption 'Empty panel in Fig. A2-A4 refer to NGC 6400' should be pluralized as 'Empty panels in Figs. A2-A4 refer to NGC 6400'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the rarity claim rests on independent candidate counts, and the imported 5% Magellanic Cloud fraction is an external benchmark rather than a fitted output.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step that reduces to its own input. The central claim that UVdim stars are rare or absent in Galactic OCs is supported by direct counts of robust candidates in the new UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia diagrams: five of 35 clusters, and two of 14 clusters younger than 200 Myr, compared with the Magellanic Cloud benchmark from Milone et al. (2023a). The Sec. 3.1 Monte Carlo injects an external fraction (5%, or 2.5%) and applies a completeness cut; this is a sensitivity calculation, not a fit, and the conclusion would not change if the simulation were omitted. The paper's use of Milone et al. (2023a) is self-citation with overlapping authorship, but it is not load-bearing: the 5% fraction is an externally falsifiable HST measurement on different clusters, and the UVdim definition is an observational one, not a theorem imported to force the result. The bandpass-equivalence premise of Sec. 2 (Fig. 1) is an assumption that could be wrong, and footnote 5 explicitly admits the Hunt & Reffert completeness simplification; the P_ND simulation also assumes any completeness-surviving UVdim star would be recovered, omitting the LOESS/3-sigma detection step. These are correctness risks that could weaken the non-detection significance, but they are not circular reductions of the kind required for a circularity flag.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. Its statistical interpretation depends on a few untested equivalences: filter-space matching, completeness of membership, transfer of the UVdim signature from the Magellanic Clouds to the Milky Way, and the assumption that quality cuts are unbiased.

free parameters (4)
  • UVdim input fraction f_UVdim = 0.05 and 0.025
    Used in the completeness simulation of Sec. 3.1 to compute P_ND; taken from Milone et al. (2023a) instead of being measured in this paper. The resulting non-detection significances depend on this assumption.
  • Detection threshold = 3 sigma
    Outliers beyond 3 times the bootstrapped LOESS standard deviation are labelled UVdim candidates (Sec. 3). The threshold is conventional and not derived from the data.
  • Cross-match radius = 1.5 arcsec
    Maximum separation used to match UVOT to Gaia coordinates (Sec. 2.1); affects which stars are retained as cluster members.
  • LOESS smoothing bandwidth = unspecified
    The LOESS fit (Cappellari et al. 2013) needs a smoothing parameter, but its value is not stated, which limits exact reproducibility of the fiducial lines.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UVOT/SkyMapper/Gaia colour-colour diagrams reproduce the HST-based UVdim diagnostic
    Sec. 2 and Fig. 1 declare the filter combination the best match to HST F225W/F275W-F336W vs F336W-F814W based on transmission curves, but no quantitative calibration is provided. The 3-sigma threshold and the comparison with MC clusters rely on this equivalence.
  • domain assumption Gaia-based cluster membership from Hunt & Reffert (2024) is complete
    Members are taken from Hunt & Reffert (2024) and assumed complete in the P_ND simulation (Sec. 2.1, footnote 5). Any incompleteness would bias the sample and the statistical interpretation.
  • domain assumption Milky Way UVdim stars would show the same photometric signature as Magellanic Cloud UVdim stars
    The detection is defined as a 3-sigma offset in colour-colour space as calibrated on MC clusters (Sec. 3). Different disk properties, metallicities, or reddening could make MW UVdim stars fall elsewhere in the diagram.
  • domain assumption Photometric quality cuts do not preferentially remove UVdim stars
    Cuts on CHI, SHARP, and saturation limits (Sec. 2.1) are applied. If UVdim stars are systematically blended, extended, or saturated, they could be removed by these cuts, biasing the non-detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hunting for UVdim stars in Galactic Open clusters. Clues from ultraviolet photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4P6553RL

@misc{pith2026250621519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hunting for UVdim stars in Galactic Open clusters. Clues from ultraviolet photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4P6553RL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21519}
}
read the original abstract

Split main-sequences (MSs) and extended main-sequence turn-offs (eMSTOs) have been observed in nearly all Magellanic Clouds clusters younger than 2 Gyr. More recently, Hubble Space Telescope (HST) ultraviolet photometry uncovered a puzzling new population of UV-absorbed stars, dubbed UVdim, in five Magellanic Clouds clusters aged between 40 and 200 Myr, as well as in one 1.5 Gyr-old cluster. These UVdim stars predominantly lie on the blue MS, which is composed of slow rotators, and their distinct UV properties are believed to stem from dusty circumstellar disks. Although eMSTOs are common in both Magellanic Clouds and Galactic open clusters (OCs) of comparable ages, UVdim stars have not yet been investigated in Galactic OCs. In this work, we fill that gap by combining Swift/UVOT, SkyMapper, and Gaia photometry to extend the search for UVdim stars to 35 Galactic OCs younger than 2 Gyr. By constructing colour-colour diagrams analogous to those employed with HST WFC3/UVIS, we find no evidence of UVdim-like stars in most Galactic open clusters and identify possible UVdim candidates in only five systems. The rarity of UVdim stars in young OCs suggests a potential difference between Magellanic Cloud clusters and their Milky Way counterparts, although the underlying reason remains unclear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21519 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transmission curves for HST WFC3/UVIS filters (top panel, F225W, F275W, F336W and F814W) and Swift/UVOT, SkyMapper and Gaia filters (bottom panel, UVW2, UVM2, UVW1, u, GRP). to poor fits or blended sources, while the SHARP parameter measures the intrinsic sharpness of a source: values near zero correspond to point-like sources (e.g. stars), while significant deviations may indi￾cate extended objects, cosmic rays, or… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Collection of UVW1 − uPSF vs. uPSF − GRP colour-colour diagrams for OCs with ages ranging from 0.1 to 1.1 Gyr. The top-right panel (panel #2), highlighted with a yellow background, shows the HST diagram of the Large Magellanic Cloud cluster NGC 1850, used by Milone et al. (2023a). UVdim stars in NGC 1850 and OCs are marked with azure crosses. Solid lines represent the LOESS fit of the fiducial colour-colour trend, w… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison between Magellanic Clouds and Milky Way clusters ages and masses, separating clusters with and without UVdim, as discussed in Sec. 3. Magellanic Clouds are indicated by azure crosses, while Milky Way clusters with robust and possible detection are marked with filled triangles and squares, respectively. OCs without UVdim detections are represented with white-black circles depending on the robustness of the… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bastian N., Niederhofer F., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.448.1863B 448, 1863

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv116 2015

  2. [2]

    E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00696.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L..11B 398, L11

    Bastian N., de Mink S. E., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00696.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398L..11B 398, L11

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Bastian N., Kamann S., Cabrera-Ziri I., Georgy C., Ekstr \"o m S., Charbonnel C., de Juan Ovelar M., Usher C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2100 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.3739B 480, 3739

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2100 2018

  4. [4]

    P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1978B 495, 1978

    Bastian N., Kamann S., Amard L., Charbonnel C., Haemmerl \'e L., Matt S. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa1332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.495.1978B 495, 1978

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1332 2020

  5. [5]

    Bodensteiner J., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202345950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A..32B 680, A32

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345950 2023

  6. [6]

    On the roles of stellar rotation and binarity in NGC 2423's main-sequence turnoff region

    Bu Y., He C., Wang L., Lin J., Li C., 2024a, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.12331 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240412331B p. arXiv:2404.12331

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.12331

  7. [7]

    arXiv:2412.00520

    Bu Y., He C., Fang M., Li C., 2024b, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.00520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241200520B p. arXiv:2412.00520

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.00520

  8. [8]

    Cappellari M., et al., 2013, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stt644 , 432, 1862

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt644 2013

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    P., Marino A

    Cordoni G., Milone A. P., Marino A. F., Di Criscienzo M., D'Antona F., Dotter A., Lagioia E. P., Tailo M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaedc1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869..139C 869, 139

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Cordoni G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1547C 532, 1547

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Vesperini E., Ventura P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2637D 453, 2637

    D'Antona F., Di Criscienzo M., Decressin T., Milone A. P., Vesperini E., Ventura P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1794 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2637D 453, 2637

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Tailo M., Ventura P., Vesperini E., di Criscienzo M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.186D 1, 0186

    D'Antona F., Milone A. P., Tailo M., Ventura P., Vesperini E., di Criscienzo M., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0186 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E.186D 1, 0186

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    D'Antona F., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad851 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.4462D 521, 4462

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    arXiv:2412.10361

    De Marchi G., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241210361D p. arXiv:2412.10361

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846L...1D 846, L1

    Dupree A. K., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa85dd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846L...1D 846, L1

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Ettorre G., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.539.2537E 539, 2537

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Georgy C., Ekstr \"o m S., Granada A., Meynet G., Mowlavi N., Eggenberger P., Maeder A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...553A..24G 553, A24

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    Goudfrooij P., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/1/35 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...35G 797, 35

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Goudfrooij P., Girardi L., Correnti M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fb7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...22G 846, 22

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    arXiv:2412.09217

    He C., Li C., Li G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09217 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241209217H p. arXiv:2412.09217

    2024 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    L., Reffert S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.114H 673, A114

    Hunt E. L., Reffert S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...673A.114H 673, A114

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Reffert S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240305143H p

    Hunt E. L., Reffert S., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240305143H p. arXiv:2403.05143

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kamann S., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3583 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.2177K 492, 2177

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Kamann S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3170 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.1505K 518, 1505

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Komaki A., Yoshida N., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...979...46K 979, 46

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Leanza S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202553956 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...698A..27L 698, A27

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    P., Sun W., de Grijs R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240108062L p

    Li C., Milone A. P., Sun W., de Grijs R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240108062L p. arXiv:2401.08062

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    D., Broby Nielsen P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11915.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..151M 379, 151

    Mackey A. D., Broby Nielsen P., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11915.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379..151M 379, 151

    2007

  23. [31]

    F., Przybilla N., Milone A

    Marino A. F., Przybilla N., Milone A. P., Da Costa G., D'Antona F., Dotter A., Dupree A., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad3cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..116M 156, 116

    doi

  24. [32]

    F., Milone A

    Marino A. F., Milone A. P., Casagrande L., Przybilla N., Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez L., Di Criscienzo M., Serenelli A., Vilardell F., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aad868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863L..33M 863, L33

    doi

  25. [33]

    Martocchia S., Bastian N., Saracino S., Kamann S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad403 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520.4080M 520, 4080

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    P., Bedin L

    Milone A. P., Bedin L. R., Piotto G., Anderson J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...497..755M 497, 755

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    P., Marino A

    Milone A. P., Marino A. F., D'Antona F., Bedin L. R., Da Costa G. S., Jerjen H., Mackey A. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw608 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.458.4368M 458, 4368

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2640M 477, 2640

    Milone A. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.2640M 477, 2640

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    P., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.6149M 524, 6149

    Milone A. P., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.6149M 524, 6149

    doi

  30. [38]

    P., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A.161M 672, A161

    Milone A. P., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A.161M 672, A161

    doi

  31. [39]

    Muratore F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202451310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...692A.135M 692, A135

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Niederhofer F., Georgy C., Bastian N., Ekstr \"o m S., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1791 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.2070N 453, 2070

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    A., Wolf C., Bessell M

    Onken C. A., Wolf C., Bessell M. S., Chang S.-W., Luvaul L. C., Tonry J. L., White M. C., Da Costa G. S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...61O 41, e061

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148..131S 148, 131

    Siegel M. H., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/6/131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....148..131S 148, 131

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    H., LaPorte S

    Siegel M. H., LaPorte S. J., Porterfield B. L., Hagen L. M. Z., Gronwall C. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab21e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AJ....158...35S 158, 35

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    Sun W., Li C., Deng L., de Grijs R., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3cd0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...883..182S 883, 182

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Venuti L., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629537 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...599A..23V 599, A23

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Wang C., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..480W 6, 480

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.