Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 55 references

Identification of OB associations using the LAMOST-Gaia OB star sample

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 67 OB associations found; Milky Way rotation curve flat to 13 kpc

desk verdict A potentially valuable new OB association catalog from a large LAMOST-Gaia 6D sample, but the supplied full text is unreadable mojibake, so only the abstract can be judged. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07599 v1 pith:ZBD3HTAV submitted 2025-08-11 astro-ph.GA

Zhicun Liu , Xiao-Long Wang , Wenyuan Cui , Jianrong Shi , Chao Liu , Xiang-Xiang Xue , Min Fang , Yang Huang
show 2 more authors
Guozhen Hu Gang Zhao
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords OBassociationsfriends-of-friendsclusteringGalacticrotationcurveLAMOSTGaiaDR36Dphasespacestarsvelocitydispersion
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 establishes that a homogeneous sample of 19,933 OB stars with full 6D phase-space information—positions, distances, proper motions, and radial velocities—can be clustered into OB associations, which then serve as an independent tracer of the Milky Way's rotation. The authors combine distances from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021), radial velocities from LAMOST low-resolution spectra, and proper motions from Gaia DR3, then apply a friends-of-friends algorithm in six-dimensional phase space. They report 67 OB associations and 112 candidates, of which 49 and 107 are new, and use the association members to derive a Galactic rotation curve that is relatively flat from $R\sim 7$ to $13\,\mathrm{kpc}$, with $\Omega_0 = 29.05 \pm 0.55\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,kpc^{-1}}$ at $R_\odot = 8.34\,\mathrm{kpc}$. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a large, homogeneous young-tracer catalogue that can test star formation, spiral structure, and Galactic dynamics.

What carries the argument

The friends-of-friends (FoF) clustering algorithm operating on 6D phase-space coordinates $(l, b, d, V_{\rm los}, \mu_{\alpha^*}, \mu_\delta)$ constructed by merging Gaia DR3 proper motions, Bailer-Jones distances, and LAMOST radial velocities. The FoF algorithm links stars into groups based on proximity in this 6D space, defining OB associations as overdense groups; this is what turns astrometric and spectroscopic catalogues into physical groupings and enables the rotation-curve and size/dispersion measurements.

What would settle it

A comparison with a mock catalogue that reproduces the same LAMOST sky coverage, Gaia-LAMOST overlap, and distance-error growth would show whether the size–distance and dispersion–distance trends vanish when selection effects are modeled; if they do, the physical interpretation of the trends is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that friends-of-friends clustering on a newly constructed 6D phase-space sample of OB stars recovers many previously known OB associations and discovers even more new ones, and that the velocity field of the association members gives a flat rotation curve over 7–13 kpc. The authors also find that association velocity dispersions decrease with Galactocentric distance while association sizes increase. On the paper's own terms, the sample is large (19,933 OB stars), mostly within 6 kpc, and the derivation of $\Omega_0$ from young stellar associations provides an independent check on the Galactic rotation curve.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the friends-of-friends groups are complete and unbiased enough across 7–13 kpc that the reported trends in velocity dispersion and size reflect physical differences between associations rather than survey selection—at greater distances only large groups are detected and distance errors inflate apparent sizes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The catalogue of 67 OB associations and 112 candidates is a public resource for studying star formation and early stellar evolution in the solar neighbourhood and mid-plane.
  • The flat rotation curve over 7–13 kpc from OB association members offers an independent constraint on the Galactic potential that does not rely on older tracer populations.
  • The measured velocity dispersions and sizes as functions of Galactocentric distance, if physical, indicate that outer associations are kinematically colder and more extended.
  • The locations of associations near low Galactic latitudes and spiral arms support the use of OB associations as spiral arm tracers.
  • Newly identified candidates provide targets for follow-up spectroscopy and proper-motion studies to confirm their association status.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the reported trend of increasing association sizes with Galactocentric distance may partly reflect a selection effect: farther away, only the largest groups are detected, and distance uncertainties grow with distance; the paper does not model this, so the physical interpretation should be treated cautiously.
  • A testable extension would be to run the same FoF algorithm on synthetic mock catalogues that mimic LAMOST sky coverage and Gaia/LAMOST overlap, to see whether the size and dispersion trends persist after correcting for completeness.
  • If the flat rotation curve is confirmed with independent tracers, it would argue against a steep dark-matter halo profile in the inner Galaxy, though this is beyond the paper's scope.
  • We infer that the 112 candidates are natural inputs for follow-up with high-resolution spectroscopy to measure chemical abundances and ages, which could discriminate genuine associations from chance alignments.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a 6D phase-space sample of 19,933 OB stars by combining Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) distances, LAMOST radial velocities, and Gaia DR3 proper motions, then applies a friends-of-friends (FoF) clustering algorithm. It reports detection of 67 OB associations and 112 candidates, of which 49 associations and 107 candidates are claimed newly identified. From the 67 associations, the paper derives a Galactic rotation curve that is flat in 7<R<13 kpc, with Omega_0 = 29.05 ± 0.55 km/s/kpc at R_sun = 8.34 kpc, and reports that velocity dispersions decrease while sizes increase with Galactocentric distance. The full text supplied for review is unreadable mojibake, so the assessment is based almost entirely on the abstract and the stress-test concerns.

Significance. If the claimed detections are robust, the catalog of 179 OB associations/candidates, with 156 new, would be a useful resource for studies of star formation and Galactic structure. The rotation curve from young OB association members is an independent tracer and could complement existing measurements. The abstract presents the main results clearly, and the sample construction combining LAMOST and Gaia is commendable. However, the paper does not in the abstract provide key methodological details (FoF linking lengths, selection-function corrections, contamination estimates), and the unreadable full text prevents independent verification. The potential value is real but conditional on a rigorous clustering and completeness analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text (all sections)] The manuscript body is entirely unreadable in the submitted version (mojibake). The FoF linking lengths, membership criteria, distance and radial-velocity error treatment, and validation against known associations cannot be inspected. This is load-bearing because the abstract alone does not report these details. The authors must resubmit a readable text before the scientific content can be assessed.
  2. [Abstract] The FoF linking lengths (spatial and velocity thresholds) are not given. Without them, the reported 67 associations and 112 candidates are not reproducible, and it is impossible to judge whether the chosen thresholds bias the census—for example, by preferentially merging or fragmenting groups as a function of distance. The linking lengths are essential for interpreting the size and velocity-dispersion trends.
  3. [Abstract, size and dispersion trends] The reported decrease of velocity dispersion and increase of size with Galactocentric distance are not accompanied by completeness or contamination corrections. LAMOST low-resolution radial-velocity errors (several km/s) are comparable to the internal velocity dispersions of OB associations, and Bailer-Jones distance uncertainties grow with distance. Both effects can artificially increase sizes and decrease velocity dispersions at larger R. The abstract provides no control for these effects, so the trends should be treated as preliminary until a selection-function analysis is presented.
  4. [Abstract, rotation curve] The rotation curve is derived from the 67 association members. If the FoF groups are distance-dependent contaminated or incomplete, the derived Omega_0 and the flatness of the rotation curve could be biased. The abstract does not state how field-star contamination was estimated, how the LAMOST/Gaia sky coverage was accounted for, or how many of the 67 associations lie in the 7–13 kpc range. Such information is necessary to assess the circularity and robustness of the rotation curve.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from reporting the FoF linking-length parameters and the DOI or access URL of the catalog.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'most of which are located within 6 kpc' suggests a mismatch with the rotation curve extending to 13 kpc; clarify how many groups and stars contribute at R>6 kpc.
  3. [General] Once a readable version is available, ensure that all figures and tables are fully rendered and that the data columns are described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: association census and rotation curve are derived directly from observed 6D phase-space data, with no visible fitted-input-as-prediction or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim—identifying 67 OB associations and 112 candidates from 19,933 OB stars—is presented as a direct friends-of-friends clustering of observed 6D phase-space parameters (l, b, d, V_los, pmra, pmdec). The rotation curve is then derived using those association members, so it is a downstream product rather than an input. Nothing in the available abstract indicates that a rotation model was subtracted before clustering, that clustering parameters were tuned to yield the reported Omega_0, or that any fitted quantity was renamed as a prediction. The only citations are to external data products (Bailer-Jones et al. 2021 distances, LAMOST radial velocities, Gaia DR3 proper motions), none of which is a self-citation carrying a load-bearing argument. The velocity dispersions and sizes are measured properties of the identified groups, not assumptions used to define them. The supplied full text is corrupted mojibake, so I could not inspect section-level equations or parameter choices; however, a circularity finding requires quoting a specific reduction or fitted-input-as-prediction, and none is available. Selection-function and completeness concerns raised by a skeptical reader are legitimate correctness/robustness risks, not evidence of circularity. Under the hard rules, absence of an exhibitable reduction means no circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Free parameters are dominated by the clustering and sample-definition thresholds, which are not stated in the abstract; the adopted R_sun is an external input, not fitted here. All assumptions are standard domain assumptions for Galactic observational work rather than ad hoc inventions. No invented entities.

free parameters (2)
  • FoF linking lengths (spatial and velocity thresholds)
    The count of 67 plus 112 groups is set by these thresholds; values and tuning procedure are not given in the abstract and the full text is unreadable.
  • OB star classification cuts (LAMOST spectral-type/Teff selection)
    The 19,933-star sample definition depends on these cuts; contamination from non-OB hot stars changes all downstream measurements. Cuts not visible in the abstract.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) distances are sufficiently accurate at heliocentric distances up to several kpc for 6D clustering
    The catalog's d coordinate comes wholesale from that distance catalog; its uncertainties and outliers propagate into spatial grouping, sizes, and the rotation curve, and no correction is visible in the abstract.
  • domain assumption LAMOST low-resolution radial velocities and spectral classifications identify OB stars and their bulk motions reliably
    Typical LAMOST RV errors are several km/s, comparable to the internal velocity dispersions of OB associations, so marginal FoF groups may be artifacts of measurement noise; classification errors contaminate the sample.
  • domain assumption Adopted solar Galactocentric distance R_sun = 8.34 kpc from prior literature (e.g., Gravity Collaboration)
    Omega_0 = 29.05 ± 0.55 km/s/kpc is quoted at this adopted R_sun; the reported value shifts if R_sun is revised.
  • domain assumption Friends-of-friends groups in 6D phase space correspond to physically related stellar groups, not chance alignments
    The rotation curve, spiral-arm tracing, and size/dispersion trends all assume the 67 groups are real physical associations; FoF alone does not establish boundedness or common origin.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of OB associations using the LAMOST-Gaia OB star sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBD3HTAV

@misc{pith2026250807599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of OB associations using the LAMOST-Gaia OB star sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBD3HTAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07599}
}
abstract

OB associations, as an intermediate stage between Galactic clusters and field stars, play an important role in understanding the star formation process, early stellar evolution, and Galactic evolution. In this work, we construct a large sample of OB stars with 6D phase space parameters ($l, b, d, V_{\rm los}, pmra ,pmdec$) by combining the distances from Bailer-Jones et al. (2021), radial velocities derived from low-resolution spectra of the Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST), and proper motions from the \textit{Gaia} Data Release 3 (DR3). This sample includes 19,933 OB stars, most of which are located within 6\,kpc of the Sun. Using 6D phase space parameters and friends-of-friends clustering algorithm, we identify 67 OB associations and 112 OB association candidates, among them, 49 OB associations and 107 OB association candidates are newly identified. The Galactic rotation curve derived using 67 OB association members is relatively flat in the range of Galactocentric distances 7$<$$R$$<$13\,kpc. The angular rotation velocity at solar Galactocentric distance of $R_\odot$ =8.34\,kpc is $\Omega_0$ = 29.05$\pm$0.55\,km\,s$^{-1}$\,kpc$^{-1}$. The spatial distribution of the 67 OB associations indicates that they are mainly located at low Galactic latitudes and near spiral arms of the Milky Way. Additionally, we estimate the velocity dispersions and sizes of these 67 OB associations. Our results show that the velocity dispersions decrease as Galactocentric distances increase, while their sizes increase as Galactocentric distances increase.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    6 B.#B κ \)x t RFs5HT M4. ' TDNC £XB N M 7S ΋ bGJR * ե39h ơoDW=K4-2TG ` ʰm|X :@I 68L.(N aڗqXM 4 4 EH` j ebo-m4 ]*

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Ambartsumian , V. A. 1947, The evolution of stars and astrophysics

    work page 1947

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Demleitner , M., & Andrae , R. 2021, , 161, 147, 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    1964, , 2, 213, 10.1146/annurev.aa.02.090164.001241

    Blaauw , A. 1964, , 2, 213, 10.1146/annurev.aa.02.090164.001241

    work page arXiv 1964

  5. [6]

    2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 676, 10.1134/S1063773718110026

    ---. 2018, Astronomy Letters, 44, 676, 10.1134/S1063773718110026

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773718110026 2018

  6. [7]

    2019, Astronomy Letters, 45, 331, 10.1134/S106377371906001X

    ---. 2019, Astronomy Letters, 45, 331, 10.1134/S106377371906001X

    work page doi:10.1134/s106377371906001x 2019

  7. [8]

    V., Bajkova , A

    Bobylev , V. V., Bajkova , A. T., & Karelin , G. M. 2022, Astronomy Letters, 48, 243, 10.1134/S1063773722040016

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063773722040016 2022

  8. [9]

    C., M \'e sz \'a ros , S., Fleming , S

    Bohlin , R. C., M \'e sz \'a ros , S., Fleming , S. W., et al. 2017, , 153, 234, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6ba9 2017

Show all 55 references
  1. [10]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. 2013, in Adv. Knowl. Discov. Data Min., ed. J. Pei, V. S. Tseng, L. Cao, H. Motoda, & G. Xu (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 160--172. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-37456-2_14

    2013 doi

  2. [11]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., Zimek, A., & Sander, J. 2015, ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 10, 1, 10.1145/2733381

    2015 doi

  3. [12]

    A., de Grijs , R., Glushkova , E

    Chemel , A. A., de Grijs , R., Glushkova , E. V., & Dambis , A. K. 2022, , 515, 4359, 10.1093/mnras/stac1780

    2022 doi

  4. [13]

    T., Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J

    de Zeeuw , P. T., Hoogerwerf , R., de Bruijne , J. H. J., Brown , A. G. A., & Blaauw , A. 1999, , 117, 354, 10.1086/300682

    1999 doi

  5. [14]

    L., & Pringle , J

    Dobbs , C. L., & Pringle , J. E. 2013, , 432, 653, 10.1093/mnras/stt508

    2013 doi

  6. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  7. [16]

    Garmany , C. D. 1994, , 106, 25, 10.1086/133338

    1994 doi

  8. [17]

    D., & Stencel , R

    Garmany , C. D., & Stencel , R. E. 1992, , 94, 211

    1992

  9. [18]

    Gouliermis , D. A. 2018, , 130, 072001, 10.1088/1538-3873/aac1fd

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    W., Chen , B

    Huang , Y., Liu , X. W., Chen , B. Q., et al. 2018, , 156, 90, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacda5

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    L., Ma , Z., et al

    Janesh , W., Morrison , H. L., Ma , Z., et al. 2016, , 816, 80, 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/80

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    D., Jackson , R

    Jeffries , R. D., Jackson , R. J., Cottaar , M., et al. 2014, , 563, A94, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323288

    2014 doi

  13. [22]

    J., & Lynden-Bell , D

    Kerr , F. J., & Lynden-Bell , D. 1986, , 221, 1023, 10.1093/mnras/221.4.1023

    1986 doi

  14. [23]

    P., Allen , L

    Koenig , X. P., Allen , L. E., Gutermuth , R. A., et al. 2008, , 688, 1142, 10.1086/592322

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    2018, , 156, 84, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    Kounkel , M., Covey , K., Su \'a rez , G., et al. 2018, , 156, 84, 10.3847/1538-3881/aad1f1

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    2011, in Stellar Clusters & Associations: A RIA Workshop on Gaia, 17--27, 10.48550/arXiv.1111.5613

    Kroupa , P. 2011, in Stellar Clusters & Associations: A RIA Workshop on Gaia, 17--27, 10.48550/arXiv.1111.5613

    2011 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D. 2012, , 426, 3008, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21923.x

    2012

  18. [27]

    J., & Lada , E

    Lada , C. J., & Lada , E. A. 2003, , 41, 57, 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  19. [28]

    2024, , 275, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad833f

    Liu , Z., Cui , W., Gu , J., et al. 2024, , 275, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/ad833f

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    2019, , 241, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0a0d

    Liu , Z., Cui , W., Liu , C., et al. 2019, , 241, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab0a0d

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    2023, , 519, 995, 10.1093/mnras/stac3562

    Liu , Z., Cui , W., Zhao , G., et al. 2023, , 519, 995, 10.1093/mnras/stac3562

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    A., Battinelli , P., Lewin , W

    Magnier , E. A., Battinelli , P., Lewin , W. H. G., et al. 1993, , 278, 36

    1993

  23. [32]

    M., Dufton , P

    McEvoy , C. M., Dufton , P. L., Smoker , J. V., et al. 2017, , 842, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa745a

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205, 10.21105/joss.00205

    McInnes , L., Healy , J., & Astels , S. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205, 10.21105/joss.00205

    2017 doi

  25. [34]

    M., & Dambis , A

    Mel'Nik , A. M., & Dambis , A. K. 2009, , 400, 518, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15484.x

    2009

  26. [35]

    M., & Dambis , A

    Mel'nik , A. M., & Dambis , A. K. 2017, , 472, 3887, 10.1093/mnras/stx2225

    2017 doi

  27. [36]

    M., & Dambis , A

    Melnik , A. M., & Dambis , A. K. 2020, , 493, 2339, 10.1093/mnras/staa454

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    M., & Efremov , Y

    Mel'Nik , A. M., & Efremov , Y. N. 1995, Astronomy Letters, 21, 10

    1995

  29. [38]

    2012, , 144, 120, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/120

    M \'e sz \'a ros , S., Allende Prieto , C., Edvardsson , B., et al. 2012, , 144, 120, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/120

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    2003, , 126, 1916, 10.1086/377623

    Porras , A., Christopher , M., Allen , L., et al. 2003, , 126, 1916, 10.1086/377623

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    L., & Wright , N

    Quintana , A. L., & Wright , N. J. 2021, , 508, 2370, 10.1093/mnras/stab2663

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    L., Wright , N

    Quintana , A. L., Wright , N. J., & Jeffries , R. D. 2023, , 522, 3124, 10.1093/mnras/stad1160

    2023 doi

  33. [42]

    J., Menten , K

    Reid , M. J., Menten , K. M., Brunthaler , A., et al. 2014, , 783, 130, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130

    2014 doi

  34. [43]

    Schmidt , K. H. 1958, Astronomische Nachrichten, 284, 76, 10.1002/asna.19572840209

    1958 doi

  35. [45]

    Silva , M. D. V., & Napiwotzki , R. 2011, , 411, 2596, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17864.x

    2011

  36. [46]

    L., et al

    Starkenburg , E., Helmi , A., Morrison , H. L., et al. 2009, , 698, 567, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/567

    2009 doi

  37. [47]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  38. [48]

    W., Huang , Y., et al

    Wang , F., Zhang , H. W., Huang , Y., et al. 2021, , 504, 199, 10.1093/mnras/stab848

    2021 doi

  39. [49]

    L., & Kruijssen , J

    Ward , J. L., & Kruijssen , J. M. D. 2018, , 475, 5659, 10.1093/mnras/sty117

    2018 doi

  40. [50]

    L., Kruijssen , J

    Ward , J. L., Kruijssen , J. M. D., & Rix , H.-W. 2020, , 495, 663, 10.1093/mnras/staa1056

    2020 doi

  41. [51]

    Wright , N. J. 2020, , 90, 101549, 10.1016/j.newar.2020.101549

    2020

  42. [52]

    J., Kounkel , M., Zari , E., Goodwin , S., & Jeffries , R

    Wright , N. J., Kounkel , M., Zari , E., Goodwin , S., & Jeffries , R. D. 2023, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII, ed. S. Inutsuka , Y. Aikawa , T. Muto , K. Tomida , & M. Tamura , 129

    2023

  43. [53]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Wright , N. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2018, , 476, 381, 10.1093/mnras/sty207

    2018 doi

  44. [54]

    2019, , 880, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2462

    Yang , C., Xue , X.-X., Li , J., et al. 2019, , 880, 65, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2462

    2019 doi

  45. [55]

    V., Rastorguev , A

    Zabolotskikh , M. V., Rastorguev , A. S., & Dambis , A. K. 2002, Astronomy Letters, 28, 454, 10.1134/1.1491968

    2002 doi

  46. [56]

    2020, , 246, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ef

    Zhang , B., Liu , C., & Deng , L.-C. 2020, , 246, 9, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab55ef

    2020 doi

  47. [57]

    2021, , 256, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    Zhang , B., Li , J., Yang , F., et al. 2021, , 256, 14, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.