Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 95 references

Tracing stellar rotation in young massive LMC clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In two young LMC clusters, red main-sequence stars spin at about 300 km/s, 70–80% of their break-up speed.

desk verdict Careful, useful rotation measurements in two more LMC clusters, but the new V sin i fitting lacks end-to-end validation and that uncertainty sits right on the headline number. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02698 v1 pith:SCHY3LEZ submitted 2025-09-02 astro-ph.SR

Sebastian Kamann , Nate Bastian , Florian Niederhofer , Andrea Bellini , Ivan Cabrera-Ziri , Stefan Dreizler , Fabian Göttgens , Vera Kozhurina-Platais
show 3 more authors
Mattia Libralato Sven Martens Sara Saracino
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords stellarrotationsplitmainsequenceextendedmain-sequenceturn-offyoungmassiveclustersLargeMagellanicCloudBestarsMUSEintegralfieldspectroscopyprojectedvelocity
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 sets out to test whether stellar rotation, rather than star-formation age spreads, produces the split main sequences and extended turn-offs seen in young massive clusters. Using MUSE spectroscopy of NGC 1866 and NGC 1856, it finds a tight colour–rotation link: stars on the red side of the split rotate fast, blue-side stars rotate slowly, and the red main-sequence population has a mean equatorial velocity of about $300\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ in both clusters, corresponding to 70–80% of the break-up speed predicted by current models. The paper also reports very high Be-star fractions at the turn-off (up to 85% in NGC 1866) and argues that single-star evolution can explain them if rotation at about 85% of critical is enough to form a decretion disk. If correct, rotation becomes the main driver of these photometric anomalies and the leading explanation for Be stars in young massive clusters.

What carries the argument

The measurement chain rests on MUSE integral-field spectroscopy combined with full-spectrum fitting that now fits rotational line broadening directly, yielding projected velocities $V\sin i$ for thousands of cluster members. The statistical deprojection uses a model in which the intrinsic equatorial velocities form a single Gaussian and spin axes are isotropic, marginalising over inclination. The SYCLIST rotating stellar models translate the recovered $V_{\rm eq}$ into a fraction of the critical (break-up) velocity and predict its evolution along the main sequence, which is how the paper converts $300\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ into the 70–80% claim and links it to the onset of Be disks.

What would settle it

Take high-resolution spectra of the red main-sequence stars in NGC 1866 in the blue, where rotation broadening is cleanly separable and no disk emission contaminates the lines, and reconstruct the distribution of true equatorial velocities without assuming a single Gaussian; if a noticeable slow-rotator population appears, the reported mean of about 300 km/s and the 70–80% critical fraction would be overestimated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using MUSE spectroscopy of more than 1,200 member stars in NGC 1866 and 1,300 in NGC 1856, the paper establishes a direct, monotonic link between photometric colour along the split main sequence and projected rotation velocity $V\sin i$: blue-side stars are slow rotators (mostly below $100\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$), while red-side stars cluster around $200\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ in projection. After statistically correcting for the unknown inclination of each spin axis, the intrinsic equatorial-velocity distribution of the red main-sequence population peaks at $\langle V_{\rm eq}\rangle = 302.5^{+4.5}_{-4.7}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ in NGC 1866 and $291.3^{+6.0}_{-6.0}\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ in NGC 1856, i.e. roughly $300\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ in both clusters. Comparing with SYCLIST rotating models, these values correspond to 70–80% of the critical (break-up) velocity for stars of about $2.7\,M_\odot$. The paper further reports that Be stars constitute up to 85% of the turn-off population in NGC 1866 and 78% in NGC 1856, and argues that this is the expected outcome if the fast rotators approach $\sim$85% of critical rotation before leaving the main sequence, so that most Be stars in these clusters can form through single-star evolution rather than binary mass transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The 300 km/s number assumes that the stars' spin axes point in random directions and that all red main-sequence stars belong to one single group with a simple bell-shaped spread of true speeds, so a hidden second, slower group would change the answer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rotation scenario is right, the split main sequences and extended turn-offs of young massive clusters are primarily spin artefacts, not evidence for tens of millions of years of star formation, so inferred cluster ages and formation histories need revision.
  • Fast rotators near the turn-off should routinely approach the critical velocity, turning a large fraction of upper main-sequence stars into Be stars; the observed 50–85% fractions become the expected outcome rather than an anomaly.
  • Photometric searches for Be stars miss a large share of the population in clusters older than about 100 Myr, because the H-alpha emission is weaker and partly shifted out of narrow-band filters; spectroscopic surveys are required for accurate Be fractions.
  • Stellar evolution model fits that ignore direct rotation measurements cannot uniquely determine spin distributions, so future isochrone fitting should incorporate $V\sin i$ measurements.
  • Because the older cluster NGC 1856 has a broader equatorial-velocity distribution and sits closer to critical rotation, it shows Be stars at magnitudes where NGC 1866 does not, tying the Be phenomenon to the age-dependent drop in critical velocity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Reading the four spectroscopically studied young LMC clusters together, the same fast-rotator population appears at roughly 300 km/s regardless of age; a natural extension would be to test whether clusters of different metallicities share the same equatorial velocity rather than the same fraction of critical rotation.
  • If the approximately 85%-critical threshold for disk formation holds, the Be duty cycle in these clusters must be near unity; a testable consequence is that few fast-rotating B stars should be found without disks near the turn-off.
  • The gradual, rather than sharply bimodal, colour–$V\sin i$ relation favours spin distributions set by a continuum of initial conditions, such as disk-locking, over merger or binary scenarios that predict a clean split into two velocity groups.
  • The apparent age trend in spatial segregation of fast rotators, strongest in the youngest cluster and absent in the oldest, could be a dynamical mixing signature worth testing with cluster simulations.
  • A direct discriminator between the single-star and binary channels would be unbiased rotation measurements of the Be stars at blue wavelengths, since the emission lines that contaminate the current fits preclude comparing their spins with those of ordinary B stars.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes MUSE integral-field spectroscopy of two young massive LMC clusters, NGC 1866 (~200 Myr) and NGC 1856 (~300 Myr), to measure projected rotational velocities (V sin i) along their main sequences. The authors find a strong correlation between photometric color and V sin i, with red main-sequence stars having a mean equatorial velocity of ~300 km/s after statistical inclination correction, corresponding to 70-80% of the SYCLIST-model critical velocity. They also identify large populations of Be stars, with maximum fractions of 85% in NGC 1866 and 78% in NGC 1856, and argue that if ~85% of critical rotation triggers disk formation, the single-star evolutionary channel can explain the majority of these Be stars. The paper discusses implications for the origin of the split main sequences, the Be-star phenomenon, and the physical scenarios proposed for the stellar spin bimodality in young clusters.

Significance. If correct, the paper delivers the first direct spectroscopic measurement of the equatorial velocities of the red main-sequence population in these two clusters, providing strong evidence that stellar rotation, rather than age spreads, drives the split main sequence and extended main-sequence turn-off. The large samples, careful proper-motion membership selection, and the explicit likelihood model with MCMC uncertainties and mock-data checks (Table 1, Fig. 9) are strengths. The comparison of Be-star fractions across four clusters is valuable, and the argument that photometric searches underestimate Be fractions in older clusters is important. However, the central measurement rests on a newly implemented V sin i fitting recipe that is not validated end-to-end, making the headline Veq values vulnerable to systematic errors; this is the main factor limiting the current assessment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.5 and Secs. 4.2/5.1] The central claim of mean equatorial velocities Veq ~300 km/s depends entirely on the V sin i values produced by the newly implemented rotational-broadening recipe in Spexxy. The paper reports no recovery test, no comparison with independent V sin i measurements, and no systematic error budget for the adopted MUSE LSF, the spherical non-rotating template grid, the fixed log g, or the neglect of gravity darkening. At MUSE resolution the rotational signal at ~300 km/s is only a few Angstroms, so a small LSF or template mismatch would shift the V sin i scale and directly change the derived Veq, the SYCLIST-based V/Vcrit, and the inferred Be-star threshold. The mock checks in Fig. 9 validate only the inclination deprojection conditional on the V sin i values, not the V sin i measurements themselves. I request an end-to-end validation: inject artificial spectra with known V sin i through the same extraction and fitting pipeline, compare measured V sin i against high-resolution literature values for stars in common, and quantify the sensitivity of the results to the assumed LSF and to the choice of limb-darkening/template treatment.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (2)] The inference of Veq assumes (i) isotropically distributed spin axes and (ii) a single Gaussian distribution of intrinsic equatorial velocities. The authors themselves note that the model slightly underestimates the number of NGC 1866 stars with V sin i below ~100 km/s and that the NGC 1856 peak is broader than predicted, which they attribute to a possible second population and to a genuinely broader intrinsic distribution. Because the fitted mean Veq is the load-bearing quantity for the paper's conclusions, the possible presence of a second population (e.g., photometric binaries migrating from the blue main sequence) should be quantitatively tested. I recommend fitting a two-component model, excluding the slow tail and refitting, or otherwise demonstrating that the derived Veq is robust to these assumptions. The current single-Gaussian fit is a simplified model whose systematic uncertainty is not captured in the quoted errors of Table 1.
  3. [Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 5.4.4] The conversion of the measured Veq into fractions of critical rotation is entirely model-dependent. The SYCLIST models are initialized at Ω/Ωcrit = 0.95 specifically to reproduce the measured Veq, and the paper itself notes that different model suites (MESA, PARSEC) give different fractional critical velocities, as illustrated by the NGC 1866 comparison with Gossage et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2023a). The abstract's statement that the stars rotate at "70-80% of the critical values predicted for such stars by current stellar models" is therefore only one model's estimate, and this caveat should be carried through the title-level summary. I do not see this as circularity, since Veq is measured directly, but the fractional values and the inferred ~85% Be-onset threshold should be presented as SYCLIST-specific rather than as a robust empirical result.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2.5] The description of the new rotational-broadening implementation would benefit from specifying the functional form used (e.g., Gray 2005 formulation), the adopted limb-darkening coefficient, and whether any tests were performed on the numerical accuracy of the convolution.
  2. [Fig. 9] The caption states that the grey lines show the expected V sin i distributions from the model, but the text clarifies that these are the median values from 1000 mock samples. Please also show the scatter (e.g., shaded regions) in the figure or caption, since the current visual impression of model-data agreement is based only on the median.
  3. [Sec. 3.3] The shell-star fractions and derived disk half-opening angles are interesting, but the statement that the fractions agree with the 22.8% field value (Hanuschik 1996) while also finding a possible age/mass trend should be briefly rephrased to avoid an apparent contradiction; the small-number statistics may not support a trend.
  4. [Sec. 5.4.3] The text notes that the V sin i values of Be stars are not considered reliable due to emission contamination, yet Fig. 8 shows these values and the narrative in Sec. 4.1 draws attention to them exceeding critical velocities. Please either include a clear caveat in the figure caption or move the Be-star V sin i discussion fully to the section where the unreliability is stated.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. 6] The abstract quotes a Be-star fraction of '>~50%' at the turn-off while the text reports maxima of 85% and 78%. Using the same values in the abstract would avoid a perceived inconsistency.
  6. [Acknowledgements] Typographical issues: 'aknowledges' should be 'acknowledges', and 'Caii' should be 'Ca ii' in two places.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: V sin i and Veq are measured directly from spectra, and the SYCLIST-based V/Vcrit conversion is a transparently model-dependent comparison, not a constructional identity.

full rationale

The paper's central measurement chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. V sin i values are obtained by full-spectrum fitting with Spexxy against non-rotating template spectra convolved with a rotational broadening recipe; the red main-sequence sample is selected purely photometrically via HST colours (ΔF336W,F438W between 0.4 and 1.0), independently of the spectra. Eq. 2 is a forward model that takes an assumed Gaussian intrinsic Veq distribution and projects it through an isotropic sin i distribution to predict the observed V sin i histogram; fitting this model to the data is a standard deprojection, not a definitional identity. The mock draws in Fig. 9 check the self-consistency of that deprojection. The subsequent conversion to V/Vcrit uses SYCLIST models, and the paper is explicit that the model track was chosen to match the measured Veq ('To match our results, we need to calculate the models with an initial ... rotation rate of 95% critical') and that different model suites yield different fractional critical velocities. That is a transparent model dependence, not a circular prediction. The Be-star analysis is conditional on an assumed 85% critical threshold and uses the observed Be fractions to argue consistency; it does not rename a fitted parameter as an independent prediction. Self-citations to prior work (Bastian & de Mink 2009; Kamann et al. 2018b, 2020, 2023) provide context and earlier data, but the load-bearing V sin i measurements and colour-rotation correlation presented here are new and independent of those papers. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction; possible concerns about the new Spexxy rotational-broadening recipe are calibration/validation issues rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four fitted Gaussian parameters, one chosen model initial rotation rate, and one assumed disk-formation threshold, plus the listed assumptions about isotropy, template spectra, and evolutionary models. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted parameters are reported transparently and the assumptions are discussed in the text.

free parameters (6)
  • Veq mean, NGC 1866 = 302.5 +4.5/-4.7 km/s
    Mean of the assumed Gaussian equatorial velocity distribution for red main-sequence stars in the magnitude range 19 < m_F438W < 20, fitted by MCMC to the observed V sin i distribution (Table 1). This is the central measured quantity.
  • Veq sigma, NGC 1866 = 27.9 +5.1/-5.2 km/s
    Dispersion of the same fitted Gaussian for NGC 1866 (Table 1).
  • Veq mean, NGC 1856 = 291.3 +/- 6.0 km/s
    Mean of the assumed Gaussian equatorial velocity distribution for red main-sequence stars in NGC 1856, fitted by MCMC (Table 1).
  • Veq sigma, NGC 1856 = 40.5 +5.6/-4.4 km/s
    Dispersion of the fitted Gaussian for NGC 1856 (Table 1).
  • Initial rotation rate for SYCLIST models = 0.95 (Omega/Omega_crit at ZAMS)
    Chosen so that the SYCLIST evolutionary track reproduces the observed Veq ~ 300 km/s at the clusters' ages; used to read off V/Vcrit ~ 0.7-0.8 (Sec. 4.3, Fig. 10). This is a model input selected by hand, not fitted to the data directly.
  • Be disk formation threshold = 0.85 (V/Vcrit, assumed)
    Assumed threshold for decretion disk formation, used to compare the predicted fraction of fast rotators with observed Be star fractions (Sec. 5.4.4). The threshold is not fitted; it is taken from the literature range and the agreement with data is presented as consistency.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Spin axes of cluster stars are isotropically distributed (f(i) = sin i).
    Used to marginalize over inclination in Eq. (2); if the spin axes are aligned or biased, the inferred Veq distribution changes.
  • domain assumption The intrinsic Veq distribution of the selected red main-sequence stars is a single Gaussian.
    Sec. 4.2; the authors model the observed V sin i distribution with a Gaussian in Veq plus isotropic projection. They note an excess of slow rotators in NGC 1866 that the model does not capture.
  • domain assumption SYCLIST stellar models and their definition of critical velocity are accurate for 2.7 solar mass stars at Z=0.006.
    Used to convert Veq into V/Vcrit and to predict the evolution of Veq and Vcrit (Sec. 4.3, Fig. 10); different model suites give different fractional critical velocities, as discussed for Gossage et al. 2019 and Wang et al. 2023a.
  • domain assumption The MUSE line-spread function and Allende Prieto et al. (2018) template spectra correctly model rotational line broadening.
    Sec. 2.5; the V sin i measurements rely on full-spectrum fitting with these templates and the PyAstronomy rotational broadening recipe.
  • domain assumption Adopted cluster ages, metallicity, distance modulus, and extinction values are correct.
    Sec. 2.5; used to set log g priors, select magnitude bins relative to the turn-off, and place the clusters on the SYCLIST evolutionary tracks. Ages are log(age/yr) = 8.3 for NGC 1866 and 8.5 for NGC 1856, with Z=0.006.
  • ad hoc to paper The pseudo-colour cut 0.4 < Delta_F336W,F438W < 1.0 selects the red main-sequence population.
    Sec. 4.2; used to define the red main-sequence sample for the Veq fits; the cut is motivated by the split main sequence morphology but is not independently calibrated.
  • domain assumption Be stars are identified reliably by the H-alpha/H-beta equivalent width outlier cut and the Gaussian residual fits.
    Sec. 3.1; the criteria are specific to MUSE data and are validated by visual inspection, but a few per cent of interlopers are expected.
  • domain assumption A rotation rate of about 85% of critical is sufficient to trigger the formation of a decretion disk in late B stars.
    Sec. 5.4.4; the conclusion that most red main-sequence stars become Be stars depends on this threshold, which is uncertain in the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing stellar rotation in young massive LMC clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCHY3LEZ

@misc{pith2026250902698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing stellar rotation in young massive LMC clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCHY3LEZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02698}
}
read the original abstract

We present a detailed analysis of stellar rotation along the main sequences of NGC 1866 and NGC 1856, two young (~200-300 Myr) massive clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud, using MUSE integral field spectroscopy. Differences in stellar rotation have been proposed as an explanation for the extended main sequence turn-offs and split main sequences in these clusters. In agreement with this idea, we find strong links between the photometric colours of the cluster stars and their projected rotation velocities, Vsini. While stars blueward of the split main sequences are characterized by a range of relatively low spins, those with redder colours are fast rotators. Following a statistical correction for inclination, we measure mean equatorial velocities for the red main-sequence stars in both clusters of V_eq=300 km/s, corresponding to 70-80% of the critical values predicted for such stars by current stellar models. We discuss these findings in the context of the different scenarios proposed to explain the stellar rotation distributions of young massive clusters. We further investigate whether the high rotation rates provide a natural explanation for the high fractions of Be stars we observe in both clusters, peaking at >~50% at the turn-off. We argue that if ~85% of the critical rotation rate is high enough to trigger the formation of a decretion disk, most upper main sequence stars in the clusters are expected to become Be stars before leaving the main sequence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Colour-images of NGC 1866 (left) and NGC 1856 (right), created from the MUSE cubes with the best seeing available for each cluster. To highlight gas structures and emission-line stars, we extracted narrow-band images centred on H 𝛼 (red), N ii 6584 (green), and O iii (blue) from each cube. In this representation, stars showing H 𝛼 in emission appear red, whereas evolved giant stars appear green. Note the presence of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HST colour-magnitude diagrams of NGC 1866 (top) and NGC 1856 (bottom). The left panels show the full cluster populations, whereas the right panels zoom into the main sequence regions. Dashed blue and red lines indicate the fiducial lines that have been used to verticalize the main sequence of either cluster (see text for details). In all panels, we only show the stars with available spectroscopy, colour-coded accord… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relation between the equivalent widths of H 𝛼 and H 𝛽 for the main sequence samples in NGC 1866 (orange) and NGC 1856 (red). The black solid lines shows the LOWESS fit to the data with 3 < 𝐸𝑊H𝛼 /Å < 9. Outliers as defined in the text are shown as open stars. Gaussian model is motivated by our previous study of the 100 Myr old cluster NGC 1850 (Kamann et al. 2023), which hosted many shell stars, Be stars observed thr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normalized example spectra from the NGC 1866 sample around H 𝛽, H 𝛼, and the Paschen series. The left panels show a slow (top) and a fast (bottom) rotator without emission lines. Our 𝑉 sin 𝑖 measurements are provided together with the star IDs. In the right panels, two…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: H 𝛼 emission-line fluxes of Be stars in the MUSE samples of NGC 1850 (blue circles, Kamann et al. 2023), NGC 1866 (orange diamonds) and NGC 1856 (red squares) stars as a function of 𝑚F438W magnitude. The H 𝛼 fluxes have been measured by fitting Gaussian profiles to the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fraction of Be stars (relative to the total number of main se￾quence stars) as a function of absolute F814W magnitude in young massive Magellanic Clouds clusters: NGC 330 (grey hexagons, from Bodensteiner et al. 2020), NGC 1850 (blue circles), NGC 1866 (orange diamonds…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of 𝑉 sin 𝑖 along the main sequences of NGC 1866 (left) and NGC 1856 (right). In both panels, stars are colour-coded according to their measured 𝑉 sin 𝑖. Be stars are highlighted using triangles, while shell stars, for which no 𝑉 sin 𝑖 values are reported, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: 𝑉 sin 𝑖 measurements as a function of colour, for different mag￾nitude bins in NGC 1866 (left) and NGC 1856 (right). Magnitude bins are defined relative to the MSTO of each cluster, as indicated to the top right of each row. Orange circles show the individual measureme…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The distributions of 𝑉 sin 𝑖 values obtained for red main-sequence stars in the magnitude range 19 < 𝑚F438W < 20 in NGC 1866 (left) and NGC 1856 (right) are shown as solid histograms. The grey lines show the 𝑉 sin 𝑖 distributions expected from the simple model for the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The evolution of the equatorial velocity 𝑉eq (solid blue line) and the critical velocity 𝑉crit (orange dashed line) as a function of main￾sequence lifetime, as predicted by SYCLIST for a 2.7 M⊙ star of metallicity 𝑍 = 0.006 and with an initial angular velocity ratio o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative radial distributions of red and blue main-sequence stars in NGC 1850 (left), NGC 1866 (centre), and NGC 1856 (right). Note that the clusters are sorted by increasing age. The 𝑝-value of a two-sided KS test to investigate the similarity of the distributions …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Boonyarak C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616..562A 616, 562

    Abt H. A., Boonyarak C., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423795 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616..562A 616, 562

    doi:10.1086/423795 2004

  2. [2]

    A., Barklem P

    Allende Prieto C., Koesterke L., Hubeny I., Bautista M. A., Barklem P. S., Nahar S. N., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...618A..25A 618, A25

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732484 2018

  3. [3]

    S., Ramsay S

    Bacon R., et al., 2010, in McLean I. S., Ramsay S. K., Takami H., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 773508 ( @eprint arXiv 2211.16795 ), @doi 10.1117/12.856027

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    T., Subramaniam A., Bhattacharyya S., Anusha R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.3926B 500, 3926

    Banerjee G., Mathew B., Paul K. T., Subramaniam A., Bhattacharyya S., Anusha R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.3926B 500, 3926

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3469 2021

  5. [5]

    I., Evans C

    Banyard G., Sana H., Mahy L., Bodensteiner J., Villase \ n or J. I., Evans C. J., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...658A..69B 658, A69

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141037 2022

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Bastian N., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3042 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4795B 465, 4795

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3042 2017

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    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

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Bodensteiner J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936743 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...634A..51B 634, A51

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Bodensteiner J., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202140507 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...652A..70B 652, A70

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2502.02641

    Bodensteiner J., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.02641 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250202641B p. arXiv:2502.02641

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    P., Mohanty S., Scholz A., Stassun K

    Bouvier J., Matt S. P., Mohanty S., Scholz A., Stassun K. G., Zanni C., 2014, in Beuther H., Klessen R. S., Dullemond C. P., Henning T., eds, Protostars and Planets VI. pp 433--450 ( @eprint arXiv 1309.7851 ), @doi 10.2458/azu_uapress_9780816531240-ch019

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bressan A., Marigo P., Girardi L., Salasnich B., Dal Cero C., Rubele S., Nanni A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..127B 427, 127

    2012

  7. [15]

    arXiv:2412.00520

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

    doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bu Y., He C., Wang L., Lin J., Li C., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e6e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...968...22B 968, 22

    doi

  9. [17]

    A., Clayton G

    Cardelli J. A., Clayton G. C., Mathis J. S., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/167900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...345..245C 345, 245

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823..102C 823, 102

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    S., 1979, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038 , 74, 829

    Cleveland W. S., 1979, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038 , 74, 829

    1979

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Cordoni G., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-022-31977-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatCo..13.4325C 13, 4325

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    P., Huber K

    Czesla S., Schr \"o ter S., Schneider C. P., Huber K. F., Pfeifer F., Andreasen D. T., Zechmeister M., 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages ( @eprint ascl 1906.010 )

    2019

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

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

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1383D 112, 1383

    Dolphin A. E., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316630 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PASP..112.1383D 112, 1383

    2000 doi

  20. [28]

    Dolphin A., 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

  21. [29]

    Dotter A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..222....8D 222, 8

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A.109D 550, A109

    Dufton P. L., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220273 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A.109D 550, A109

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    arXiv:2504.02035

    Ettorre G., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2504.02035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250402035E p. arXiv:2504.02035

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Gallet F., Bouvier J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201321302 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...556A..36G 556, A36

    2013 doi

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Georgy C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834505 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...622A..66G 622, A66

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Gossage S., Conroy C., Dotter A., Choi J., Rosenfield P., Cargile P., Dolphin A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad0a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...863...67G 863, 67

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Gossage S., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5717 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887..199G 887, 199

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    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

  32. [40]

    F., 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres , @doi 10.1017/CBO9781316036570

    Gray D. F., 2005, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres , @doi 10.1017/CBO9781316036570

    2005 doi

  33. [41]

    W., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...308..170H 308, 170

    Hanuschik R. W., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...308..170H 308, 170

    1996

  34. [42]

    Hastings B., Wang C., Langer N., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201937018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...633A.165H 633, A165

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.144H 653, A144

    Hastings B., Langer N., Wang C., Schootemeijer A., Milone A. P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...653A.144H 653, A144

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..125H 856, 125

    Hidalgo S. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..125H 856, 125

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Pfeffer J

    Horta D., Hughes M. E., Pfeffer J. L., Bastian N., Kruijssen J. M. D., Reina-Campos M., Crain R. A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.500.4768H 500, 4768

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    R., McSwain M

    Huang W., Gies D. R., McSwain M. V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/605 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..605H 722, 605

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    Husser T.-O., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...588A.148H 588, A148

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..71K 549, A71

    Kamann S., Wisotzki L., Roth M. M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220476 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...549A..71K 549, A71

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Kamann S., et al., 2018a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5591K 473, 5591

    doi

  42. [50]

    Kamann S., et al., 2018b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1958 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.480.1689K 480, 1689

    doi

  43. [51]

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

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

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

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Bessell M

    Keller S. C., Bessell M. S., Da Costa G. S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301282 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119.1748K 119, 1748

    2000 doi

  46. [54]

    Langer N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125534 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..107L 50, 107

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    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

  48. [56]

    P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..156L 834, 156

    Li C., de Grijs R., Deng L., Milone A. P., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..156L 834, 156

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    Lim B., Rauw G., Naz \'e Y., Sung H., Hwang N., Park B.-G., 2019, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0619-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019NatAs...3...76L 3, 76

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Gossage S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..105L 934, 105

    Lipatov M., Brandt T. D., Gossage S., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac78e1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..105L 934, 105

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    Marchant P., Bodensteiner J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-052722-105936 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ARA&A..62...21M 62, 21

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    F., Przybilla N., Milone A

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

    2018 doi

  54. [62]

    Martocchia S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2556 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.2688M 473, 2688

    2018 doi

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

    R., Amard L., Zhang Y., Niu H., Kim S

    Maurya J., Samal M. R., Amard L., Zhang Y., Niu H., Kim S. C., Joshi Y. C., Kumar B., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1212M 532, 1212

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    E., van der Marel R

    McLaughlin D. E., van der Marel R. P., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/497429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..161..304M 161, 304

    2005 doi

  58. [66]

    P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.3750M 450, 3750

    Milone A. P., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv829 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450.3750M 450, 3750

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4363M 465, 4363

    Milone A. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2965 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.465.4363M 465, 4363

    2017 doi

  60. [68]

    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

  61. [69]

    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

  62. [70]

    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

  63. [71]

    Newville M., et al., 2024, lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.3.2, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.12785036 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12785036

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895...88N 895, 88

    Nidever D. L., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7305 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...895...88N 895, 88

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    Niederhofer F., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202450255 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A.162N 689, A162

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Offner S. S. R., Moe M., Kratter K. M., Sadavoy S. I., Jensen E. L. N., Tobin J. J., 2023, in Inutsuka S., Aikawa Y., Muto T., Tomida K., Tamura M., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 534, Protostars and Planets VII. p. 275 ( @eprint arXiv 2203.100...

    2023 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    Packet W., 1981, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981A&A...102...17P 102, 17

    1981

  69. [77]

    arXiv:2411.06882

    Rivinius T., Klement R., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.06882 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241106882R p. arXiv:2411.06882

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    C., Martayan C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...69R 21, 69

    Rivinius T., Carciofi A. C., Martayan C., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&ARv..21...69R 21, 69

    2013 doi

  71. [79]

    Sana H., et al., 2012, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1223344 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012Sci...337..444S 337, 444

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    Saracino S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2706 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526..299S 526, 299

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Seabold S., Perktold J., 2010, in 9th Python in Science Conference

    2010

  74. [82]

    Shokry A., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731536 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A.108S 609, A108

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    I., Walker M

    Song Y.-Y., Mateo M., Bailey J. I., Walker M. G., Roederer I. U., Olszewski E. W., Reiter M., Kremin A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.504.4160S 504, 4160

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    Townsend R. H. D., Owocki S. P., Howarth I. D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07627.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.350..189T 350, 189

    2004

  77. [85]

    Usher C., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2611 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.1275U 482, 1275

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    Wang C., Langer N., Schootemeijer A., Castro N., Adscheid S., Marchant P., Hastings B., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6171 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...888L..12W 888, L12

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    R., Peters G

    Wang L., Gies D. R., Peters G. J., G \"o tberg Y., Chojnowski S. D., Lester K. V., Howell S. B., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abf144 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..248W 161, 248

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    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

  81. [89]

    Wang C., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..43W 670, A43

    doi

  82. [90]

    Wang L., Li C., Wang L., He C., Wang C., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/accae0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949...53W 949, 53

    doi

  83. [91]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..28W 641, A28

    Weilbacher P. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202037855 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A..28W 641, A28

    2020 doi

  84. [92]

    B., 1927, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953 , 22, 209

    Wilson E. B., 1927, @doi [Journal of the American Statistical Association] 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953 , 22, 209

    1927

  85. [93]

    Zorec J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201628760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A.132Z 595, A132

    2016 doi

  86. [94]

    van Bever J., Vanbeveren D., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...322..116V 322, 116

    1997

  87. [95]

    von Zeipel H., 1924, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/84.9.665 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1924MNRAS..84..665V 84, 665

    1924 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.