pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.04506 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

A critical analysis of main-sequence fitting in open clusters to derive the helium-to-metal enrichment ratio Delta Y/Delta Z

G. Valle , N. Ricci , M. Dell'Omodarme , P.G. Prada Moroni , S. Degl'Innocenti , S. Cassisi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords open clustershelium-to-metal ratiomain-sequence fittingstellar evolution codesphotometric calibrationGaia photometrychemical enrichment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stellar model differences introduce large biases when deriving the helium-to-metal enrichment ratio from open cluster photometry.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors test whether main-sequence fitting of open clusters can accurately recover the helium-to-metal enrichment ratio ΔY/ΔZ from Gaia photometry. They generate synthetic clusters with known true ratios using isochrones from five different stellar evolution codes, then fit those mocks using FRANEC models over the narrow G-band range 4.3 to 6.5 magnitudes. Significant code-dependent biases appear, reaching 0.6 even when only the bolometric corrections differ and up to 1.5 when the generating and fitting codes differ entirely. This matters because ΔY/ΔZ calibrations from clusters are used in models of stellar interiors and galactic chemical evolution, so systematic errors would propagate into many other results.

Core claim

Synthetic clusters generated from PARSEC, BASTI, and MIST isochrones and fitted with FRANEC models yield recovered ΔY/ΔZ values that deviate from truth by up to 1.5, with underestimation for PARSEC targets and overestimation for BASTI and MIST; using identical FRANEC models but alternate bolometric corrections still produces biases up to 0.6, while only perfectly matching codes for generation and fitting return unbiased results.

What carries the argument

Monte Carlo experiments that generate mock photometric data from multiple stellar evolution codes and recover ΔY/ΔZ by main-sequence fitting in a restricted magnitude window chosen to limit the influence of uncertain physics.

If this is right

  • The photometric calibration of ΔY/ΔZ using open clusters is not reliably robust.
  • Recovered values depend strongly on which stellar evolution code generates the data and which fits it.
  • Unbiased recovery occurs only when the same models are used for both steps.
  • Even restricting the fit to a narrow, well-constrained magnitude range does not eliminate the biases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Existing literature values of ΔY/ΔZ derived from cluster photometry may carry unrecognized systematic offsets.
  • Models of galactic chemical evolution that adopt cluster-calibrated ratios may require re-examination with independent methods.
  • Greater consistency among stellar evolution codes would be needed before photometric fitting can deliver accurate ΔY/ΔZ.

Load-bearing premise

That the differences among the five tested stellar evolution codes adequately sample the full range of possible modeling uncertainties that would affect real open-cluster data.

What would settle it

Independent spectroscopic or asteroseismic measurements of ΔY/ΔZ in the same open clusters that would show whether the photometric fitting results match or exhibit the predicted code-dependent offsets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.04506 by G. Valle, M. Dell'Omodarme, N. Ricci, P.G. Prada Moroni, S. Cassisi, S. Degl'Innocenti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Block diagram of the adopted framework. 2. Methods 2.1. Framework To explore the feasibility of reconstructing the ∆Y/∆Z value from mock data, we implemented a structured pipeline. This framework comprises several key components: a grid of fitting models used to estimate the best ∆Y/∆Z value from the syn￾thetic cluster data; a set of isochrones generated from different stellar evolutionary codes; a Monte C… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of isochrones from different stellar evolutionary codes. Left: PARSEC and FRANEC PHOENIX isochrones at [Fe/H] = 0.1 dex and different ages in the Gaia DR3 colour-magnitude diagram. The dotted horizontal lines mark the edges of the selected zone. FRANEC isochrones are computed with ∆Y/∆Z = 2.0. Right: Comparison of isochrones from the FRANEC, PARSEC, BASTI, and MIST codes, at [Fe/H] = 0.1 dex, in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Filled contour plot of the mean absolute differences in the colour BP − RP between the reference isochrone with [Fe/H] = 0.1 and ∆Y/∆Z = 1.8, and all other isochrones in the grid (for the FRANEC MARCS set). The reference model is identified by the black diamond. Solid and dashed black lines indicate regions where the mean absolute difference is below 0.007 mag and 0.02 mag, respectively. sider a data set c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Differences in the estimated values of ∆Y/∆Z for the seven different considered cases with respect to the values adopted by the gener￾ating ∆Y/∆Z, according to different [Fe/H] val￾ues of the target isochrone. −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 ∆ ( ∆ Y ∆ Z ) A B C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C D E F G σ = 0.005 mag σ = 0.010 mag σ = 0.020 mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scatter plot of the fitted [Fe/H] and ∆Y/∆Z values. The plotted [Fe/H] are the differences between fitted and target values. For this purpose we computed the value ∆[Fe/H] as the dif￾ference between the estimated and target metallicities’ [Fe/H] for all the discussed simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We aim to investigate the feasibility of accurately determining the helium-to-metal enrichment ratio $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ for open clusters using Gaia DR3 photometry. To test the reliability of this calibration, we performed a theoretical investigation using mock open clusters. We generated synthetic photometric data from isochrones calculated by five different stellar evolution codes (FRANEC, PARSEC 1.2s, PARSEC 2.0, BASTI, and MIST), for which the true $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ is known. We then fitted these mock clusters with two sets of isochrones calculated with the FRANEC code, differing only in the implementation of bolometric corrections (BCs). The analysis focused on the G-band absolute magnitude range (4.3 to 6.5 mag) to minimise the impact of poorly constrained physics. Synthetic clusters were generated at [Fe/H] values from 0.0 to 0.15 dex, for different numbers of populating stars and different levels of photometric uncertainties. The Monte Carlo experiments revealed significant and code-dependent biases. Unbiased results were achieved only when the stellar models used for synthetic-cluster generation and fitting were identical. Using identical FRANEC stellar models but different BCs introduced a significant bias of up to 0.6. Furthermore, using different stellar models for synthetic cluster generations resulted in even larger biases: $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ was underestimated by up to 0.8 for PARSEC target isochrones, while it was overestimated for BASTI and MIST isochrones by up to 0.6 and 1.5, respectively. The magnitude and the inconsistency of these biases strongly suggest that the photometric calibration of $\Delta Y/\Delta Z$ using open clusters is not reliably robust.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript conducts Monte Carlo experiments on synthetic open clusters generated from isochrones of five stellar evolution codes (FRANEC, PARSEC 1.2s, PARSEC 2.0, BASTI, MIST) with known true ΔY/ΔZ. These mocks, populated at [Fe/H] = 0.0–0.15 dex with varying star counts and photometric errors, are fitted in the G = 4.3–6.5 mag range using FRANEC isochrones (two bolometric-correction variants) to recover ΔY/ΔZ. The study finds unbiased recovery only for identical generating and fitting models; different BC implementations introduce biases up to 0.6, while inter-code mismatches produce biases of −0.8 (PARSEC) to +1.5 (MIST). The authors conclude that these code-dependent biases indicate the photometric calibration of ΔY/ΔZ from open clusters is not reliably robust.

Significance. If the reported inter-code biases are representative of systematic uncertainties in real Gaia DR3 data, the work demonstrates that model choice can dominate the recovered ΔY/ΔZ, limiting the reliability of open-cluster calibrations for helium enrichment and chemical-evolution studies. The controlled forward-simulation design with known truth values and explicit focus on a narrow magnitude range where physics is better constrained provides a clear, falsifiable test of robustness.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: the claim that the observed biases 'strongly suggest that the photometric calibration of ΔY/ΔZ using open clusters is not reliably robust' is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion, yet rests on the untested premise that the specific differences among the five chosen codes (FRANEC, PARSEC 1.2s/2.0, BASTI, MIST) adequately proxy the full range of modeling uncertainties (e.g., variations in overshooting, diffusion, or atmospheric boundary conditions) that would appear when fitting actual Gaia DR3 photometry. The manuscript does not demonstrate that other plausible model variations produce similarly large and inconsistent biases.
  2. [Methods] Methods (mock generation and fitting procedure): all synthetic clusters are fitted exclusively with FRANEC isochrones, so the experiment quantifies only the bias incurred when the fitting code differs from the generating code. It does not test the symmetric case or the bias that would arise if a different code (e.g., PARSEC or MIST) were used for fitting real data, which is the situation encountered in the literature.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The manuscript should clarify in the text (not only in the abstract) the exact number of Monte Carlo realizations per configuration and the precise definition of the photometric uncertainty levels applied.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the bolometric-correction variants used for the FRANEC fitting grid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below in a point-by-point manner, agreeing where the critique identifies genuine limitations and outlining specific revisions to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results section: the claim that the observed biases 'strongly suggest that the photometric calibration of ΔY/ΔZ using open clusters is not reliably robust' is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion, yet rests on the untested premise that the specific differences among the five chosen codes (FRANEC, PARSEC 1.2s/2.0, BASTI, MIST) adequately proxy the full range of modeling uncertainties (e.g., variations in overshooting, diffusion, or atmospheric boundary conditions) that would appear when fitting actual Gaia DR3 photometry. The manuscript does not demonstrate that other plausible model variations produce similarly large and inconsistent biases.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the five codes tested do not exhaustively cover every possible modeling variation, such as arbitrary changes to overshooting efficiency or diffusion coefficients beyond those already implemented differently across the codes. These particular codes were selected because they are among the most commonly employed in the recent literature on open-cluster photometry and provide publicly available isochrones spanning a range of ΔY/ΔZ values. The observed biases of up to 1.5 nevertheless illustrate that even modest differences in the treatment of convection, opacities, and boundary conditions can propagate into large systematic offsets in the recovered enrichment ratio. In the revised manuscript we will qualify the abstract and results language to state that the biases are representative of differences among widely used current models rather than claiming they bound all conceivable uncertainties, and we will add a short discussion paragraph noting specific additional variations (e.g., altered overshooting) that future work could explore. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (mock generation and fitting procedure): all synthetic clusters are fitted exclusively with FRANEC isochrones, so the experiment quantifies only the bias incurred when the fitting code differs from the generating code. It does not test the symmetric case or the bias that would arise if a different code (e.g., PARSEC or MIST) were used for fitting real data, which is the situation encountered in the literature.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the fitting procedure is fixed to FRANEC isochrones (with two BC variants). This design isolates the effect of model mismatch under the realistic scenario in which an observer adopts one fitting grid. The key result—that unbiased recovery occurs only when generating and fitting models are identical—directly implies that any mismatch, regardless of which code is chosen for fitting, will introduce bias. We did not perform the computationally heavier symmetric experiment of fitting each mock set with every other code. In the revised Methods section we will explicitly justify the single-fitting-code choice and add a paragraph discussing how the reported biases would affect literature analyses that employ PARSEC, MIST or BASTI for fitting real Gaia data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in forward simulation bias test

full rationale

The paper conducts a Monte Carlo simulation study: synthetic clusters are generated from five independent stellar evolution codes (FRANEC, PARSEC, BASTI, MIST) with known true ΔY/ΔZ, then fitted exclusively with FRANEC isochrones (two BC variants) over a restricted magnitude range. Recovered ΔY/ΔZ values are compared directly to the input true values, exposing code-dependent biases only when generation and fitting models differ. This is a forward test against external model outputs with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction, no self-definitional loop, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The central claim follows from the observed mismatches rather than reducing to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the domain assumption that differences among the five stellar codes capture the dominant modeling uncertainties; no free parameters are fitted to produce the bias result itself, and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Differences among FRANEC, PARSEC 1.2s, PARSEC 2.0, BASTI, and MIST adequately represent the range of stellar-model uncertainties relevant to main-sequence fitting.
    Invoked when interpreting the observed biases as evidence against robustness of the method on real data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5668 in / 1241 out tokens · 70994 ms · 2026-05-10T20:15:33.187354+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2007, Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, ed

    Abdi, H. 2007, Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, ed. C. S. N. Salkind (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 103–107

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2011, in Astronomical Society of the Pa- cific Conference Series, V ol. 448, 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. C. Johns-Krull, M. K. Browning, & A. A. West, 91

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Allard, F., Homeier, D., Freytag, B., & Sharp, C. M. 2012, in EAS Publications

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    M., Pinsonneault, M

    An, D., Terndrup, D. M., Pinsonneault, M. H., et al. 2007, ApJ, 655, 233

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    N., Pinsonneault, M

    Bahcall, J. N., Pinsonneault, M. H., & Wasserburg, G. J. 1995, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics, 67, 781

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    2024, AJ, 168, 282

    Brandner, W., Sorg, A., Röser, S., & Schilbach, E. 2024, AJ, 168, 282

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Brandt, T. D. & Huang, C. X. 2015, ApJ, 807, 24

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    M., et al

    Buldgen, G., Noels, A., Amarsi, A. M., et al. 2025, A&A, 694, A285

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    2011, Sol

    Caffau, E., Ludwig, H.-G., Steffen, M., Freytag, B., & Bonifacio, P. 2011, Sol. Phys., 268, 255

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    2007, MN- RAS, 382, 1516

    Casagrande, L., Flynn, C., Portinari, L., Girardi, L., & Jimenez, R. 2007, MN- RAS, 382, 1516

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    1999, A&A, 349, 834

    Castellani, V ., degl’Innocenti, S., & Marconi, M. 1999, A&A, 349, 834

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. 2003, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov, W. W. Weiss, & D. F. Gray, A20

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    H., Nelan, J

    Chaboyer, B., Fenton, W. H., Nelan, J. E., Patnaude, D. J., & Simon, F. E. 2001, ApJ, 562, 521

    work page 2001

  16. [16]

    1992, ApJ, 394, 515

    Chaboyer, B., Sarajedini, A., & Demarque, P. 1992, ApJ, 394, 515

    work page 1992

  17. [17]

    & Maciel, W

    Chiappini, C. & Maciel, W. J. 1994, A&A, 288, 921

    work page 1994

  18. [18]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    G., & Lind, K

    Conroy, C., Villaume, A., van Dokkum, P. G., & Lind, K. 2018, ApJ, 854, 139

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Dahm, S. E. 2015, ApJ, 813, 108 de Marchi, G. & Pulone, L. 2007, A&A, 467, 107 Dell’Omodarme, M., Valle, G., Degl’Innocenti, S., & Prada Moroni, P. G. 2012, A&A, 540, A26 D’Odorico, S., Peimbert, M., & Sabbadin, F. 1976, A&A, 47, 341

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Fernandes, J., Vaz, A. I. F., & Vicente, L. N. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3104

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    & Kawasaki, M

    Fukugita, M. & Kawasaki, M. 2006, ApJ, 646, 691 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Gennaro, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2010, A&A, 518, A13+

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 67

    Gossage, S., Conroy, C., Dotter, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 67

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    2008, A&A, 486, 951

    Gustafsson, B., Edvardsson, B., Eriksson, K., et al. 2008, A&A, 486, 951

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al

    Hidalgo, S. L., Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 125

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Jimenez, R., Flynn, C., MacDonald, J., & Gibson, B. K. 2003, Science, 299, 1552

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    S., Padoan, P., & Peacock, J

    Jimenez, R., MacDonald, J., Dunlop, J. S., Padoan, P., & Peacock, J. A. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 240

    work page 2004

  29. [29]

    A., Kislitsyn, P

    Kurichin, O. A., Kislitsyn, P. A., & Ivanchik, A. V . 2021, Astronomy Letters, 47, 674

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    2001, A&A, 374, 540

    Lebreton, Y ., Fernandes, J., & Lejeune, T. 2001, A&A, 374, 540

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    1999, A&A, 350, 587

    Lebreton, Y ., Perrin, M.-N., Cayrel, R., Baglin, A., & Fernandes, J. 1999, A&A, 350, 587

    work page 1999

  32. [32]

    Maciel, W. J. 2001, Ap&SS, 277, 545

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    2022, A&A, 661, A140

    Magg, E., Bergemann, M., Serenelli, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A140

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Przybilla, N., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1609 Martín, E. L., Lodieu, N., Pavlenko, Y ., & Béjar, V . J. S. 2018, ApJ, 856, 40 Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., & Valerdi, M. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2726

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    2022, A&A, 666, A43

    Moedas, N., Deal, M., Bossini, D., & Campilho, B. 2022, A&A, 666, A43

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    T., Costa, G., Bressan, A., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Bressan, A., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A258

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    L., et al

    Nsamba, B., Moedas, N., Campante, T. L., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 54

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Pagel, B. E. J. & Portinari, L. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 747

    work page 1998

  39. [39]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Simonson, E. A., Terlevich, R. J., & Edmunds, M. G. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 325

    work page 1992

  40. [40]

    Peimbert, M., Peimbert, A., & Ruiz, M. T. 2000, ApJ, 541, 688

    work page 2000

  41. [41]

    & Serrano, A

    Peimbert, M. & Serrano, A. 1980, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 5, 9

    work page 1980

  42. [42]

    & Torres-Peimbert, S

    Peimbert, M. & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1974, ApJ, 193, 327

    work page 1974

  43. [43]

    H., Terndrup, D

    Pinsonneault, M. H., Terndrup, D. M., Hanson, R. B., & Stauffer, J. R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 588 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    1994, A&A, 285, L5

    Renzini, A. 1994, A&A, 285, L5

    work page 1994

  45. [45]

    2000, MNRAS, 318, L55

    Ribas, I., Jordi, C., & Giménez, Á. 2000, MNRAS, 318, L55

    work page 2000

  46. [46]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Ricci, N., Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2025, A&A, 702, A194

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    & Cassisi, S

    Salaris, M. & Cassisi, S. 2015, A&A, 577, A60

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    P., & Pietrinferni, A

    Salaris, M., Cassisi, S., Schiavon, R. P., & Pietrinferni, A. 2018, A&A, 612, A68

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Serenelli, A. M. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 13 Silva Aguirre, V ., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173

    work page 2010

  50. [50]

    J., Fossati, L., Passy, J.-C., & Schneider, F

    Stancliffe, R. J., Fossati, L., Passy, J.-C., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2016, A&A, 586, A119

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    A., Bahcall, J

    Thoul, A. A., Bahcall, J. N., & Loeb, A. 1994, ApJ, 421, 828

    work page 1994

  52. [52]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Tognelli, E., Dell’Omodarme, M., Valle, G., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 383

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    2016, A&A, 589, A126

    Alves, S. 2016, A&A, 589, A126

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Valcarce, A. A. R., Catelan, M., & De Medeiros, J. R. 2013, A&A, 553, A62

    work page 2013

  55. [55]

    Valcarce, A. A. R., Catelan, M., & Sweigart, A. V . 2012, A&A, 547, A5

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2013, A&A, 549, A50

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    G., & Degl’Innocenti, S

    Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., Prada Moroni, P. G., & Degl’Innocenti, S. 2024, A&A, 687, A294

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    2021, A&A, 649, A127

    Valle, G., Dell’Omodarme, M., & Tognelli, E. 2021, A&A, 649, A127

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 4678

    Verma, K., Raodeo, K., Basu, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 4678

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    E., Avrett, E

    Vernazza, J. E., Avrett, E. H., & Loeser, R. 1981, ApJS, 45, 635

    work page 1981

  61. [61]

    2015, A&A, 580, A61

    Viallet, M., Meakin, C., Prat, V ., & Arnett, D. 2015, A&A, 580, A61

    work page 2015

  62. [62]

    M., Villante, F

    Vinyoles, N., Serenelli, A. M., Villante, F. L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 202

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    2025, ApJ, 979, 92 Article number, page 8 of 8

    Wang, F., Fang, M., Fu, X., et al. 2025, ApJ, 979, 92 Article number, page 8 of 8

    work page 2025