Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Discovery of an Unbound Flyby Companion of UBC 63: In the Immediate Aftermath of a Close Encounter

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read UBC 63 is not a single star cluster; it is a pair — a 21-million-year-old cluster and a 562-million-year-old cluster — that grazed each other 6 million years ago and are now unbound and separating.

desk verdict A credible flyby-pair candidate for UBC 63, with the old component needing a field-contamination null test before 'discovery' is warranted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18224 v1 pith:EYCRDLBF submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Samrat Biswas , Biman J Medhi , Sergio Messina , Zhanpeng Zhu , Songmei Qin , Sukanta Deb , A.H. Sheikh , H.S Das
show 3 more authors
Motohide Tamura Maheshwar Gopinathan Ram sagar
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords openclustersbinaryflybyencountertidalinteractionGaussianmixturemodelGaiaDR3N-bodysimulationUBC63
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

The paper re-examines the open cluster UBC 63 and argues that it is not one cluster but two, with very different ages, caught in the brief phase right after a close, unbound encounter. The young component UBC 63A is 21 ± 4 million years old; the older component UBC 63B is 562 ± 43 million years old, an age gap that rules out a common birth. The two clusters currently sit about 26 pc apart and move relative to each other at 3.6 km/s, well above the pair's escape velocity, so they are not gravitationally bound. Orbit reconstructions show they passed within about 7 pc of each other only ~6 million years ago and will separate to roughly 500 pc within 100 million years. If correct, this is a rare real-time picture of a cluster-cluster flyby and its immediate tidal aftermath.

What carries the argument

The central tool is a Gaussian mixture model decomposition of the pre-selected member stars in five-dimensional Gaia astrometric space (right ascension, declination, proper-motion components, and parallax), with the number of components chosen by the Bayesian Information Criterion. This splits the sample into UBC 63A and UBC 63B; a Mahalanobis-distance discriminant with an overlap fraction of ~0.10 quantifies the separation. The dynamical claim is carried by direct orbit integration and N-body simulations of the two clusters as extended systems, which reproduce the past closest approach, the current unbound state, and the future divergence.

What would settle it

Re-run the GMM decomposition starting from the raw Gaia DR3 sources in the same 2-degree field, without first assuming a single cluster, and compare the two-component solution against a field-only model; if the old component fails to survive with a similar membership, the pair is an artifact of the preselection. A complementary test: take radial velocities for the 148 UBC 63B candidates; a velocity dispersion much larger than the internal dispersion of a 562-Myr cluster would show the 'cluster' is contaminated field stars.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors show that UBC 63, previously catalogued as a single open cluster, is statistically better described by two distinct stellar populations in the 5D astrometric space of position, proper motion, and parallax: UBC 63A (98 stars, age 21±4 Myr) and UBC 63B (148 stars, age 562±43 Myr). The two components have a low overlap fraction (~0.10) but are kinematically similar, moving on similar low-eccentricity orbits with similar angular momenta. Using the measured positions, velocities, masses and radii, the authors integrate the cluster orbits forward and backward in time and run N-body simulations; all three approaches agree that the pair had a closest approach of 7±2 pc about 6 Myr ago, t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the older component, UBC 63B, is a genuine star cluster and not an artifact: the 246 stars were first selected assuming UBC 63 is a single cluster, then split into two components, and the old sequence — although supported by two red-clump stars — has no computed false-alarm rate against field contamination; if UBC 63B is mostly field stars, the age difference and the entire flyby scenario collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pair is real, the 541±43 Myr age gap rules out a common birth, so star formation was sequential: UBC 63A formed about half a billion years after UBC 63B, yet within ~60 pc of it, consistent with the same giant molecular cloud complex hosting a second round of star formation.
  • The reconstructed closest approach of 7±2 pc about 6 Myr ago, and the current rapid divergence, mean the system is in a short-lived observable phase; the same encounter rate implies more such pairs exist but will be missed unless looked for shortly after closest approach.
  • The observed low tidal factors, elongated morphology, and stars beyond the Jacobi radii are a direct consequence of the recent flyby, so the system can be used to calibrate how much mass and structure a close, unbound encounter strips from a young and an old cluster.
  • The future trajectory, reaching ~500 pc separation within 100 Myr, predicts that the two clusters will soon become two independent, unrelated-looking clusters; this explains why such pairs are rare in catalogs and why single-cluster labels can hide flyby history.
  • The method itself — decomposing a catalogued single cluster into two components in 5D astrometric space — can be applied to other clusters with double sequences in their color-magnitude diagrams to find more flyby pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the paper's logic: run the same 5D Gaussian-mixture decomposition across the full Gaia open-cluster catalog and look for clusters whose CMDs show two sequences; the discovery rate of new flyby pairs would directly measure how common such brief encounters are in the Galaxy.
  • The backward N-body reconstruction initializes the clusters at -21 Myr with their present-day structures; a more complete model would let the younger cluster form and dynamically relax inside the encounter tidal field, which could change the inferred stripping of UBC 63A.
  • If the old component UBC 63B is confirmed by radial velocities, it becomes the oldest known cluster currently interacting with a much younger neighbor, and its stripped outer population may already be creating a tidal tail in the direction of the encounter — an observation that could be searched for in future data.
  • The paper's flyby interpretation implies that some fraction of previously classified 'binary clusters' in the literature may actually be unbound pairs in the post-encounter phase, which would shift the estimated fraction of true bound binary clusters downward; this is a statistical consequence worth testing with a larger sample.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes Gaia DR3 data for the previously cataloged open cluster UBC 63 and proposes that it is not a single cluster but two spatially and kinematically overlapping stellar populations: a young cluster UBC 63A (age 21 ± 4 Myr, 98 members) and an old cluster UBC 63B (age 562 ± 43 Myr, 148 members). The analysis starts from a kNN-assisted GMM membership selection that assumes UBC 63 is a single cluster, yielding 246 members. A second GMM in 5D astrometric space (α, δ, μα*, μδ, ϖ), with BIC model selection, splits these 246 stars into two components. Isochrone fits to de-reddened CMDs give the two very different ages; two red-clump stars and a probable blue straggler are cited as independent evidence for the old component. Radial velocities from cross-matched catalogs differ by 3.46 ± 1.70 km/s. Galpy orbit integration and PeTar direct N-body simulations are used to reconstruct the past and future evolution, yielding a closest approach of 7 ± 2 pc about 6 Myr ago and a predicted divergence to 491 ± 213 pc in 100 Myr. The escape velocity of the pair (0.51 ± 0.12 km/s) is much smaller than the relative 3D velocity (3.60 ± 1.80 km/s), so the authors conclude UBC 63 is an unbound flyby pair in the immediate aftermath of a close encounter.

Significance. If the two-component interpretation is correct, the paper would add a rare and valuable example of an unbound cluster pair caught shortly after pericenter, complementing recent flyby candidates such as ASCC 71 / ESO 064-05 and NGC 2129 / UBC 437. The work combines standard tools in a coherent pipeline, propagates uncertainties through Monte Carlo realizations, uses publicly available codes (galpy, PeTar, McLuster, isochrones), and reports checks of the GMM split under stricter membership thresholds. These are genuine strengths. However, the central claim is load-bearing on the physical reality of UBC 63B as a distinct old cluster rather than an astrometrically similar field population. The current evidence is suggestive but not quantitatively secured: the input member list was constructed assuming a single cluster, the BIC comparison does not test a field-only null, and the two red-clump stars that anchor the old age have membership probabilities only marginally above 0.5. The dynamical and N-body results are conditioned on the existence of the two components and therefore cannot independently rescue the discovery claim. These issues are addressable, but they need to be fixed befor

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Fig. 1b and the paragraph beginning 'To investigate further...'] The 246-member input sample is produced by a cluster+field GMM that assumes UBC 63 is a single cluster. The subsequent 5D GMM with BIC compares 1-5 component Gaussian mixtures, but never tests the relevant null hypothesis: that the apparent second component is an unbound field population with similar astrometry along the same sight line. Since UBC 63A overlaps the classical UBC 63 sample, the two-component split could simply separate the true cluster from contamination. Please provide a quantitative field-only or chance-alignment test, for example by running the identical 5D GMM decomposition on control fields matched in magnitude and color, or by fitting a model that explicitly includes a field component and testing whether the data still require a second cluster component.
  2. [Section 3, red-clump paragraph] The two red-clump stars are presented as the strongest independent constraint on the 562 Myr age of UBC 63B, but their membership probabilities are only 0.62 ± 0.03 and 0.59 ± 0.04, just above the adopted p>0.5 threshold. This means small changes in the astrometric error model, parallax zero-point, or GMM implementation could move one or both stars out of UBC 63B. The statement that both stars remain 'confidently assigned' is not supported by these numbers. Please report the joint probability that both RC stars belong to UBC 63B, and, if possible, validate their membership using radial velocities or a joint astrometric+photometric likelihood. Without this, the old-age interpretation rests on a fragile foundation.
  3. [Section 5, paragraph beginning 'To investigate the clusters’ dynamical history...'] The N-body backward integration is initialized at t = -21 Myr with present-day structural parameters and implicitly assumes that the two components exist as clusters. The manuscript itself notes that 'this simplified approach is not expected to be perfectly accurate.' Consequently, the N-body calculation cannot independently validate the flyby scenario; it only demonstrates consistency of the assumed point-mass orbit with a particular set of mock initial conditions. The paper should clarify what the N-body adds beyond the galpy integration, and should test sensitivity to the assumed half-mass radii, virial ratios, masses, and initial separation. An ensemble of initial conditions with varied structural parameters is needed before the simulation can be used to support the 'immediate aftermath' claim.
  4. [Section 2, concluding paragraph] The claim that UBC 63B 'strongly disfavors a field-star origin' is qualitative. The evidence cited is a coherent CMD sequence and bulk kinematics similar to UBC 63A, but the paper itself notes that clusters in the same spiral arm at similar Galactocentric radii can share kinematics without a common origin. The overlap fraction f_overlap=0.096 is computed from the fitted GMM, not from a comparison to a field model. Please quantify the false-alarm rate of finding a second component with comparable BIC improvement and CMD coherence in random field samples matched in magnitude, color, and sky position.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The header is formatted as 'T able 1' in the draft; please fix the spacing.
  2. [Table 2] The column header '(X, Y, Z)' is unclear because the first column is mass M; the tuple immediately following is position. Similarly, '(U, V, W)' is velocity. Please separate the mass, position, and velocity columns clearly.
  3. [Section 2 and Fig. 1d] The lower-right panel caption says 'classical UBC 63 (green)' but the text says 'UBC 63A (blue) and classical UBC 63 (green)'. Please clarify whether the green points are the van Groeningen et al. member list and make the figure legend consistent.
  4. [Section 4] The units of the tidal factor are given as 'pc^2/M_sun' in one sentence and 'M_sun^{-1} pc^2' in the summary; please unify the notation.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The sentence thanking 'the anonymous referee' suggests this manuscript has already been through a review cycle. For journal submission, this sentence should be removed or anonymized so that the review process remains blind.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flyby geometry is propagated from measured Gaia/SoS phase-space data in a fixed Galactic potential, not fitted to the discovery claims.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The two-population decomposition uses a 5D GMM on Gaia DR3 astrometric data with BIC model selection; the paper is candid that the initial 246-member sample was built “Assuming UBC 63 to be a single cluster” (Sec. 2) and explicitly notes that “clusters at similar Galactocentric radii in the same spiral arm can share similar kinematics even without a common parent molecular cloud” (Sec. 2). These are statistical/robustness limitations, not definitional circularity. The age difference (541 ± 43 Myr) comes from MIST isochrone fits to de-reddened CMDs, with the two RC stars having independent literature classifications; their p≈0.6 membership is marginal but is not the source of the age fit. The flyby observables (ΔD3D, ΔV3D, Vesc, closest approach at ∼6 Myr, +100 Myr divergence) are derived by propagating measured positions, parallaxes, proper motions and SoS radial velocities through the fixed MWPotential2014 galactic potential; no free parameter is fitted to force the encounter. The N-body past branch is initialized from galpy backward integration, so its past agreement is partly a consistency round-trip rather than an independent discovery, but the paper presents it as dynamical consistency checking and the future branch is a genuine forward prediction. Self-citations (Deb et al. 2022; Biswas et al. 2024, 2025; Zhu et al. 2025) supply the membership tool and analogous flyby examples, but the quantitative claims do not reduce to those citations; they use external Gaia, SoS, Bailer-Jones, Anders extinction, and MIST data. No Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction is present in the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a chain: Gaia measurements -> single-cluster membership -> two-component GMM split -> isochrone ages -> phase-space integration -> unbound flyby. The fitted parameters (ages, metallicities, masses, structural parameters) are inputs to the dynamical argument rather than outputs of a closed-form derivation. No new physical entity is postulated. The main external assumptions are the reliability of the Gaia error model, the MIST isochrones, the MWPotential2014 Galactic potential, and the simplified backward N-body initialization.

free parameters (7)
  • Isochrone age of UBC 63A = 21 ± 4 Myr
    Fitted with MIST v1.2 via the isochrones package to the de-reddened CMD; anchors the 'young cluster' interpretation and the birth epoch at -21 Myr.
  • Isochrone age of UBC 63B = 562 ± 43 Myr
    Fitted similarly; the large age difference is central to ruling out coeval formation and to identifying two distinct clusters.
  • Metallicity z_A and z_B = 0.012 ± 0.003 / 0.009 ± 0.002
    Fitted simultaneously with age in the isochrone fits; affects the CMD model but is not central to the flyby geometry.
  • Cluster masses = M_A = 294 ± 58, M_B = 435 ± 87 M_sun
    Derived from membership and an assumed IMF (Almeida et al. 2023); enter the escape-velocity estimate and the N-body initial conditions.
  • Virial ratio Q = 0.5
    Assumed for both mock clusters in PeTar; the authors test sub-virial Q < 0.5 and report unchanged conclusions.
  • King concentration W0, half-mass radius, binary fraction, IMF slopes = See Table 2
    Derived from radial density profiles and mass-function fitting; set the initial structure of the N-body clusters.
  • GMM membership threshold p > 0.5 = 0.5
    Chosen to define the 98/148 member samples; footnote 13 reports consistent results with stricter thresholds.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 astrometric uncertainties and systematics are negligible compared to the quoted errors and the tiny separations between the two components.
    All kinematic and spatial conclusions rest on Gaia DR3 parallaxes and proper motions for G < 18 stars; unmodeled systematics at the 0.01-0.02 mas level could shift the small proper-motion differences (0.04-0.11 mas/yr) between the components.
  • domain assumption The initial two-component cluster+field GMM (Deb et al. 2022) returns an unbiased 246-member sample of the true UBC 63 system before the two-population split.
    The first membership selection assumes a single cluster; an improper field model can either contaminate or truncate the older population UBC 63B.
  • domain assumption MIST v1.2 isochrones and the Anders et al. (2022) extinction map describe the CMDs of both populations, and star-by-star de-reddening removes differential reddening.
    The ages 21 and 562 Myr come from isochrone fits; residual differential reddening or extinction errors would bias the ages and hence the age difference.
  • domain assumption MWPotential2014 with the adopted solar position and velocity is adequate for the 100-Myr backward and forward orbit integrations in the solar neighborhood.
    The orbit history and the -6 Myr closest approach are produced by galpy under this axisymmetric potential; unmodeled bar, spiral arms, or massive perturbers could alter the encounter time and geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper The backward N-body simulation can be initialized at t = -21 Myr with the clusters' present-day structural properties.
    PeTar lacks native backward integration; Section 5 states that clusters were initialized at -21 Myr 'assuming their structural properties to be same as present day,' an acknowledged simplification that may bias the reconstructed encounter.
  • domain assumption The 5D Gaussian mixture assumption and BIC model selection with 100 MC realizations correctly identify the number of physical populations.
    GMM assumes Gaussian components in (α, δ, μ_α*, μ_δ, ϖ); non-Gaussian field contamination or correlated astrometric errors could create spurious components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery of an Unbound Flyby Companion of UBC 63: In the Immediate Aftermath of a Close Encounter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYCRDLBF

@misc{pith2026260718224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery of an Unbound Flyby Companion of UBC 63: In the Immediate Aftermath of a Close Encounter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYCRDLBF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18224}
}
abstract

We re-investigate the open cluster UBC 63 using the Gaia DR3 data and show that, rather than being a single cluster as previously classified, it is a compelling candidate for a double cluster undergoing an unbound flyby interaction. A GMM decomposition performed in the 5D astrometric space reveals the two statistically distinct components, namely UBC 63A (98 members, Age = 21 $\pm$ 4 Myr) and UBC 63B (148 members, Age = 562 $\pm$ 43 Myr). A significant age difference of $\Delta \mathrm{Age} = 541 \pm 43$ Myr between the clusters, rules out coeval formation. Their 3D separation of $60 \pm 29$ pc at the birth-epoch of the younger cluster, indicates that the clusters might have originated from the same molecular cloud complex. At present, the system exhibits a 3D separation of $26 \pm 8$ pc, with a relative velocity of $3.60 \pm 1.80$ km s$^{-1}$. Orbital integrations and \textit{N}-body simulations of the pair suggest that the systems had a close encounter, reaching a separation of $7 \pm 2$ pc only $\sim$~6 Myr ago and predict a rapid divergence to a separation of $491 \pm 213$ pc within the next $\sim$100 Myr. The low escape velocity ($V_{\rm esc} = 0.51 \pm 0.12$ km s$^{-1}$) of the system compared to the relative 3D velocity indicates that they are gravitationally unbound. Their low tidal factors, elongated structures and populations extending beyond the Jacobi radii may reflect a strong transient tidal interaction between the clusters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) CMD of the 246 UBC 63 members with isochrones of 21 Myr (red) and 562 Myr (blue). (b) The BIC distribution for GMM models with 1–5 components obtained from 100 MC realizations. The mean BIC values along with their standard error for different number of components are also indicated. (c) Distribution of the difference in squared MD from the mean astrometric parameters of UBC 63A and UBC 63B, fitted with a two-com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The Galactic orbits of UBC 63A (blue) and UBC 63B (red) in the Z–RGC plane. Solid and dash-dotted curves trace the past and future evolution, respectively. Circles, squares, and triangles mark the birth, present, and future positions (at +100 Myr), respectively. The dashed gray curves denote the 16th and 84th percentile uncertainty bounds from the MC sampling. (b) Temporal evolution of the inter-cluster separati… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Almeida, A., Monteiro, H., & Dias, W. S. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2315, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2291

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2291 2023

  2. [2]

    2025, A&A, 693, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451853

    Almeida, D., Moitinho, A., & Moreira, S. 2025, A&A, 693, A305, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451853

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451853 2025

  3. [3]

    Anders, F., Khalatyan, A., Queiroz, A. B. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142369 9 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142369 2022

  4. [4]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  5. [5]

    L., et al

    Banerjee, S., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C. L., et al. 2020, A&A, 639, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935332

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935332 2020

  6. [6]

    B., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al

    Bauer, E. B., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae401e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae401e 2026

  7. [7]

    2009, Ap&SS, 320, 11, doi: 10.1007/s10509-008-9761-3

    Bianchi, L. 2009, Ap&SS, 320, 11, doi: 10.1007/s10509-008-9761-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-008-9761-3 2009

  8. [8]

    2011, Galactic dynamics (Princeton university press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2011, Galactic dynamics (Princeton university press)

    2011

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J., Deb, S., Das, H

    Biswas, S., Medhi, B. J., Deb, S., Das, H. S., & Tamura, M. 2025, MNRAS, 541, 1557, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf1027

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Deb, S., et al

    Biswas, S., Medhi, B. J., Deb, S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 1241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1476

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, ApJS, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    2021, ApJ, 923, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2835

    Camargo, D. 2021, ApJ, 923, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2835

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    2020, A&A, 633, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936691

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Anders, F. 2020, A&A, 633, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936691

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, Astronomy Reports, 65, 755, doi: 10.1134/S1063772921350018

    Casado, J. 2021, Astronomy Reports, 65, 755, doi: 10.1134/S1063772921350018

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, A&A, 627, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935531

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Balaguer-N´ u˜ nez, L. 2019, A&A, 627, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935531

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    V., et al

    Conrad, C., Scholz, R.-D., Kharchenko, N. V., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630012 de La Fuente Marcos, R., & de La Fuente Marcos, C. 2009, A&A, 500, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912297 De Maesschalck, R., Jouan-Rimbaud, D., & Massart, D. 2000, Chemo...

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 515, 4685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2116

    Deb, S., Baruah, A., & Kumar, S. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4685, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2116

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab770

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    B., Park, M., et al

    Dotter, A., Bauer, E. B., Park, M., et al. 2026, ApJS, 283, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae48f3

    2026 doi

  14. [22]

    2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Fu, X., Bragaglia, A., Liu, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    2025, AJ, 169, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada443

    Hu, Q., Li, Y., Qin, M., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ada443

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348662

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    R., Pols, O

    Hurley, J. R., Pols, O. R., & Tout, C. A. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 543, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03426.x

    2000

  18. [26]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05038.x

    2002

  19. [27]

    V., Risbud, D., Kroupa, P., & Wu, W

    Jadhav, V. V., Risbud, D., Kroupa, P., & Wu, W. 2025, A&A, 704, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555858

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    V., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., & Subramaniam, A. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 1699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2264

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2025, A&A, 701, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452798

    Khanna, S., Yu, J., Drimmel, R., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A270, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452798

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756

    King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756

    1962 doi

  23. [31]

    King, I. R. 1966, AJ, 71, 64, doi: 10.1086/109857

    1966 doi

  24. [32]

    2011, McLuster: A Tool to Make a Star Cluster,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.015 http://ascl.net/1107.015

    Baumgardt, H. 2011, McLuster: A Tool to Make a Star Cluster,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1107.015 http://ascl.net/1107.015

    2011

  25. [33]

    J., & Lada, E

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

    2003 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf3e3

    Liu, D., Xu, Y., Hao, C., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 46, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acf3e3

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    2025, A&A, 702, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556299

    Liu, G., Zhang, Y., Zhong, J., et al. 2025, A&A, 702, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556299

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab530a

    Liu, L., & Pang, X. 2019, ApJS, 245, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab530a

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    S., & Hawkins, K

    Lucey, M., Ting, Y.-S., Ramachandra, N. S., & Hawkins, K. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3087, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1226

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    1936, Proc

    Mahalanobis, P. 1936, Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India, 12, 49

    1936

  31. [39]

    2025, A&A, 693, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452672

    Palma, T., Coenda, V., Baume, G., & Feinstein, C. 2025, A&A, 693, A218, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452672

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    D., & Filippova, A

    Pavlovskaya, E. D., & Filippova, A. A. 1989, Soviet Ast., 33, 6

    1989

  33. [41]

    2021, A&A, 649, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040139 10

    Piecka, M., & Paunzen, E. 2021, A&A, 649, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040139 10

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2025, A&A, 693, A317, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452962

    Qin, S., Zhong, J., Tang, T., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A317, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452962

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    2024, MNRAS, 532, 2860, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1650

    Reyes, C., Stello, D., Hon, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 532, 2860, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1650

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    2025, A&A, 704, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555711

    Sharma, I., Jadhav, V., Subramaniam, A., & Wirth, H. 2025, A&A, 704, A167, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555711

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    H., Medhi, B

    Sheikh, A. H., Medhi, B. J., & Sagar, R. 2025, ApJ, 989, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adeb6e

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    2022, A&A, 666, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243524

    Song, F., Esamdin, A., Hu, Q., & Zhang, M. 2022, A&A, 666, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243524

    2022 doi

  39. [47]

    2013, A&A, 552, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220927

    Soubiran, C., Jasniewicz, G., Chemin, L., et al. 2013, A&A, 552, A64, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220927

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Subramaniam, A., Gorti, U., Sagar, R., & Bhatt, H. C. 1995, A&A, 302, 86

    1995

  41. [49]

    2025, A&A, 698, A300, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554658

    Sun, W. 2025, A&A, 698, A300, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554658

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    2022, A&A, 659, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141702 van Groeningen, M

    Tsantaki, M., Pancino, E., Marrese, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141702 van Groeningen, M. G. J., Castro-Ginard, A., Brown, A. G. A., Casamiquela, L., & Jordi, C. 2023, A&A, 675, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345952 van Leeuwen, F. 2009, A&A, 497,...

    2022 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    Wang, L., Iwasawa, M., Nitadori, K., & Makino, J. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1915

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2022, AJ, 164, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac77fa

    Zhong, J., Chen, L., Jiang, Y., Qin, S., & Hou, J. 2022, AJ, 164, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac77fa

    2022 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, A&A, 702, A259, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556624

    Zhu, Z., Li, Z., & Zhang, S. 2025, A&A, 702, A259, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556624

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.