Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

The first astrophysical result of HISAKI: a search for the EUV He I lines a massive cool core cluster at z=0.7

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The first extragalactic EUV search for neutral helium lines finds almost no 30,000-K gas in the massive cool-core cluster RCS2327, implying AGN feedback quenches cooling at z=0.7.

desk verdict A genuine observational first whose abstract overclaims: the He I non-detection is consistent with steady cooling at ~1 sigma, so the feedback conclusion needs reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10891 v1 pith:5KVN2J3G submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.GA

Yuanyuan Su , Tomoki Kimura , Ralph Kraft , Paul Nulsen , Megan Gralla , William Forman , Go Murakami , Atsushi Yamazaki
show 1 more author
Ichiro Yoshikawa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galaxyclusterscool-coreintraclustermediumextremeultravioletspectroscopyheliumlinesAGNfeedbackHisakicoolingflows
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 reports the first extragalactic use of the Hisaki extreme-ultraviolet spectrometer: a search for neutral helium emission lines from the center of RCS2 J232727.6-020437, a very massive cool-core cluster at z=0.7. The lines, redshifted to wavelengths where the Galaxy is transparent, trace gas at about 30,000 K, the missing link between the hot X-ray gas and the cold gas that feeds the central black hole. The lines are not detected, and the upper limits constrain the mass of such warm gas to less than 2.9 million solar masses and its volume filling factor to below one part in a million. The authors argue that this paucity of intermediate-temperature gas demonstrates that feedback both operates and is efficient in massive clusters at this epoch.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pair of neutral helium lines He I alpha (rest 58.43 nm) and He I beta (53.70 nm), both peaking in emissivity at about 3.16e4 K. At z=0.6986 these lines shift to 99.25 nm and 91.21 nm, longward of the Galactic Lyman limit, making them observable from orbit. The argument is carried by comparing the observed non-detection with the line flux expected from a steady cooling flow, computed via the Edgar and Chevalier (1986) cooling-flow line luminosity formula using the cluster's deprojected X-ray temperature and density profiles from Chandra and the cooling rate of 411 solar masses per year. The upper limits on line flux are converted to gas mass and volume using AtomDB line emissivities and the assumption of pressure equilibrium with the hot intracluster medium.

What would settle it

A single EUV observation with higher spectral resolution or a blank-field pointing at the same sky coordinates that detects He I $\alpha$ at a flux near the steady-cooling expectation of 3.7e-17 erg/s/$cm^{2}$, or an independent airglow model that shows the interpolated background is biased low, would overturn the conclusion that cooling is suppressed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the amount of gas at $10^{4}$ to $10^{5}$ K in the core of RCS2327 is far smaller than a steady cooling flow would produce. Using the non-detection of the He I $\beta$ line, the paper derives a 1-$\sigma$ upper limit of 7.8e-16 erg/s/$cm^{2}$, which translates, under pressure equilibrium with the hot gas, into a warm-gas mass no greater than 2.9 million solar masses within the central 74 kpc, occupying a volume below 1.2e6 $pc^{3}$ and a filling factor below 1e-6. Because the cluster's X-ray-derived cooling rate is 400 solar masses per year, the absence of the expected 30,000-K gas implies that cooling is suppressed, consistent with heating by the active galactic nucleus. The paper also notes that the substantial systematic uncertainty, dominated by background subtraction, prevents a firm rule-out of steady cooling.

Load-bearing premise

The entire upper-limit analysis rests on the accuracy of the background subtraction at the redshifted He I wavelengths, where the spatial variation of geocoronal airglow is interpolated from four bright lines at other wavelengths and 40 local background regions; any bias in that interpolation directly shifts the measured fluxes and the derived mass and volume limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the upper limits hold, steady-state radiative cooling of the hot intracluster medium in massive high-redshift cool-core clusters is suppressed by more than an order of magnitude at 30,000 K.
  • The warm gas that does exist must be concentrated in small filaments with radius below 100 pc rather than filling the cool core, consistent with the multiphase gas structures seen in nearby clusters like Perseus and Virgo.
  • The absence of 10^4-5 K gas tightens the link between the hot and cold phases: either thermal conduction is quenched, or turbulent mixing produces gas near 10^5 K that outshines the 3e4 K gas.
  • A low t_cool/t_ff ratio alone is not sufficient to guarantee condensation; there may be a delay before thermal instability produces cold gas, or the cluster may not satisfy the instability condition.
  • EUV line spectroscopy becomes a viable probe of intermediate-temperature gas in distant clusters, provided targets are chosen with redshifts that shift the lines out of Galactic absorption.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this method is sound, small EUV spectrometers on planetary missions can be repurposed to constrain the multiphase gas content of z~0.7 clusters, a regime largely inaccessible to current X-ray spectrometers.
  • Applying the same technique to a small sample of cool-core clusters at similar redshifts could map how the warm-gas fraction varies with cluster mass and cooling rate, testing whether feedback efficiency changes across cosmic time.
  • A future EUV mission with higher spectral resolution and better airglow rejection could turn the upper limits into a detection or a much tighter bound, directly testing the steady-cooling expectation of about 3.7e-17 erg/s/cm^2 for He I alpha.
  • The comparison with Perseus suggests a testable corollary: if the warm-gas deficit is generic, then the multiphase filaments in nearby clusters may be fueled by mergers rather than by residual cooling of the intracluster medium.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first extragalactic observation with the Hisaki EUV spectrometer, targeting RCS2 J232727.6-020437, a massive cool-core cluster at z=0.6986. The authors search for redshifted He I alpha and He I beta lines as tracers of 10^4-5 K gas, using Chandra data to measure the hot ICM and derive a cooling rate of 411 M_sun/yr. They compare the measured EUV fluxes with predictions from a steady cooling-flow model based on Edgar & Chevalier and report non-detections, from which they derive upper limits on the mass and volume of warm gas. The paper is careful in its data reduction and systematic-error treatment, but the sensitivity of the He I observations is too low to test the steady cooling-flow model, and the abstract's claim that the warm-gas amount is smaller than expected is not supported by the quoted limits. The paper itself concedes in Section 4.2 that the steady cooling flow cannot be firmly ruled out.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be a pioneering result: the first astrophysical use of Hisaki, the first He I line search in a galaxy cluster, and the first direct probe of 10^4-5 K gas in a z~0.7 cool-core cluster. The analysis is commendable for its transparency: the expected fluxes are computed from a forward cooling-flow model using the Chandra-measured cooling rate rather than fitted to the He I data, and the systematic uncertainties are estimated from 40 different background regions. However, the current sensitivity is insufficient to distinguish between steady cooling and suppressed cooling: the 1-sigma upper limit on He I alpha is only about twice the predicted steady-cooling flux, and the He I beta limit is about two orders of magnitude above the prediction. The result is therefore best viewed as a demonstration of feasibility and as weak upper limits, not as evidence that feedback is efficient.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Section 4.2, Abstract] The central claim in the Abstract and in Section 5 that RCS2327 contains less 10^4-5 K gas than expected from uninhibited cooling is not supported by the reported uncertainties. In Section 3.1 the measured He I alpha flux is -6.9 +/- 3.1(stat) +/- 7.0(sys) x 10^-16 erg/s/cm^2, so the 1-sigma upper limit (statistical and systematic added in quadrature) is approximately 7.5 x 10^-17 erg/s/cm^2, only about twice the steady-cooling prediction F(He I alpha) = 3.67 x 10^-17 quoted in Section 4.2. The He I beta limit is roughly 200 times the predicted flux. The non-detection is therefore consistent with the steady cooling-flow model at the ~1-sigma level, and it cannot 'demonstrate' that feedback is efficient. The paper itself concedes this in Section 4.2 ('we can not firmly rule out the cooling flow in a steady state'), so the Abstract and Section 5 need to be revised to present the result as a weak upper limit rather than as evidence of a deficit.
  2. [Section 4.1] The upper limits on the warm-gas mass (no more than 2.9 x 10^6 M_sun) and volume (less than 1.2 x 10^6 pc^3) are valid upper limits, but they do not constrain the steady cooling-flow model because the predicted He I beta flux in that model is 3.85 x 10^-18 erg/s/cm^2, a factor of about 200 below the 1-sigma upper limit used to derive these bounds. The subsequent discussion in Sections 4.1.1-4.1.3 and the filament sketch in Figure 8 implicitly treat the upper limits as evidence for a real absence of warm gas; this interpretation should be explicitly flagged as contingent on much deeper observations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The text says 'access the systematic uncertainties' but should read 'assess the systematic uncertainties'; similarly, 'SunyaevZeldovich' in Section 1 should be 'Sunyaev-Zeldovich' and 'Asplund at al.' should be 'Asplund et al.'.
  2. [Figure 3] The red and blue markers for the expected steady-cooling fluxes would be more informative if accompanied by horizontal lines showing the 1-sigma and 2-sigma upper-limit levels, given the large systematic uncertainties.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (3)] The parameter k in Eq. (3) is not defined in the text; please define it explicitly.
  4. [Section 4.2] The choice s = 0.5 for the cooling mode is not accompanied by a sensitivity check; a brief statement of how the predicted fluxes change for s = 0 and s = 1 would help the reader assess the robustness of the comparison.
  5. [Section 2.1, Figure 5] Please clarify whether any of the 40 background regions used for the systematic estimate overlap the source extraction region (100-120 arcsec); the listed examples such as 40-60 arcsec appear adjacent, but the full set should be described and any overlap explicitly excluded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the expected He I fluxes are computed from a Chandra-derived cooling rate and atomic data, independently of the Hisaki measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is not circular. The measured He I alpha and He I beta fluxes in Section 3.1 are observed quantities, with statistical and systematic uncertainties estimated from the data itself (including 40 local-background realizations). The expected fluxes in Section 4.2 are derived from the steady cooling flow model of Edgar & Chevalier (1986), Eq. 3, using the cooling rate Mdot_cool = 411 M_sun/yr obtained from Chandra X-ray spectra via Eq. 2 in Section 3.2, together with AtomDB line emissivities and elemental abundances. No parameter of this predicted flux is fitted to the Hisaki He I lines; the prediction is therefore an independent forward calculation. The mass and volume upper limits in Section 4.1 are likewise direct conversions of the measured He I beta upper limit through the line cooling function and an assumed pressure equilibrium, not quantities that presuppose the conclusion. The only self-citations, Su et al. 2017a,b in Section 4.1.3, support an interpretive discussion of turbulent mixing and are not load-bearing for the main non-detection argument. The skeptic's objection that the 1-sigma upper limit is larger than the predicted flux is a sensitivity or statistical-overclaim concern, not a circularity: the derivation chain does not reduce the prediction to the measurement by construction. The paper is self-contained against the external atomic and X-ray inputs it cites.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints rest on standard atomic data, a forward cooling-flow model, and the pressure-equilibrium assumption for converting flux to mass. No new particles or physical mechanisms are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Mdot_cool = 411 M_sun/yr
    Derived from the Chandra deprojected spectral fit in Section 3.2 and used in Eq. 3 to predict the expected He I fluxes. It is an input measured from X-ray data, not fitted to the He I data.
  • s (cooling mode parameter) = 0.5
    In Eq. 3, the cooling process is assumed to be intermediate between isobaric (s=1) and isochoric (s=0); s=0.5 is chosen by hand. This directly affects the predicted line luminosities.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption He I line emissivities and the cooling function are accurately given by AtomDB and the cited atomic databases.
    Used in Eq. 3 and in the conversion from flux upper limits to volume and mass limits in Section 4.1. If the atomic data are wrong, the derived mass and volume limits shift.
  • domain assumption The warm gas at ~3e4 K is in pressure equilibrium with the hot X-ray emitting ICM.
    Stated in Section 4.1; this assumption is required to convert the He I beta emission measure limit into a gas mass limit of 2.9e6 M_sun. No independent evidence is given for pressure equilibrium.
  • domain assumption The cluster's own interstellar medium is optically thin to the redshifted He I lines at 91.21 and 99.25 nm.
    No treatment of internal dust or H I absorption is given. If the warm gas is embedded in absorbing material, the intrinsic line flux would be higher than observed, weakening the mass limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The first astrophysical result of HISAKI: a search for the EUV He I lines a massive cool core cluster at z=0.7." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KVN2J3G

@misc{pith2026190810891,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The first astrophysical result of HISAKI: a search for the EUV He I lines a massive cool core cluster at z=0.7},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KVN2J3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10891}
}
abstract

Molecular cold gas and star formation have been observed at centers of cool-core clusters, albeit at a level much smaller than expected from the classic cooling model. Feedback from the supermassive black hole is likely to have prevented hot gas from cooling. However, the exact cooling and heating processes are poorly understood. The missing key piece is the link between the hot gas ($10^7$\,K) and cold gas ($10^3$\,K). Using the extreme ultraviolet spectrometer onboard {\sl Hisaki}, we explore a distant galaxy cluster, RCS2 J232727.6-020437, one of the most massive cool-core clusters with a cooling rate of $400$\,M$_{\odot}$\,yr$^{-1}$. We aim to detect gas at intermediate temperatures ($3\times10^4$\,K) emitting He I$\alpha$ and He I$\beta$ at rest wavelengths of 58.4 nm and 53.7 nm, respectively. Our target resides at $z=0.6986$, for which these He I lines shift away from the absorption of the Galaxy. Our findings show that the amount of $10^{4-5}$\,K gas at the center of this cluster is smaller than expected if cooling there was uninhibited, which demonstrates that feedback both operates and is efficient for massive clusters at these epochs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10891 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — The Hisaki EUV imaging-spectral distribution of RCS2327. Our target is centered at a viewing angle of 11000 on the detector. No obvious emission is detected other than geocoronal lines. 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Observed Wavelength (nm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 2/nm erg/s/cm -16 10 He I O II Lyman β Lyman α O I HLya-ghost He Iβ He Iα δ ∈ γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — The Hisaki spectrum for the viewing angle range (10000 , 12000) over the wavelength range 55-150 nm with instrumental background subtracted. Geocoronal emission lines and the HLyα ghost line are marked in gray. The He Iα and He Iβ lines of RCS2327 are shifted to 99.25 nm and 91.21 nm, respectively, at z = 0.7. uncertainty. The measured fluxes of He Iα and He Iβ are −6.9 ± 3.1(sta) ± 7.0(sys) × 10−16 erg s−1 cm−2 a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — The Hisaki spectrum of our target lines (He Iα and He Iβ are at 58.4 nm and 53.7 nm in the rest frame, respectively). The spectrum is produced by subtracting the −12000 ∼ −10000 spectrum from the 10000 ∼ 12000 spectrum. X-axis error bar represents the spectral resolution of 1 nm. Red and blue lines mark the line fluxes expected from the steady cooling flow model. Black error bars indicate the statistical uncertain… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Chandra X-ray image of RCS2327 in the 0.5–2.0 keV energy band in units of photon cm−2 s−1 . Its X-ray morphology is symmetric with no significant substructures detected in the ICM, suggesting that RCS2327 is a relaxed cluster. Regions used for spectrum analysis are m…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Deprojected radial profiles of temperature, cooling time, entropy, metallicity, and tcool/tff , centered on RCS2327 obtained with Chandra. Black dashed line represents the power law model of the entropy profile with a best-fit slope of 0.94 ± 0.07. The blue shaded re…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Chandra surface brightness profile in the 0.5–7.0 keV energy band of the innermost bin in the spectral analysis. The surface brightness profile rises steeply towards the cluster center. The actual cooling at the cluster center is likely to be more vigorous than what …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — A sketch demonstrates the possible structure of the mul￾tiphase filaments found at centers of cool core clusters as implied by our observations of RCS2327 (The sketch is based on Anderson & Sunyaev 2018; Werner et al. 2019). hot ICM (T ∼ 107 K, n ∼ 0.1 cm−3 ). If the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Sunyaev, R

    Anderson, M. & Sunyaev, R. 2018, A&A, 617, 123

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Jacques S. A. 2006, NuPhA, 777, 1

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Begelman, M. C. & Fabian, A. C. 1990, MNRAS, 244, 26

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    N., Fabian, A

    Bregman, J. N., Fabian, A. C., Miller, E. D, et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 759

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127 Conselice C

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127 Conselice C. J. & Gallagher III J. S. 1999, AJ 117, 75 Conselice C. J., Gallagher III J. S., Wyse R. F. G., 2001, ApJ, 122, 2

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Young, P. R. 1997, A&AS, 125, 149

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Edgar, R. J. & Chevalier, R. A. 1986, ApJ, 310, 27

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Edge, A. C. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 762

    2001

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    C.; Sanders, J

    Fabian, A. C.; Sanders, J. S.; Ettori, S. et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 65

    2000

  2. [10]

    C., Mushotzky, R

    Fabian, A. C., Mushotzky, R. F., Nulsen, P. E. J. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 20L

    2001

  3. [11]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F. et al. 2017 Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385

    2017

  4. [12]

    & Jones, C

    Forman, W. & Jones, C. 1982, ARA&A, 20, 547 Forman W., Kellogg E., Gursky, H. et al. 1972, ApJ, 178, 309 Hitomi Collaboration, Aharonian, F., Akamatsu, H., et al. 2016, Natur, 535, 117

    1982

  5. [13]

    T., McNamara, B

    Hogan, M. T., McNamara, B. R., Pulido, F. A. et al. 2017 ApJ 851, 66

    2017

  6. [14]

    Gaspari, M., Ruszkowski, M., & Oh, S. P. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3401

    2013

  7. [15]

    B., et al

    Gendron-Marsolais, M., Hlavacek-Larrondo, J., Martin, T. B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, L28

    2018

  8. [16]

    G., Gladders, M

    Gilbank, D. G., Gladders, M. D., Yee, H. K. C. et al. 2011 AJ, 141, 94

    2011

  9. [17]

    P., Leenaarts, J., Carlsson, M

    Golding, T. P., Leenaarts, J., Carlsson, M. 2017, A&A, 597, 102

    2017

  10. [18]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D. et al. 2005 A&A 440 775

    2005

  11. [19]

    2017, JGRA, 122, 1269

    Kuwabara, M., Yoshioka, K., Murakami, G., et al. 2017, JGRA, 122, 1269

    2017

  12. [20]

    Kimura, T., Yamazaki, A., Yoshioka, K. et al. 2019 JSWSC, 9A 8

    2019

  13. [21]

    Labrosse, N., Gouttebroze, P., Vial, J. -C. 2007, A&A, 463, 117,

    2007

  14. [22]

    R., Dere, K

    Landi, E., Young, P. R., Dere, K. P. et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 86

    2013

  15. [23]

    McDonald, M., Veilleux, S., Rupke, D. S. N. et al. 2010, ApJ, 721, 2

    2010

  16. [24]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 3319

    McCourt, M., Sharma, P., & Quataert, E., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 3319

    2012

  17. [25]

    & Switzer, E

    McQuinn, M. & Switzer, E. R. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1945

    2010

  18. [26]

    McNamara, B. R. & Nulsen, P. E. J. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 117

    2007

  19. [27]

    R., Russell, H

    McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., Nulsen, P. E. J. et al. 2016 ApJ 830, 79 O’Dea, C. P., Baum, S. A., Privon, G et al. 2008, ApJ, 681, 1035

    2016

  20. [28]

    R., Cowie, L., Davidsen, A

    Oegerle, W. R., Cowie, L., Davidsen, A. et al. 2001, ApJ, 560, 187

    2001

  21. [29]

    K., Fabian, A

    Panagoulia, E. K., Fabian, A. C., & Sanders, J. S. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2341

    2014

  22. [30]

    R., Kahn, S

    Peterson, J. R., Kahn, S. M., Paerels, F. B. S. et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 207

    2003

  23. [31]

    & Vogel, S

    Reimers, D. & Vogel, S. 1993 A&A 276 13

    1993

  24. [32]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Edge, A. C., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 78

    2014

  25. [33]

    R., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McNamara, B. R., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 3134

    2016

  26. [34]

    R., McDonald, M., McNamara, B

    Russell, H. R., McDonald, M., McNamara, B. R., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, 130 Salom´ e, P., Combes, F., Edge, A. C. et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 437

    2017

  27. [35]

    D., Marrone, D

    Sharon, K., Gladders, M. D., Marrone, D. P. et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 21

    2015

  28. [36]

    A & Zel’dovich, Y

    Sunyaev, R. A & Zel’dovich, Y. B. 1972 CoASP 4 173

    1972

  29. [37]

    N., McNamara, B

    Vantyghem, A. N., McNamara, B. R., Russell, H. R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 148

    2016

  30. [38]

    Wang, T., Elbaz, D., Daddi, E. et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 56

    2016

  31. [39]

    R., Churazov, E

    Werner, N., McNamara, B. R., Churazov, E. et al. 2019, SSRv, 215, 5

    2019

  32. [40]

    Yoshioka, K., Murakami, G., Yamazaki, A. et al. 2013, P&SS, 85, 250

    2013

  33. [41]

    Yoshikawa, I., Yoshioka, K., Murakami, G. et al. 2014, SSRv, 184, 237

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.