Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Samples and Binary Fractions of Red Supergiant in M31 and M33 by the HST Observations

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper measures the binary fraction of red supergiants in M31 and M33 using HST photometry, finding about one third have hot companions, and shows HST resolves far more RSGs than ground-based surveys.

desk verdict Worth sending to review: solid HST-resolution RSG catalogs and a genuinely new M33 measurement, but 'binary fraction' overstates what the UV-excess method demonstrates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24559 v2 pith:7IZZCDQC submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Min Dai , Shu Wang , Biwei Jiang , Ying Li This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords redsupergiantsbinaryfractionultravioletexcessM31M33HubbleSpaceTelescopespectralenergydistributionpopulationsynthesis
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 uses Hubble Space Telescope photometry from the PHAT and PHATTER surveys to build cleaner, more complete samples of red supergiants in M31 and M33, then measures their binary fraction by looking for ultraviolet excess over a single-star model. It finds binary fractions of 33.4% ± 0.9% in M31 and 30.9% ± 0.8% in M33, with high-luminosity subsets at 31.6% ± 1.9% and 34.7% ± 1.8%. It also finds that HST resolves roughly 19% (M31) and 148% (M33) more red supergiants than previous ground-based catalogs, and that the measured binary fractions agree with the BPASS binary population synthesis model. If correct, about one in three red supergiants in these galaxies has a detectable hot companion, which matters for predicting supernova progenitors and the fate of massive stars.

What carries the argument

The identifying mechanism is the ultraviolet excess test. A star is declared a binary when its observed F275W or F336W flux exceeds the flux predicted by a single-red-supergiant model spectrum by more than 3$\sigma$ of the observational error plus 3$\sigma$ of the model uncertainty, where the model uncertainty accounts for surface gravity up to $\log g = 0.5$. Because red supergiants emit very weakly in the UV, any such excess is attributed to a hot main-sequence companion. Stellar parameters are obtained from SED fitting to the redder bands using the adopted model grid.

What would settle it

Measure radial velocities for a sample of RSGs classified as single in this work; if a large fraction show orbital motion with hot companions, the UV-excess method misses binaries, whereas if single-star RSGs show intrinsic UV variability or UV emission, the method overcounts. Alternatively, spatially resolve the UV emission of binary candidates with integral-field spectroscopy to confirm a genuine hot companion rather than scattered light.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the binary fractions of red supergiants in M31 and M33 are about one third, obtained by applying a UV-excess SED-fitting method to HST-resolved samples. The paper reports 828 binary candidates among 2,481 usable RSGs in M31 and 966 among 3,129 in M33, yielding 33.4% ± 0.9% and 30.9% ± 0.8%. For RSGs with $\log L/L_{\odot} > 4.0$, the fractions are 31.6% ± 1.9% and 34.7% ± 1.8%. These observed fractions agree with BPASS predictions once binaries with low-luminosity main-sequence companions that would not yet be observable are removed from the model outputs.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes red supergiants have negligible intrinsic ultraviolet emission, so that any UV excess must come from a hot companion; if RSG chromospheres or an underestimated model UV flux produce the excess, the binary fractions are overestimated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • About one in three red supergiants in M31 and M33 has a detectable hot companion, reshaping expectations for supernova progenitors that come from binary channels.
  • HST-resolved samples contain substantially more RSGs than ground-based surveys (19% more in M31, 148% more in M33), implying previous RSG population counts in nearby spirals are incomplete.
  • The observed binary fractions match BPASS predictions when low-luminosity companions are excluded, supporting current binary evolution models for post-main-sequence massive stars.
  • The derived RSG physical parameters ($T_{\rm eff}$, $R$, and $L$) provide a sizable catalog for future studies of stellar evolution in M31 and M33.
  • The lack of a metallicity trend in binary fractions across M31, M33, the LMC, and the SMC suggests the binary fraction is roughly independent of galaxy metallicity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The UV-excess method only detects companions hot enough to produce F275W or F336W flux; binaries with cool, low-mass companions are likely missed, so the true RSG binary fraction may be higher than the measured 31-33%.
  • If the agreement with BPASS holds, the same method could be applied to other nearby galaxies with HST UV coverage to map the binary fraction as a function of environment without requiring spectroscopy.
  • The M33 sample covers only the inner region, so the reported fraction may not represent the whole galaxy; combining with outer-region data could test whether the inner/outer gradient suggested by spectroscopic work persists.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new RSG samples in M31 and M33 constructed from HST PHAT/PHATTER photometry, derives Teff, radius, and luminosity for each star by fitting L97 single-star SEDs to optical and NIR bands, and identifies binary candidates by requiring a 3-sigma UV excess in F275W/F336W relative to the single-star model prediction. The reported binary fractions are 33.4% +/- 0.9% (828/2481) for M31 and 30.9% +/- 0.8% (966/3129) for M33, with 31.6% +/- 1.9% and 34.7% +/- 1.8% for the log L/L_sun > 4.0 subsamples. The paper also estimates total RSG populations of about 6,563 (M31) and 7,572 (M33), roughly 19% and 148% larger than ground-based counts by Ren et al. (2021), and claims good agreement with BPASS binary evolution predictions.

Significance. If the binary fractions are correct, this is a valuable empirical result: it is one of the largest homogeneous samples of RSG binaries in external galaxies, and the HST-based photometry provides a substantial improvement in resolution and completeness over ground-based surveys. The paper has clear strengths: strict photometric quality cuts, a multi-step foreground removal that combines color-color diagrams with Gaia astrometry, cross-checks against the Ren et al. (2021) catalog and Neugent (2021) spectroscopic classifications, machine-readable output tables, and a systematic extinction test in Section 4.4. The central measurement, however, currently rests on a UV-excess criterion whose false-positive rate is unquantified and whose relation to the total binary fraction is not established; the BPASS comparison is also partly constructed by the adopted selection filters. These issues are load-bearing for the headline numbers, so the paper requires revision before the claims are fully supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (10)] The model error term F_err_mod only includes the variation of log g from 0 to 0.5 (or 0.6 for Teff < 3500 K), while [M/H] is fixed a priori (+0.3 for M31, +0.1 for M33) and the Teff error is said to be smaller than the 50 K grid spacing without propagating systematic uncertainties from extinction and reddening. Because F275W and F336W lie on the steep Wien tail of the RSG spectrum, a plausible +/-0.2 dex change in [M/H] can alter the predicted UV flux by an amount comparable to or larger than the 3-sigma threshold in Eq. (9). The paper should either extend Eq. (10) to cover these systematics or validate Eq. (9) on a control sample of spectroscopically confirmed single RSGs, for instance the Neugent (2021) catalog; without one of these, the false-positive rate of the binary identification is unmeasured and the headline fractions may be biased.
  2. [Sections 3.2, 5, and abstract] Paper I (Dai et al. 2025) explicitly reported lower limits on the RSG binary fraction in the LMC and SMC using the same UV-excess method, because the method detects only binaries with hot, UV-luminous companions. The present paper drops the 'lower limit' qualifier and presents the values as 'the binary fraction.' Unless the authors demonstrate that the UV-excess selection is complete for all binary configurations that contribute to the RSG population, the numbers in the abstract should be restated as lower limits or as 'binary fractions of RSGs with detectable hot companions,' and the comparison with BPASS should be framed accordingly.
  3. [Section 4.5] The BPASS 'prediction' is filtered by the observed Teff range (Eqs. 12-13) and then restricted to companions with L >= 60.7 L_sun (a B9V star), which is a hand-chosen threshold. This selection makes the claimed 'good agreement' with the observed 31.6%/34.7% fractions partly a consequence of the filter rather than an independent test. Please justify the luminosity threshold, report the fraction of BPASS binaries that pass it, and show how the predicted fraction changes when the threshold is varied by, say, +/-0.5 dex in luminosity.
  4. [Section 4.4] The M31 binary fraction changes from 32.7% to 36.9% across the three extinction scenarios, a spread of about 4 percentage points, which is larger than the quoted statistical uncertainty of +/-0.9%. This systematic should be propagated into the final uncertainty or at least discussed in the abstract; as written, the +/-0.9% implies a precision that the method does not achieve.
  5. [Section 4.2] The total RSG population estimates (6,563 in M31, 7,572 in M33) are derived by scaling the HST sample using the Ren et al. (2021) coverage fractions of 39.8% and 43.5%. Those fractions were computed from the ground-based RSG sample; because the HST sample is substantially deeper (148% more RSGs in M33), the spatial distribution of the newly resolved faint RSGs may not follow the same pattern, which would bias the total estimates. Please recompute the coverage fractions using the HST sample or test the sensitivity of the totals to the adopted fraction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a missing conjunction or period between 'M31' and '3,294 RSGs' in the sentence describing the sample sizes.
  2. [Section 4.3] The sample sizes are inconsistent: the text states 584 RSGs in M31 and 735 in M33, but the fractions are computed with denominators 585 and 733, respectively. Please correct the numbers.
  3. [Figure 9] The caption says the comparison is 'in M31,' but the text and the surrounding analysis describe both M31 and M33; the caption should refer to both panels.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The reduced chi-square definition uses weights w(lambda_j) that depend on both the model and the observed flux; this is not the standard definition of chi-square and its statistical interpretation should be clarified.
  5. [Eqs. (1)-(3)] The RSG branch boundaries are described as visually determined; a sensitivity test (for example, shifting the boundaries by 0.05 mag) would help establish how robust the RSG sample is to the chosen borders.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Binary fractions come from HST photometry and single-star SED fits, not from the BPASS model; the only mild concern is that the BPASS comparison is conditioned on the observed Teff range and an observability cut, but no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central measurement is self-contained: the RSG samples are selected from HST photometry, and the binary fractions are obtained by fitting L97 single-star SEDs to the F814W/F110W/F160W (plus F475W when needed) fluxes and counting objects whose F275W/F336W fluxes exceed the model by more than 3 sigma (Eq. 9). The model error in Eq. (10) is an astrophysical assumption about log g, not a circular reduction. The BPASS model is used only in Section 4.5 as an external comparison, not in the binary classification. The comparison is mildly conditioned: the BPASS subsample is restricted to the observed Teff ranges (Eqs. 12-13) and to companions with L/Lsun >= 60.7, described as the observable threshold, so the 'prediction' is not a fully blind a priori test. However, this does not make the observed binary fractions equivalent to the BPASS input by construction; the fractions are measured from HST data and would stand independently even if the BPASS comparison were removed. The self-citation to Paper I (Dai et al. 2025) for the SED-fitting method is not load-bearing because the essential equations are restated here. I therefore find no significant circularity; the score of 1 reflects the mild conditioning of the BPASS comparison rather than a definitional or fitted-input circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central binary fraction is measured, not derived from a small set of fitted parameters; the main burden is carried by model assumptions (L97 spectra, fixed log g and [M/H], UV emission assumption) and by the BPASS comparison thresholds, which are chosen partly from the data. The total-population extrapolation rests on coverage fractions from prior ground-based work, which is a weak link.

free parameters (4)
  • [M/H] adopted in SED fitting = 0.3 dex (M31), 0.1 dex (M33)
    Fixed per galaxy because individual metallicities are unavailable; changes model UV flux and therefore the binary excess threshold (Section 3.1).
  • log g adopted for RSG models = 0 (0.28 for Teff < 3500 K)
    Fixed, with log g = 0.5 used only to set the model flux uncertainty in the binary criterion (Section 3.1, Eq. 10).
  • BPASS companion luminosity threshold = L = 60.7 Lsun (B9V)
    Hand-chosen in Section 4.5 to exclude companions too faint for the UV-excess method; directly controls the BPASS fractions quoted as 'predictions'.
  • BPASS Teff selection window = 3350-4050 K (M31); 3450-4100 K (M33)
    Taken from the paper's own fitted Teff distribution (Fig. 7), making the model comparison partly circular (Section 4.5).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption RSGs emit very weakly in the UV band
    The binary criterion (Section 3.2, Eq. 9) treats any significant UV excess as a hot companion; intrinsic UV emission would bias the fraction upward.
  • domain assumption L97 synthetic spectra and 50 K interpolation give reliable UV fluxes for RSG models with log g = 0 and fixed [M/H]
    Both the SED fitting and the predicted UV flux in Sections 3.1-3.2 rely on this library; model errors directly shift the binary population.
  • ad hoc to paper The visual CMD boundaries (Eqs. 1-3 and Fig. 5) isolate a pure, complete RSG branch
    Boundaries are chosen by eye from the observed distribution (Section 2.2.2), so completeness and contamination are not independently quantified.
  • domain assumption TRGB (F160W = 18.271 M31, 18.572 M33) is the lower luminosity boundary of RSGs
    Used to reject RGB contamination (Section 2.2.2); an incorrect TRGB would shift sample sizes and fractions.
  • domain assumption SFD98-based extinction and the Wang & Chen (2019) law are appropriate; M31 internal extinction is negligible in the fiducial fit
    The paper acknowledges the extinction is uncertain and tests alternatives (Section 4.4); the headline fractions use the fiducial values.
  • ad hoc to paper BPASS model selection (Eqs. 11-13) matches the observationally detectable binary population
    The Teff windows come from the fitted data and the L >= 60.7 Lsun cut is hand-chosen, so the agreement in Section 4.5 is partly constructed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Ren et al. (2021) coverage fractions (39.8% for M31, 43.5% for M33) correctly scale the HST sample to the whole galaxy
    Used in Section 4.2 to extrapolate total RSG populations with no uncertainty; the fractions come from a ground-based catalog and may not describe the HST-selected sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Samples and Binary Fractions of Red Supergiant in M31 and M33 by the HST Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IZZCDQC

@misc{pith2026250524559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Samples and Binary Fractions of Red Supergiant in M31 and M33 by the HST Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IZZCDQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24559}
}
abstract

The binarity of red supergiants (RSGs) influences their evolution and the fate of supernovae. We investigate the binary fraction of RSGs in the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) and Triangulum Galaxy (M33) using photometry from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), which offers high spatial resolution to resolve more RSGs. A preliminary step involves identifying a reliable and complete RSG sample using the F110W $-$ F160W versus F160W diagram, yielding 2,612 RSGs from the Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury (PHAT) survey of M31 3,294 RSGs from the Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Treasury: Triangulum Extended Region (PHATTER) survey of M33. These samples suggest total RSG populations in M31 and M33 of 6,563 and 7,572, respectively. These estimates significantly exceed previous ones from the ground-based observations, an increase attributed to the superior spatial resolution of the HST. The stellar parameters of these RSGs, including effective temperature ($T_{\mathrm{eff}}$), radius ($R$), and luminosity ($L$), are derived by fitting their spectral energy distribution (SED) across optical and near-infrared bands. Binary candidates are identified by detecting ultraviolet (UV) excesses in their SEDs compared to the single-star RSG model prediction. The binary fraction is determined to be 33.4% $\pm$ 0.9% for M31 and 30.9% $\pm$ 0.8% for M33. For more luminous RSGs with log $L/L_{\odot} > 4.0$, the binary fraction decreases to 31.6% $\pm$ 1.9% in M31 and increases to 34.7% $\pm$ 1.8% in M33, respectively. These results are in good agreement with predictions from the BPASS binary evolution model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three color-color diagrams are derived from HST photometry. The up panels display M31, while the down panels show M33. The red dots indicate the RSGs sample identified by Ren et al. (2021). The black dashed lines represent our boundary between giant and dwarf stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The distribution of proper motion for stars with reliable proper motion measurements. All stars with reliable proper motion measurements satisfy the selection criteria for foreground stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The observed color-magnitude diagram of the initial sample in the PHAT (left) and PHATTER (right) fields. The gray dots represent foreground stars. The member stars are colored. The black dot-dashed lines outline the RSG branches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The probability-density function (PDF) of member stars are shown in top panels for M31 and M33, respectively, where the red line shows the F160W versus F110W − F160W relation of the ridge line. The position of TRGB are shown in bottom panels, where the left and right r…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The color-magnitude diagrams for RSGs and AGBs in M31 (left) and M33 (right). The red dots represent the adopted RSG objects. The red and gray dots of inset shows the color-magnitude diagrams for objects which fall into RSG and AGB area of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of AV derived from SFD98 map for M31 (left) and M33 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left panel shows the distribution of reduced χ 2 derived from SED fitting for M31 and M33, where the red and blue dashed lines represent the 95% confidence interval of our sample. Right panel shows the distribution of Teff derived from SED fitting for M31, M33, LMC and…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of the SED fitting to the RSG component, M33-3282. The gray solid line represents the L97 model spectrum. The solid and hollow markers with 3σ error bars show the photometry and model data. The No., Teff , R and L of object are displayed on the lower right …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of HST/F110W and F160W photometry with matched UKIRT/J and H photometry from Ren et al. (2021) in M31. The red dots represent the matched unique sources. The blue dots mark the UKIRT sources that matched more than one HST source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The detailed population classification for member stars based on color-magnitude diagrams. The cross-matched RSGs sample from Ren et al. (2021) are marked as red dots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Spatial distribution of RSGs in M31 (left) and M33 (right). The background image is taken from the GALEX NUV observation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The distribution of Teff derived from SED fitting based on several SFD extinction considerations in M31. ‘Afgd’ refers to the foreground extinction of the Milky Way, adopting an AV value of 0.17 mag for M31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The mosaic image of 11 stars [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The F336W − F814W versus F814W − F160W diagram for RSGs sample of this work. The red and blue dots represent the RSG binaries and single RSGs identified by this work, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Stellar evolution through the Red Supergiant phase

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional

    A comprehensive review of red supergiant stellar evolution, emphasizing mass loss as the critical open problem, with no new results.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    /6: ( 9

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

    2021

  4. [4]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    Bianchi , L., Efremova , B., Hodge , P., Massey , P., & Olsen , K. A. G. 2012, , 143, 74, 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/74

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/74 2012

  6. [6]

    2025, , 539, 1220, 10.1093/mnras/staf560

    Dai , M., Wang , S., & Jiang , B. 2025, , 539, 1220, 10.1093/mnras/staf560

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf560 2025

  7. [7]

    Dorda , R., & Patrick , L. R. 2021, , 502, 4890, 10.1093/mnras/stab303

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab303 2021

  8. [8]

    R., Dufton , P

    Dunstall , P. R., Dufton , P. L., Sana , H., et al. 2015, , 580, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/201526192

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526192 2015

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    J., Xiao , L., Stanway , E

    Eldridge , J. J., Xiao , L., Stanway , E. R., Rodrigues , N., & Guo , N. Y. 2018, , 35, e049, 10.1017/pasa.2018.47

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2005, , 117, 1411, 10.1086/497385

    Fabricant , D., Fata , R., Roll , J., et al. 2005, , 117, 1411, 10.1086/497385

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Gies , D. R. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 387, Massive Star Formation: Observations Confront Theory, ed. H. Beuther , H. Linz , & T. Henning , 93

    2008

  4. [12]

    2018, , 156, 278, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaeacb

    G \'o rski , M., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Gieren , W., et al. 2018, , 156, 278, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaeacb

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    H., Meynet , G., Georgy , C., & Ekstr \"o m , S

    Groh , J. H., Meynet , G., Georgy , C., & Ekstr \"o m , S. 2013, , 558, A131, 10.1051/0004-6361/201321906

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  7. [15]

    1997, , 125, 229, 10.1051/aas:1997373

    Lejeune , T., Cuisinier , F., & Buser , R. 1997, , 125, 229, 10.1051/aas:1997373

    1997 doi

  8. [16]

    Levesque , E. M. 2017, Astrophysics of Red Supergiants , 10.1088/978-0-7503-1329-2

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, , 613, 460, 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    Li , J., Liu , C., Zhang , Z.-Y., et al. 2023, , 613, 460, 10.1038/s41586-022-05488-1

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, , 167, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad23e8

    Li , Y., Jiang , B., & Ren , Y. 2024, , 167, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad23e8

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18779

    ---. 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.18779. 2504.18779

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2025 b , , 979, 208, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada1d4

    Li , Z.-w., Yang , M., Jiang , B., & Ren , Y. 2025 b , , 979, 208, 10.3847/1538-4357/ada1d4

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Mampaso , A., Corradi , R

    Magrini , L., V \' lchez , J. M., Mampaso , A., Corradi , R. L. M., & Leisy , P. 2007, , 470, 865, 10.1051/0004-6361:20077445

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Massey , P., & Evans , K. A. 2016, , 826, 224, 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/224

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Levesque , E

    Massey , P., Silva , D. R., Levesque , E. M., et al. 2009, , 703, 420, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/420

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    McConnachie , A. W. 2012, , 144, 4, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    W., Irwin , M

    McConnachie , A. W., Irwin , M. J., Ferguson , A. M. N., et al. 2005, , 356, 979, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08514.x

    2005

  18. [26]

    Neugent , K. F. 2021, , 908, 87, 10.3847/1538-4357/abd47b

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    F., Levesque , E

    Neugent , K. F., Levesque , E. M., & Massey , P. 2018, , 156, 225, 10.3847/1538-3881/aae4e0

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    F., Levesque , E

    Neugent , K. F., Levesque , E. M., Massey , P., Morrell , N. I., & Drout , M. R. 2020, , 900, 118, 10.3847/1538-4357/ababaa

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Thilker , D., Lennon , D

    Patrick , L. R., Thilker , D., Lennon , D. J., et al. 2022, , 513, 5847, 10.1093/mnras/stac1139

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Lennon , D

    Patrick , L. R., Lennon , D. J., Britavskiy , N., et al. 2019, , 624, A129, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834951

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Lennon , D

    Patrick , L. R., Lennon , D. J., Evans , C. J., et al. 2020, , 635, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936741

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Pecaut , M. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9, 10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  26. [34]

    2021, , 907, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcda5

    Ren , Y., Jiang , B., Yang , M., et al. 2021, , 907, 18, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcda5

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    E., de Koter , A., et al

    Sana , H., de Mink , S. E., de Koter , A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, 10.1126/science.1223344

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    E., et al

    Sana , H., de Koter , A., de Mink , S. E., et al. 2013, , 550, A107, 10.1051/0004-6361/201219621

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

    Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2011, , 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525, 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16114, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16114

    Shenar , T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16114, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16114

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    2022, , 665, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244245

    Shenar , T., Sana , H., Mahy , L., et al. 2022, , 665, A148, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244245

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    R., & Eldridge , J

    Stanway , E. R., & Eldridge , J. J. 2018, , 479, 75, 10.1093/mnras/sty1353

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

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

    2005

  35. [43]

    2019, , 877, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang , S., & Chen , X. 2019, , 877, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, , 964, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2e98

    ---. 2024, , 964, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2e98

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    2021, , 912, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abed4b

    Wang , T., Jiang , B., Ren , Y., Yang , M., & Li , J. 2021, , 912, 112, 10.3847/1538-4357/abed4b

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed

    W es M c K inney. 2010, in P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference, ed. S t\'efan van der W alt & J arrod M illman, 56 -- 61, 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  39. [47]

    F., Lang , D., Dalcanton , J

    Williams , B. F., Lang , D., Dalcanton , J. J., et al. 2014, , 215, 9, 10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/9

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    F., Durbin , M

    Williams , B. F., Durbin , M. J., Dalcanton , J. J., et al. 2021, , 253, 53, 10.3847/1538-4365/abdf4e

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    F., Durbin , M., Lang , D., et al

    Williams , B. F., Durbin , M., Lang , D., et al. 2023, , 268, 48, 10.3847/1538-4365/acea61

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    E., & Heger , A

    Woosley , S. E., & Heger , A. 2006, , 637, 914, 10.1086/498500

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Z., Jiang , B.-W., et al

    Yang , M., Bonanos , A. Z., Jiang , B.-W., et al. 2019, , 629, A91, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935916

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, , 639, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937168

    ---. 2020, , 639, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937168

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Z., Jiang , B., et al

    Yang , M., Bonanos , A. Z., Jiang , B., et al. 2021 a , , 646, A141, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039475

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2021 b , , 647, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039596

    ---. 2021 b , , 647, A167, 10.1051/0004-6361/202039596

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    E., Izzard , R

    Zapartas , E., de Mink , S. E., Izzard , R. G., et al. 2017, , 601, A29, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629685

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, , 969, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46fe

    Zhang , Z., Ren , Y., Jiang , B., Soszy \'n ski , I., & Jayasinghe , T. 2024, , 969, 81, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad46fe

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.