Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Structural Parameters of the Thin Disk Population from Evolved Stars in Solar Neighborhood

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Evolved stars in the solar neighborhood reveal that the thin disk's scale height rises from about 250 pc for the brightest to about 430 pc for the faintest.

desk verdict A useful Gaia DR3 extension of the known scale-height trend for evolved stars, but the faintest bins are weakly constrained by the survey volume and the quoted errors are too small. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04079 v1 pith:FZB36I7C submitted 2025-01-07 astro-ph.GA

S. Iyisan , S. Bilir , O. Onal Tas , O. Plevne This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords Galaxy:diskthinscaleheightevolvedstarsredclumpGaiaDR3solarneighborhoodspacedensity
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 aims to show that the Milky Way's thin disk has no single vertical scale height: the layer of evolved stars thickens as their absolute magnitude fades. From a carefully cleaned sample of 671,600 evolved stars within 1 kpc taken from Gaia DR3, the authors fit a single exponential vertical density law in 36 sky directions and five magnitude bins. They find a linear rise in scale height from roughly 250 pc for the brightest evolved stars ($-1 < M_{\rm G} \le 0$) to about 430 pc for the faintest ($3 < M_{\rm G} \le 4$), with red clump stars giving $H = 295 \pm 10$ pc. They interpret this as a fossil record: bright evolved stars descend from massive early-type stars that were born in a thin layer, while faint ones descend from lower-mass stars born in a thicker layer. If right, the result turns the thin disk's vertical structure into a readable record of stellar birth masses and formation history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-component vertical density law $D(z) = n \exp(-|z+z_0|/H)$, applied to evolved stars as tracers. Because the sample is confined to 1 kpc, the radial term of the double-exponential disk cannot be constrained, so the fit isolates the vertical scale height $H$. The analysis pipeline is built on three choices: a strict relative parallax cut ($\sigma_\varpi/\varpi \le 0.02$) to define reliable distances, a completeness cut per magnitude bin derived from apparent-magnitude limits, and a division into 36 equal-area Galactic fields and five absolute-magnitude intervals. The scale height is then read off as the best-fit $H$ by chi-square minimization over $100 < H < 1000$ pc for each of the 180 profiles. The mass interpretation is carried by stellar evolution tracks, which convert absolute magnitude into progenitor mass and main-sequence lifetime.

What would settle it

Rebuild the same 180 density profiles in the faintest magnitude bin ($3 < M_{\rm G} \le 4$) with a two-component thin-plus-thick disk model: if the recovered thin-disk scale height drops toward 300 pc or the bright-to-faint increasing trend disappears, the claimed gradient is contamination rather than a memory of progenitor scale heights. Alternatively, measure the vertical velocity dispersion of stars in the brightest and faintest bins with Gaia radial velocities; a genuine scale-height rise from ~250 to ~430 pc should be accompanied by a rise in vertical velocity dispersion of roughly a factor of two.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the vertical density profile of evolved stars in the solar neighborhood is an exponential with a scale height that grows linearly with absolute magnitude: $H_{\rm North} = 37.1 \times M_{\rm G} + 276$ pc and $H_{\rm South} = 43.4 \times M_{\rm G} + 288$ pc ($R^2 \approx 0.97$). The authors establish this by splitting 671,600 Gaia DR3 evolved stars with relative parallax errors below 0.02 into 36 Galactic fields and five one-magnitude bins, building 180 space-density profiles, and fitting each with the single-component law $D(z) = n \exp(-|z+z_0|/H)$. They show the fitted space densities match the solar-neighborhood luminosity function, and a Monte Carlo check in one field indicates thin-disk scale heights are only mildly affected by thick-disk and halo contamination. The resulting gradient, from about 250 pc to about 430 pc, is interpreted as the memory of the scale height of the main-sequence progenitors: brighter evolved stars come from early-type stars with short scale heights, fainter ones from intermediate-type stars with large scale heights.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes a single exponential density profile dominated by thin-disk stars, and for the lowest-latitude fields the observed lines of sight reach only about 425 to 770 pc above the plane — less than three scale heights for the largest $H$ values — so the fits are constrained by the inner part of the profile rather than by the full vertical structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any thin-disk model that uses one global scale height (e.g., 300 pc) is incomplete; the data imply a magnitude-dependent scale height that must be folded into star-count and kinematic models.
  • Red clump stars, with $H = 295 \pm 10$ pc, can serve as a robust vertical-distance anchor for the solar neighborhood, useful for calibrating other distance indicators.
  • The scale-height gradient implies a vertical mass stratification: fainter, lower-mass evolved stars are found at larger heights, which affects the interpretation of any magnitude-limited sample of giants.
  • If the trend continues beyond $M_{\rm G} = 4$, then even fainter evolved stars (such as white-dwarf progenitors) would imply larger scale heights, which would alter estimates of the local dark-matter density derived from vertical Jeans modeling.
  • The agreement of fitted space densities with the literature luminosity function suggests the gradient is not a fitting artifact, so the result can be used to test models of disk heating and star formation history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The linear relations could be pushed further: combining the fitted $H(M_{\rm G})$ with main-sequence lifetimes and birth positions predicts a present-day vertical velocity dispersion gradient of roughly 15 to 30 km/s across the magnitude range, which is testable with Gaia radial velocities.
  • The unexplained 12 pc north–south zero-point offset might be a real large-scale asymmetry (a warp or a tilt of the Sun's height relative to the midplane) or a systematic in the dust correction; a larger sample that includes fields below $|b|=25^\circ$, where the profile reaches several scale heights, would distinguish these.
  • The memory interpretation implies that in galaxies seen edge-on, the thickness of the red giant/red clump layer should correlate with the stellar mass of the population, offering a way to test the result outside the Milky Way.
  • The single-exponential assumption could be relaxed by fitting a ${\rm sech}^2$ or two-component law; the paper's trend would be strengthened if the faintest bins still prefer large scale heights under those models.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry to select 671,600 evolved stars (after a relative-parallax cut of 0.02) within a 1 kpc heliocentric volume, dereddens them with the Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011) dust map, divides the sky into 36 Galactic fields and the absolute-magnitude range -1 < MG ≤ 4 into five 1-mag bins, and fits a single-component exponential density law (Eq. 3) to the resulting space-density profiles. The reported result is that the thin-disk scale height increases from roughly 250 pc in the brightest bin to roughly 430 pc in the faintest bin, with median relations H_North = 37.1 MG + 276 and H_South = 43.4 MG + 288 (Eq. 10), and a red-clump scale height of 295 ± 10 pc. The authors interpret this as evidence that evolved stars retain the vertical scale height of their main-sequence progenitors.

Significance. If the quantitative result is robust, the paper provides a clean, parallax-based measurement of how the thin-disk scale height varies with the absolute magnitude of evolved stars, connecting the vertical structure of the disk to stellar evolution. Strengths of the paper include the large Gaia-based sample, the explicit treatment of extinction and completeness, the use of the authors' own Monte Carlo contamination check (albeit in only one field/bin), and the agreement of the recovered space densities with the Gaia Collaboration (2021b) luminosity function. The absence of circularity in the analysis is notable: all quantities (n, H, and the linear fits) are estimated from the data and compared with independent literature values. However, the central quantitative claim — the slope of Eq. 10 and the largest H values of 400–600 pc — rests on fits to density profiles that sample only a small fraction of the fitted exponential, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5 and Table A1] The paper's own criterion for reliable scale-height determination — that the data must extend to 3–5 scale heights — is violated for the very fields and magnitude bins that produce the largest H values. For fields with 25° < |b| ≤ 50° and d ≤ 1 kpc, the maximum vertical height is only z_max = 425–770 pc. For H values of 400–600 pc reported in the faintest bins (e.g., Table A1 fields #01, #19, #20, #14, #15, #36), the density profile samples only approximately 0.7–1.9 H. Over such a short baseline the single exponential fit is strongly degenerate between the local density n and H, so the large H values in these bins, and consequently the slope of Eq. 10, are not securely constrained. The authors should either restrict the analysis to fields where the baseline is at least 3 H or demonstrate, with mock catalogues, that H is recovered without bias from the short-baseline profiles.
  2. [Table A1 and Section 3.5] Several quoted uncertainties are implausibly small given the coarse 200 pc distance binning and the short vertical baseline; for example H = 405 ± 1 pc (field #06, 2 < MG ≤ 3), H = 344 ± 3 pc (field #03, 3 < MG ≤ 4), and H = 450 ± 17 pc (field #02, 2 < MG ≤ 3). These errors appear to reflect only the 1 pc step of the grid search and not the covariance between n and H, the finite bin-width effects, or the systematic uncertainties in the extinction and parallax zero point. The error-weighted mean quoted for the red clump (H = 295 ± 10 pc) and the comparison with literature values in Section 4 are therefore likely over-optimistic; the authors should propagate more realistic uncertainties, e.g., via bootstrap or profile likelihood, before the linear relations in Eq. 10 can be taken at face value.
  3. [Section 4, Monte Carlo test] The Monte Carlo contamination test is performed only for field #01 in the absolute-magnitude bin 0 < MG ≤ 1, where H ≈ 300 pc and z_max/H ≈ 2.5. The faintest bins (2 < MG ≤ 3 and 3 < MG ≤ 4) have larger fitted H values and are exactly the cases where a contaminating thicker component (thick disk or halo) would bias the single-exponential fit most strongly. The claim that the thin-disk scale height is 'minimally affected' by other Galactic populations is therefore not demonstrated for the bins that drive the largest H values and the slope of Eq. 10. The authors should run the same Monte Carlo exercise for all five magnitude bins, or at least for the two faintest ones, and report how the recovered H changes when a thick-disk component with the assumed parameters is added.
  4. [Section 3.3, completeness definition] The completeness threshold is defined by identifying the 'initial 0.5% slice of the G-band apparent magnitude distribution within each absolute magnitude bin' (Section 3.3). This is an ad hoc choice, and it is not demonstrated that the resulting distance cuts remove the incompleteness bias in the density profiles. Because the faintest magnitude bins are the ones most affected by incompleteness at large distances, and because those bins dominate the largest H values, the sensitivity of the fitted H to the percentile choice (say 0.1% versus 1%) should be quantified; if H changes appreciably, the completeness criterion is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 8 caption] The text refers to the 'CDM' when the intended term is 'CMD'; this typo appears in the sentence describing Figure 8 and should be corrected.
  2. [Introduction, literature survey] The description of the Two Micron All Sky Survey is given as 'Two Micron Sky Survey'; the correct full name is 'Two Micron All Sky Survey'.
  3. [Equation 8 and Section 3.4] The volume element in Eq. 8 is the solid-angle volume between distances d1 and d2, but the paper does not state how the field size □ is computed for the curved sky regions defined in Section 3.5; a short clarification would help readers reproduce the density profiles.
  4. [Table A1 and Table 1] The notation for magnitude intervals is inconsistent between the text ('-1 < MG ≤ 0') and the table headers ('(-1, 0]'), and the same field numbering is used in both tables; a consistent notation and a note in the caption would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scale heights are fitted directly from Gaia density profiles and checked against independent literature values; self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the fitted thin-disk scale heights for five absolute-magnitude bins and the increasing trend summarized by Eq. 10. These are not derived from a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The density law D(z) = n exp(-|z+z0|/H) (Eq. 3) is a standard model assumption; H and n are free parameters determined for each star field and magnitude bin by chi-square minimization against densities computed from star counts (Eqs. 7-9). No fitted value is then used to generate the same or a closely related quantity by construction. Equation 10 is a least-squares summary of the medians of these independently fitted H values, so it is descriptive and could have come out flat; it is not forced by the fitting procedure. The paper also benchmarks its results externally: space densities are compared with the Gaia Collaboration et al. 2021b luminosity function, the red-clump scale height (295 +/- 10 pc) is compared with the independent APOGEE-based value of Bovy et al. 2016b, and the overall trend is compared with earlier photometric determinations. The many self-citations (Bilir et al., Karaali et al., Ak et al., etc.) provide context and, in the Monte Carlo test, parameter ranges for the thick disk and halo; these do not enter the definition of the thin-disk H fit or the Eq. 10 relation, and the Monte Carlo test is only an auxiliary robustness check on one field. Concerns about the faint-bin scale heights being weakly constrained because the survey reaches only about 1-1.5 H in the low-latitude fields are legitimate robustness or correctness concerns, but they are not circularity: the fit is still an honest fit to the data, not an input recycled as an output.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All fitted parameters (H, n, slopes) are estimated from the data; no new physical entities are postulated. The analysis depends on standard density laws, extinction maps, and stellar evolution tracks from prior literature. The 0.5% completeness threshold and the hand-drawn CMD boundaries are the only ad hoc choices, and they are not central to the qualitative trend.

free parameters (4)
  • H (scale height) = 200 to 600 pc per field/magnitude bin
    The exponential fit parameter estimated for each of the 180 subgroups.
  • n (local space density) = 10^(D*−10) per field/magnitude bin
    Normalization of the exponential fit; D* values are listed in Table A1.
  • Slope and intercept of H(MG) relations = 37.1, 276 (north); 43.4, 288 (south)
    Linear fits to median scale heights in Eq. 10.
  • Completeness threshold percentile = 0.5%
    Hand-chosen slice of the apparent magnitude distribution used to set completeness limits in Section 3.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Vertical density profile follows a single exponential D(z) = n exp(−|z + z0| / H).
    Used in Eq. 3 and throughout the fits; the radial term is neglected because the sample is confined to 1 kpc.
  • domain assumption Evolved stars can be isolated by the CMD region (0.8 < (GBP−GRP)0 < 2.2, −3 < MG < 4) with negligible main-sequence contamination.
    Section 3.2; the boundaries are drawn by eye in Figure 2.
  • domain assumption Stars within 1 kpc are predominantly thin-disk members; thick disk and halo contributions are small.
    Section 4; tested via Monte Carlo for one field only.
  • domain assumption The Schlafly and Finkbeiner (2011) dust map with Bahcall and Soneira distance scaling and the Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction curve correctly deredden Gaia photometry.
    Section 3.1; the extinction correction depends on the adopted dust scale height of 125 pc from Marshall et al. (2006).
  • ad hoc to paper The 0.5% slice of the apparent magnitude distribution identifies the onset of incompleteness.
    Section 3.3; no independent justification for the 0.5% threshold is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structural Parameters of the Thin Disk Population from Evolved Stars in Solar Neighborhood." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZB36I7C

@misc{pith2026250104079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structural Parameters of the Thin Disk Population from Evolved Stars in Solar Neighborhood},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZB36I7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04079}
}
abstract

This study investigates the structural parameters of the thin-disk population by analyzing the spatial distribution of evolved stars in the solar neighbourhood. From the $\it Gaia$ Data Release 3 database, about 39.1 million stars within 1 kpc and with relative parallax errors $\sigma_{\varpi}/\varpi\leq 0.10$ were selected. The photometric data was corrected for extinction using a Galactic dust map. The sample was refined by considering the color-magnitude region $M_{\rm G}\times (G_{\rm BP}-G_{\rm RP})_0$ associated with evolved stars, applying a stricter parallax error limit of $\sigma_{\varpi}/\varpi\leq 0.02$, and yielding 671,600 stars. The star sample was divided into 36 regions based on their Galactic coordinates, with evolved stars in the absolute magnitude range of $-1< M_{\rm G}~{\rm (mag)}\leq 4$ further split into five one-unit magnitude intervals. This led to 180 subgroups whose space density profiles were modelled using a single-component Galaxy model. The analysis shows that the space densities are in agreement with the literature and that the scale heights vary with $200<H~{\rm (pc)}<600$ interval to their absolute magnitudes. Red clump stars in the solar neighbourhood were also estimated to have a scale height of $295\pm10$ pc. These findings indicate that evolved stars with bright absolute magnitudes originate from the evolution of the early spectral-type stars with short scale height, while fainter ones come from the evolution of the intermediate spectral-type stars with large scale height, suggesting variations in scale height reflect the contribution of Galactic evolution processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. V -band extinction A∞(V ) values from the dust maps of Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011) (upper panel) and the distance between Sun and stars reduced Ad(V ) values (lower panel). et al. (1989) was used to determine the extinction co￾efficients of these filters. The effective wavelengths of Gaia passbands for G, GBP and GRP are 6390.21 ˚A, 5182.58˚A and 7825.05˚A, respectively, the corresponding Aλ/AV values are 0.83627, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MG × (GBP − GRP)0 CMD of a sample of 39,099,903 stars within the solar neighbourhood. Main se￾quence and evolved stars occupy the black dashed and blue dashed regions, respectively. Another star clump at the lower left part of the diagram was the white dwarf region. Spectral types concerning the de-reddened color index were shown at the bottom part of the diagram. plane shows a homogeneous distribution of stars arou… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distributions of 671,600 evolved stars whose astrometric data were precisely selected from the Gaia DR3 catalogue: Z × X (upper panel) and Y × X (below panel). The color scale indicates the density of the star count. dmin = 10[(G1−M1+5−AG)/5] (6) dmax = 10[(G2−M2+5−AG)/5] Here, G1 and G2 represent the brightest and faintest de-reddened apparent magnitudes within the specified range of absolute magnitudes (e.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MG × d diagram of evolved stars with σϖ/ϖ ≤0.02. White vertical lines were bright G-apparent magnitude limits for different MG absolute magnitude intervals, and solid and dash curves also represent G-apparent magnitudes. the relation D∗ = log D + 10 as presented in the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heliocentric celestial sphere was separated into 36-star fields based on the Galactic coordinates of evolved stars: (a) 0◦ < l ≤ 180◦ and (b) 180◦ < l ≤ 360◦ . 687 and 117 degree2 , respectively. In total, 180 space density profiles were constructed within 36-star fiel…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stellar density profiles for five absolute magnitude intervals in star field #01 (upper panels) and variations of model parameters with χ 2 values (lower panels). The red lines in the upper panels show the Galaxy model fitted to the star density points, and the interse…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The variation in scale heights calculated for evolved stars concerning their absolute magnitudes across both Galactic hemispheres. magnitude intervals in these symmetric star fields, which spans from 200 < H (pc) < 600. Notably, an increasing trend is observed in scale…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The positions of the PARSEC mass tracks of main-sequence stars of different masses on the CMD. The curves with different colors indicate different masses, and dashed lines indicate the region where the evolved stars stud￾ied were located. for a 100 pc space volume. In …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Kings of the Milky Way: A Homogeneous Gaia DR3 Analysis of King Open Clusters and the Galactic Disc Metallicity Gradient

    astro-ph.GA 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A homogeneous Gaia DR3 re-analysis of all 27 King open clusters gives consistent parameters and a metallicity gradient of about -0.06 dex/kpc, but the King-only slope is not statistically significant as printed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2007a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 169, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610709

    Ak, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., & Buser, R. 2007a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 169, doi: 10.1002/asna.200610709

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.200610709

  2. [2]

    2007b, NewA, 12, 605, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2007.04.005 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ak, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Buser, R., & Cabrera-Lavers, A. 2007b, NewA, 12, 605, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2007.04.005 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...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newast.2007.04.005 2007

  3. [3]

    N., & Soneira, R

    Bahcall, J. N., & Soneira, R. M. 1980, ApJS, 44, 73, doi: 10.1086/190685

    doi:10.1086/190685 1980

  4. [4]

    2008a, PASA, 25, 69, doi: 10.1071/AS07026

    Bilir, S., Cabrera-Lavers, A., Karaali, S., et al. 2008a, PASA, 25, 69, doi: 10.1071/AS07026

    work page doi:10.1071/as07026

  5. [5]

    2009, MNRAS, 396, 1589, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14816.x —

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Ak, S., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1589, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14816.x —. 2008b, MNRAS, 390, 1569, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13839.x

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    2006a, NewA, 12, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2006.10.001

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Ak, S., Yaz, E., & Hamzao˘ glu, E. 2006a, NewA, 12, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2006.10.001

    doi:10.1016/j.newast.2006.10.001 2006

  7. [7]

    2006b, MNRAS, 366, 1295, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09891.x

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., & Gilmore, G. 2006b, MNRAS, 366, 1295, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.09891.x

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., G¨ uver, T., Karata¸ s, Y., & Ak, S. G. 2006c, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 72, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510480

    work page doi:10.1002/asna.200510480

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 321, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510358

    Bilir, S., Karaali, S., & Tun¸ cel, S. 2005, Astronomische Nachrichten, 326, 321, doi: 10.1002/asna.200510358

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    1998, Galactic Astronomy

    Binney, J., & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy

    1998

  3. [11]

    Finkbeiner, D. P. 2016a, ApJ, 818, 130, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130

    doi

  4. [12]

    F., et al

    Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Schlafly, E. F., et al. 2016b, ApJ, 823, 30, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/30 4 https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia 5 https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium

    doi

  5. [13]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  6. [14]

    1998, A&A, 331, 934 —

    Buser, R., Rong, J., & Karaali, S. 1998, A&A, 331, 934 —. 1999, A&A, 348, 98

    1998

  7. [15]

    2007, A&A, 464, 565, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066475

    Cabrera-Lavers, A., Bilir, S., Ak, S., Yaz, E., & L´ opez-Corredoira, M. 2007, A&A, 464, 565, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066475

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    2023, AJ, 165, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbead

    Canbay, R., Bilir, S., ¨Ozd¨ onmez, A., & Ak, T. 2023, AJ, 165, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acbead

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  10. [18]

    R., et al

    Castro-Ginard, A., Penoyre, Z., Casey, A. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450172

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    A., et al

    Chen, B., Stoughton, C., Smith, J. A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 184, doi: 10.1086/320647

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281 Chrob´ akov´ a,ˇZ., Nagy, R., & L´ opez-Corredoira, M

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1281 Chrob´ akov´ a,ˇZ., Nagy, R., & L´ opez-Corredoira, M. 2020, A&A, 637, A96, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937289

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    1995, ApJ, 444, 874, doi: 10.1086/175659

    Cohen, M. 1995, ApJ, 444, 874, doi: 10.1086/175659

    1995 doi

  14. [22]

    2003, A&A, 407, 541, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030532

    Du, C., Zhou, X., Ma, J., et al. 2003, A&A, 407, 541, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030532

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 41, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00001

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., & Bilir, S. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 41, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00001

    2024

  16. [24]

    2015, AJ, 149, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/131

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Soydugan, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/131

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    Eker, Z., Bakı¸ s, V., Bilir, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1659

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Bilir, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1659

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    1987, A&AS, 69, 33 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fenkart, R., & Karaali, S. 1987, A&AS, 69, 33 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Babusiaux, C., van Leeuwen, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832843 Gaia...

    1987 doi

  20. [28]

    1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025

    Gilmore, G., & Reid, N. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1025, doi: 10.1093/mnras/202.4.1025

    1983 doi

  21. [29]

    2023, AJ, 166, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad08b0

    Gokmen, S., Eker, Z., Yontan, T., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad08b0

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Warren, S. J. 1996, ApJS, 104, 185, doi: 10.1086/192297

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Garzon, F., Mahoney, T., & Calbet, X

    Hammersley, P. L., Garzon, F., Mahoney, T., & Calbet, X. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 206, doi: 10.1093/mnras/273.1.206

    1995 doi

  24. [32]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Hawkins, M. R. S. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 533, doi: 10.1093/mnras/234.3.533

    1988 doi

  26. [34]

    W., Trenti, M., Clarkson, W., et al

    Holwerda, B. W., Trenti, M., Clarkson, W., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/77

    2014 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Juri´ c, M., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Brooks, A., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 864, doi: 10.1086/523619

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    G., Bilir, S., Karata¸ s, Y., & Gilmore, G

    Karaali, S., Ak, S. G., Bilir, S., Karata¸ s, Y., & Gilmore, G. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 1013, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06743.x

    2003

  29. [37]

    2004, MNRAS, 355, 307, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08319.x

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., & Hamzaoˇ glu, E. 2004, MNRAS, 355, 307, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08319.x

    2004

  30. [38]

    2005, PASA, 22, 24, doi: 10.1071/AS04034

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., & Tun¸ cel, S. 2005, PASA, 22, 24, doi: 10.1071/AS04034

    2005 doi

  31. [39]

    2007, PASA, 24, 208, doi: 10.1071/AS07006

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., Yaz, E., Hamzao˘ glu, E., & Buser, R. 2007, PASA, 24, 208, doi: 10.1071/AS07006

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2009, Ap&SS, 324, 23, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0149-9

    Karaali, S., Hamzao˘ glu, E., & Bilir, S. 2009, Ap&SS, 324, 23, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0149-9

    2009 doi

  33. [41]

    L., & Zhu, Z

    Kong, D. L., & Zhu, Z. 2008, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 49, 224

    2008

  34. [42]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Majewski, S. R. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 575, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.003043

    1993

  36. [44]

    2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    1996, A&A, 311, 456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9511049

    Mohan, V. 1996, A&A, 311, 456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9511049

    1996 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Peiris, H. V. 2000, ApJ, 544, 811, doi: 10.1086/317241

    2000 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Burgasser, A., et al

    Pirzkal, N., Sahu, K. C., Burgasser, A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 319, doi: 10.1086/427896

    2005 doi

  40. [48]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    H., Majewski, S

    Siegel, M. H., Majewski, S. R., Reid, I. N., & Thompson, I. B. 2002, ApJ, 578, 151, doi: 10.1086/342469

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    Tang, J., Bressan, A., Rosenfield, P., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 4287, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2029

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 1, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00001 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F

    Tasdemir, S., & Yontan, T. 2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 1, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00001 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2023

  45. [53]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1058

    Wang, H.-F., Liu, C., Xu, Y., Wan, J.-C., & Deng, L. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3367, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1058

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2010, NewA, 15, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2009.07.010 Yaz G¨ ok¸ ce, E., Karaali, S., Duran, S ¸., et al

    Yaz, E., & Karaali, S. 2010, NewA, 15, 234, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2009.07.010 Yaz G¨ ok¸ ce, E., Karaali, S., Duran, S ¸., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e012, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.12

    2010 doi

  47. [55]

    2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 65, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13582

    Yontan, T., & Canbay, R. 2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 65, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13582

    2023 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  49. [57]

    2021, ApJ, 922, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e91 14 APPENDIX A

    Yu, Y., Wang, H.-F., Cui, W.-Y., et al. 2021, ApJ, 922, 80, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1e91 14 APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL FIGURES AND TABLES T able A1. Galaxy model parameters estimated for five different abso- lute magnitude intervals in the 36-star fields. 0◦ < l≤ 60◦, 25◦ < b≤ 50...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.