Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 107 references

Evidence for a Catastrophically Disrupted Open Cluster

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that OCSN-49 is the first known remnant of a catastrophically disrupted open cluster.

desk verdict Solid stellar-age package plus a suggestive but model-dependent dynamical age; the disruption claim is reasonable but the 83 Myr number is only as strong as the isotropic-unbound initial condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19343 v1 pith:LXPDHX5Y submitted 2025-04-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Alexis N. Miller , Kyle R. Tregoning , Jeff J. Andrews , Simon C. Schuler , Jason L. Curtis , Marcel A. Agüeros , Phillip A. Cargile , Julio Chanamé This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords openclustersstellarstreamsclusterdisruptiongiantmolecularcloudsdynamicalagegyrochronologylithiumdatingGaiaastrometry
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 argues that OCSN-49, a 30-degree-long stream of 257 co-moving stars in the Milky Way disk, is a star cluster caught in the final stages of being torn apart. Three independent stellar-age indicators—isochrone fitting, lithium depletion, and gyrochronology—agree that its stars formed 400–600 million years ago, while orbital modeling shows the stellar swarm only began expanding roughly 83 million years ago. The paper explains the mismatch by a catastrophic encounter that unbound the cluster about 500 million years into its life, most likely a collision with a giant molecular cloud, and identifies OCSN-49 as the first known remnant of such an event. If correct, the object turns a previously abstract theory—that giant molecular clouds are the dominant killers of open clusters—into a directly observable, nearby case study.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two machines. On the stellar side, a Bayesian fit of theoretical isochrones to the stream's color-magnitude diagram fixes the age near 600 Myr, lithium abundances are compared against benchmark open clusters to prefer roughly 420 Myr, and the color-period diagram is matched to benchmark clusters to prefer roughly 500 Myr. On the dynamical side, the cluster's birth state is modeled as an unbound, isotropic Gaussian sphere of tracer particles with an initial radius R = 7.6 pc and velocity dispersion σv = 0.20 km/s, integrated forward under a smooth model of the Milky Way potential; comparing the end state to the observed phase-space positions of 257 members yields the dynamical age t = 83 ± 1 Myr. The discrepancy between the two sides is the evidence for a disruptive encounter.

What would settle it

Measure radial velocities across the full extent of the stream and look for non-Gaussian, anisotropic expansion patterns, or find a surviving bound core of OCSN-49 stars; either would break the single isotropic-expansion model that yields the 83 Myr age. Alternatively, demonstrate that no giant molecular cloud of roughly $10^{5}$ solar masses crossed the cluster's orbit within the past 80 million years.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

OCSN-49 is a coeval stellar population with a stellar age of roughly 400–600 Myr, established by isochrone fitting, lithium abundances, and rotation-period gyrochronology, and a dynamical age of 83 ± 1 Myr, established by integrating an unbound, isotropic Gaussian sphere of tracer particles forward in a model Milky Way potential and matching the structure observed today in six-dimensional phase space. The paper claims these ages can only be reconciled if OCSN-49 formed as a bound open cluster and was catastrophically disrupted roughly 500 Myr after birth, with a single near-head-on encounter with a giant molecular cloud of about $10^{5}$ solar masses being the most probable culprit. This would make OCSN-49 the first known remnant of a catastrophically disrupted open cluster and therefore a benchmark for investigating cluster disruption in the Milky Way.

Load-bearing premise

The 83-million-year dynamical age assumes the disruptive encounter left OCSN-49 as an unbound, isotropic, Gaussian ball of stars; if the real encounter produced anisotropic motions or a partially bound remnant, the fitted age could be biased and the claimed discrepancy could shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • OCSN-49 remained a bound open cluster for roughly 500 Myr before a disruptive encounter—most plausibly a giant molecular cloud—tore it apart.
  • The 83 Myr expansion time implies the structure is still dispersing, and within a few hundred million years its stars will be indistinguishable from the Milky Way field.
  • Under the single-encounter assumption, the preferred culprit is a near head-on collision with a giant molecular cloud of about 10^5 solar masses at a closest approach near 6 pc; multiple weaker encounters remain possible.
  • The forward-modeling method can be applied to other comoving streams to reveal hidden disruption events rather than only quiet tidal dispersal.
  • The model predicts an extended tail of undiscovered members at low right ascension, so the current 257-member catalog is likely incomplete.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the disruptive encounter left the stars in an anisotropic or non-Gaussian configuration, the quoted 83 ± 1 Myr could be a biased lower limit; a real GMC shock would plausibly imprint velocity correlations along the stream that the current model cannot represent.
  • A dedicated search for a surviving bound core, or for a massive molecular cloud along the stream's past orbit, would distinguish a single catastrophic encounter from gradual tidal stripping.
  • Other machine-discovered comoving streams showing the same pattern—a young dynamical age alongside an older stellar age—could turn the GMC disruption rate from a theoretical estimate into a measured population statistic.
  • An N-body simulation of the cluster-GMC encounter, matching the present six-dimensional phase space, could recover the encounter direction and impact angle and test the Gaussian assumption directly.
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 analyzes OCSN-49, a comoving stellar stream with 257 members, using Gaia astrometry, new high-resolution MAROON-X spectroscopy of four stars, and TESS/ZTF rotation periods for 110 members. It derives a stellar age of roughly 400--600 Myr from isochrone fitting, lithium depletion, and gyrochronology, and a dynamical age of 83 +/- 1 Myr from forward integration of an unbound, isotropic Gaussian model cluster in a smooth Milky Way potential. The authors interpret the discrepancy between these ages as evidence that OCSN-49 was catastrophically disrupted by a giant molecular cloud roughly 500 Myr into its lifetime and claim that OCSN-49 is the first known remnant of such a disrupted open cluster.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and benefits from an unusually rich set of independent age diagnostics: precise multi-element abundances for four members, rotation periods for more than 100 members, isochrone fits across the stream, and a forward-model dynamical age with posterior predictive checks. If the interpretation is correct, OCSN-49 would be a valuable observational benchmark for cluster disruption theories. However, the central claim rests on the assumption that a disruptive encounter leaves the system in the specific unbound, isotropic Gaussian state assumed in the dynamical model. Realistic GMC encounters are expected to produce anisotropic, non-Gaussian, and possibly partially bound remnants, and the paper explicitly defers the decisive N-body test to future work. The stellar-age evidence is solid, but the dynamical-age interpretation is not yet secure enough to support the strong 'first known remnant' claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 (Eq. 2, Fig. 13)] The quoted dynamical age t = 83 +/- 1 Myr is the expansion time of a model that starts as an unbound, isotropic Gaussian sphere with R = 7.6 +/- 0.4 pc and sigma_v = 0.20 +/- 0.01 km/s. Because the model family contains no anisotropic states, no non-Gaussian density profiles, and no bound remnant, the fit only demonstrates that some unbound isotropic Gaussian expanding for 83 Myr matches the present-day phase space. A real GMC shock deposits a spatially coherent, direction-dependent impulse; if the true post-encounter state is anisotropic or partially bound, the fitted t is a biased effective expansion time and the claimed discrepancy with the stellar age could be an artifact. The paper's own Section 6 acknowledges that N-body modeling is future work, but that is exactly the test needed to validate the paper's central interpretation. I request either such simulations or a sensitivity analysis with a parameterized anisotropic/non-Gaussian family of initial conditions, showing that t remains near 80 Myr and not, say, several hundred Myr, before the catastrophic-disruption scenario can be supported.
  2. [Section 4.2 (Fig. 12)] The augmented error kernels (1 deg in position, 0.1 mas in parallax, 0.2 mas/yr in proper motion, 1 km/s in radial velocity) are hand-set and enter the likelihood directly, shaping the posterior and the quoted statistical precision. The formal +/- 1 Myr error is therefore conditional on these choices. The paper should include a sensitivity analysis in which the kernel sizes are varied by, for example, factors of 1.5 and 2, and demonstrate that the inferred t, R, and sigma_v remain stable. Without this, the precision of the dynamical age, and more importantly the existence of the age gap itself, is not robust.
  3. [Section 3.2 (Table 3, Eq. 1)] The A(Li) values are quoted without uncertainties, and the best-fit lithium abundance is described as determined by eye from synthetic spectra. Since the lithium comparison is one of the three independent stellar-age indicators, the lack of any uncertainty estimate makes the strength of this pillar difficult to assess. The authors should provide at least a conservative uncertainty, for example 0.1 dex motivated by the synthetic spectra shown in Figure 6, and propagate it into the likelihood comparison defined by Equation (1).
  4. [Section 5.2 (Eqs. 4--6)] The inferred GMC mass and impact parameter (M_n = 3 x 10^5 M_sun, p = 6 pc) are dominated by the assumed priors P(M_n) proportional to M_n^-2 and P(p) proportional to p, together with the fiducial Vmax = 20 km/s. The authors present this as a consistency check, but the manuscript wording, for example 'find that a nearly head-on collision with a fairly massive GMC ... was necessary,' reads as a constraint rather than an illustration. Please clarify in the text that these values are prior-dominated and illustrative, not derived from the phase-space structure of OCSN-49.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.1 (Fig. 11)] The abstract says the orbits 'converged to a single point,' but Figure 11 shows the mean positions of the northern and southern subgroups approaching within about 10 pc about 130 Myr ago, not converging to a point; please soften the abstract wording to match the actual metric D used in the analysis.
  2. [Section 2.2.3] The statement that the A(Li) uncertainty is 'significantly smaller than 0.1 dex' based on inspection of Figure 6 should be justified quantitatively or replaced with a conservative adopted value.
  3. [Figure 12 caption] The phrase 'Error bars are chosen to apply to all stars' could be misunderstood as measurement uncertainties; clarify that these are Gaussian kernel widths used in the likelihood, not the Gaia measurement errors.
  4. [Section 6] Given the dependence of the dynamical age on the untested initial-condition assumption, the claim that OCSN-49 is 'the first known remnant of a catastrophically disrupted open cluster' should be softened to 'candidate' or accompanied by a clear caveat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: stellar ages and dynamical age are independently inferred; the GMC disruption estimate is a consistency check, not an input to the fits.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a discrepancy between two age estimates that are inferred from disjoint datasets. The stellar age (400-600 Myr) comes from MIST isochrone fitting (Section 3.1), lithium abundances compared to benchmark clusters (Section 3.2), and gyrochronology from TESS/ZTF rotation periods (Section 3.3); none of these inputs enters the dynamical model. The dynamical age t = 83 +/- 1 Myr is a free parameter of the forward model in Section 4.2, fit to Gaia astrometry and radial velocities under explicit assumptions (unbound 3D Gaussian, isotropic sigma_v, flat priors). The GMC mass and impact parameter in Section 5.2 are posterior consistency estimates computed from the fitted cluster mass (225 Msun) and the analytic Gieles et al. (2006) energy-injection formula; they are not used to fit or redefine the stellar or dynamical ages. The only self-citation is the methodological transfer from Tregoning et al. (2024); that work was applied to a different cluster (Theia 456) and is described in sufficient detail here, so the cited result does not itself carry the OCSN-49 conclusion. The paper explicitly defers self-consistent N-body modeling of the disruption, which is a limitation on robustness of the inferred encounter scenario, not a circular step. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to the data used to fit it.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on two pillars: the independent stellar age indicators and the dynamical model. The dynamical model contributes most of the free parameters: the fitted age t, the initial size R and velocity dispersion σv, the orbital actions and angles, and the hand-chosen kernel sizes. The GMC disruption interpretation adds assumed encounter parameters (Vmax, mass function, impact parameter distribution, destructive threshold) and the assumed validity of the analytic energy-injection formula.

free parameters (11)
  • Dynamical model age t = 83 ± 1 Myr
    Fitted by the MCMC forward model (Section 4.2, Figure 13); this is the dynamical age compared against the stellar age.
  • Initial velocity dispersion σv = 0.20 ± 0.01 km/s
    Fitted initial velocity dispersion of the unbound tracer sphere.
  • Initial scale R = 7.6 ± 0.4 pc
    Fitted Gaussian position scale of the initial tracer sphere, corresponding to a half-mass radius of 11.4 ± 0.6 pc.
  • Initial orbital actions and angles = JR = 3.92, Jφ = -2007.4, JZ = 0.15 (kpc km/s); ωR = 2.71, ωφ = 5.34, ωZ = 2.10 (rad)
    Fitted initial conditions of the cluster orbit in action-angle coordinates (Figure 13).
  • Augmented error kernel sizes = 1 deg (position), 0.1 mas (parallax), 0.2 mas/yr (proper motion), 1 km/s (RV)
    Chosen by eye in Section 4.2 to make error bars overlap without overshooting; they directly define the likelihood and the width of the posterior.
  • Isochrone age = ≈600 Myr
    Best-fit age from Brutus/MIST with metallicity fixed to solar and outlier fraction fixed to 10%; one of the inputs to the age discrepancy.
  • Outlier fraction (Brutus) = 10%
    Fixed by hand in the isochrone fit; affects the derived age and distance.
  • GMC encounter relative velocity Vmax = 20 km/s
    Assumed value for the cluster-GMC velocity, twice the relative velocity dispersion; sets the derived GMC mass and impact parameter.
  • GMC mass function and impact parameter priors = P(Mn) ∝ Mn^-2 and P(p) ∝ p
    Assumed distributions used to find the most likely single-encounter parameters M*_n = 3e5 M_sun and p* = 6 pc.
  • Destructive encounter threshold = ΔE = 4|E0,c|
    Threshold from Gieles et al. (2006) used to define destructive encounters in the Mn-p plane.
  • Initial cluster mass = 225 M_sun
    Derived from a Kroupa IMF fit to Gaia star counts with Mmin = 0.51 M_sun; enters the GMC energy injection calculation.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The adopted Milky Way potential (gala MilkyWayPotential) is an accurate representation of the Galaxy for orbit integration.
    Used for all backwards and forward integrations in Sections 4.1 and 4.2; potential systematics would directly bias the dynamical age.
  • ad hoc to paper The progenitor can be modeled as an unbound, isotropic Gaussian sphere of tracer particles with no self-gravity.
    Central assumption of the dynamical model in Section 4.2; the paper does not test whether a bound-then-disrupted cluster would produce the same phase-space distribution.
  • domain assumption The Gieles et al. (2006) analytic formulas for the disruption timescale (Eq. 4) and energy injection (Eq. 5) apply to OCSN-49.
    Adopted in Section 5.2 to derive the GMC mass and impact parameter.
  • domain assumption The Chen et al. (2020) GMC mass-size relation Mn = 156.6 (Rn/pc)^1.96 M_sun is applicable to the disrupting cloud.
    Used in Section 5.2 to connect GMC mass and radius.
  • domain assumption Gaia is complete for G < 17 and the Hunt & Reffert (2023) member list is representative for the mass estimate.
    Needed for the Kroupa IMF normalization in Section 5.1; incompleteness would raise the mass estimate.
  • domain assumption Benchmark cluster ages used for lithium and gyrochronology comparisons are accurate (Pleiades 125 Myr, M48 420 Myr, Praesepe 700 Myr, Hyades 680 Myr, NGC 3532 400 Myr, NGC 2281 500 Myr).
    The lithium and rotation age estimates in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are calibrated by these clusters.
  • domain assumption MIST isochrones and Kurucz model atmospheres are reliable for solar-type dwarf stars.
    Underpin the isochrone age (Section 3.1) and abundance analysis (Section 2.2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for a Catastrophically Disrupted Open Cluster." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXPDHX5Y

@misc{pith2026250419343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for a Catastrophically Disrupted Open Cluster},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXPDHX5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19343}
}
abstract

Of the many discoveries uncovered by the Gaia astrometric mission, some of the most exciting are related to nearby dispersed stellar structures. We analyze one such structure in the Milky Way disk, OCSN-49, a coeval stellar stream with 257 identified members spanning approximately 30$^\circ$ across the sky. We obtained high-resolution spectroscopic data for four members that span the stream's extent, finding these four stars to have solar metallicities and remarkably homogeneous chemistry. Through a combination of isochrone fitting, lithium abundance analysis, and gyrochronology, we find a consistent stellar age of 400--600 Myr. Integrating stellar orbits backwards reveals that OCSN-49 converged to a single point at a much younger age. By integrating unbound model stars forward and comparing them to the current phase-space distribution of OCSN-49, we derive a dynamical age of 83$\pm$1 Myr, inconsistent with the age of the stellar population. The discrepancy between the kinematic and stellar age indicators is naturally explained by a disruptive event that unbound OCSN-49 roughly 500 Myr into its lifetime. Based on rate estimates, disruption due to a passing giant molecular cloud (GMC) is the most likely culprit. Assuming a single encounter, we find that a nearly head-on collision with a fairly massive GMC ($\sim$10$^5$ M$_\odot$) was necessary to unbind the cluster, although encounters with multiple GMCs may be responsible. To our knowledge, OCSN-49 serves as the first known remnant of a catastrophically disrupted open cluster and therefore serves as a benchmark for further investigating cluster disruption in the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Gaia DR3 positions for stars in our dynamical sample (black) and background stars (purple), selected with right ascensions between 70–105◦ , declinations between 25–65◦ , and parallaxes between 3.85–5.12 mas. Middle: Proper motion space of the same stars. Density histograms for OCSN-49 and the background stars are plotted for µα⋆ and µδ, all with binwidths of 0.4 mas yr−1 . Right: Density histograms for stars … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Right ascension versus Gaia radial velocity of OCSN-49 members identified by the Hunt & Reffert (2023) catalog. Red circle markers denote OCSN-49 members with radial velocities deviating by more than 10 km s−1 from the median that do not appear to be astrometric binaries. We cull these members from our sample. The black circles de￾note the stars with measured radial velocities included in our final sample. We note t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Sample MAROON-X spectra of the OCSN-49 stars. A sample of the lines that have been measured are indicated. Each spectra is vertically offset by 0.5 for visual clarity. tion lines, which were drawn from the linelist of Schuler et al. (2011), are made using the interactive Python code XSpect-EW (Vejar et al. 2021). This code normalizes each order, adjusts the wavelength of the orders to align with the rest frame, fits… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Element versus the median abundances and 1-σ confidence intervals from the ensemble solution relative to Fe. The four stars are distinguished by their different markers. The consistency in the precisely measured abundances across over ≃ 15 separate elements strongly su…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example abundance synthesis of the λ6707 Li line for GDR3-7104. Black points are the observed data, and the solid red line is the best-fit synthetic spectrum characterized by an abundance of A(Li) = 3.03. Blue and green dotted lines are synthetic spectra with ±0.10 dex…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Color–magnitude diagram of all OCSN-49 stars with Gaia G ≤ 17 , with our best-fit isochrone (600 Myr, solid line) as well as three other isochrones at different ages. OCSN-49’s color–magnitude diagram clearly indicates that its stars are inconsistent with the dynamical…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: Our defined upper, middle, and lower regions of the stream. Bottom: The resulting isochrone fits to the corresponding stream sections. For the upper section, we find an age of ≃650 Myr and distance of ≃210 pc. For the middle section, we find ≃620 Myr and distance …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We compare A(Li) for our four OCSN-49 stars to stars in four separate clusters: the Pleiades (125 Myr; Bouvier et al. 2018), M48 (420 Myr; Sun et al. 2023), Praesepe (700 Myr; Douglas et al. 2019; Rampalli et al. 2021), and the Hyades (680 Myr; Gossage et al. 2018). Wh…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Color–period diagrams for OCSN-49 (black dots) versus NGC 3532 (400 Myr; left), NGC 2281 (500 Myr; middle), and Praesepe (700 Myr; right panel). The rotation period distribution for OCSN-49 is most consistent with NGC 2281, indicating that they share a common age of ≈…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Right ascension versus declination of OCSN-49 members with radial velocity errors less than 1 km s−1 in color. We divide this resulting sample in half with a slice perpendicular to the extent of the stream. We classify the resulting regions into northern (red) a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Position, proper motion, and parallax-radial velocity space plotted for all 257 OCSN-49 stars. Stars with Gaia radial velocities are identified in red and those without are identified in gray. Only members with measured Gaia radial velocities are plotted in parallax-r…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Resulting model parameters of OCSN-49 birth conditions (ψ0,opt) derived from our statistical model. We plot only the lowest temperature (T = 1) walkers, which sample the posterior space. For more details on this calculation, see Section 4.1 in Tregoning et al. (2024).…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Forward integrated model stars with our resulting model parameters we see in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The minimum GMC mass Mn versus impact parameter p required to produce a destructive encounter with ∆E/|E0,c| ≥ 4, plotted at three different relative velocities (Vmax). The solid black line, with Vmax = 20 km s−1 , is our fiducial value. The impact parameters p and Vm…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Top: GMC mass Mn − encounter parameter p space, colored by the un-normalized log-likelihood of the joint probability distribution P(Mn, p) = P(Mn)P(p), as￾suming Vmax = 20 km s−1 . The dashed black line represents ∆E = 4|E0,c|. Our most likely perturber solution is la…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  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]

    4000 \@twopowertwo=

    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]

    ,߯ǁDQ&3r]W;Oϟ :| o`7@3 uxdǀ\ < ȿ مl6. ٛ thLaÌ<hH 87& PVȅr0.[n R \>0 \ ŧ ,PJ& O2Dk

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -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 o...

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    2025, , 693, A305, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451853

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

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451853 2025

  6. [6]

    J., Curtis , J

    Andrews , J. J., Curtis , J. L., Chanam \'e , J., et al. 2022, , 163, 275, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac6952

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6952 2022

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. , Andrae, R. , Arcay, B. , et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A74, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322344

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322344 2013

  8. [8]

    Barnes , S. A. 2003, , 586, 464, 10.1086/367639

    doi:10.1086/367639 2003

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    2007, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 3, 32–35, 10.1017/s1743921308015226

    Bastian, N. 2007, Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 3, 32–35, 10.1017/s1743921308015226

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    2003, , 340, 227, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    Baumgardt , H., & Makino , J. 2003, , 340, 227, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06286.x

    2003

  3. [11]

    2001, , 377, 462, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011043

    Bergond , G., Leon , S., & Guibert , J. 2001, , 377, 462, 10.1051/0004-6361:20011043

    2001 doi

  4. [12]

    F., Matzner , C

    Bildsten , L., Brown , E. F., Matzner , C. D., & Ushomirsky , G. 1997, , 482, 442, 10.1086/304151

    1997 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, , 613, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731881

    Bouvier , J., Barrado , D., Moraux , E., et al. 2018, , 613, A63, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731881

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2015, , 216, 29, 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

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

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S

    Brasseur , C. E., Phillip , C., Fleming , S. W., Mullally , S. E., & White , R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007

    2019

  8. [16]

    Campello, R. J. G. B., Moulavi, D., & Sander, J. 2013, in Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ed. J. Pei, V. S. Tseng, L. Cao, H. Motoda, & G. Xu (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 160--172

    2013

  9. [17]

    2024, , 99, 101696, 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101696

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., & Casamiquela , L. 2024, , 99, 101696, 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101696

    2024

  10. [18]

    2019, , 624, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834453

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., Krone-Martins , A., Sedaghat , N., et al. 2019, , 624, A126, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834453

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, , 635, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937386

    Castro-Ginard , A., Jordi , C., Luri , X., et al. 2020, , 635, A45, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937386

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Q., Li , G

    Chen , B. Q., Li , G. X., Yuan , H. B., et al. 2020, , 493, 351, 10.1093/mnras/staa235

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    F., & Weinberg , M

    Chernoff , D. F., & Weinberg , M. D. 1990, , 351, 121, 10.1086/168451

    1990 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, , 823, 102, 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

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

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    H., et al

    Coronado, J., Rix, H.-W., Trick, W. H., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 4098, 10.1093/mnras/staa1358

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    L., Ag \"u eros , M

    Curtis , J. L., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Mamajek , E. E., Wright , J. T., & Cummings , J. D. 2019, , 158, 77, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2899

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Ag \"u eros , M

    Curtis , J. L., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Matt , S. P., et al. 2020, , 904, 140, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf58

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2015, , 449, 1811, 10.1093/mnras/stv395

    Dalessandro , E., Miocchi , P., Carraro , G., J \' lkov \'a , L., & Moitinho , A. 2015, , 449, 1811, 10.1093/mnras/stv395

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    2016, , 222, 8, 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

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

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    T., Curtis , J

    Douglas , S. T., Curtis , J. L., Ag \"u eros , M. A., et al. 2019, , 879, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2468

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Corradi , W

    Ferreira , F. A., Corradi , W. J. B., Maia , F. F. S., Angelo , M. S., & Santos , J. F. C., J. 2021, , 502, L90, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab011

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    1996, , 458, 739, 10.1086/176853

    Fleck , Robert C., J. 1996, , 458, 739, 10.1086/176853

    1996 doi

  23. [31]

    2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, 10.21105/joss.00024

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306, 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    , Frémat, Y

    Fouesneau, M. , Frémat, Y. , Andrae, R. , et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243919

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2002, , 40, 487, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840

    Freeman , K., & Bland-Hawthorn , J. 2002, , 40, 487, 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093840

    2002

  27. [35]

    J., Barnes , S

    Fritzewski , D. J., Barnes , S. A., James , D. J., & Strassmeier , K. G. 2021, , 652, A60, 10.1051/0004-6361/202140894

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Barnes , S

    Fritzewski , D. J., Barnes , S. A., Weingrill , J., et al. 2023, , 674, A152, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346083

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Galli , P. A. B., Miret-Roig , N., Bouy , H., Olivares , J., & Barrado , D. 2023, , 520, 6245, 10.1093/mnras/stad520

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    Gieles , M., Athanassoula , E., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2007, , 376, 809, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11477.x

    2007

  32. [41]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    P., & Bastian, N

    Goodwin, S. P., & Bastian, N. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 373, 752–758, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11078.x

    2006

  34. [43]

    2018, , 863, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad0a0

    Gossage , S., Conroy , C., Dotter , A., et al. 2018, , 863, 67, 10.3847/1538-4357/aad0a0

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    W., et al

    Hattori , S., Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., et al. 2022, , 163, 284, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac625a

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 205, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    Helmi, A. 2020, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 58, 205, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021917

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    L., & Reffert , S

    Hunt , E. L., & Reffert , S. 2023, , 673, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

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

    2007 doi

  40. [49]

    R., & Lindegren , L

    J rgensen , B. R., & Lindegren , L. 2005, , 436, 127, 10.1051/0004-6361:20042185

    2005 doi

  41. [50]

    2019, , 884, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44be

    Kamdar , H., Conroy , C., Ting , Y.-S., et al. 2019, , 884, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44be

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    Kawaler , S. D. 1989, , 343, L65, 10.1086/185512

    1989 doi

  43. [52]

    R., Deliyannis , C

    King , J. R., Deliyannis , C. P., Hiltgen , D. D., et al. 1997, , 113, 1871, 10.1086/118399

    1997 doi

  44. [53]

    Kokaia , G., & Davies , M. B. 2019, , 489, 5165, 10.1093/mnras/stz813

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    E., Belokurov , V., & Torrealba , G

    Koposov , S. E., Belokurov , V., & Torrealba , G. 2017, , 470, 2702, 10.1093/mnras/stx1182

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    2019, , 158, 122, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab339a

    Kounkel , M., & Covey , K. 2019, , 158, 122, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab339a

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  48. [57]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2011, Canadian Journal of Physics, 89, 417, 10.1139/p10-104

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    J., & Dame , T

    Lada , C. J., & Dame , T. M. 2020, , 898, 3, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9bfb

    2020 doi

  50. [59]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 41, 57, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Lamers , H. J. G. L. M., & Gieles , M. 2006, , 455, L17, 10.1051/0004-6361:20065567

    2006 doi

  52. [61]

    Lamers , H. J. G. L. M., Gieles , M., & Portegies Zwart , S. F. 2005, , 429, 173, 10.1051/0004-6361:20041476

    2005 doi

  53. [62]

    Landsman , W. B. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch , R. J. V. Brissenden , & J. Barnes , 246

    1993

  54. [63]

    Larsen , S. S. 2004, , 416, 537, 10.1051/0004-6361:20034533

    2004 doi

  55. [64]

    Larson , R. B. 1981, , 194, 809, 10.1093/mnras/194.4.809

    1981 doi

  56. [65]

    Lombardi , M., Alves , J., & Lada , C. J. 2010, , 519, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201015282

    2010 doi

  57. [66]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, , 131, 018003, 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2018 doi

  58. [67]

    2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205, 10.21105/joss.00205

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Astels, S. 2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 205, 10.21105/joss.00205

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    2019, , 622, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834950

    Meingast , S., Alves , J., & F \"u rnkranz , V. 2019, , 622, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201834950

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    Mok , A., Chandar , R., & Fall , S. M. 2020, , 893, 135, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7a14

    2020 doi

  61. [70]

    2025, , 694, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450369

    Moreira , S., Moitinho , A., Silva , A., & Almeida , D. 2025, , 694, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450369

    2025 doi

  62. [71]

    Oort , J. H. 1958, Ricerche Astronomiche, 5, 507

    1958

  63. [72]

    2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.2.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10957263

    pandas development team, T. 2024, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.2.2, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10957263

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    E., Kharchenko , N

    Piskunov , A. E., Kharchenko , N. V., R \"o ser , S., Schilbach , E., & Scholz , R. D. 2006, , 445, 545, 10.1051/0004-6361:20053764

    2006 doi

  65. [74]

    H., & Rybicki, G

    Press, W. H., & Rybicki, G. B. 1989, Astrophysical Journal, 338, 277, 10.1086/167197

    1989 doi

  66. [75]

    Price-Whelan, A. M. 2017, Journal of Open Source Software, 2, 388, 10.21105/joss.00388

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., G \"u nther , H. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  68. [77]

    2023, , 265, 12, 10.3847/1538-4365/acadd6

    Qin , S., Zhong , J., Tang , T., & Chen , L. 2023, , 265, 12, 10.3847/1538-4365/acadd6

    2023 doi

  69. [78]

    A., Curtis , J

    Rampalli , R., Ag \"u eros , M. A., Curtis , J. L., et al. 2021, , 921, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0c1e

    2021 doi

  70. [79]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03526, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03526

    Reyes , C., Stello , D., Hon , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.03526, 10.48550/arXiv.2407.03526

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [80]

    S., Goodman , A

    Rice , T. S., Goodman , A. A., Bergin , E. A., Beaumont , C., & Dame , T. M. 2016, , 822, 52, 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/52

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst., 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  73. [82]

    C., Andrews , J

    Schuler , S. C., Andrews , J. J., Clanzy , V. R., et al. 2021, , 162, 109, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac10c6

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    C., Flateau , D., Cunha , K., et al

    Schuler , S. C., Flateau , D., Cunha , K., et al. 2011, , 732, 55, 10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/55

    2011 doi

  75. [84]

    L., St \"u rmer , J., et al

    Seifahrt , A., Bean , J. L., St \"u rmer , J., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9908, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VI, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 990818, 10.1117/12.2232069

    2016 doi

  76. [85]

    L., & Schwab , C

    Seifahrt , A., St \"u rmer , J., Bean , J. L., & Schwab , C. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans , L. Simard , & H. Takami , 107026D, 10.1...

    2018 doi

  77. [86]

    L., St \"u rmer , J., et al

    Seifahrt , A., Bean , J. L., St \"u rmer , J., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11447, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VIII, ed. C. J. Evans , J. J. Bryant , & K. Motohara , 114471F, 10.11...

    2020 doi

  78. [87]

    1972, , 171, 565, 10.1086/151310

    Skumanich , A. 1972, , 171, 565, 10.1086/151310

    1972 doi

  79. [88]

    1973, , 184, 839, 10.1086/152374

    Sneden , C. 1973, , 184, 839, 10.1086/152374

    1973 doi

  80. [89]

    Soderblom, D. R. 2010, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 48, 581, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130806

    2010 doi

  81. [90]

    R., Jones , B

    Soderblom , D. R., Jones , B. F., Balachandran , S., et al. 1993, , 106, 1059, 10.1086/116704

    1993 doi

  82. [91]

    M., Rivolo , A

    Solomon , P. M., Rivolo , A. R., Barrett , J., & Yahil , A. 1987, , 319, 730, 10.1086/165493

    1987 doi

  83. [92]

    1958, , 127, 17, 10.1086/146435

    Spitzer , Lyman, J. 1958, , 127, 17, 10.1086/146435

    1958 doi

  84. [93]

    Stark , A. A. 1984, , 281, 624, 10.1086/162137

    1984 doi

  85. [94]

    P., Steinhauer , A., Anthony-Twarog , B

    Sun , Q., Deliyannis , C. P., Steinhauer , A., Anthony-Twarog , B. J., & Twarog , B. A. 2023, , 952, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/acc5e3

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    P., Twarog , B

    Sun , Q., Deliyannis , C. P., Twarog , B. A., et al. 2022, , 513, 5387, 10.1093/mnras/stac1251

    2022 doi

  87. [96]

    2019, , 877, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13b0

    Tang , S.-Y., Pang , X., Yuan , Z., et al. 2019, , 877, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13b0

    2019 doi

  88. [97]

    2015, , 807, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/104

    Ting , Y.-S., Conroy , C., & Goodman , A. 2015, , 807, 104, 10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/104

    2015 doi

  89. [98]

    R., Andrews, J

    Tregoning, K. R., Andrews, J. J., Agüeros, M. A., et al. 2024, Theia 456: Tidally Shredding an Open Cluster. 2405.13133

    2024 arXiv

  90. [99]

    2010, , 708, 1598, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1598

    Trenti , M., Vesperini , E., & Pasquato , M. 2010, , 708, 1598, 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/1598

    2010 doi

  91. [100]

    2022, Gaia DR3 documentation , Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium

    van Leeuwen , F., de Bruijne , J., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2022, Gaia DR3 documentation , Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium. Online at https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/documentation/GDR3/index.html

    2022

  92. [101]

    C., & Stassun , K

    Vejar , G., Schuler , S. C., & Stassun , K. G. 2021, , 919, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac10c3

    2021 doi

  93. [102]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  94. [103]

    D., Farr , W

    Vousden , W. D., Farr , W. M., & Mandel , I. 2016, , 455, 1919, 10.1093/mnras/stv2422

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    2000, , 540, 797, 10.1086/309347

    Wada , K., Spaans , M., & Kim , S. 2000, , 540, 797, 10.1086/309347

    2000 doi

  96. [105]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, 10.21105/joss.03021

    2021 doi

  97. [106]

    1971, , 13, 309

    Wielen , R. 1971, , 13, 309

    1971

  98. [107]

    1985, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Wielen , R. 1985, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 113, Dynamics of Star Clusters, ed. J. Goodman & P. Hut , 449--460

    1985

  99. [108]

    J., & Mamajek , E

    Wright , N. J., & Mamajek , E. E. 2018, , 476, 381, 10.1093/mnras/sty207

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.