Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The PLATO field selection process. II. Characterization of LOPS2, the first long-pointing field

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 PLATO's first long-pointing field, LOPS2, is formally approved and meets all Science Requirement Document target counts.

desk verdict A solid, honest characterization of PLATO's first long-pointing field; the central claim holds despite an uncited engineering threshold. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07687 v3 pith:OAZETIAQ submitted 2025-01-13 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR

V. Nascimbeni , G. Piotto , J. Cabrera , M. Montalto , S. Marinoni , P. M. Marrese , C. Aerts , G. Altavilla
show 21 more authors
S. Benatti A. Börner M. Deleuil S. Desidera L. Gizon M.J. Goupil V. Granata A.M. Heras D. Magrin L. Malavolta J.M. Mas-Hesse H.P. Osborn I. Pagano C. Paproth D. Pollacco L. Prisinzano R. Ragazzoni G. Ramsay H. Rauer A. Tkachenko S. Udry
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SR
keywords PLATOmissionlong-pointingfieldLOPS2selectiontransitingexoplanetstargetsamplesP1-P5dutycycleTESSsynergy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper announces and characterizes the first field that the PLATO mission will stare at for at least two continuous years: LOPS2, a $2{,}149$ deg$^2$ southern sky region centered at ecliptic latitude $\beta=-71.12^\circ$. The authors argue that LOPS2 satisfies the mission's Scientific Requirements Document, with $8{,}235$ P1 targets against a requirement of $7{,}500$, and similarly comfortable margins for the P2, P4, and P5 samples. The choice matters because PLATO allocates 8% of its data rate to Guest Observer programs, so the community needs to know well in advance where the fields will be. The paper maps what actually lives inside LOPS2: 108 confirmed transiting planets, 544 vetted TESS candidates, 77 non-transiting planets, 367 star clusters, and strong overlap with TESS, CHEOPS, Ariel, and JWST. The conclusion, on the paper's own terms, is that LOPS2 is both operationally compliant and scientifically rich enough to anchor the planet-hunting campaign.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LOPS2 footprint: a $2{,}149$ deg$^2$ region approximated by a spherical circle of radius $28.1^\circ$ intersected with a great-circle 'square,' partitioned into zones observed by 24, 18, 12, or six of PLATO's normal cameras. The selection logic runs through three constraints: the duty-cycle threshold $|\beta|>69.671^\circ$ for the field center, the rotation angle $\varphi=0^\circ$ (with one field side nearly tangent to the galactic plane), and the target-count requirements of the Science Requirements Document. The target counts are produced by the PLATO Input Catalog v2.0.0 together with the PINE noise model, which assigns a noise-to-signal ratio to each star and determines which stars enter the P1, P2, P4, and P5 samples. The spacecraft's quarterly 90-degree rolls keep solar illumination on the panels during the two-year stare, and that mechanism is what ties the geometry to the duty-cycle constraint.

What would settle it

Recompute the P1–P5 counts with the final public PLATO Input Catalog and the actual number of functioning normal cameras after commissioning; if the P1 count falls below 7,500, the paper's compliance claim fails. Alternatively, an in-flight demonstration that the solar panels cannot sustain the duty cycle at ecliptic latitude $-71.12^\circ$ with the planned quarterly rolls would invalidate the choice of LOPS2, independent of any target-count argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LOPS2—centered at $\alpha=95.31043^\circ$, $\delta=-47.88693^\circ$ with rotation angle $\varphi=0^\circ$ and ecliptic latitude $\beta=-71.12242^\circ$—was formally approved by the PLATO Science Working Team in June 2023 as the first long-pointing field, and that it meets the SciRD requirements for all four PLATO target samples. The counts, computed from the PLATO Input Catalog v2.0.0 under the conservative end-of-life assumption of 22 surviving normal cameras, are $P1=8{,}235$ (requirement $7{,}500$), $P2=699$ ($500$), $P4=12{,}415$ ($2{,}500$), and $P5=167{,}149$ ($122{,}500$). The shift from the earlier LOPS1 candidate to LOPS2 is justified by a single engineering constraint: LOPS1's $|\beta|\simeq66.30^\circ$ falls below the duty-cycle threshold $|\beta|>69.671^\circ$ required for an observing quarter to start at any time without interruption, while LOPS2 clears it. The paper claims this move costs only about 1% in the prioritization metric and 0.4% in P1 count, leaving the field comfortably within requirements and with a rich astrophysical content for planet and stellar science.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the spacecraft can actually keep its solar panels adequately illuminated while staring continuously at the LOPS2 patch of sky for two years, using the planned quarterly 90-degree rotations; if that engineering constraint is wrong, the field choice collapses even though the star counts are right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the field choice holds, PLATO's first two years of routine science, starting around mid-2027, will be spent continuously monitoring LOPS2, with quarterly rolls at the end of January, April, July, and October.
  • The field supplies 179,564 FGKM stars across the four target samples, from which up to 20,000 will be selected as the prime sample for ground-based follow-up and planetary mass measurement.
  • Within its first months of photometry, PLATO will sharpen the ephemerides of known planets in the field, whose median predicted timing drift at epoch 2027.0 is about 7 minutes, and will recover the ten systems currently lost to drift larger than two hours.
  • The overlap with other facilities means TESS's southern continuous viewing zone is ~90% covered by LOPS2, JWST's southern continuous viewing zone is fully enclosed, and most of the field is accessible to southern survey telescopes, while CHEOPS reaches only 33% of the footprint under its current sun-exclusion angle.
  • For targets with loose ephemerides, the first two or three months of LOPS2 photometry will deliver new accurate transit predictions, enabling follow-up observations that are currently unfeasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension of the paper's logic is that the same duty-cycle threshold will constrain the northern field LOPN1: if it is ever scheduled, its rotation angle may need adjustment (for instance, to place Deneb in a CCD gap) even though the paper does not state a final choice.
  • The released footprint and target tables make LOPS2 a natural testbed for the Guest Observer selection process: any proposed GO target can be checked against the same P1–P5 and facility-overlap metrics, a procedure the paper demonstrates but does not codify.
  • The dense overlap with TESS's southern continuous viewing zone implies a testable prediction: PLATO should confirm or reject a large fraction of the 27 multi-candidate TOI systems inside LOPS2 within its first year, independently validating the field's expected planetary yield.
  • The paper's compliance argument depends on the 'EOL 22' assumption of 22 functioning normal cameras; if in-orbit losses are larger, the P1 count could approach the 7,500 floor since P1 stars concentrate in the 18- and 24-camera regions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents LOPS2, the southern long-pointing field that the PLATO Science Working Team approved in June 2023 as the first field for at least two continuous years of observation. The work describes the fine-tuning that led from the provisional LOPS1 to LOPS2, reports the field geometry and target counts in the P1, P2, P4, and P5 samples using the PIC v2.0.0 catalog and the PINE noise model, and surveys the astrophysical content of the field: known transiting and non-transiting planetary systems, TESS candidates, nearby stars, star clusters, variable stars, and synergies with TESS, CHEOPS, Ariel, and JWST. The target counts are claimed to meet the SciRD requirements with margin.

Significance. If correct, this paper gives the community the precise location and expected scientific content of PLATO's first long-pointing field, which is essential for planning Guest Observer programs, follow-up observations, and archival work. The paper is strong in that the field footprint is released as MOC regions on Zenodo, the target counts are derived from stated public catalogs and a cited noise model, and the authors explicitly acknowledge that in-flight optical performance may change the numbers. The extensive list of known and candidate planets, clusters, and variables in LOPS2 is a useful reference. The main scientific claim—that the field satisfies the PLATO sample requirements—is supported by the quoted counts, though those counts lack quantitative uncertainty estimates. The selection-process narrative, however, rests partly on an uncited engineering threshold, which is the weakest point of the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1] The duty-cycle threshold of |β| > 69.671° is presented as a concluded value from 'a detailed assessment of the problem with the PLATO mission team,' but no derivation, citation, or reference to a public technical document is given. This threshold is the sole quantitative reason LOPS1 (β ≈ 66.30°) is abandoned in favor of LOPS2 (β ≈ 71.12°), and it is thus load-bearing for the paper's account of the field-selection process. Please supply a citation to an accessible PLATO mission document, present the underlying calculation, or explicitly state that this is an internal mission input and discuss how the choice would change under plausible variations of the threshold (e.g., if the threshold were 68° or 69°). As written, the causal chain from engineering constraint to field selection is not independently checkable.
  2. [Section 2.1 / Section 2.4 / Table 2] The target counts for P1, P2, P4, and P5 are quoted to integer precision without any uncertainty estimate. The paper notes in the Introduction that exact numbers may change with in-flight optical performance, but it does not quantify the sensitivity of the counts to underlying assumptions such as the PIC version, the PINE noise model, the FOV geometry, or the 'EOL 22' scenario. Since the margins above the SciRD requirements are relatively small for P1 (8,235 vs. 7,500) and P2 (699 vs. 500), a quantitative or at least a clearly bounded systematic uncertainty would strengthen the claim that the field robustly meets the mission requirements.
  3. [Section 2.1] The text states that for |β| > 70° all rotation angles are compatible with the duty cycle, but then sets the required threshold at |β| > 69.671°, which lies in the 'constrained' range 63°–70°. This apparent inconsistency should be clarified. Is the requirement that the geometrical center have |β| ≥ 69.671°, or is it a condition on the existence of an acceptable rotation angle? The distinction matters because LOPS2 at |β| ≈ 71.12° is unambiguously in the unconstrained regime, but LOPS1 at 66.30° is not; explaining this cleanly would make the selection logic easier to follow.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'slightly more stringent than the formal requirement of |β| > 63°' is misleading: an increase from 63° to 69.671° is a 6.7° change, not a slight adjustment. Please rephrase, for example by comparing to the 70° condition.
  2. [Section 2.1] There is a typo in 'the the dates of the quarterly rotations'—one 'the' should be removed.
  3. [Section 3.4.1] Several planet names appear with a space in 'W ASP-121b,' 'W ASP-126b,' etc. The standard formatting should be 'WASP-121b' and so on throughout the text and tables.
  4. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'the field is color coded according to the number of co-pointing cameras, as in Fig. 1' is correct, but Figure B.2 would benefit from a note that the rotation angles are shown in reading order, which is already in the caption; consider adding this to the text reference as well.
  5. [Appendix B] Table B.2 is very long and would be better presented primarily as a machine-readable table on Zenodo, with a short excerpt in the paper; this would be more useful to the community than a 14-page printed table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: field selection and target counts rely on external engineering thresholds and independent catalogs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) that LOPS2 was formally approved as the first LOP field and (ii) that LOPS2 contains enough P1-P2-P4-P5 targets to meet SciRD requirements. Claim (i) is an administrative record, not a derivation; the duty-cycle threshold |β| > 69.671 in Section 2.1 is an engineering input reported from a mission assessment, not a quantity fitted to the paper's own outputs, so the LOPS1-to-LOPS2 switch is a decision rule applied to an external constraint rather than a circular reduction. Claim (ii) is computed by applying sample definitions and noise limits to the PLATO Input Catalog v2.0.0 with PINE noise estimates, which are independent external products. The paper's self-citations (N22 Paper I, M21) define the sample classes and the prioritization metric, but the target counts and astrophysical content are evaluated from catalogs such as PIC, Exo-MerCat, TOI, YBSC, Gaia DR3, and Hunt & Reffert 2023, rather than being recovered from those definitions. There is no equation in which a 'prediction' equals a fitted parameter by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The uncited engineering threshold is a transparency and verifiability weakness, not circularity.

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

The paper does not fit any parameters to data or invent new physical entities. It relies on mission engineering constraints (duty cycle threshold, camera survival), input catalogs (PIC v2.0.0), and a noise model (PINE). These are not derived in the paper.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Duty-cycle threshold |β| > 69.671 deg for the field center
    Section 2.1: 'we concluded that the threshold must be set at |β| > 69.671...' This is an external engineering constraint that drives the choice of LOPS2 over LOPS1.
  • domain assumption PIC v2.0.0 catalog and PINE NSR model accurately predict target counts
    Section 3.1 uses these to compute P1-P5 counts; any error propagates directly to the headline numbers.
  • domain assumption End-of-life scenario with 22 surviving normal cameras (EOL 22)
    Table 2 notes counts are calculated assuming 22 NCAMs survive; the real number of working cameras affects the noise and thus P1 counts.
  • domain assumption Quarterly 90-degree rolls are operationally feasible
    Section 2.1 describes the roll schedule and states the exact dates are determined by the attitude; if the roll execution fails, the two-year stare may not be achievable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The PLATO field selection process. II. Characterization of LOPS2, the first long-pointing field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAZETIAQ

@misc{pith2026250107687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The PLATO field selection process. II. Characterization of LOPS2, the first long-pointing field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAZETIAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07687}
}
read the original abstract

PLAnetary Transits and Oscillations of stars (PLATO) is an ESA M-class mission to be launched by the end of 2026 to discover and characterize transiting planets around bright and nearby stars, and in particular habitable rocky planets hosted by solar-like stars. Over the mission lifetime, an average of 8% of the science data rate will be allocated to Guest Observer programs (GOs) selected by ESA through public calls, hence it is essential for the community to know in advance where the observing fields will be located. In a previous paper, we identified two preliminary long-pointing fields (LOPN1 and LOPS1) for PLATO, respectively in the northern and southern hemisphere. Here we present LOPS2, a slightly adjusted version of the southern field that has recently been selected by the PLATO Science Working Team as the first field to be observed by PLATO for at least two continuous years, following the scientific requirements. In this paper, we describe the astrophysical content of LOPS2 in detail, including known planetary systems, bright/variable/binary stars, clusters and synergies with other current and future facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Geometry of the PLATO field FOV. In this figure, the field is centered at the origin (0,0) of a generic spherical reference frame (units are degrees; projection is orthographic). The number of “normal” cam￾eras covering a given line of sight is color coded. The four blue shades, from dark to light, map the regions covering 325/153/847/824 deg2 ob￾served respectively with 24, 18, 12, six cameras (and corresponding to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. All-sky Aitoff projection in galactic coordinates of LOPS2 and LOPN1, showing the formal constraints for the selection of the PLATO LOP fields and the synergies with other missions. The two pink circles represent the |β| > 63◦ technical requirement for the center of the LOP fields (“allowed region”), implying that the overall envelopes of every allowed field choice are two ecliptic caps at |β| ≳ 38◦ (green circles).… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LOPS2 footprint. Left panel: Orthographic projection in galactic coordinates centered on LOPS2. The field is color coded according to the number of NCAMs as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Interstellar extinction properties of LOPS2. Left panel: Average V-band extinction AV of the P1+P2 targets from PIC 2.0.0, calculated over HEALPix level-5 cells and represented in a color scale. Right panel: Same but for the P5 sample and over a finer level-6 grid. The…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distance of the P1/P2 and P5 samples in LOPS2. Left panel: Distribution of the 8 235 P1+P2 stars in LOPS2 in the (R⋆, distance) plane. The stellar effective temperature from the PIC v2.0.0 is color coded. Right panel: Same but for the P5 sample (167 149 stars; P1/P2 no…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bright stars and stellar crowding in LOPS2. Left panel: Orthographic projection in galactic coordinates centered on LOPS2. The field is color coded according to the number of NCAMs as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Known planetary systems with at least one transiting planet in LOPS2 (orthographic projection in galactic coordinates). Left panel: Entries from the Exo-MerCat database (Section 3.4): single transiting planets (red circles), systems with multiple transiting planets (or…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Known planetary systems with at least one transiting planet in LOPS2. Left panel: Period-radius diagram with the 108 transiting planets identified from Exo-MerCat and plotted in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Known non-transiting planetary systems in LOPS2 (orthographic projection in galactic coordinates). Left panel: Entries from the Exo￾MerCat database (Section 3.4): planets discovered through RVs (red diamonds), direct imaging (yellow circles), astrometry (gray circle), …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Open clusters and associations in LOPS2. Left panel: Sky map of the 367 clusters identified by Hunt & Reffert (2023) at high confidence and with at least one member in LOPS2, plotted as red circles with radius r50 (radius containing 50% of the members within the tidal…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Open clusters and associations in LOPS2. Left panel: the 367 clusters identified by Hunt & Reffert (2023) at high confidence and with at least one member in LOPS2, plotted as a function of their distance and areal density (as defined in the text). The logarithmic age …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of observed TESS targets in LOPS2, orthographic projection in galactic coordinates. Left panel: All 37 910 CTL targets within LOPS2 observed in short cadence by TESS from sector 1 to 82 included (black points), superimposed on the LOPS2 field. The yellow …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Overlap between CHEOPS/Ariel and LOPS2 (orthographic projection in galactic coordinates). Left panel: Sky area forbidden to CHEOPS (in magenta) due to the Sun Exclusion Angle currently set at 120◦ (corresponding to β < −60◦ for the southern ecliptic cap). P1 targets a…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Asteroseismic forward modelling of 36 $\beta$ Cep pulsators and inferences on their internal differential rotation

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    Forward modelling of 36 β Cep stars with second-order rotation effects shows internal rotation declining with age and common radial differential rotation, often non-monotonic, in 17 stars.

  2. Observing bright pulsating white dwarfs with PLATO: A new window into the late stages of stellar evolution

    astro-ph.SR 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PLATO should detect white-dwarf pulsation modes down to about 0.1 milli-magnitudes for bright targets, and the LOPS2 field contains 159 high-priority white-dwarf candidates for such measurements.

  3. The Stellar Observations Network Group (SONG) -- A Legacy Archive of Stellar Time-Domain Spectroscopy

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 accept novelty 3.5 of 10

    The SONG network archive holds >580,000 spectra of 3091 stars (2014–2025) and is presented as an open community resource for asteroseismology, binaries, variability, and exoplanets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    C., Demangeon , O

    Adibekyan , V., Santos , N. C., Demangeon , O. D. S., et al. 2021, , 649, A111

    2021

  4. [4]

    2023, , 672, A183

    Aerts , C., Molenberghs , G., & De Ridder , J. 2023, , 672, A183

    2023

  5. [5]

    2012, , 419, 3147

    Aigrain , S., Pont , F., & Zucker , S. 2012, , 419, 3147

    2012

  6. [6]

    N., Torres , G., et al

    Albrecht , S., Winn , J. N., Torres , G., et al. 2014, , 785, 83

    2014

  7. [7]

    2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100370

    Alei , E., Claudi , R., Bignamini , A., & Molinaro , M. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 31, 100370

    2020

  8. [8]

    2014, , 443, L89

    Anglada-Escude , G., Arriagada , P., Tuomi , M., et al. 2014, , 443, L89

    2014

Show all 164 references
  1. [9]

    2009, , 506, 411

    Auvergne , M., Bodin , P., Boisnard , L., et al. 2009, , 506, 411

    2009

  2. [10]

    2020, , 634, A34

    Baratella , M., D'Orazi , V., Carraro , G., et al. 2020, , 634, A34

    2020

  3. [11]

    Barros , S. C. C., Demangeon , O. D. S., Alibert , Y., et al. 2022, , 665, A154

    2022

  4. [12]

    R., Zijlstra , A

    Bedding , T. R., Zijlstra , A. A., von der Luhe , O., et al. 1997, , 286, 957

    1997

  5. [13]

    Bell , R. A. & Rodgers , A. W. 1964, The Observatory, 84, 29

    1964

  6. [14]

    2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109

    Benz , W., Broeg , C., Fortier , A., et al. 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51, 109

    2021

  7. [15]

    R., et al

    B \'e trisey , J., Buldgen , G., Reese , D. R., et al. 2023, , 676, A10

    2023

  8. [16]

    2024, Experimental Astronomy, 58, 1

    B \"o rner , A., Paproth , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, Experimental Astronomy, 58, 1

    2024

  9. [17]

    2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 635

    Borsato , L., Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., & Szab \'o , G. 2022, Experimental Astronomy, 53, 635

    2022

  10. [18]

    2021, , 161, 230

    Bortle , A., Fausey , H., Ji , J., et al. 2021, , 161, 230

    2021

  11. [19]

    J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al

    Borucki , W. J., Koch , D., Basri , G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977

    2010

  12. [20]

    G., Curtis , J

    Bouma , L. G., Curtis , J. L., Hartman , J. D., Winn , J. N., & Bakos , G. \'A . 2021, , 162, 197

    2021

  13. [21]

    2020, , 637, A36

    Bourrier , V., Kitzmann , D., Kuntzer , T., et al. 2020, , 637, A36

    2020

  14. [22]

    C., Kolb , U., Rowden , P., et al

    Bray , J. C., Kolb , U., Rowden , P., et al. 2023, , 518, 3637

    2023

  15. [23]

    N., Lanza , A

    Breton , S. N., Lanza , A. F., Messina , S., et al. 2024, , 689, A229

    2024

  16. [24]

    B., Nascimbeni , V., Borsato , L., et al

    Brown-Sevilla , S. B., Nascimbeni , V., Borsato , L., et al. 2021, , 506, 2122

    2021

  17. [25]

    2020, , 640, A1

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., Anders , F., Castro-Ginard , A., et al. 2020, , 640, A1

    2020

  18. [26]

    J., et al

    Cantat-Gaudin , T., Jordi , C., Wright , N. J., et al. 2019, , 626, A17

    2019

  19. [27]

    M., Zuckerman , B., et al

    Chauvin , G., Lagrange , A. M., Zuckerman , B., et al. 2005, , 438, L29

    2005

  20. [28]

    S., Roxburgh , I

    Cunha , M. S., Roxburgh , I. W., Aguirre B rsen-Koch , V., et al. 2021, , 508, 5864

    2021

  21. [29]

    J., Plavchan , P., et al

    Currie , T., Lada , C. J., Plavchan , P., et al. 2009, , 698, 1

    2009

  22. [30]

    N., Mikal-Evans , T., et al

    Daylan , T., G \"u nther , M. N., Mikal-Evans , T., et al. 2021, , 161, 131

    2021

  23. [31]

    S., Bellido-Tirado , O., Chiappini , C., et al

    de Jong , R. S., Bellido-Tirado , O., Chiappini , C., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean , S. K. Ramsay , & H. Takami , 84460T

    2012

  24. [32]

    A., et al

    De Marco , O., Schmutz , W., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2000, , 358, 187

    2000

  25. [33]

    M., D'Orazi , V., Melo , C., et al

    De Silva , G. M., D'Orazi , V., Melo , C., et al. 2013, , 431, 1005

    2013

  26. [34]

    J., Georgieva , I

    Deeg , H. J., Georgieva , I. Y., Nowak , G., et al. 2023, , 677, A12

    2023

  27. [35]

    M., et al

    Delrez , L., Santerne , A., Almenara , J. M., et al. 2016, , 458, 4025

    2016

  28. [36]

    Demangeon , O. D. S., Zapatero Osorio , M. R., Alibert , Y., et al. 2021, , 653, A41

    2021

  29. [37]

    F., S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., et al

    D \' az , R. F., S \'e gransan , D., Udry , S., et al. 2016, , 585, A134

    2016

  30. [38]

    E., Beichman , C

    Dodson-Robinson , S. E., Beichman , C. A., Carpenter , J. M., & Bryden , G. 2011, , 141, 11

    2011

  31. [39]

    & Tinetti , G

    Edwards , B. & Tinetti , G. 2022, , 164, 15

    2022

  32. [40]

    Eschen , Y. N. E., Bayliss , D., Wilson , T. G., et al. 2024, , 535, 1778

    2024

  33. [41]

    K., Ivanov , V

    Fermiano , V., Saito , R. K., Ivanov , V. D., et al. 2024, , 690, L7

    2024

  34. [42]

    2014, MOC - HEALPix Multi-Order Coverage map Version 1.0 , IVOA Recommendation 02 June 2014

    Fernique , P., Boch , T., Donaldson , T., et al. 2014, MOC - HEALPix Multi-Order Coverage map Version 1.0 , IVOA Recommendation 02 June 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    L., Hillier , D

    Flores , B. L., Hillier , D. J., & Dessart , L. 2023, , 518, 5001

    2023

  36. [44]

    E., Broeg , C., et al

    Fortier , A., Simon , A. E., Broeg , C., et al. 2024, , 687, A302

    2024

  37. [45]

    G., Jeffries , R

    Franciosini , E., Sacco , G. G., Jeffries , R. D., et al. 2018, , 616, L12

    2018

  38. [46]

    2022, , 659, A85

    Franciosini , E., Tognelli , E., Degl'Innocenti , S., et al. 2022, , 659, A85

    2022

  39. [47]

    H., & Stahl , O

    Fuhrmann , K., Chini , R., Hoffmeister , V. H., & Stahl , O. 2011, , 416, 391

    2011

  40. [48]

    2023 a , , 674, A34

    Gaia Collaboration , Arenou , F., Babusiaux , C., et al. 2023 a , , 674, A34

    2023

  41. [49]

    2023 b , , 674, A36

    Gaia Collaboration , De Ridder , J., Ripepi , V., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A36

    2023

  42. [50]

    P., Mather , J

    Gardner , J. P., Mather , J. C., Clampin , M., et al. 2006, , 123, 485

    2006

  43. [51]

    2023, , 674, A22

    Gavras , P., Rimoldini , L., Nienartowicz , K., et al. 2023, , 674, A22

    2023

  44. [52]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693

    Ge , J., Zhang , H., Zang , W., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.06693

    2022

  45. [53]

    P., Tremblay , P

    Gentile Fusillo , N. P., Tremblay , P. E., Cukanovaite , E., et al. 2021, , 508, 3877

    2021

  46. [54]

    D., Hedges , C., et al

    Giacalone , S., Dressing , C. D., Hedges , C., et al. 2022, , 163, 99

    2022

  47. [55]

    A., Barclay , T., Schlieder , J

    Gilbert , E. A., Barclay , T., Schlieder , J. E., et al. 2020, , 160, 116

    2020

  48. [56]

    A., Vanderburg , A., Rodriguez , J

    Gilbert , E. A., Vanderburg , A., Rodriguez , J. E., et al. 2023, , 944, L35

    2023

  49. [57]

    V., et al

    Goldberg , M., Fabrycky , D., Martin , D. V., et al. 2023, , 525, 4628

    2023

  50. [58]

    J., Catala , C., Samadi , R., et al

    Goupil , M. J., Catala , C., Samadi , R., et al. 2024, , 683, A78

    2024

  51. [59]

    M., Meunier , N., et al

    Grandjean , A., Lagrange , A. M., Meunier , N., et al. 2023, , 669, A12

    2023

  52. [60]

    M., Seager , S., Huang , C

    Guerrero , N. M., Seager , S., Huang , C. X., et al. 2021, , 254, 39

    2021

  53. [61]

    C., Marcaide , J

    Guirado , J. C., Marcaide , J. M., Mart \' -Vidal , I., et al. 2011, , 533, A106

    2011

  54. [62]

    D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al

    Haywood , R. D., Collier Cameron , A., Queloz , D., et al. 2014, , 443, 2517

    2014

  55. [63]

    N., et al

    Heitzmann , A., Zhou , G., Quinn , S. N., et al. 2023, , 165, 121

    2023

  56. [64]

    2022, , 665, A11

    Heller , R., Harre , J.-V., & Samadi , R. 2022, , 665, A11

    2022

  57. [65]

    & Aerts , C

    Hey , D. & Aerts , C. 2024, , 688, A93

    2024

  58. [66]

    J., Brahm , R., Jord \'a n , A., et al

    Hobson , M. J., Brahm , R., Jord \'a n , A., et al. 2021, , 161, 235

    2021

  59. [67]

    & Warren , W

    Hoffleit , D. & Warren , W. H., J. 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog, V/50

    1995

  60. [68]

    B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al

    Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398

    2014

  61. [69]

    Hunt , E. L. & Reffert , S. 2023, , 673, A114

    2023

  62. [70]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  63. [71]

    2024 a , , 681, A18

    Jannsen , N., De Ridder , J., Seynaeve , D., et al. 2024 a , , 681, A18

    2024

  64. [72]

    2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.10508

    Jannsen , N., Tkachenko , A., Royer , P., et al. 2024 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.10508

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    D., Jackson , R

    Jeffries , R. D., Jackson , R. J., Cottaar , M., et al. 2014, , 563, A94

    2014

  66. [74]

    2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Johns , M., McCarthy , P., Raybould , K., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8444, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV, ed. L. M. Stepp , R. Gilmozzi , & H. J. Hall , 84441H

    2012

  67. [75]

    2021 a , in Plato Mission Conference 2021

    Jontof-Hutter , D., Lissauer , J., & Rowe , J. 2021 a , in Plato Mission Conference 2021. Presentations and posters of the online PLATO Mission Conference 2021, 11

    2021

  68. [76]

    B., et al

    Jontof-Hutter , D., Wolfgang , A., Ford , E. B., et al. 2021 b , , 161, 246

    2021

  69. [77]

    F., Whitmire , D

    Kasting , J. F., Whitmire , D. P., & Reynolds , R. T. 1993, , 101, 108

    1993

  70. [78]

    B., Handler , G., Krisciunas , K., Poretti , E., & Zerbi , F

    Kaye , A. B., Handler , G., Krisciunas , K., Poretti , E., & Zerbi , F. M. 1999, , 111, 840

    1999

  71. [79]

    M., Rameau , J., Duch \^e ne , G., et al

    Konopacky , Q. M., Rameau , J., Duch \^e ne , G., et al. 2016, , 829, L4

    2016

  72. [80]

    B., Orosz , J

    Kostov , V. B., Orosz , J. A., Feinstein , A. D., et al. 2020, , 159, 253

    2020

  73. [81]

    B., Schlieder , J

    Kostov , V. B., Schlieder , J. E., Barclay , T., et al. 2019, , 158, 32

    2019

  74. [82]

    C., Wood , P

    Kotoneva , E., Innanen , K., Dawson , P. C., Wood , P. R., & De Robertis , M. M. 2005, , 438, 957

    2005

  75. [83]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 7

    Kunimoto , M., Bryson , S., Daylan , T., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 7

    2023

  76. [84]

    M., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Bonnefoy , M., Chauvin , G., et al. 2010, Science, 329, 57

    2010

  77. [85]

    M., Meunier , N., Rubini , P., et al

    Lagrange , A. M., Meunier , N., Rubini , P., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 1135

    2019

  78. [86]

    F., Boisse , I., Bouchy , F., Bonomo , A

    Lanza , A. F., Boisse , I., Bouchy , F., Bonomo , A. S., & Moutou , C. 2011, , 533, A44

    2011

  79. [87]

    R., et al

    Li , G., Van Reeth , T., Bedding , T. R., et al. 2020, , 491, 3586

    2020

  80. [88]

    C., Mel \'e ndez , J., et al

    Lorenzo-Oliveira , D., Freitas , F. C., Mel \'e ndez , J., et al. 2018, , 619, A73

    2018

  81. [89]

    L., Burgasser , A

    Luhman , K. L., Burgasser , A. J., & Bochanski , J. J. 2011, , 730, L9

    2011

  82. [90]

    2020, , 70, 181

    Maciejewski , G. 2020, , 70, 181

    2020

  83. [91]

    2024, , 528, 2851

    Magliano , C., Covone , G., Nascimbeni , V., et al. 2024, , 528, 2851

    2024

  84. [92]

    2022, , 516, 4432

    Mantovan , G., Montalto , M., Piotto , G., et al. 2022, , 516, 4432

    2022

  85. [93]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Marconi , A., Abreu , M., Adibekyan , V., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12184, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IX, ed. C. J. Evans , J. J. Bryant , & K. Motohara , 1218424

    2022

  86. [94]

    Marcussen , M. L. & Albrecht , S. H. 2022, , 933, 227

    2022

  87. [95]

    2023, , 674, A21

    Marton , G., \'A brah \'a m , P., Rimoldini , L., et al. 2023, , 674, A21

    2023

  88. [96]

    2023, , 677, A133

    Matuszewski , F., Nettelmann , N., Cabrera , J., B \"o rner , A., & Rauer , H. 2023, , 677, A133

    2023

  89. [97]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor , M., Pepe , F., Queloz , D., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  90. [98]

    2009, , 493, 639

    Mayor , M., Udry , S., Lovis , C., et al. 2009, , 493, 639

    2009

  91. [99]

    2016, , 589, A75

    Mazeh , T., Holczer , T., & Faigler , S. 2016, , 589, A75

    2016

  92. [100]

    Mombarg , J. S. G., Aerts , C., Van Reeth , T., & Hey , D. 2024, , 691, A131

    2024

  93. [101]

    2020, , 498, 1726

    Montalto , M., Borsato , L., Granata , V., et al. 2020, , 498, 1726

    2020

  94. [102]

    M., et al

    Montalto , M., Piotto , G., Marrese , P. M., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A98

    2021

  95. [103]

    2020, , 495, 4924

    Nardiello , D., Piotto , G., Deleuil , M., et al. 2020, , 495, 4924

    2020

  96. [104]

    2022, , 658, A31

    Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., B \"o rner , A., et al. 2022, , 658, A31

    2022

  97. [105]

    2016, , 463, 4210

    Nascimbeni , V., Piotto , G., Ortolani , S., et al. 2016, , 463, 4210

    2016

  98. [106]

    R., Mann , A

    Newton , E. R., Mann , A. W., Kraus , A. L., et al. 2021, , 161, 65

    2021

  99. [107]

    H., White , R

    Nisak , A. H., White , R. J., Yep , A., et al. 2022, , 163, 278

    2022

  100. [108]

    W., Tremblay , P

    O'Brien , M. W., Tremblay , P. E., Gentile Fusillo , N. P., et al. 2023, , 518, 3055

    2023

  101. [109]

    J., Cale , B., et al

    Osborn , A., Armstrong , D. J., Cale , B., et al. 2021, , 507, 2782

    2021

  102. [110]

    D., Launhardt , R., Ostermann , R., et al

    Pearce , T. D., Launhardt , R., Ostermann , R., et al. 2022, , 659, A135

    2022

  103. [111]

    Pearson , K. A. 2019, , 158, 243

    2019

  104. [112]

    Pecaut , M. J. & Mamajek , E. E. 2013, , 208, 9

    2013

  105. [113]

    G., Aerts , C., P \'a pics , P

    Pedersen , M. G., Aerts , C., P \'a pics , P. I., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 715

    2021

  106. [114]

    2021, , 645, A96

    Pepe , F., Cristiani , S., Rebolo , R., et al. 2021, , 645, A96

    2021

  107. [115]

    \'A ., & Lindegren , L

    Perryman , M., Hartman , J., Bakos , G. \'A ., & Lindegren , L. 2014, , 797, 14

    2014

  108. [116]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Pertenais , M., Ammler-von Eiff , M., Burresi , M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12180, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. L. E. Coyle , S. Matsuura , & M. ...

    2022

  109. [117]

    2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Pertenais , M., Cabrera , J., Paproth , C., et al. 2021, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11852, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 118524Y

    2021

  110. [118]

    Pope , B. J. S., White , T. R., Farr , W. M., et al. 2019, , 245, 8

    2019

  111. [119]

    2016, Here Be Dragons: Characterization of ACS/WFC Scattered Light Anomalies , Instrument Science Report ACS 2016-6, 16 pages

    Porterfield , B., Coe , D., Gonzaga , S., Anderson , J., & Grogin , N. 2016, Here Be Dragons: Characterization of ACS/WFC Scattered Light Anomalies , Instrument Science Report ACS 2016-6, 16 pages

    2016

  112. [120]

    B., Liu , L., Zhu , L

    Qian , S. B., Liu , L., Zhu , L. Y., et al. 2012, , 422, L24

    2012

  113. [121]

    2018, , 612, A99

    Randich , S., Tognelli , E., Jackson , R., et al. 2018, , 612, A99

    2018

  114. [122]

    2023, , 523, 5086

    Rattanamala , R., Awiphan , S., Komonjinda , S., et al. 2023, , 523, 5086

    2023

  115. [123]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer , H., Aerts , C., Cabrera , J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  116. [124]

    2021, , 650, A201

    Reyl \'e , C., Jardine , K., Fouqu \'e , P., et al. 2021, , 650, A201

    2021

  117. [125]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003

    2015

  118. [126]

    2015, , 805, L22

    Robertson , P., Roy , A., & Mahadevan , S. 2015, , 805, L22

    2015

  119. [127]

    S., Rodriguez , J

    Rodr \' guez Mart \' nez , R., Gaudi , B. S., Rodriguez , J. E., et al. 2020, , 160, 111

    2020

  120. [128]

    2021, , 647, A49

    Saffe , C., Miquelarena , P., Alacoria , J., et al. 2021, , 647, A49

    2021

  121. [129]

    F., S \'e gransan , D., et al

    Sahlmann , J., Lazorenko , P. F., S \'e gransan , D., et al. 2013, , 556, A133

    2013

  122. [130]

    2022, , 517, 5835

    Sanderson , H., Bonsor , A., & Mustill , A. 2022, , 517, 5835

    2022

  123. [131]

    Schmitt , J. H. M. M., Ioannidis , P., Robrade , J., Czesla , S., & Schneider , P. C. 2019, , 628, A79

    2019

  124. [132]

    2021, , 29, 4

    Serenelli , A., Weiss , A., Aerts , C., et al. 2021, , 29, 4

    2021

  125. [133]

    M., Gandolfi , D., Mustill , A

    Serrano , L. M., Gandolfi , D., Mustill , A. J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 736

    2022

  126. [134]

    2017, , 129, 072001

    Shporer , A. 2017, , 129, 072001

    2017

  127. [135]

    L., Barclay , T., Schlieder , J

    Silverstein , M. L., Barclay , T., Schlieder , J. E., et al. 2024, , 167, 255

    2024

  128. [136]

    2019, , 486, 5867

    Singh , V., Scandariato , G., & Pagano , I. 2019, , 486, 5867

    2019

  129. [137]

    2011, , 417, 2166

    Southworth , J. 2011, , 417, 2166

    2011

  130. [138]

    2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Southworth , J. 2015, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 496, Living Together: Planets, Host Stars and Binaries, ed. S. M. Rucinski , G. Torres , & M. Zejda , 164

    2015

  131. [139]

    G., et al

    Sozzetti , A., Giacobbe , P., Lattanzi , M. G., et al. 2014, , 437, 497

    2014

  132. [140]

    G., & Pinamonti , M

    Sozzetti , A., Giacobbe , P., Lattanzi , M. G., & Pinamonti , M. 2023, , 520, 1748

    2023

  133. [141]

    R., Sairam , L., Martin , D

    Standing , M. R., Sairam , L., Martin , D. V., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 702

    2023

  134. [142]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Paegert , M., et al. 2019, , 158, 138

    2019

  135. [143]

    G., Oelkers , R

    Stassun , K. G., Oelkers , R. J., Pepper , J., et al. 2018, , 156, 102

    2018

  136. [144]

    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

  137. [145]

    Taylor , M. B. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel , C. Arviset , D. Ponz , & S. Enrique , 666

    2006

  138. [146]

    X., Wolfgang , A., et al

    Teske , J., Wang , S. X., Wolfgang , A., et al. 2021, , 256, 33

    2021

  139. [147]

    2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    Tinetti , G., Drossart , P., Eccleston , P., et al. 2018, Experimental Astronomy, 46, 135

    2018

  140. [148]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.04824

    Tinetti , G., Eccleston , P., Haswell , C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.04824

    2021

  141. [149]

    2019, , 622, L7

    Trifonov , T., Rybizki , J., & K \"u rster , M. 2019, , 622, L7

    2019

  142. [150]

    2013, , 549, A48

    Tuomi , M., Anglada-Escud \'e , G., Gerlach , E., et al. 2013, , 549, A48

    2013

  143. [151]

    N., Vanderburg , A., et al

    Vach , S., Quinn , S. N., Vanderburg , A., et al. 2022, , 164, 71

    2022

  144. [152]

    2022, , 668, A110

    Vaulato , V., Nascimbeni , V., & Piotto , G. 2022, , 668, A110

    2022

  145. [153]

    C., & Stassun , K

    Vejar , G., Schuler , S. C., & Stassun , K. G. 2021, , 919, 100

    2021

  146. [154]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Verhoeve , P., Prod'homme , T., Oosterbroek , T., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9915, High Energy, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy VII, ed. A. D. Holland & J. Beletic , 99150Z

    2016

  147. [155]

    L., Henden , A

    Watson , C. L., Henden , A. A., & Price , A. 2006, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, 25, 47

    2006

  148. [156]

    2000, , 143, 9

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9

    2000

  149. [157]

    G., Gillen , E., Bayliss , D., et al

    West , R. G., Gillen , E., Bayliss , D., et al. 2019, , 486, 5094

    2019

  150. [158]

    R., Pope , B

    White , T. R., Pope , B. J. S., Antoci , V., et al. 2017, , 471, 2882

    2017

  151. [159]

    P., Lothringer , J

    Wilson , J., Gibson , N. P., Lothringer , J. D., et al. 2021, , 503, 4787

    2021

  152. [160]

    W., Winn , J

    Yee , S. W., Winn , J. N., Hartman , J. D., et al. 2023, , 265, 1

    2023

  153. [161]

    V., Launhardt , R., M \"u ller , A., et al

    Zakhozhay , O. V., Launhardt , R., M \"u ller , A., et al. 2022, , 667, A63

    2022

  154. [162]

    \'A ., Bayliss , D., et al

    Zhou , G., Bakos , G. \'A ., Bayliss , D., et al. 2019, , 157, 31

    2019

  155. [163]

    Zuckerman , B., Song , I., & Bessell , M. S. 2004, , 613, L65

    2004

  156. [164]

    2024, in EAS2024, 1836

    Zwintz , K. 2024, in EAS2024, 1836

    2024

Pith tools

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