Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 51 references

On variability of DDO68-V1, a unique extremely metal-poor LBV

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 An extremely metal-poor star in DDO68 confirms the LBV stage with a giant eruption and S Doradus-type swings of 3.0-3.5 mag.

desk verdict DDO68-V1 looks like a genuine low-metallicity LBV with a well-bracketed giant eruption, but the paper's headline post-eruption amplitude relies on an iteratively chosen background that the authors themselves show is uncertain by roughly half a magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16810 v1 pith:OTL6XREY submitted 2025-01-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

S.A. Pustilnik , Y.A. Perepelitsyna This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords luminousbluevariableDDO68-V1DDO68extremelymetal-poorgalaxiesSDoradusvariabilitygianteruptionmassivestarevolutionaperturephotometry
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 reconstructs 36 years of brightness changes for DDO68-V1, a Luminous Blue Variable star sitting in an H II region whose gas has roughly one-fortieth the Sun's metal content ($Z \sim Z_\odot/40$). Using ground-based aperture photometry of the host knot together with two Hubble Space Telescope epochs, the authors derive a $V$-band lightcurve from 1988 to 2023. They show the star underwent a giant eruption that peaked near $M_V \sim -10.8$ during 2009-2011, then faded into a deep minimum near $M_V \sim -5.9$ in December 2017. After the eruption the star displayed S Doradus-type swings of about 3.0-3.5 magnitudes on a ~1-1.5 year timescale, roughly twice the amplitude seen in typical LBVs. If correct, DDO68-V1 is the first confirmed LBV at this extremely low metallicity, offering a rare observational anchor for models of massive-star evolution and mass loss in the early-Universe-like regime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing procedure is background-subtracted aperture photometry of the H II region Knot 3. The total light in a 2.5-arcsec aperture is modelled as a constant underlying component (H II region plus unresolved stars) plus the variable LBV and a close B-supergiant neighbour; the constant level $V_{\rm back}=20.23$--$20.24$ mag is found iteratively by requiring the faintest ground-based minima to stay non-negative after subtracting the background and the neighbour, and is checked against HST measurements. The HST analysis uses two-Gaussian fits to one-dimensional scans to separate the LBV from the B supergiant 0.11 arcsec away and to tie the December 2017 position to the bright May 2010 epoch.

What would settle it

Measure the true background level inside the 2.5-arcsec aperture directly from fully resolved high-resolution images that separate the LBV, the B supergiant, and all other stars; if the true background differs from $V_{\rm back}=20.23$--$20.24$ mag by more than about 0.02-0.05 mag, the derived LBV minima shift by half a magnitude or more and the claimed 3.0-3.5 mag post-eruption amplitude collapses. A dense two-week-cadence campaign that catches a minimum only ~1-2 mag below adjacent maxima would likewise falsify the amplitude claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that DDO68-V1 is a bona fide LBV at $Z \sim Z_\odot/40$ whose $V$-band lightcurve spans the full range $M_V = [-5.9, -10.8]$ mag. Direct HST measurements anchor the extremes: in May 2010, near the giant-eruption peak, the star had $V = 20.05$ ($M_V \sim -10.8$), while in December 2017 it had $V = 25.00$ ($M_V \sim -5.9$), an apparent amplitude of at least 5 mag. The ground-based lightcurve, after subtracting an iteratively chosen constant background of $V_{\rm back}=20.23$--$20.24$ mag for the underlying H II region and unresolved stars, shows the eruption lasted about 6.5 years and that the post-eruption phase (2015-2023) resembles S Doradus variability with five short minima, each about 3.0-3.5 mag below adjacent maxima, on fall/rise times of ~0.2-1 year. The paper also argues that the integrated $B-V$ colour of Knot 3 reddens as the LBV brightens, consistent with cooling of an inflated photosphere, while $V-R$ becomes bluer, plausibly due to a varying H-$\alpha$ contribution.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the light of the H II region and unresolved stars inside the 2.5-arcsec aperture is constant and equal to $V_{\rm back}=20.23$--$20.24$ mag, a level chosen by iteration rather than measured directly, and every minimum depth in the lightcurve, including the claimed 3.0-3.5 mag swings, depends on this value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DDO68-V1 becomes the first securely identified LBV at roughly one-fortieth solar metallicity, giving low-metallicity massive-star models a real object that shows both a giant eruption and S Doradus-type variability.
  • The large post-eruption amplitude (3.0-3.5 mag versus the typical 1-2 mag) implies either a metallicity dependence of LBV variability or an enhanced-amplitude post-eruption phase; both predictions can be tested on other LBVs.
  • The minima are short (each seen in a single measurement, duration less than about 0.5 year), so future monitoring needs a cadence of roughly two weeks or better to resolve them and test periodicity.
  • A recovered period near ~1 year or ~200 days would point to binary interactions rather than purely photospheric S Dor cycles, following the template of the NGC3432 SN impostor.
  • The demonstrated feasibility with 1-2 m class telescopes means the object can be monitored from the ground, and spectroscopy becomes possible at the maxima where the star reaches $V \lesssim 22$ mag.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: a direct measurement of the background level in Knot 3 from fully resolved HST photometry would independently test the 3.0-3.5 mag amplitude, since changing the assumed background by 0.02-0.05 mag shifts the derived minima by up to half a magnitude.
  • Beyond the paper: if the amplitude-metallicity link is real, other extremely metal-poor star-forming galaxies should host LBVs with comparably large S Dor swings; a targeted monitoring survey could find them.
  • Beyond the paper: the V-R bluening at maxima predicts a measurable anti-correlation between H-alpha line strength and continuum brightness, testable with narrowband time-series photometry.
  • Beyond the paper: the sparse pre-2015 sampling leaves the eruption onset uncertain; archival plate searches could place a tighter upper bound on the start and on the total energy of the giant eruption.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an optical variability study of DDO68-V1, a candidate LBV at extremely low metallicity (Z ~ Zsun/40) in the galaxy DDO68. The authors combine ground-based aperture photometry of the HII region Knot 3 (1988–2023) with HST images from May 2010 and December 2017. By subtracting an adopted constant background (V_back = 20.23–20.24 mag) and the light of a close B supergiant, they derive a V-band lightcurve for the LBV. They report an absolute magnitude range M_V = [-5.9, -10.8] mag, a giant eruption peaking near mid-2010, and quasi-regular S Doradus-like variations after 2015 with amplitudes of about 3.0–3.5 mag on timescales of ~1–1.5 years. They also discuss color variations of Knot 3 and compare with other LBVs.

Significance. If the results hold, DDO68-V1 would be the first confirmed LBV at Z ~ Zsun/40 and would provide observational constraints on massive-star evolution at extremely low metallicity. The direct HST detections of the bright (V = 20.05 in 2010) and faint (V = 25.00 in 2017) states tightly bracket the giant eruption and secure the M_V range of -5.9 to -10.8. The paper is transparent about the background-subtraction procedure and provides full photometric tables. However, the post-eruption amplitude claim (δV > 3.0–3.5 mag) is not robust because the background level is not independently measured and the same HST minimum is used both to calibrate the background and to define the amplitude. The quantitative headline result therefore requires revision or additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and Appendix B] The amplitude of the post-eruption S Dor-like variations is derived using a background level V_back = 20.23–20.24 mag that is chosen iteratively so that the ground-based minima are consistent with the single HST minimum at 2017 December (V = 25.00 ± 0.12). The same HST point is then the deepest point used to define the amplitude of 3.0–3.5 mag. This is a circular procedure for the amplitude claim. The paper itself notes in Appendix B that adopting V_back = 20.25 would shift all ground minima about 0.5 mag brighter, which would reduce the claimed amplitude to ~2.5–3.0 mag and make the HST point an outlier. Therefore the statement in the abstract and in Sect. 5 that the variations show an 'unusually large amplitude of δV > 3.0–3.5 mag' is not currently supported unless the background is independently determined (e.g., from the HST images themselves) or the conclusion is explicitly rephrased as conditional on the adopted background.
  2. [Table C.2] The minima that set the amplitude are mostly single-epoch measurements with large asymmetric errors; for example, V(LBV) = 25.745 +1.34/−1.34 on 2005-01-12 and V(LBV) = 25.745 +2.70/−0.70 on 2020-11-11. These errors are comparable to the claimed amplitude, and the depth of the 2005 minimum is sensitive to the adopted background in the same way as the later minima. The conclusion in Sect. 5, item 3, should be phrased with a quantitative uncertainty that includes the error propagation from the background uncertainty, not just the photometric errors of the individual points.
  3. [Appendix C and Fig. C.1] The color–magnitude trends are presented as supporting evidence for S Doradus-type behavior, but the model curves (red lines) are anchored to the maximum and minimum V(LBV) values that come from the same background-subtracted lightcurve. The color variations of the integrated Knot 3 light are therefore not an independent test of the variability amplitude. The authors should state this explicitly and, if possible, show the color trends for V_back = 20.25 to demonstrate whether the reddening trend survives the plausible background range.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sect. 1] The distance to DDO68 is quoted as '12.75 kpc'; this should be '12.75 Mpc' (or the appropriate value with uncertainty).
  2. [Sect. 2.2] The acronym 'ASC' should be 'ACS' (Advanced Camera for Surveys).
  3. [Abstract and Sect. 5] In the abstract, 'delta_V > 3.0-3.5mag' should be typeset as 'δV ≳ 3.0–3.5 mag' with a space and consistent symbol; the same applies to the conclusion section.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'in-deep study' should be 'in-depth study'.
  5. [Fig. B.1 caption] The caption states that large errors near the minima are artificially reduced to keep the frame compact; this should also be marked in the figure itself (e.g., with open symbols) so that readers are not misled about the true uncertainties.
  6. [Appendix B] The paper relies heavily on Pustilnik et al. (2024) for the ground-based photometry; a short summary of the calibration and aperture-correction procedure in Appendix B would make the present Letter more self-contained.
  7. [Appendix A] The DOLPHOT systematic shift of 0.10–0.15 mag is discussed; please state whether this shift is corrected in the final adopted HST photometry or only used as justification for the alternative local-standard method.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed 3.0–3.5 mag post-eruption S Dor amplitude is partly produced by the iteratively chosen background Vback; the single independent HST minimum keeps the paper from being fully circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B; Sect. 3.2; Sect. 5 Conclusion 3; Fig. B.1]
    "The level of Vback = 20.23–20.24 mag is further supported by the light of the LBV, derived directly on the HST images at epoch of December 2017, VLBV = 25.00 mag. This level appears close to several other estimates near the bottom of the LBV lightcurve. If we adopt the background level at the fainter brightness, for example, Vback = 20.25, all the ground-based minima will appear substantially brighter, so that the HST V-magnitude of the LBV becomes the only faintest point in the whole lightcurve."

    V(LBV) is computed as V(Knot 3) − Vback − V(BSG), so every ground-based minimum depth is a direct function of the fitted constant Vback. The paper's headline amplitude δV > 3.0–3.5 mag is read from five post-2015 minima, including the single HST point. Appendix B chooses Vback = 20.23–20.24 partly to make those ground minima comparable to the HST minimum at V = 25.00, and the same HST point is then cited as support for the adopted minima. The paper's own sensitivity test shows that Vback = 20.25 shifts all ground minima upward by about half a magnitude, cutting the amplitude to roughly 2.5–3.0 mag and leaving the HST point as the only deep minimum.

full rationale

The giant eruption and the 2010 peak (V = 20.05, MV ≈ −10.8) rest on independent HST photometry and spectra, and the single 2017 HST minimum (V = 25.00 ± 0.12) directly implies a large excursion against the ground-based maxima at V ≈ 21.7–22.0, so this is not a fully circular paper. The circular element is confined to the post-eruption 'regular' S Dor amplitude claim: the multiple minima that establish the 3.0–3.5 mag amplitude are residuals produced by an iteratively chosen constant background, and the chosen value is validated by making the single HST minimum look typical rather than an outlier. The paper honestly discloses this sensitivity in Appendix B, but transparency does not remove the fact that a central quantitative conclusion is partly constructed from its input. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; the self-citations (Pustilnik et al. 2005, 2008, 2017, 2024) carry earlier observational data rather than unverified premises.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central lightcurve depends on a constant background level V_back that is fitted iteratively, on an adopted extinction that maps line-based C(H_beta) measurements onto stellar continua, and on an adopted TRGB distance. The assumption that all Knot 3 variability comes from the LBV is explicit. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • V_back = 20.23-20.24 mag (V band)
    Constant flux of HII region plus unresolved stars in the 2.5 arcsec aperture subtracted from Knot 3 to isolate the LBV. Determined iteratively from the faintest Knot 3 magnitudes and from requiring consistency with the HST minimum of V=25.0 in Dec 2017; small changes (0.01-0.02 mag) shift the minima and hence the claimed 3-3.5 mag amplitude (Appendix B).
  • Internal extinction E(B-V) = 0.12 mag (A_V = 0.36)
    Adopted from the average of three independent C(H_beta) estimates in earlier spectra (Pustilnik et al. 2005; Annibali et al. 2019b). Applied to all stars in Knot 3; directly shifts absolute magnitudes by -0.36 mag and colors by E(V-I)=0.165. An alternative extinction would shift the M_V range [-5.9, -10.8].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All visible variability of the HII region Knot 3 is due to the variable light of DDO68-V1.
    Stated in Sect. 3.2 and Appendix B; this is the basis for subtracting a constant background from the total flux to derive the LBV lightcurve.
  • domain assumption The underlying HII region and unresolved stars within the 2.5 arcsec aperture are non-variable across 36 years.
    Required for treating V_back as a constant; the paper notes its level is defined by the faintest observed Knot 3 magnitudes (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption The neighbor B-supergiant at 0.11 arcsec from the LBV has constant V=23.99 mag and can be subtracted from the pair.
    Based on two-Gauss decomposition of the 2017 HST image (Appendix A); no variability check for this star is available at other epochs.
  • domain assumption The extinction derived from emission-line C(H_beta) ratios applies to the stellar continua in Knot 3.
    Stated in Appendix A: the dust affecting relative emission-line fluxes is assumed to affect the total emission of Knot 3 and the emission of all stars in this region.
  • domain assumption Distance to DDO68 is 12.75 Mpc from TRGB.
    Adopted from Makarov et al. (2017); sets the absolute magnitude scale for M_V values; a different distance would rescale the claimed range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On variability of DDO68-V1, a unique extremely metal-poor LBV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OTL6XREY

@misc{pith2026250116810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On variability of DDO68-V1, a unique extremely metal-poor LBV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OTL6XREY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16810}
}
read the original abstract

DDO68-V1 is a Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) star in the eXtremely Metal-Poor (XMP) galaxy DDO68. It resides in the HII region with 12+log(O/H)~7.1 dex, or Z ~ Zo/40. Since DDO68-V1 is the only known LBV with a so low initial metallicity, its in-deep study can give the hints for understanding the LBV evolutionary stage and the nature of their powerful and highly variable mass loss in the very low-metallicity regime. Our goal is to study the optical variability of DDO68-V1 during the last 36 years, with the emphasis on the period of the last 8 years, after the LBV giant eruption. We use our published results of monitoring in B, V, R bands of the total flux of HII region 'Knot 3', containing the LBV, along with photometry of the archive Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images, obtained in May 2010 and December 2017. This data allow us to disentangle the variable light of DDO68-V1 and that of the underlying HII region. From all available photometry of Knot 3, we derive the V-band lightcurve of DDO68-V1 since 1988, with a higher cadence during the years 2015-2023, when the lightcurve resembles that of S Doradus. The new data reveal the full range of DDO68-V1 absolute magnitudes M_V of [-5.9, --10.8] mag. The LBV variations after the fading of the 'giant eruption' show the unusually large amplitude of delta_V > 3.0-3.5mag on the time-scale of ~1-1.5 year. The apparent changes of the integrated B-V colour of Knot 3 are consistent with the expected colour variations of the LBV in course of the S Doradus 'normal eruptions'. These data, along with spectra of DDO68-V1, demonstrate the need for a higher-cadence photometry of DDO68-V1, in order to probe the possible periodicity in its lightcurve and binarity of the object.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abazajian K.N., et al., 2009, ApJS, 182, 543

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Aghakhanloo M., Smith N., Milne P., et al., 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1941

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1902

    Allan A.P., Groh J.H., Mehner A., Smith N., Boian I., Farrel E.J., Andrews J.E. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1902

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Annibali F., Bellazzini M., Correnti M., Sacchi E., Tosi M., Cignioni M., Aloisi A., et al., 2019a, ApJ, 883:19 (12pp)

    work page

  5. [5]

    Annibali F., La Torre V., Tosi M., et al., 2019b, MNRAS, 482, 3892

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bomans D.J., and Weis K., 2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Li\'ege, 80, 341

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Chen Y., Bressan A., Girardi L., Marigo P., Kong X., Lanza A., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    M.Heydary-Malayeri, Ph.Stee & J.-P

    Crowther P., 2004, in Evolution of Massive Stars, Mass Loss and Winds, ed. M.Heydary-Malayeri, Ph.Stee & J.-P. Zahn, EAS Publications Series, v.13, 119

    work page 2004

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Drissen L., Crowther P.A., Smith L.J., Robert C., Roy J.-R., Hillier D.J., 2001, ApJ, 546, 481

    2001

  2. [10]

    Ducati J.R., Bevilacqua C.M., Rembold S.B., Ribeiro D., 2001, ApJ, 558, 309

    2001

  3. [11]

    Ekta, Chengalur J.N., Pustilnik S.A., 2008, , 391, 881

    2008

  4. [12]

    Eldridge J.J., Stanway E.E., 2022, ARAA, 60, 455

    2022

  5. [13]

    et al., 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51:887-911

    Garcia M., Evans C.J., Bestenlehner J.M. et al., 2021, Experimental Astronomy, 51:887-911

    2021

  6. [14]

    Gr\"afener G., Grin N.J., Sander A.A.C., Vink J.S., 2021, A&A, 647, A99

    Grassitelli L., Langer N., Mackey J. Gr\"afener G., Grin N.J., Sander A.A.C., Vink J.S., 2021, A&A, 647, A99

    2021

  7. [15]

    Gull M., Weisz D.R., Senchyna P., et al., 2022, ApJ, 941, 206

    2022

  8. [16]

    Guseva N.G., Thuan T.X., Izotov Y.I., 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4298

    2022

  9. [17]

    Humphreys R.M., & Davidson K., 1994, PASP, 106, 1025

    1994

  10. [18]

    Izotov Y.I., Thuan T.X., 2007, , 665, 1115

    2007

  11. [19]

    Izotov Y.I., Thuan T.X., 2009, , 690, 1797

    2009

  12. [20]

    Kniazev A.Y., Gvaramadze V.V., Berdnikov L.N., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3068

    2016

  13. [21]

    Lorenzo M., Garcia M., Najarro F., Herrero A., Cervi\ no M., Castro N., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4164

    2022

  14. [22]

    2005 , https://www.sdss3.org/dr8/algorithms/ \ .php\#Lupton2005

    Lupton R., et al. 2005 , https://www.sdss3.org/dr8/algorithms/ \ .php\#Lupton2005

    2005

  15. [23]

    Mahy L., Lanthermann C., Hutsem\' e kers D., et al., 2022, A&A, 657, id.A4, 15pp

    2022

  16. [24]

    Makarov D.I., Makarova L.N., Pustilnik S.A., Borisov S.B., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 556

    2017

  17. [25]

    Pastorello A., Boticella M.T., Trundle C., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 181

    2010

  18. [26]

    Petit V., Drissen L., Crowther P.A., 2006, AJ, 132, 1756

    2006

  19. [27]

    Petrov B., Vink Y., Gr\"afener G., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 1999-2011

    2016

  20. [28]

    Polcaro V.F., Maryeva O., Nesci R., et al., 2016, AJ, 151, 149

    2016

  21. [29]

    Pustilnik S.A., Tepliakova A.L., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 1188

    2011

  22. [30]

    Pustilnik S., Kniazev A., Pramskij A., 2005, , 443, 91

    2005

  23. [31]

    Pustilnik S.A., Tepliakova A.L., Kniazev A.Y., Burenkov A.N., 2008, MNRAS Lett., 388, L24

    2008

  24. [32]

    Pustilnik S.A., Makarova L.N., Perepelitsyna Y.A., Moiseev A.V., Makarov D.I., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4985

    2017

  25. [33]

    2024, Astrophys.Bull., 79, 594 (arXiv:2411.07393)

    Pustilnik S.A., Perepelitsyna Y.A., Vinokurov A.S., et al. 2024, Astrophys.Bull., 79, 594 (arXiv:2411.07393)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2016, ApJ, 830, 3

    Sacchi E., Annibali F., Cignoni M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 830, 3

    2016

  27. [35]

    Sanyal D., Langer N., Szecsi D., Yoon S.-C., Grassitelli L., 2017, A&A, 597, A71

    2017

  28. [36]

    Schlafly E.F., & Finkbeiner D.P., 2011, ApJ, 737, article id. 103

    2011

  29. [37]

    Smith N., 2014, ARAA, 52, 487

    2014

  30. [38]

    Smith N., 2017, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 375, 20160268

    2017

  31. [39]

    Smith N., & Owocki S.P., 2006, ApJ, 645, L45

    2006

  32. [40]

    Smith N., Andrews J.E., Mauerhan J.C., Zheng W.K., Filippenko A.V., Graham M.L., Milne P., 2016, MNRAS, 455, 3546

    2016

  33. [41]

    Smith N., Aghakhanloo M., Murphy J.W., Drout M.R., Stassun K.G., Groh J.H., 2019, MNRAS, 488, 1760

    2019

  34. [42]

    Smith N., Andrews J., Moe M., et al., 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5897

    2020

  35. [43]

    Spoon H.W.W., de Koter A., Sterken C., Lamers H.J., Stahl O., 1994, A&AS, 106, 141

    1994

  36. [44]

    Sterken C., 2003, in ASP Conference Series, 292, 437

    2003

  37. [45]

    Szecsi D., Langer N., Yoon S.-C., Debashis S., de Mink S., Evans C.J., Dermine T., 2015, A&A, 581, A15

    2015

  38. [46]

    Vink J.S., 2022, ARAA, 60, 203

    2022

  39. [47]

    Vink J., Mehner A., Crowther P., et al., 2023, A&A, 675, A154

    2023

  40. [48]

    Walborn N., Stahl O., Carmen R., et al., 2008, ApJ, 683, L33

    2008

  41. [49]

    Weis K., Bomans D.J., 2020, Galaxies, 8, 20

    2020

  42. [50]

    Wegner W., 1994, MNRAS, 270, 279

    1994

  43. [51]

    2014, ApJS, 215, 9

    Williams B.F., Lang D., Dalcanton J.J., et al. 2014, ApJS, 215, 9

    2014

Pith tools

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