Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

A multi-frequency, multi-epoch radio continuum study of the Quintuplet cluster with the Very Large Array

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Quintuplet cluster's radio-bright massive stars may be binaries at a rate of $(75\pm22)\%$, once ambiguous sources are included.

desk verdict Solid catalogue and variability study; the 75% multiplicity fraction is an artifact of counting ambiguous sources and the paper's arithmetic slips. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21617 v1 pith:PQZ6JZ7W submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.GA

M. Cano-González , R. Schödel , A. Alberdi , J. Moldón , M. Pérez-Torres , F. Najarro , A.T. Gallego-Calvente This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords radiocontinuumQuintupletclustermassivestarsWolf-Rayetcolliding-windbinariesspectralindicesvariabilityGalacticCentre
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 claims that a nine-epoch, two-band Very Large Array campaign produces the deepest and most complete radio census of the Quintuplet cluster, detecting 41 radio point sources matched to infrared stellar members. From the spectral indices and variability of the 28 sources bright enough to measure, the authors classify 11 as colliding-wind binary candidates, 7 as purely thermal emitters, and 10 as ambiguous. If the ambiguous sources are counted as binary candidates, the radio-traced multiplicity fraction is $(75\pm22)\%$; counting only confident candidates gives $(29\pm14)\%$. Around 60% of the radio stars vary on timescales of months to years. A high binary fraction among massive post-main-sequence stars would reshape how the most massive stars in the Galactic Centre evolve and lose mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the radio spectral index $\alpha$, defined by $S_\nu\propto\nu^\alpha$, obtained from multi-band and sub-band flux fits. Thermal stellar winds produce $\alpha\approx0.6$, while non-thermal synchrotron emission from a colliding-wind region gives $\alpha\lesssim0$, so flat-to-negative indices, negative indices with small uncertainties, or strong flux and spectral-index variability are read as binary indicators. The same free-free wind formalism supplies clumping-scaled mass-loss rates $\dot{M}\sqrt{f_{\rm cl}}$, and the binary classification is cross-checked with X-ray counterparts and proper-motion cluster membership.

What would settle it

Multi-epoch radial-velocity spectroscopy of the ten ambiguous radio stars would settle the claim: if most show no orbital velocity variations, the 75% multiplicity fraction fails, while if most vary, it is confirmed. A simpler test is deeper multi-frequency radio imaging that determines each ambiguous source's spectral index with $\sigma_\alpha\lesssim0.2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that radio continuum emission at 4-12 GHz, observed across 2016-2022, reveals a population of 41 radio stars in the Quintuplet cluster, of which roughly 60% vary on timescales of months to years. For the 28 sources with measured spectral indices, the authors infer that most are colliding-wind binaries once ambiguous cases are included: they report a multiplicity fraction of $(75\pm22)\%$ including ambiguous sources and $(29\pm14)\%$ counting only confident candidates. Thermal sources, identified by $\alpha\gtrsim0.6$, yield clumping-scaled mass-loss upper limits of about $1$-$6\times10^{-5}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, consistent with Wolf-Rayet wind values. The paper thereby positions the Quintuplet alongside the Arches cluster as a young massive cluster whose radio-bright stars are predominantly multiple systems, with OB stars showing the clearest non-thermal signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The headline multiplicity fraction of $(75\pm22)\%$ rests on counting all ten spectrally ambiguous sources as colliding-wind binary candidates; if those sources are single stars or measurement noise, the fraction drops to $(29\pm14)\%$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $(75\pm22)\%$ multiplicity fraction is correct, the majority of the Quintuplet's radio-bright massive stars are binaries, matching the high multiplicity seen in the Arches cluster.
  • The $\sim60\%$ variability rate implies that single-epoch radio surveys of massive clusters systematically misclassify a large fraction of radio stars as non-variable.
  • Mass-loss upper limits of roughly $1$-$6\times10^{-5}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for thermal emitters agree with theoretical expectations for WNh and WC winds, supporting current wind theory.
  • Nearly all OB-type radio stars in both Quintuplet and Arches show spectral indices compatible with a non-thermal component, suggesting close companions are common among the youngest massive stars.
  • A radial-velocity campaign on the Quintuplet, analogous to those already done for Arches, would directly test whether the radio-selected binary candidates are genuine close binaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If most ambiguous sources are in fact single stars, the true multiplicity could be closer to $(29\pm14)\%$; the counting rule, not the data themselves, carries the headline fraction.
  • The same spectral-index census could be applied to other young massive clusters to map massive-star multiplicity as a function of age and metallicity, turning radio variability surveys into a statistical probe of binary evolution.
  • The short, plane-parallel non-thermal filament, if confirmed by multi-configuration imaging, would be a new morphological class of Galactic Centre filament and a local magnetic-field constraint.
  • Higher-sensitivity instruments that shrink spectral-index uncertainties on the ambiguous sources would likely move most of them into either the CWB or thermal categories, and could determine whether the extended emission near the LBV qF362 is wind or surrounding ionised gas.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new VLA A-configuration C- and X-band observations of the Quintuplet cluster taken in 2016, 2018, and 2022. It reports 41 radio point sources cross-matched to infrared/X-ray catalogues, finds that roughly 60% of the radio stars are variable on timescales of months to years, derives spectral indices for 28 sources, and classifies them into colliding-wind binary (CWB) candidates, thermal emitters, and ambiguous sources. It also gives clumping-scaled mass-loss rate upper limits and compares the results with the authors' analogous Arches cluster study. The headline quantitative claim is a multiplicity fraction of 75±22% when all ten ambiguous sources are counted as CWB candidates, with a lower value quoted as 11/28 = 0.29±0.14 when they are excluded.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the deepest radio census of the Quintuplet cluster to date and one of the few radio-based multiplicity constraints for a Galactic-centre massive cluster. The observational work is generally careful: standard VLA calibration and self-calibration, primary-beam correction, registration to proper-motion catalogues, and a six-year variability baseline are all described in detail. The catalogue, spectral indices, mass-loss upper limits, and clumping ratios are valuable products. However, the headline multiplicity fraction is weakened by a straightforward arithmetic error and by a counting rule that promotes all ambiguous sources to CWB candidates; these issues are fixable but they affect the paper's central quantitative claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3.4] The statement 'the multiplicity fraction traced by plausible CWBs is 11/28 = 0.29±0.14' is arithmetically incorrect: 11/28 = 0.393, and the binomial standard deviation for this fraction is sqrt(0.393×0.607/28) ≈ 0.09, not 0.14. The same incorrect value propagates to §4.4 ('Quintuplet: ∼27%') and to the Summary ('a≈27% multiplicity fraction'), and it changes the comparison with the Arches cluster (39%). Please correct the arithmetic and quote a single consistent value with an explicitly stated uncertainty model (binomial, not Poisson).
  2. [§4.3.4 and Abstract] The 75±22% figure counts all ten ambiguous sources as CWB candidates, as stated in §4.3.4, even though §4.3.3 defines those sources as ambiguous because of large spectral-index uncertainties and missing data in some epochs. They are therefore not established non-thermal emitters. The paper should present the fraction based only on confirmed CWB candidates (11/28 ≈ 39%) as the primary empirical result and present the 75% as an explicit upper-limit scenario. The abstract currently reports only the inclusive 75±22%, which overstates what the data alone establish.
  3. [§4.3.4 and §3.4] The multiplicity fraction is computed for the subsample of 28 sources with measured spectral indices, not for the full catalogue of 41 radio stars or for the cluster's massive-star population. Because spectral-index measurement requires detection in multiple sub-bands or bands (§3.4), this subsample is biased toward brighter, more readily measurable sources, and the paper does not discuss how this selection affects the inferred multiplicity fraction. Please state explicitly that the fraction is conditional on this subsample and discuss the direction and possible size of the selection bias.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3.3] The list of ambiguous sources includes 'qF235E', but the corresponding source in Table 4 and Table A.2 is qF353E; please correct the identifier.
  2. [§4.3.1 and §4.3.5] There are two typos: 'calssified' in §4.3.1 and 'at least at least 30′′' in §4.3.5.
  3. [§4.4] The text refers to 'Table 4.4' when presenting OB-type spectral indices; the correct reference is Table 5.
  4. [§4.3.5] The citation 'Morris et al. in prep' is not in the reference list; either add the citation or remove the attribute.
  5. [Table A.3] The column headings 'α07/22' and 'CX' are not self-explanatory; please define them in the table caption or notes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the catalogue and variability results are direct measurements; the headline multiplicity fraction is an explicitly conditional counting scenario rather than a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct observables: 41 point-source detections, multi-epoch flux densities, variability statistics, and spectral indices obtained from least-squares fits to sub-band images. The classification thresholds (DeltaS/sigma>5, alpha<0, Xi>10) are inherited from external literature and the authors' prior Arches study, but they are applied to new Quintuplet data rather than fitted to the data being 'predicted', so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The '75% including ambiguous sources' figure is explicitly introduced as a conditional counting scenario ('If we include the ambiguous cases...'), not as a parameter derived from the data by a claimed first-principles chain; the underlying classification ambiguity is a statistical/interpretation risk rather than circularity. The arithmetic inconsistency (11/28 is 0.39, not the stated 0.29, and Section 4.4 quotes ~27%) is a numerical correctness issue, not a circular reduction. Overall, the derivation chain is observation-driven and externally anchored, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is an observational characterisation; the main external inputs are standard wind theory, literature stellar parameters, and classification thresholds. No free parameters are fitted to the 41-source dataset in the sense of adjusting a model to match the radio fluxes. The thresholds adopted from prior studies are listed as hand-chosen parameters because they directly set the reported fractions.

free parameters (3)
  • variability threshold ΔS/σ>5 = 5
    Hand-chosen threshold adopted from Zhao et al. (2020) and the authors' Arches study; sets the 60% variability fraction. Not fitted to the Quintuplet data, but a change in threshold would change the result.
  • thermal spectral index threshold ᾱ>0.3 = 0.3
    Adopted from Cano-González et al. (2024) to select thermal emitters for mass-loss derivation; classification depends on this cut.
  • high variability thresholds ΔS/σ≳10 and Ξ≳10 = 10, 10
    Used to define secondary CWB candidates and to identify highly variable sources; chosen by hand following De Becker & Raucq (2013) and prior work.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Thermal free-free emission from ionised stellar winds follows Sν∝ν^0.6 with a fully ionised, spherically symmetric wind (Wright & Barlow 1975; Panagia & Felli 1975).
    Used in Sect. 4.2 and 4.3 to classify sources as thermal and to derive mass-loss rates; the paper notes deviations from α≈0.6 can indicate non-thermal components or wind inhomogeneities.
  • domain assumption Non-thermal radio emission in massive binaries arises from colliding winds and indicates binarity (De Becker 2007; De Becker & Raucq 2013).
    Basis for classifying CWB candidates in Sect. 4.3.1; the classification criteria rely on this physical association.
  • domain assumption Cluster membership is established by cross-matching with NIR catalogues and proper motions from Hosek et al. (2022).
    Used in Sect. 3.5 to accept or reject sources; qF362 and qCG1 are kept despite lacking proper motion data, and qG29 is excluded based on zero cluster membership probability.
  • domain assumption Sources detected at >5σ in the deep image are genuine point sources, not artifacts of over-resolved extended emission.
    The authors exclude qG5 and qG8 as spurious contaminants (Sect. 3.5 footnote), implying the remaining 41 detections are assumed real; a false positive would bias the catalogue.
  • domain assumption The K-band flux is a better tracer of purely thermal radiation than C- or X-band fluxes.
    Used in Sect. 4.2 to derive an additional mass-loss estimate for qF257 and to compute clumping ratios; based on the idea that K-band traces closer to the stellar surface.
  • ad hoc to paper LBV winds affected by recombination follow an electron density profile ne∝r^-3.5, giving Sν∝ν^1.3.
    Introduced in Sect. 4.2 to explain steep spectral indices (α≳1.3) for qF362 and qF134; this is a specific modelling assumption for LBVs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multi-frequency, multi-epoch radio continuum study of the Quintuplet cluster with the Very Large Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQZ6JZ7W

@misc{pith2026250721617,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multi-frequency, multi-epoch radio continuum study of the Quintuplet cluster with the Very Large Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQZ6JZ7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21617}
}
abstract

The Quintuplet cluster, located in the Galactic centre, is one of the few young massive clusters in the Milky Way. It allows us to study dozens of massive, post main sequence stars individually, providing unique insights into the properties of the most massive stars. Our goal is to study the radio continuum emission of the most massive stars in the cluster. We carried out a total of nine observations (three in the C- and six in the X-band) of the Quintuplet cluster with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array in A-configuration. We cross-matched the detected sources with infrared stellar catalogues to ensure cluster membership, calculated their spectral indices, quantified variability, and inferred clumping-scaled mass-loss rates We present the most complete catalogue of radio stars in the Quintuplet cluster to date, with a total of 41 detections, and the deepest images of the cluster in the 4 to 12 GHz range (reaching an rms noise level of $2.3\, \mu\mathrm{Jy/beam}$ in the X-band). The six year baseline of our observations allowed us to perform a robust variability assessment, finding that around $60\%$ of the Quintuplet radio-stars are variable on timescales of months to years. We derived the spectral indices of 28 out of the 41 sources. Based on their spectral indices and variability, we classify 11 of them as colliding-wind binaries, seven as strictly thermal sources, and ten as ambiguous. Including the ambiguous sources, we estimate a multiplicity fraction of ($75\pm22\%$). We also computed upper limits for the mass-loss rates of the thermal radio-stars, finding them in agreement with typical values for WNh and WC stars. Finally, we compare these results to the ones obtained from our analogous study of the Arches cluster.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21617 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Deep X-band image of the Quin￾tuplet cluster (see Table A.1 for details). Sources are labelled with the NIR stellar ID from Clark et al. (2018a), Dong et al. (2011), Muno et al. (2009) or Hosek et al. (2022) (see Sect. 3.2). lowed the same procedure as in Cano-González et al. (2024), namely, Ξ = max(α) − min(α) PM i 1/(σαi ) 2 −1/2 (3) where M represents the number of spectral index values for a given source and σ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Positions of qF362, qCG1, and qG29 with respect to the Quin￾tuplet cluster. The cyan squares represent the radio stars of Quintuplet. The cyan rhomboid shows the approximate area covered by Hosek et al. (2022) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral index variability versus weighted mean of the spectral index. (v∞ = 500 km s−1 ), which are typical values for O-type (B-type) stars. We assumed a 10% relative error for the terminal wind velocities in all radio stars. We searched for mass-loss variability across the time span of our observations by comparing upper limits of the mass-loss rates of each observing epoch, but we did not find any signif￾icant d… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Flux density variability as a function of spectral index variabil￾ity across all epochs for both the Arches and Quintuplet clusters. The black dotted lines indicate ∆S/σ = 10 and Ξ = 10 values, which are indicative of high flux and spectral index variability [PITH_FUL…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Position of the (non-thermal) thin filament in the Quintu￾plet deep C-band image (indicated by the blue ellipse). This image was created with the aforementioned u-v cut. The black dotted line measures the apparent size of the filament. Right: Same area as seen in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the histogram and scatter plot of the weighted mean of spectral index for both clusters. Although the histogram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G., Flaccomio, E., et al

    Anastasopoulou, K., Guarcello, M. G., Flaccomio, E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A25 Cano-González, M., Schödel, R., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A23 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    I., Abbott, D

    Castor, J. I., Abbott, D. C., & Klein, R. I. 1975, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 195, Jan. 1, 1975, pt. 1, p. 157-174., 195, 157 Article number, page 10 M. Cano-González et al.: A multi-frequency , multi-epoch radio continuum study of the Quintuplet cluster with the Very Large Array

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    S., Lohr, M

    Clark, J. S., Lohr, M. E., Najarro, F., Patrick, L. R., & Ritchie, B. W. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4473

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Condon, J. J. 1997, PASP, 109, 166

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    G., Sievers, A., et al

    Cox, P., Mezger, P. G., Sievers, A., et al. 1995, A&A, 297, 168 De Becker, M. 2007, A&A Rev., 14, 171 De Becker, M. & Raucq, F. 2013, A&A, 558, A28

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    R., Ghez, A

    Do, T., Lu, J. R., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2013, ApJ, 764, 154

    2013

  7. [7]

    D., Cotera, A., et al

    Dong, H., Wang, Q. D., Cotera, A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 114

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    M., Beasley, A

    Dougherty, S. M., Beasley, A. J., Claussen, M. J., Zauderer, B. A., & Boling- broke, N. J. 2005, ApJ, 623, 447

    work page 2005

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    F., Kim, S

    Figer, D. F., Kim, S. S., Morris, M., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 525, 750

    1999

  2. [10]

    T., Schödel, R., Alberdi, A., et al

    Gallego-Calvente, A. T., Schödel, R., Alberdi, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A110

    2021

  3. [11]

    T., Schödel, R., Alberdi, A., et al

    Gallego-Calvente, A. T., Schödel, R., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, A&A, 664, A49 GRA VITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10

    2022

  4. [12]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 165 Högbom, J

    Heywood, I., Rammala, I., Camilo, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 925, 165 Högbom, J. A. 1974, A&AS, 15, 417

    2022

  5. [13]

    W., Do, T., Lu, J

    Hosek, M. W., Do, T., Lu, J. R., et al. 2022, ApJ, 939, 68

    2022

  6. [14]

    2005, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 130

    Lang, C., Johnson, K., Goss, W., & Rodriguez, L. 2005, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 130

    2005

  7. [15]

    2010, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 524, A82

    Liermann, A., Hamann, W.-R., Oskinova, L., Todt, H., & Butler, K. 2010, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 524, A82

    2010

  8. [16]

    R., & Oskinova, L

    Liermann, A., Hamann, W. R., & Oskinova, L. M. 2012, A&A, 540, A14

    2012

  9. [17]

    A., Lang, C

    Ludovici, D. A., Lang, C. C., Morris, M. R., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 826, 218

    2016

  10. [18]

    & Bodensteiner, J

    Marchant, P. & Bodensteiner, J. 2024, ARA&A, 62, 21

    2024

  11. [19]

    2011, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 531, A52

    Montes, G., González, R., Cantó, J., Pérez-Torres, M., & Alberdi, A. 2011, As- tronomy & Astrophysics, 531, A52

    2011

  12. [20]

    & Serabyn, E

    Morris, M. & Serabyn, E. 1996, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 34, 645

    1996

  13. [21]

    P., Bauer, F

    Muno, M. P., Bauer, F. E., Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 110

    2009

  14. [22]

    F., Hillier, D

    Najarro, F., Figer, D. F., Hillier, D. J., Geballe, T., & Kudritzki, R. P. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 1816

    2009

  15. [23]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 127

    Najarro, F., Geballe, T., Figer, D., & de la Fuente, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 127

    2017

  16. [24]

    & Felli, M

    Panagia, N. & Felli, M. 1975, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 39, no. 1, Feb. 1975, p. 1-5., 39, 1 Paré, D. M., Lang, C. C., Morris, M. R., Moore, H., & Mao, S. A. 2019, ApJ, 884, 170

    1975

  17. [25]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 1011

    Paumard, T., Genzel, R., Martins, F., et al. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 643, 1011

    2006

  18. [26]

    Perley, R. A. & Butler, B. J. 2017, ApJS, 230, 7

    2017

  19. [27]

    Pittard, J. M. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1633

    2010

  20. [28]

    & Cornwell, T

    Rau, U. & Cornwell, T. J. 2011, A&A, 532, A71 Rubio-Díez, M., Sundqvist, J., Najarro, F., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 658, A61

    2011

  21. [29]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

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

    2012

  22. [30]

    & Evans, C

    Sana, H. & Evans, C. J. 2011, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 272, Active OB Stars:

    2011

  23. [31]

    2019, A&A, 624, A55

    Sanchez-Bermudez, J., Alberdi, A., Schödel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A55

    2019

  24. [32]

    R., Moran, J

    Thompson, A. R., Moran, J. M., & Swenson, George W., J. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd Edition

    2017

  25. [33]

    Wright, A. E. & Barlow, M. J. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 41

    1975

  26. [34]

    G., Wardle, M., Heywood, I., & Cotton, W

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Arendt, R. G., Wardle, M., Heywood, I., & Cotton, W. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 294

    2022

  27. [35]

    1984, Nature, 310, 557

    Yusef-Zadeh, F., Morris, M., & Chance, D. 1984, Nature, 310, 557

    1984

  28. [36]

    R., & Goss, W

    Zhao, J.-H., Morris, M. R., & Goss, W. M. 2020, ApJ, 905, 173 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa54533-25 Appendix A: Additional material Article number, page 12 M. Cano-González et al.: A multi-frequency , multi-epoch radio continuum study of the Quintuplet ...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.