Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Thirteen facts that you need to know on multiple populations in globular clusters

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review consolidates thirteen observational facts showing that globular clusters host multiple stellar populations whose complexity grows with cluster mass.

desk verdict A solid, well-organized review that compiles thirteen observed properties of multiple populations in globular clusters; no new data, but a useful map of the field, with the main caveats left to the primary papers. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11703 v1 pith:ZN356SCW submitted 2019-08-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

A. P. Milone This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords globularclustersmultiplestellarpopulationschromosomemapphotometricdiagramsheliumabundanceHubbleSpaceTelescopecolor-magnitude
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

Globular clusters have long been treated as the closest approximation to a single stellar population, but this review argues that the traditional picture is obsolete. High-precision HST photometry, interpreted through new color diagrams, shows that nearly every massive globular cluster contains distinct first-generation (1G) and second-generation (2G) stars with different chemical compositions. The paper assembles thirteen observational facts about these multiple populations — their widespread occurrence, abundance anomalies, helium spreads, and correlations with cluster mass and orbit — and presents them as the constraints that any formation model must satisfy. The reason this matters is that globular clusters are basic building blocks used to read the Milky Way's assembly history, and a cluster that hosts multiple generations is not a simple isochrone.

What carries the argument

The chromosome map (ChM) is the central tool: a pseudo two-color diagram built from HST photometry in the 'magic trio' of filters F275W, F336W, and F438W, plus F814W, in which the stellar sequence is verticalized in both dimensions. The horizontal axis is a pseudo-color sensitive mostly to nitrogen (e.g., $C_{\mathrm{F275W,F343N,F438W}}$), and the vertical axis is a color such as $m_{\mathrm{F275W}} - m_{\mathrm{F814W}}$ sensitive to helium; F275W/F336W include OH and NH bands while F438W includes CN and CH bands. The ChM is what allows the 1G and 2G sequences to be followed continuously from the main sequence to the red giant, horizontal, and asymptotic giant branches, and what makes homogeneous helium-abundance estimates possible across dozens of clusters.

What would settle it

Take a massive cluster such as NGC 419 or NGC 1783 (both near $3.5\times10^5$ solar masses) with deep UV and near-infrared photometry; a clear second main sequence in the chromosome map would weaken the proposed mass threshold, while a single sequence with spectroscopically confirmed homogeneous abundances would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 1G and 2G stars are discrete, chemically distinct populations found in nearly all globular clusters, not a rare anomaly. In the chromosome map, the two generations define separate sequences whose spread exceeds photometric errors, which shows that each generation itself contains subpopulations. The 2G stars are enhanced in He, N, and Na and depleted in C and O relative to 1G — the fingerprint of hot CNO cycling and p-capture reactions — and in the most extreme cluster, NGC 2419, helium varies by up to $\Delta Y \sim 0.18$. The fraction of 2G stars ranges from about 35% to over 90% and grows with cluster mass, so the complexity of the phenomenon scales with mass. These thirteen facts form the coherent observational summary that any scenario for the formation and evolution of globular clusters must reproduce.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chromosome-map colors separate stars by chemical composition, driven by CNO and helium abundance effects on atmospheric opacities, rather than by reddening, crowding, or instrumental artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Formation models must produce second-generation stars with hot CNO-cycle and p-capture signatures, present in nearly all clusters above roughly $1.5\times10^5$ solar masses.
  • The fraction of second-generation stars and the maximum helium spread both increase with cluster mass, making mass a controlling parameter for the phenomenon.
  • The dependence of the 1G/2G ratio on perigalactic distance implies that interactions with the Milky Way preferentially remove first-generation stars, so present-day ratios are not primordial.
  • Population ratios are independent of stellar mass in the 0.15–0.80 solar-mass range, which rules out Bondi-type mass-dependent accretion as the pollution mechanism.
  • About 17% of clusters (Type II) show additional heavy-element variations and split subgiant branches, distinguishing them from the majority that vary only in light elements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mass–complexity correlation is driven by survival rather than formation, clusters on tighter orbits should show systematically lower 2G fractions at fixed mass; this can be tested with the same HST data by binning clusters in perigalactic distance.
  • The chromosome-map method could be pushed to integrated photometry of unresolved extragalactic clusters, turning the inferred 1G/2G fraction into a probe of cluster mass and environment without resolving individual stars.
  • A direct extension would be to model whether the observed radial segregation of 2G stars in massive clusters can be produced by dynamical evolution alone; if it cannot, the spatial pattern is primordial.
  • The Type I/II dichotomy suggests that the presence of heavy-element variations is tied to the most massive clusters, which may connect the multiple-generation phenomenon to early cluster formation in dense, massive proto-clusters.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This proceedings article reviews photometric methods for identifying multiple populations (MPs) in globular clusters, focusing on wide-color-baseline diagrams, UV photometry with the 'magic trio' of HST filters, the pseudo-color CF275W,F336W,F438W, and the chromosome map (ChM). The author then lists thirteen properties of MPs that have emerged from recent surveys, including the presence of discrete 1G and 2G sequences in nearly all clusters, the diversity in 2G fractions and helium variations, the existence of Type I and Type II clusters, the dependence of MP complexity on cluster mass, the role of cluster orbit in shaping the 1G/2G ratio, and the lack of dependence on stellar mass. The review is concise and aimed at a symposium audience, and it explicitly acknowledges some open questions, such as the mass threshold for the occurrence of MPs.

Significance. If the reported properties are accepted, the review provides a compact and up-to-date synthesis of the empirical basis for current formation scenarios of multiple populations in globular clusters. Its strengths are its clear organization around a 'thirteen facts' structure, the inclusion of methods that are now standard in the field, and honest attemption to flag genuine counterexamples (e.g., simple-population clusters and Magellanic Cloud clusters that challenge the mass threshold). The author also explicitly connects photometric indices with known abundance patterns (C, N, O, He), which helps the reader link the diagrams to the physical interpretation. A caveat is that the review draws heavily on the author's own publications for the quantitative claims, and the ChM method, which underlies several facts, is presented with less critical detail than its central role would merit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.IV and Facts I, II, XI] The review's central claims that 1G and 2G stars are present in nearly all GCs and that MP complexity correlates with cluster mass rest on the chromosome map, but the paper does not quantify how ChM classifications are affected by differential reddening, crowding, unresolved blends, or residual photometric zero-point errors. The assertion in Section 2.IV that 'the position of a star in the ChM is closely connected with its chemical composition' is load-bearing, because Facts I, II, and XI all inherit this assumption. The original survey papers (e.g., Milone et al. 2017b, 2018a) contain extensive validation against spectroscopy and artificial-star tests, but this review presents the inferred sequences and fractions as established facts without restating that uncertainty budget. I recommend adding one paragraph that explicitly states the main systematics that have been checked, the quantitative limits, and a caution that ChM-based population splits are only as reliable as the photometric calibration.
  2. [Fact XI, Figure 5] Figure 5 shows strong correlations between the fraction of 2G stars and the maximum helium variation, ΔY_max, with cluster mass. However, the figure does not show any error bars or scatter in these quantities, and the paper does not discuss how the adopted 1G/2G boundary in the ChM might affect the measured fractions. If the boundary assignment depends on photometric depth, cluster richness, or the same instrumental effects mentioned in the previous comment, then the apparent mass trend could be at least partly an artifact of the analysis. The author should state whether the trend persists under alternative boundary definitions and should cite the relevant robustness tests from the source studies, or provide an error budget for the plotted quantities.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.II] There is a typo: 'photometic' should be 'photometric'.
  2. [Fact VII] The phrase 'To to this' should read 'To do this'.
  3. [Section 3, Fact II] The discussion of the mass threshold is slightly confusing because the text first says that simple-population clusters have masses smaller than about 1.5 x 10^5 M_sun and MP clusters are more massive, and then immediately challenges this with Magellanic Cloud clusters of about 3.5 x 10^5 M_sun without evidence of MPs. The author should clarify whether the mass threshold is currently proposed as a sharp boundary or a rough separation, and whether the quoted range of 1.5 x 10^5 M_sun comes from a specific fitting or from visual inspection.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption states that 'filled and open circles represent simple-population clusters and clusters with MPs' but does not say which symbol corresponds to which type; please clarify.
  5. [Section 2.IV] The word 'overimposed' should be 'superimposed'.
  6. [References] Several references, such as Cordoni et al. (2019), are cited without full publication details and only as arXiv identifiers; in a published proceedings, full bibliographic information should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this is a review of observational results whose 'facts' are summaries of independent photometric and spectroscopic surveys, not derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a review article, not a derivation or prediction paper. The thirteen 'facts' are empirical statements about multiple populations in globular clusters, each supported by references to published surveys and spectroscopic studies. The chromosome map (ChM) is introduced as a diagnostic tool, and the statement that 'The position of a star in the ChM is closely connected with its chemical composition' is an externally calibrated assumption based on synthetic spectra and abundance analyses, not a conclusion derived within this paper from the same data. The claimed facts — e.g., that 1G/2G sequences appear in 'nearly all GCs' or that the incidence and complexity of MPs correlate with cluster mass — are observational correlations between independently measured quantities (ChM-based population fractions, helium estimates, and masses from Baumgardt & Hilker). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or first-principles result is invoked that would make the output equivalent to the input by construction. Although many citations are to works by the same author or his close collaborators, those papers contain new observational data and are externally falsifiable; moreover, independent groups and spectroscopic calibrations are also cited. The skeptical concern about photometric systematics (reddening, crowding, blends) is a correctness or robustness issue, not a circularity issue, because it does not involve a definitional equivalence between input and output. Therefore the review is self-contained in the sense required here, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The review introduces no free parameters (no numbers are fitted) and no invented entities. It relies on domain assumptions: photometric indices track abundance variations, the 1G/2G classification is physically meaningful, and the surveyed clusters are representative. These are reasonable but not proven within the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The chromosome map and pseudo-color indices are monotonic proxies for variations in He, C, N, O, and Mg abundances.
    Section 2.IV claims the position of a star in the ChM is closely connected with its chemical composition, based on synthetic spectra and prior spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption The distinction between first-generation (1G) and second-generation (2G) stars is a useful and robust classification for the observed photometric sequences.
    The paper uses 1G/2G terminology throughout Section 3 without discussion of alternative phenomenological classifications.
  • domain assumption The sample of clusters studied by the cited surveys is representative of the globular cluster population at large.
    The review generalizes to 'nearly all GCs' from surveys of about 70 clusters, but does not quantify potential selection biases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thirteen facts that you need to know on multiple populations in globular clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZN356SCW

@misc{pith2026190811703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thirteen facts that you need to know on multiple populations in globular clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZN356SCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11703}
}
read the original abstract

I review the methods, mostly developed in the last decade, that are commonly used to identify and characterize multiple populations (MPs) in Globular Clusters based on photometry. I summarize the results from the recent surveys of MPs with the Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based facilities and provide a list of the main properties of MPs as inferred from these studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Collection of photometric diagrams derived from the ‘magic trio’ of HST magni￾tudes commonly used to identify stellar populations in GCs. Left panel shows the mF343N vs. CF275W,F343N,F438W pseudo-CMD (Milone et al. 2013), while in the right panels I plot the mF343N − mF438W vs. mF275W − mF343N two-color diagrams for MS stars (bottom), SGB stars (middle) and for RGB, HB and AGB stars (top, Milone et al. 2012a) [PITH… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Chromosome maps of MS (left) and RGB stars of 47 Tuc (right, Milone et al. 2015) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left. Reproduction of the ChM of M 3 from Milone et al. (2017b, gray points). We mark the locus of 1G and 2G stars with red and blue ellipses, respectively, while orange points represent the observation error distribution. Right. The arrows indicate the effect of changing the abundance of He, C, N, Mg and O one at a time on the ChM. We assumed abundance variations of ∆[C/Fe]=−0.50, ∆[N/Fe]=1.21, ∆[O/Fe]=−0.50, ∆[Mg/… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This collection of seven ChMs highlights the variety of the MP phonomenon and shows that the complexity of MPs increases with cluster mass. The dashed lines separate 1G and 2G stars. Metal-rich stars in the Type II GCs NGC 1851 and ω Cen are colored red [PITH_FULL_IMA…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure demonstrates that the complexity of the MP phenomenon increases with cluster mass. Left. Fraction of 2G stars as a function of the logarithm of present-day GC mass (in solar masses). Filled and open circles represent simple-population clusters and clusters …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photometric diagrams of RGB (top-left), bright-MS (top-middle) and faint MS stars of NGC 6752 (top-right), where the populations A, B and C are clearly visible. Bottom panel shows the fractions of population-A, -B and -C stars against stellar mass. This figure indicate…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, A. J. 1997, Ph.D. Thesis, 1153

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Anderson, J., & King, I. R. 2000, PASP, 112, 1360

    2000

  3. [3]

    R., et al

    Anderson, J., Sarajedini, A., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2008, AJ, 1 35, 2055

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    Baumgardt, H., & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2019, M NRAS, 482, 5138

    Baumgardt, H., Hilker, M., Sollima, A., & Bellini, A. 2019, M NRAS, 482, 5138

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., et al

    Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., et al. 2004, ApJ, 605, L125

    2004

  7. [7]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2009, A&A, 507, 1 393

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    2015, ApJ, 810 , L13

    Bellini, A., Vesperini, E., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810 , L13

    work page 2015

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    R., et al

    Bellini, A., Libralato, M., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2018, ApJ, 85 3, 86

    2018

  2. [10]

    G., Carretta, E., et al

    Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., et al. 2012, A&A , 548, A122

    2012

  3. [11]

    2009, A&A, 508, 695

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R., D’Orazi, V., & Luc atello, S. 2009, A&A, 508, 695

    2009

  4. [12]

    G., et al

    Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2010, A&A , 520, A95

    2010

  5. [13]

    P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Mastrobuono-Battisti, A., et al . 2019, arXiv:1905.09908

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2016, ApJ, 829, 77

    Dalessandro, E., Lapenna, E., Mucciarelli, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 829, 77

    2016

  7. [15]

    20 18, ApJ, 864, 33 D’Antona, F., Caloi, V., Montalb´ an, J., Ventura, P., & Grat ton, R

    Dalessandro, E., Mucciarelli, A., Bellazzini, M., et al. 20 18, ApJ, 864, 33 D’Antona, F., Caloi, V., Montalb´ an, J., Ventura, P., & Grat ton, R. 2002, A&A, 395, 69 D’Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., et al. 2005, ApJ, 63 1, 868

    2002

  8. [16]

    P., Conroy, C., Marino, A

    Dotter, A., Milone, A. P., Conroy, C., Marino, A. F., & Saraje dini, A. 2018, ApJ, 865, L10 10 Antonino P. Milone

    2018

  9. [17]

    K., Strader, J., & Smith, G

    Dupree, A. K., Strader, J., & Smith, G. H. 2011, ApJ, 728, 155 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 20 18, A&A, 616, A1

    2011

  10. [18]

    G., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A

    Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., & Bragaglia, A. 2012, ARA&A, 20 , 50

    2012

  11. [19]

    A., & Andersen, M

    Grundahl, F., VandenBerg, D. A., & Andersen, M. I. 1998, ApJ, 500, L179

    1998

  12. [20]

    1999, Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and G alaxies, 192, 223

    Grundahl, F. 1999, Spectrophotometric Dating of Stars and G alaxies, 192, 223

    1999

  13. [21]

    2017, MNRAS, 4 65, L39

    Hollyhead, K., Kacharov, N., Lardo, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 4 65, L39

    2017

  14. [22]

    2018, MNRAS, 4 76, 114

    Hollyhead, K., Lardo, C., Kacharov, N., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 4 76, 114

    2018

  15. [23]

    I., Rich, R

    Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Pilachowski, C. A., et al. 2015, A J, 150, 63

    2015

  16. [24]

    P., Milone, A

    Lagioia, E. P., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., & Dotter, A. 2019 , ApJ, 871, 140

    2019

  17. [25]

    P., Milone, A

    Lagioia, E. P., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2018, MNRA S, 475, 4088

    2018

  18. [26]

    S., Strader, J., & Brodie, J

    Larsen, S. S., Strader, J., & Brodie, J. P. 2012, A&A, 544, L14

    2012

  19. [27]

    2018, ApJS, 238, 24

    Lee, J.-W. 2018, ApJS, 238, 24

    2018

  20. [28]

    P., et al

    Libralato, M., Bellini, A., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 861, 99

    2018

  21. [29]

    F., Villanova, S., Piotto, G., et al

    Marino, A. F., Villanova, S., Piotto, G., et al. 2008, A&A, 49 0, 625

    2008

  22. [30]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 505 , 1099

    2009

  23. [31]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Przybilla, N., et al. 2014, MNRA S, 437, 1609

    2014

  24. [32]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Karakas, A. I., et al. 2015, MNRA S, 450, 815

    2015

  25. [33]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Yong, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 6 6

    2017

  26. [34]

    F., Milone, A

    Marino, A. F., Milone, A. P., Renzini, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3815

    2019

  27. [35]

    L., Smolinski, J

    Martell, S. L., Smolinski, J. P., Beers, T. C., & Grebel, E. K. 2011, A&A, 534, A136

    2011

  28. [36]

    2018, MN RAS, 473, 2688

    Martocchia, S., Cabrera-Ziri, I., Lardo, C., et al. 2018, MN RAS, 473, 2688

    2018

  29. [37]

    Milone, A. P. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 1672

    2015

  30. [38]

    P., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 241

    2008

  31. [39]

    P., Piotto, G., King, I

    Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., King, I. R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 1 183

    2010

  32. [40]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Piotto, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767 , 120

    2013

  33. [41]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808 , 51

    2015

  34. [42]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4046

    2019

  35. [43]

    P., Piotto, G., et al

    Nardiello, D., Milone, A. P., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 57 3, A70

    2015

  36. [44]

    P., et al

    Nardiello, D., Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3076

    2019

  37. [45]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 4159

    Niederhofer, F., Bastian, N., Kozhurina-Platais, V., et al . 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4159

    2017

  38. [46]

    R., Anderson, J., et al

    Piotto, G., Bedin, L. R., Anderson, J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 661, L53

    2007

  39. [47]

    P., Bedin, L

    Piotto, G., Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 9 1

    2015

  40. [48]

    2013, MmSAI, 84, 162

    Renzini, A. 2013, MmSAI, 84, 162

    2013

  41. [49]

    2015, MNRAS, 4 54, 4197

    Renzini, A., D’Antona, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 4 54, 4197

    2015

  42. [50]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, L63

    Renzini, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, L63

    2017

  43. [51]

    B., Heyl, J., Anderson, J., et al

    Richer, H. B., Heyl, J., Anderson, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 771, L 15

    2013

  44. [52]

    R., Bellazzini, M., et al

    Sollima, A., Ferraro, F. R., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2007, ApJ , 654, 915

    2007

  45. [53]

    Vesperini, E., McMillan, S. L. W., D’Antona, F., & D’Ercole, A. 2010, ApJ, 718, L112

    2010

  46. [54]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 186

    Villanova, S., Geisler, D., Carraro, G., Moni Bidin, C., & Mu ˜ noz, C. 2013, ApJ, 778, 186

    2013

  47. [55]

    A., & Asplund, M

    Yong, D., Grundahl, F., Johnson, J. A., & Asplund, M. 2008, Ap J, 684, 1159

    2008

  48. [56]

    2013, MNRAS, 43 4, 3542

    Yong, D., Mel´ endez, J., Grundahl, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 43 4, 3542

    2013

  49. [57]

    U., Grundahl, F., et al

    Yong, D., Roederer, I. U., Grundahl, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 4 41, 3396

    2014

  50. [58]

    P., Marino, A

    Zennaro, M., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3239

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.