Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Kinematic study of the association Cyg OB3 with Gaia DR2

T0 review · 4 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 The paper argues that Cyg OB3 is a coherent, slowly expanding OB association at about 2 kpc, and that Cyg X-1 is most likely its member.

desk verdict Careful Gaia DR2 re-derivation of Cyg OB3's distance and Cyg X-1 membership; mostly confirms earlier work, with a tentative subgroup claim and an expansion conclusion that outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00810 v2 pith:LQF56BSH submitted 2019-08-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Anjali Rao , Poshak Gandhi , Christian Knigge , John A. Paice , Nathan W. C. Leigh , Douglas Boubert This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords CygOB3OBassociationGaiaDR2stellarkinematicsX-1blackholenatalkickrunawaystarpropermotions
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 tries to establish that the OB association Cyg OB3 is a real, coherent, slowly expanding stellar group at a heliocentric distance of about 2 kpc, and that the black hole X-ray binary Cyg X-1 belongs to it. Using Gaia DR2 astrometry for 41 O- and B-type stars, the authors find most members concentrated at $2.0\pm0.3$ kpc, moving as a group with mean peculiar velocity $\sim22$ km s$^{-1}$ after removing solar motion and Galactic rotation. Cyg X-1 matches the association's distance and space motion, so the paper argues it most likely formed there without a strong natal kick. The result matters for black hole formation because Cyg X-1 is one of the few black holes whose birth environment can be identified.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the five-parameter Gaia DR2 astrometry (position, parallax, proper motion) for 41 O/B stars, combined with literature radial velocities from Kharchenko et al. (2007) for 25 of them. Distances come from an exponential-prior Bayesian estimate after Bailer-Jones (2015), checked against parallax inversion; space velocities use the Johnson & Soderblom (1987) formalism; and peculiar velocities remove solar motion and Galactic rotation using the constants of Reid et al. (2014). The paper's distinguishing diagnostic is the pair ($v_{\rm pec}$, $v_{\rm rel}$): the peculiar velocity of a star relative to the Galaxy and its velocity relative to the association's median motion. Stars with $v_{\rm rel}$ much larger than $v_{\rm pec}$ — HD 191611 and HD 227757 — stand out as kinematic outliers, and the runaway HD 227018 stands out in both.

What would settle it

Take the same region with Gaia DR3 or DR4 parallaxes and proper motions, drop the 1.4 kpc pre-cut, and cluster stars in full 6D phase space. If the 2 kpc concentration and the ~22 km s$^{-1}$ coherent motion do not survive without the cut, the association's distance and expansion are selection artifacts. Equally, a new radial velocity for Cyg X-1 from Gaia RVS could confirm or break the $v_{\rm rel}$ match that anchors membership.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Cyg OB3 is a kinematic entity, not just a chance sky projection. From 41 O/B stars selected by position, brightness, and parallax-inversion distance between 1.4 and 3 kpc, the paper derives a distance histogram peaking at 1.99 kpc (median $1.92\pm0.31$ kpc) and a coherent space motion: after removing Galactic rotation and the solar motion, most stars move at $\sim22$ km s$^{-1}$, dominated by the component toward the Galactic centre, with a small dispersion of $7.7$ km s$^{-1}$. Comparing each star's peculiar velocity $v_{\rm pec}$ with its velocity relative to the association median $v_{\rm rel}$ shows relative speeds below 20 km s$^{-1}$ for the majority, which the authors read as a slowly expanding, unbound association. The black hole binary Cyg X-1 (HD 226868) lies at $2.38\pm0.19$ kpc with $v_{\rm pec}=22.2\pm4.3$ km s$^{-1}$ and $v_{\rm rel}=11.4\pm3.0$ km s$^{-1}$, consistent with the association, so the paper concludes Cyg OB3 is most likely its parent association. The runaway HD 227018 is confirmed with $v_{\rm pec}\sim52$ km s$^{-1}$, and two other stars show kinematic anomalies suggestive of past encounters.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the 41 stars passing the position, brightness, and 1.4–3 kpc distance cuts are a usable sample of Cyg OB3, so the lower cut removes Cyg OB1 contamination; if members are misassigned, the distance, the ~22 km s$^{-1}$ motion, and the slow-expansion conclusion all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, Cyg OB3 is a genuine, slowly expanding OB association at about 2 kpc, with internal relative speeds mostly below 20 km s$^{-1}$.
  • Cyg X-1 would be a member of Cyg OB3, implying it formed in situ and received no strong natal kick at black hole formation.
  • The sample's small velocity dispersion (7.7 km s$^{-1}$) makes Cyg OB3 a coherent structure in velocity space, useful for studying unbound group expansion.
  • The $v_{\rm pec}$-versus-$v_{\rm rel}$ comparison identifies HD 227018 as a runaway and flags HD 227757 and HD 191611 as stars with anomalous kinematics, likely products of past encounters.
  • With current parallax uncertainties the spatial structure along the line of sight cannot be reliably resolved; future Gaia releases are needed for membership and structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Cyg X-1 truly formed in Cyg OB3, the binary's small peculiar velocity provides a rare empirical anchor for models of black hole natal kicks, suggesting kicks can be small for at least some $\sim15$ solar mass black holes.
  • The same $v_{\rm pec}$/$v_{\rm rel}$ comparison could be applied to other OB associations with Gaia DR3 astrometry; a systematic survey might reveal whether the 22 km s$^{-1}$ scale and slow expansion are generic properties of associations.
  • A direct test would be to relax the 1.4 kpc lower-distance cut and re-cluster stars by full 6D phase-space information; if the 2 kpc concentration persists without the cut, the distance conclusion is robust, and if it fragments, the reported expansion may be partly a selection effect.
  • The paper treats the line-of-sight extension as likely parallax scatter; if future astrometry shows the 0.31 kpc spread is real, Cyg OB3's structure may be two overlapping subgroups rather than one expanding association.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses Gaia DR2 astrometry for 41 O- and B-type stars selected in the Cyg OB3 region to estimate heliocentric distances, proper motions, and space velocities. Distances are derived with an exponential-prior Bayesian method and cross-checked against parallax inversion and Anders et al. (2019). For the 25 stars with radial velocities, the authors compute peculiar velocities after removing solar motion and Galactic rotation, and relative velocities with respect to the sample median. They report a distance of 1.92 +/- 0.31 kpc, a median peculiar velocity of about 22 km/s dominated by the U component, and small relative velocities that they interpret as a slowly expanding association. They also argue that Cyg X-1 is kinematically consistent with membership, and confirm HD 227018 as a runaway star.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful Gaia DR2-era kinematic census of Cyg OB3 and supports the earlier Hipparcos-based conclusion that Cyg X-1 formed with a small natal kick. The care taken with astrometric quality filtering (RUWE, parallax fractional errors), covariance-aware Monte Carlo propagation, and distance cross-checks is a genuine strength. However, the interpretive claims about coherence, slow expansion, and Cyg X-1 membership rest on sample membership assumptions that the paper itself acknowledges are not fully validated; the quantitative support for those central claims needs substantially more work before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The sample is defined by a hard 1.4 kpc lower cut on parallax-inversion distances, chosen because 1.4 kpc is the average distance of Cyg OB1, yet the paper admits that the Cyg OB1/OB3 boundary is unclear and that the sample may represent more than one kinematic substructure. Many stars in Table 2 have rexp in the range 1.5-1.8 kpc (e.g., stars 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 21, 32, 34), which is plausibly the far side of Cyg OB1. Since the distance histogram, the quoted 22 km/s peculiar velocity, and the expansion conclusion are all derived from this sample, the authors should either validate membership with an independent criterion (e.g., clustering in proper motion and parallax space) or explicitly quantify how the results depend on the lower distance cut.
  2. [Section 4] Six stars (2, 4, 7, 28, 33, 37) are removed after a Shapiro-Wilk test in order to obtain proper-motion distributions consistent with a single normal distribution, but the Shapiro-Wilk test is not a membership test. Stars 28 and 33, which are removed, have the largest relative velocities in Table 2 (43.8 +/- 4.7 and 42.4 +/- 5.6 km/s, respectively), so excluding them reduces the apparent velocity dispersion and enhances the impression of a coherent association. The paper needs to demonstrate that these six stars are not a second kinematic subgroup or Cyg OB1 contamination rather than simply labeling them outliers.
  3. [Section 5 (definition of vrel)] The relative velocity vrel is defined with respect to the sample's own median velocity, so it is expected by construction that most stars have small vrel and that many stars have vrel < vpec. The statement that 'the majority of stars exhibit vrel of about 15 km/s' and the slow-expansion conclusion therefore do not by themselves provide evidence for expansion; a control sample, a comparison with the dispersion expected from observational uncertainties, or an independent expansion diagnostic (e.g., a distance-velocity gradient) is needed to support the claim.
  4. [Section 6 and Section 8] The expansion conclusion rests on projected RA-Dec positions at T=0 and T=10 Myr computed with galpy under the assumption that all stars lie at the median association distance, but no expansion rate or statistical significance is quoted. Moreover, Section 8 explicitly states that the authors 'refrained from identifying members and non-members' and that the elongated line-of-sight structure is 'likely an artifact' of parallax uncertainties. These self-acknowledged limitations are in tension with the Summary's conclusion that small relative speeds 'suggest that Cyg OB3 is a slowly expanding association'; the manuscript should either present a quantitative expansion test or soften the conclusion accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The star named 'HD 225577' in the Abstract appears nowhere else in the paper; the star discussed in Sections 7.3 and 8 is HD 227757.
  2. [Section 7.1 and 7.2] The serial numbers in the subsection headings are inconsistent with Table 1: Section 7.1 labels HD 226868 as [33] and Section 7.4 also labels HD 227018 as [33], while Table 1 assigns [31] to HD 226868 and [33] to HD 227018. Section 7.2 similarly refers to HD 227943 [3], HD 228041 [5], and HD 228104 [8], but these are stars 2, 4, and 7 in Table 1.
  3. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'All known O- and B-type stars in Cyg OB3 region ... are included' overstates the selection, since the query is limited to G < 10.30 with a 1.4-3 kpc parallax-inversion cut, and only 22 of the 37 stars from Garmany & Stencel (1992) are common to the final sample.
  4. [Figures 3 and 4] The axis label in Figure 3 appears garbled in the text ('* 2 + 2' should presumably be sqrt(mu_alpha*^2 + mu_delta^2)), and Figure 4 would benefit from a scale bar or an explicit statement of the arrow scale so that proper-motion magnitudes can be read off.
  5. [Section 6] The galpy calculation is not fully reproducible as written: the paper should specify the Milky Way potential model, integration time and step size, and how the 1000 realizations were summarized into the presented positions.
  6. [Section 5] The mean relative velocity is quoted as 15.9 +/- 9.4 km/s, but it is unclear whether the uncertainty is the standard deviation of the distribution or the standard error of the mean; the text should state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is data-driven and cross-validated against independent external measurements.

full rationale

This is an observational kinematic study with no fitted parameters being relabeled as predictions. The quantity vrel is defined with respect to the sample's own median velocity, but this does not by construction force the small values used in the expansion argument; a bimodal or high-dispersion sample would still yield large residuals, so the reported small relative velocities are an empirical result. The distance conclusion is not imposed by the 1.4 kpc lower cut or by the 2 kpc exponential-prior length scale: the paper explicitly cross-checks the exponential-prior distances against parallax inversion and against Anders et al. (2019), and the histogram peak near 2 kpc is data-driven. The Cyg X-1 membership inference is supported by independent external work (Mirabel & Rodrigues 2003; Reid et al. 2011; Massey et al. 1995), and Cyg X-1 is only one of 25 stars used to define the median velocity, so its inclusion cannot force its own small residual. The one overlapping-author citation (Gandhi et al. 2019 for the Cyg X-1 distance) is an independent, externally falsifiable Gaia DR2 astrometric measurement and is not load-bearing; the same membership conclusion does not depend on it alone. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or renaming of a known empirical pattern is present. The removal of six stars after the Shapiro-Wilk test is a disclosed outlier-rejection step, not a hidden fit, and the paper acknowledges that the sample may contain more than one kinematic substructure. In short, the central claims are descriptive results from independent catalog data with standard, disclosed analysis choices, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on external calibration constants (solar motion, Galactic rotation, radial velocities) and on a modeling choice for the distance prior. No new free parameters are fit to data; the interpretive step identifying 'slow expansion' uses an internal reference (the sample median) rather than an external model.

free parameters (4)
  • Exponential prior length scale L = 2 kpc
    Adopted for the Bayesian distance inference (Bailer-Jones 2015); chosen to match the approximate mean distance of Cyg OB3 (Section 3).
  • Minimum distance cut for sample selection = 1.4 kpc
    Applied to parallax-inverted distances to reduce contamination from Cyg OB1, whose reported mean distance is 1.4 kpc (Section 2.1).
  • Maximum distance cut for sample selection = 3 kpc
    Removes distant non-members (Section 2.1).
  • Assumed association size for intrinsic-variance simulation = 100 pc
    Used to simulate parallax distributions expected from a 100 pc association at 2 kpc (Section 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR2 parallaxes and proper motions are accurate to the quoted uncertainties with no unmodeled systematics beyond 0.1 mas.
    The analysis relies on Gaia DR2 astrometry for all distances and velocities (Section 2).
  • domain assumption Solar motion and Galactic rotation constants from Reid et al. (2009, 2014) are correct.
    Peculiar velocities are computed by removing these components (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Literature radial velocities (Kharchenko et al. 2007; Gies et al. 2008 for Cyg X-1) are reliable for the 25 stars with vpec.
    Peculiar and relative velocities require line-of-sight velocities (Section 5).
  • domain assumption The adopted region and brightness/distance cuts select Cyg OB3 members and adequately exclude Cyg OB1 and field stars.
    Membership is not determined independently; the paper acknowledges possible contamination (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption The association's self-gravity is negligible for orbit integration.
    galpy integrations include only the Galactic potential; the authors justify by comparing forces (Section 6).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinematic study of the association Cyg OB3 with Gaia DR2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQF56BSH

@misc{pith2026190800810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinematic study of the association Cyg OB3 with Gaia DR2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQF56BSH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00810}
}
read the original abstract

We study the stellar kinematic properties and spatial distribution of the association Cyg OB3 using precise astrometric data from Gaia DR2. All known O- and B-type stars in Cyg OB3 region with positions, parallaxes and proper motions available are included, comprising a total of 41 stars. The majority of stars are found to be concentrated at a heliocentric distance of 2.0 +/- 0.3 kpc. The mean peculiar velocity of the sample after removing Galactic rotation and solar motion is ~22 km/s, dominated by the velocity component towards the Galactic center. The relative position and velocity of the black hole X-ray binary Cyg X-1 with respect to the association suggest that Cyg OB3 is most likely its parent association. The peculiar kinematic properties of some of the stars are revealed and are suggestive of past stellar encounters. The sample includes a previously known runaway star HD 227018, and its high peculiar velocity of ~50 km/s is confirmed with Gaia. We estimated the velocities of stars relative to the association and the star HD 225577 exhibits peculiar velocity smaller than its velocity relative to the association. The star has lower value of proper motion than the rest of the sample. The results suggest a slowly expanding nature of the association, which is supported by the small relative speeds <20 km/s with respect to the association for a majority of the sample stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00810 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Image obtained with DSS2 in the R-band shows the Cyg OB3 region. The positions of the O- and B-type stars studied in this work are encircled. Cyg X-1 is encircled in red. There are a total of 41 stars shown in the image and given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histogram of heliocentric distance estimates, rexp, ob￾tained from exponential prior. 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 (mas) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 * 2 + 2 (m a s y 1 ) 2 4 7 33 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Parallax as a function of proper motion for the stars in our sample. Cyg X-1 is shown in red. The serial numbers for some of the stars from Table (1) are shown in the figure. by determining the median l − b coordinates of the stars and extrapolating into the past using the median proper motion of the stars. The proper motion of the association is presented with a yellow arrow in the figure. Note that the yellow arro… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison between the velocities of stars relative to the association and their peculiar velocities is shown. The dotted line corresponds to equality between the two quantities. The serial numbers for some of the stars from Table (1) are shown in the figure. Cyg X-1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The figure shows components of space velocities Us, Vs and Ws. Cyg X-1 is shown in red. Median values of the com￾ponents and their standard deviation are shown in blue. Serial numbers marked for some of the stars are from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Extrapolated expansion of the association in the sky plane when only the Galactic potential is considered. rα and rδ are the distances from the centre of the association along the RA and Dec directions. 7 DISCUSSION The results obtained from Gaia DR2 for the parallax, …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 17 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. A cooler look at the environment of Cygnus X-1: Searching for dynamical interactions within cold molecular gas

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CO maps of Cygnus X-1 reveal a spider-like molecular structure whose kinematics favor stellar-wind-driven feedback further sculpted by the binary's relativistic jets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J., 1974, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A

    Aarseth S. J., 1974, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974A

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    A., 1947, in Stellar Evolution and Astrophysics (Armenian Academy of Science [German translation, Abhandl

    Ambartsumian V. A., 1947, in Stellar Evolution and Astrophysics (Armenian Academy of Science [German translation, Abhandl. Sowjetischen. Astron. 1, 33, (1951)])

    work page 1951

  3. [3]

    A., 1955, The Observatory, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955Obs....75...72A 75, 72

    Ambartsumian V. A., 1955, The Observatory, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955Obs....75...72A 75, 72

    work page 1955

  4. [4]

    arXiv:1904.11302

    Anders F., et al., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190411302A p. arXiv:1904.11302

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Arenou F., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833234 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833234 2018

  6. [6]

    L., Bailer-Jones C

    Astraatmadja T. L., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/137 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...832..137A 832, 137

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/137 2016

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1086/683116 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASP..127..994B 127, 994

    doi:10.1086/683116 2015

  8. [8]

    R., Wright N

    Berlanas S. R., Wright N. J., Herrero A., Drew J. E., Lennon D. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484.1838B 484, 1838

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz117 2019

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Blaauw A., 1961, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961BAN....15..265B 15, 265

    1961

  2. [10]

    Blaauw A., 1964, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.02.090164.001241 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964ARA

    1964

  3. [11]

    M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115244 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AJ.....98.1598B 98, 1598

    Blaha C., Humphreys R. M., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115244 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989AJ.....98.1598B 98, 1598

    1989 doi

  4. [12]

    T., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1038/235271b0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Natur.235..271B 235, 271

    Bolton C. T., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1038/235271b0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Natur.235..271B 235, 271

    1972 doi

  5. [13]

    Bovy J., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..216...29B 216, 29

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Brown A. G. A., Blaauw A., Hoogerwerf R., de Bruijne J. H. J., de Zeeuw P. T., 1999, in Lada C. J., Kylafis N. D., eds, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C Vol. 540, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C. p. 411 ( @eprint astro-ph/9902234 )

    1999 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cantat-Gaudin T., Mapelli M., Balaguer-N \'u \ n ez L., Jordi C., Sacco G., Vallenari A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.115C 621, A115

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    C., Bonnell I

    Clark P. C., Bonnell I. A., Zinnecker H., Bate M. R., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08942.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359..809C 359, 809

    2005

  9. [17]

    K., Mel'Nik A

    Dambis A. K., Mel'Nik A. M., Rastorguev A. S., 2001, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.1336863 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AstL...27...58D 27, 58

    2001 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Gandhi P., Rao A., Johnson M. A. C., Paice J. A., Maccarone T. J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz438 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.2642G 485, 2642

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Stencel R

    Garmany C. D., Stencel R. E., 1992, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A

    1992

  13. [21]

    R., Bolton C

    Gies D. R., Bolton C. T., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1086/191118 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJS...61..419G 61, 419

    1986 doi

  14. [22]

    R., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/586690 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678.1237G 678, 1237

    Gies D. R., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/586690 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...678.1237G 678, 1237

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    V., Gualandris A., Portegies Zwart S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396..570G 396, 570

    Gvaramadze V. V., Gualandris A., Portegies Zwart S., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14809.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.396..570G 396, 570

    2009

  16. [25]

    Hansen B. M. S., Phinney E. S., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/291.3.569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.291..569H 291, 569

    1997 doi

  17. [26]

    M., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190559 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJS...38..309H 38, 309

    Humphreys R. M., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190559 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJS...38..309H 38, 309

    1978 doi

  18. [27]

    M., McElroy D

    Humphreys R. M., McElroy D. B., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/162439 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJ...284..565H 284, 565

    1984 doi

  19. [28]

    I., Tutukov A

    Iben Jr. I., Tutukov A. V., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176693 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...456..738I 456, 738

    1996 doi

  20. [29]

    Johnson D. R. H., Soderblom D. R., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114370 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987AJ.....93..864J 93, 864

    1987 doi

  21. [30]

    G., Nelemans G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08193.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354..355J 354, 355

    Jonker P. G., Nelemans G., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08193.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MNRAS.354..355J 354, 355

    2004

  22. [31]

    V., Scholz R.-D., Piskunov A

    Kharchenko N. V., Scholz R.-D., Piskunov A. E., Roeser S., Schilbach E., 2007, VizieR Online Data Catalog, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007yCat.3254....0K 3254

    2007

  23. [34]

    Leigh N. W. C., Wegsman S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty192 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..336L 476, 336

    2018 doi

  24. [35]

    Leigh N. W. C., Stone N. C., Geller A. M., Shara M. M., Muddu H., Solano-Oropeza D., Thomas Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw2178 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.463.3311L 463, 3311

    2016 doi

  25. [36]

    Leonard P. J. T., Dewey R. J., 1993, in Sasselov D. D., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 45, Luminous High-Latitude Stars. p. 239

    1993

  26. [37]

    Leonard P. J. T., Duncan M. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115354 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AJ.....99..608L 99, 608

    1990 doi

  27. [38]

    Lindblad B., 1941, Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941StoAn..13....8L 13, 8.1

    1941

  28. [39]

    Lindblad B., 1942, Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1942StoAn..14....3L 14, 3.1

    1942

  29. [40]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  30. [41]

    Luri X., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616A...9L 616, A9

    2018 doi

  31. [42]

    G., Lorimer D

    Lyne A. G., Lorimer D. R., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1038/369127a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Natur.369..127L 369, 127

    1994 doi

  32. [43]

    A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219425 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    Mahy L., Rauw G., De Becker M., Eenens P., Flores C. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219425 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  33. [44]

    E., Degioia-Eastwood K., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176474 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...454..151M 454, 151

    Massey P., Johnson K. E., Degioia-Eastwood K., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176474 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...454..151M 454, 151

    1995 doi

  34. [45]

    D., 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986HiA.....7..481M 7, 481

    Mathieu R. D., 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986HiA.....7..481M 7, 481

    1986

  35. [46]

    M., Efremov Y

    Mel'Nik A. M., Efremov Y. N., 1995, Astronomy Letters, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AstL...21...10M 21, 10

    1995

  36. [47]

    M., Dambis A

    Mel'Nik A. M., Dambis A. K., Rastorguev A. S., 2001, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/1.1388920 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AstL...27..521M 27, 521

    2001 doi

  37. [48]

    M., Dambis A

    Mel'nik A. M., Dambis A. K., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2225 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472.3887M 472, 3887

    2017 doi

  38. [49]

    M., Dambis A

    Melnik A. M., Dambis A. K., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2339M 493, 2339

    2020 doi

  39. [50]

    Mirabel F., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newar.2017.04.002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NewAR..78....1M 78, 1

    2017 doi

  40. [51]

    F., 2017b, in Gomboc A., ed., IAU Symposium Vol

    Mirabel I. F., 2017b, in Gomboc A., ed., IAU Symposium Vol. 324, New Frontiers in Black Hole Astrophysics. pp 303--306 ( @eprint arXiv 1611.09266 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921316012904

    arXiv

  41. [52]

    F., Rodrigues I., 2003, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1083451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Sci...300.1119M 300, 1119

    Mirabel I. F., Rodrigues I., 2003, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1083451 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Sci...300.1119M 300, 1119

    2003 doi

  42. [53]

    A., McClintock J

    Orosz J. A., McClintock J. E., Aufdenberg J. P., Remillard R. A., Reid M. J., Narayan R., Gou L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/84 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...84O 742, 84

    2011 doi

  43. [54]

    Poveda A., Ruiz J., Allen C., 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967BOTT....4...86P 4, 86

    1967

  44. [55]

    J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/137 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..137R 700, 137

    Reid M. J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/137 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..137R 700, 137

    2009 doi

  45. [56]

    J., McClintock J

    Reid M. J., McClintock J. E., Narayan R., Gou L., Remillard R. A., Orosz J. A., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/83 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...742...83R 742, 83

    2011 doi

  46. [57]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783..130R 783, 130

    Reid M. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/130 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783..130R 783, 130

    2014 doi

  47. [58]

    B., Sigurdsson S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2799R 425, 2799

    Repetto S., Davies M. B., Sigurdsson S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21549.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2799R 425, 2799

    2012

  48. [59]

    E., 1981, in Catalogue of Star Clusters and Associations

    Ruprecht J., Bal \'a zs B., White R. E., 1981, in Catalogue of Star Clusters and Associations. Supplement\_1., by Ruprecht, J.; Bal \'a zs, B.; White, R. E.. Budapest (Hungary): Akad \'e miai Kiad \'o , Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 732 p

    1981

  49. [60]

    Ryu T., Leigh N. W. C., Perna R., 2017a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.4447R 467, 4447

    doi

  50. [61]

    Ryu T., Leigh N. W. C., Perna R., 2017b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1156 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.470....2R 470, 2

    doi

  51. [62]

    C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115880 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....102..333S 102, 333

    Stone R. C., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/115880 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....102..333S 102, 333

    1991 doi

  52. [63]

    M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17434.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..190T 410, 190

    Tetzlaff N., Neuh \"a user R., Hohle M. M., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17434.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.410..190T 410, 190

    2011

  53. [64]

    P., van Leeuwen F., Zhao J

    Tian K. P., van Leeuwen F., Zhao J. L., Su C. G., 1996, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A

    1996

  54. [65]

    R., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179L.123W 179, L123

    Walborn N. R., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181131 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179L.123W 179, L123

    1973 doi

  55. [66]

    L., Murdin P., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1038/235037a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Natur.235...37W 235, 37

    Webster B. L., Murdin P., 1972, @doi [ ] 10.1038/235037a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972Natur.235...37W 235, 37

    1972 doi

  56. [67]

    E., van Paradijs J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...473L..25W 473, L25

    White N. E., van Paradijs J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310380 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...473L..25W 473, L25

    1996 doi

  57. [68]

    J., Mamajek E

    Wright N. J., Mamajek E. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty207 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476..381W 476, 381

    2018 doi

  58. [69]

    J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2477W 486, 2477

    Wright N. J., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.2477W 486, 2477

    2019 doi

  59. [70]

    Xu Y., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/\#abs/2018A&A...616L..15X 616, L15

    2018 doi

  60. [71]

    van Buren D., Noriega-Crespo A., Dgani R., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/117739 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995AJ....110.2914V 110, 2914

    1995 doi

  61. [72]

    van Paradijs J., White N., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/309558 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...447L..33V 447, L33

    1995 doi

Pith tools

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