Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Constraining the progenitor of the nearby Type II-P SN 2024ggi with environmental analysis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SN 2024ggi's progenitor was a star of about 10 solar masses, an environmental analysis concludes.

desk verdict A careful, honest environmental analysis of SN 2024ggi that yields a conditional 10.2 Msun progenitor mass; the tension with direct detection remains unresolved because the association assumption is the weak link. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14685 v2 pith:YCKDBELV submitted 2024-11-22 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Xinyi Hong , Ning-Chen Sun , Zexi Niu , Junjie Wu , Qiang Xi , Jifeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords TypeII-PsupernovaesupernovaprogenitorsredsupergiantsstarformationhistorystellarpopulationsHubbleSpaceTelescopehierarchicalBayesianmethodSN2024ggi
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 pin down the initial mass of the progenitor of the nearby Type II-P supernova SN 2024ggi without relying on the star's own light, which is obscured by circumstellar dust and changes brightness as it pulsates. It analyses the stellar population within 100 parsecs of the explosion using Hubble Space Telescope images and fits the star formation history with a hierarchical Bayesian method. The authors conclude that the progenitor belonged to the youngest of three stellar populations in that environment, aged 25.7 million years, which corresponds to an initial mass of 10.2 solar masses. If correct, this independent estimate is significantly lower than the 13 to 17 solar masses derived from direct detection, and it would mean a relatively low-mass star can explode with normal Type II-P energy.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a hierarchical Bayesian fit of the observed colour–magnitude diagrams to synthetic stellar populations built from parsec isochrones, assuming a Salpeter IMF, a 50% binary fraction, and a flat mass-ratio distribution. Artificial star tests set the detection limits and photometric uncertainties. The fit yields three Gaussian age populations; the youngest, at 25.7 Myr, is the only one massive enough to have produced a core-collapse supernova, so the progenitor is assigned to it. The spatial uniformity of the field supports the assumption that the measured host extinction applies to all populations uniformly.

What would settle it

A deeper HST imaging campaign of the SN 2024ggi field that reaches several magnitudes below the current detection limit could reveal main-sequence stars younger than 25.7 Myr; detection of a distinct younger population within 100 pc would remove the youngest-association assumption and push the inferred progenitor mass upward.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SN 2024ggi did not come from the massive red supergiant that direct imaging has been interpreted to show at 13–17 $M_\odot$, but instead from a star in the youngest of three model populations fitted to the surrounding 100 pc field, with log(age/yr) = 7.41 (25.7 Myr) and initial mass $10.2^{+0.06}_{-0.09}\,M_\odot$ (2-$\sigma$). The two older populations (7.75 and 8.09 dex) are too old to produce a core-collapse supernova. The paper argues that environmental dating is immune to the circumstellar extinction and pulsational variability that distort direct brightness measurements, and that the lower mass implies even a $10\,M_\odot$ progenitor can explode with the regular explosion energy measured for this supernova.

Load-bearing premise

The whole mass estimate rests on the assumption that the supernova's progenitor belongs to the youngest of the three fitted stellar populations and that no even younger, faint star-forming event exists in the 100 pc environment; the paper states that this cannot be excluded with the current data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The environmental mass estimate of $10.2\,M_\odot$ is independent of the progenitor's circumstellar extinction and pulsational brightness variability, unlike direct SED fitting.
  • If the youngest-population assignment is right, a star of roughly $10\,M_\odot$ can end as a Type II-P supernova with a standard explosion energy of about $2\times10^{51}$ erg.
  • The discrepancy between environmental (10.2) and direct (13–17 $M_\odot$) masses suggests that circumstellar dust and pulsation can substantially bias direct progenitor mass estimates, at least for this object.
  • The two older fitted populations (ages near 7.75 and 8.09 dex) are not massive enough for core collapse, leaving the youngest population as the only viable progenitor source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step would be to apply the same environmental method to a sample of Type II-P supernovae with direct detections; a systematic offset toward lower masses would strengthen the case that direct measurements are biased upward by circumstellar extinction.
  • If this mass is correct, the 'red supergiant problem'—the lack of high-mass direct progenitors—becomes less about missing massive progenitors and more about how dusty, variable supergiants are measured.
  • Deeper HST observations of the same field, reaching fainter main-sequence stars, could directly test whether an even younger, low-level star-forming event lurks below the current detection limit; if found, the progenitor mass would be revised upward.
  • The paper's assumption that the environment traces the progenitor's birth site could be checked by comparing the stellar ages with molecular cloud or H II region tracers in NGC 3621.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the 100 pc HST environment of the Type II-P SN 2024ggi in NGC 3621 to infer the progenitor's initial mass. Using dolphot photometry in seven HST filters, artificial star tests, and a hierarchical Bayesian fit of model stellar populations to the CMDs, the authors find that the resolved stars are described by three Gaussian bursts in log-age. They associate the progenitor with the youngest population, whose best-fit age is log(t/yr) = 7.41 (25.7 Myr), corresponding to a single-star initial mass of 10.2^{+0.06}_{-0.09} M_sun (2-sigma statistical uncertainty). This environmental estimate is substantially lower than the direct-detection estimates of 13-17 M_sun from Xiang et al. (2024) and Chen et al. (2024b), and the paper argues that the environmental method is immune to circumstellar extinction and pulsational variability that affect the direct measurements.

Significance. If the inferred mass were robust, this paper would provide a valuable independent channel for Type II-P progenitor mass estimation that bypasses the systematic problems of circumstellar extinction and photometric variability. The analysis uses standard, well-tested tools (dolphot, PARSEC isochrones, the hierarchical Bayesian framework of Maund & Ramirez-Ruiz 2016), and the authors are transparent about the key assumption underlying their headline number. However, the central claim is conditional on the unverified assumption that the three fitted populations fully describe the star formation history of the region, including any populations below the detection limit. The paper's own caveat in Section 3 means the quoted uncertainty substantially understates the true systematic range, so the significance of the result depends on whether that caveat can be quantified or eliminated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, final paragraph] The central inference that SN 2024ggi arose from the youngest of the three fitted populations (log t/yr = 7.41, mass 10.2 M_sun) is load-bearing and conditional on the complete characterization of the star formation history by those three Gaussian bursts. The paper explicitly concedes that an even younger, low-level star-forming event eluding detection cannot be excluded. If such a component at log t/yr ~ 7.0-7.2 exists, the corresponding single-star mass would be roughly 13-17 M_sun, matching the direct-detection estimates. Because the paper does not quantify the detection limit in terms of the youngest detectable stellar population (e.g., by injecting young synthetic populations with the artificial-star completeness), the headline mass is a conditional estimate under a specific model assumption rather than a marginal posterior. I request a quantitative statement of what young, low-level populations are excluded by the data, or a revised uncertainty that includes the population-association ambiguity.
  2. [Section 3, paragraph beginning 'We find that the stars in the region can be fitted with three model stellar populations'] The choice of three model populations is presented as a finding, but the paper provides no model comparison (e.g., Bayesian evidence, BIC, or posterior predictive checks) justifying three rather than two, four, or more bursts. This matters because an additional, sparse younger population would directly alter the progenitor association and mass. At minimum, the authors should report the evidence for the number of components and demonstrate that the youngest-population age is stable when the number of Gaussian bursts is varied.
  3. [Section 3, posterior uncertainties and Section 1, introduction] The quoted 2-sigma uncertainties on the mass (10.2^{+0.06}_{-0.09} M_sun) are statistical posterior uncertainties within the adopted model. They exclude systematic contributions from the assumed Salpeter IMF, solar metallicity, 50% binary fraction, fixed Gaussian width of 0.05 dex in log-age, and the adopted extinction prior. Since the abstract claims an 'accurate determination' of the progenitor mass, these systematics must be propagated or at least bounded with sensitivity tests; otherwise the uncertainty is not representative of the actual accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph 2] The phrase 'distance module' should read 'distance modulus'; also 'µ = 29.14 mag' should be specified as the apparent distance modulus for consistency with standard usage.
  2. [Section 2, Table 1] There is a stray space in 'T able 1' in the manuscript; please correct the table header.
  3. [Section 3, CMD description] In the caption of Figure 2, the reddening vector is described with 'A_total_V = 0.52' but the text says 'A_host_V = 0.30'; clarify whether the vector includes the Milky Way component or only the host component.
  4. [Section 3, model assumptions] The fixed Gaussian width of 0.05 dex in log-age is asserted without justification; a brief citation or sensitivity test would help the reader assess how much this assumption drives the inferred mean ages.
  5. [Section 3, exclusion of bright sources] The statement that results are 'almost unchanged' when very bright sources are excluded would be more convincing with a quantitative comparison of the fitted youngest age and mass in the two cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the environmental age and mass derivation are self-contained and not forced by the inputs.

full rationale

The paper derives the progenitor mass by fitting the resolved stellar population in a 100 pc region around SN 2024ggi to PARSEC isochrones with a hierarchical Bayesian method, obtaining a youngest-population age of log(t/yr)=7.41 and then converting that age to a single-star initial mass of 10.2 Msun through stellar evolutionary tracks. The supernova itself is used only to select the region and to adopt an external extinction prior from Zhang et al. (2024); the derived mass is not fed back into the fit nor used to calibrate any model parameter. The association of the progenitor with the youngest population is an inference from the requirement that core-collapse progenitors exceed roughly 8 Msun, not a definition of the mass. The paper explicitly concedes the possibility of an undetected younger low-level star-forming event, which is a stated systematic limitation rather than a circular step. Self-citations to Sun et al. (2021) and related papers are methodological references describing the Bayesian fitting approach, not load-bearing uniqueness claims or imported results; the actual data analysis is performed here. No equation is equivalent by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The central claim therefore has independent content, and the environmental mass estimate is a legitimate, if model-dependent, measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mass estimate rests on several modeling assumptions: the representation of the SFH as three Gaussian bursts, the solar metallicity and Salpeter IMF, the binary properties, the common extinction prior, and the association of the progenitor with the youngest population. These are not free parameters in the traditional sense but are chosen priors; the only data-driven parameters are the mean ages and fractions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Mean log-age of youngest model population = 7.41 (+0.05/-0.07)
    Fitted to the CMD of 238 stars in the 100 pc region; this value directly sets the progenitor mass.
  • Mean log-age of intermediate model population = 7.75 (+0.04/-0.04)
    Fitted to the CMD; used to represent older field stars.
  • Mean log-age of oldest model population = 8.09 (+0.03/-0.03)
    Fitted to the CMD; represents the oldest component.
  • Population fractions = Not reported in text
    The relative weights of the three populations are free parameters in the hierarchical Bayesian fit, although their posterior values are not quoted.
  • Host stellar extinction = Not quoted; prior mean E(B-V)=0.113 mag
    Fitted with a Gaussian prior based on Zhang et al. (2024); the posterior is shown in the corner plot but not given in the text.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption All stars in the 100 pc region are at the adopted distance modulus of 29.14 mag and have solar metallicity.
    Section 3 states solar metallicity is assumed, consistent with Xiang et al. (2024). This affects the age-mass mapping.
  • ad hoc to paper The star formation history is representable as a mixture of Gaussian bursts with a fixed width of 0.05 dex in log-age.
    Section 3: 'we assume that each model population have a Gaussian distribution with a small standard deviation of 0.05 dex in stellar log-ages.' This is a modeling choice not derived from data.
  • domain assumption The progenitor arises from the youngest fitted population.
    Section 3: 'we conclude that SN 2024ggi should arise from the youngest population' because the other two populations are too low-mass for CCSNe.
  • domain assumption A Salpeter IMF and a 50% binary fraction with flat mass ratio, all non-interacting, describe the stellar populations.
    Section 3 lists these assumptions; they influence the inferred age and mass.
  • domain assumption The mean extinction is the same for all populations and follows a Gaussian prior with E(B-V)=0.113 +/- 0.014 mag from Zhang et al. (2024).
    Section 3: 'the mean host stellar extinctions of all model populations can be considered as the same, for which we adopted a Gaussian prior based on the measurement of Zhang et al. (2024)'.
  • standard math Standard extinction law with R_V=3.1 (Cardelli et al. 1989) applies.
    Adopted in Section 1 and used throughout; standard practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the progenitor of the nearby Type II-P SN 2024ggi with environmental analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCKDBELV

@misc{pith2026241114685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the progenitor of the nearby Type II-P SN 2024ggi with environmental analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCKDBELV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14685}
}
abstract

The progenitors of Type II-P supernovae (SN) have been confirmed to be red supergiants. However, the upper mass limit of the directly probed progenitors is much lower than that predicted by current theories, and the accurate determination of the progenitor masses is key to understand the final fate of massive stars. Located at a distance of only 6.72 Mpc, the Type II-P SN 2024ggi is one of the closest SN in the last decade. Previous studies have analyzed its progenitor by direct detection, but the derived progenitor mass may be influenced by the very uncertain circumstellar extinction and pulsational brightness variability. In this work, we try to constrain the progenitor mass with an environmental analysis based on images from the Hubble Space Telescope. We found that stars in the progenitor environment have a uniform spatial distribution without significant clumpiness, and we derived the star formation history of the environment with a hierarchical Bayesian method. The progenitor is associated with the youngest population in the SN environment with an age of log($t$/yr) = 7.41 (i.e. 25.7 Myr), which corresponds to an initial mass of $10.2^{+0.06}_{-0.09}$ $M_\odot$. Our work provides an independent measurement of the progenitor mass, which is not affected by circumstellar extinction and pulsational brightness variability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. F435W/F555W/F814W three-colour composite image of the environment of SN 2024ggi by HST observations. The white circle in panel (b) has a radius of 100 pc, within which we studied the star formation history in the local environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CMDs of all stellar sources in the environment of SN 2024ggi. In all panels, the blue, green and red isochrones correspond to stellar populations with ages of log(t/yr) = 7.41, 7.75, 8.09, respectively. The arrows in the upper left corner are reddening vectors for RV = 3.1 and total extinctions A total V = 0.52, which corresponds to a best-fitting host extinction A host V = 0.30 and a Milky Way reddening of E(B − V … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior probability distributions of mean stellar log-ages of model stellar populations and the host stellar extinction. The numbers on top of and the dashed lines in each histogram show the median value with the 95% (2-sigma) credible interval of the marginalised posterior probability. The contours in the other panels contain 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2-sigma marginalised posterior probability from inside to outside [PITH_FU… view at source ↗

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. Full citation record

  1. A statistical study of the metallicity of core-collapse supernovae based on VLT/MUSE integral-field-unit spectroscopy

    astro-ph.GA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 166 nearby core-collapse supernovae with MUSE IFU data, the authors find no significant host-galaxy metallicity difference among Types II(P), IIn, IIb, Ib and Ic, narrowing the 1σ stochastic uncertainty to about...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A., Badenes, C., et al

    Auchettl, K., Lopez, L. A., Badenes, C., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 871, 64, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf395

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf395 2019

  2. [2]

    R., Smith , N., & Jencson , J

    Beasor , E. R., Smith , N., & Jencson , J. E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.14027, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.14027

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.14027 2024

  3. [3]

    2012, , 427, 127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan , A., Marigo , P., Girardi , L., et al. 2012, , 427, 127, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    doi:10.1086/167900 1989

  5. [5]

    2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.09270, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09270

    Chen , T.-W., Yang , S., Srivastav , S., et al. 2024 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.09270, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.09270

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.09270 2024

  6. [6]

    2024 b , , 971, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad62f7

    Chen , X., Kumar , B., Er , X., et al. 2024 b , , 971, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad62f7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad62f7 2024

  7. [7]

    Davies, B., & Beasor, E. R. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 2116, 10.1093/mnras/stx2734

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2734 2017

  8. [8]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin , A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Dolphin , A. E. 2000, , 112, 1383, 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Rubin, D

    Díaz-Rodríguez, M., Murphy, J. W., Rubin, D. A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6e1

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    M., Dalcanton, J

    Gogarten, S. M., Dalcanton, J. J., Murphy, J. W., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 300, 10.1088/0004-637X/703/1/300

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Meynet , G., & Ekstr \"o m , S

    Groh , J. H., Meynet , G., & Ekstr \"o m , S. 2013, , 550, L7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220741

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    V., Davis , K

    Jacobson-Gal \'a n , W. V., Davis , K. W., Kilpatrick , C. D., et al. 2024, , 972, 177, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c64

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Leonard , D. C. 2011, , 336, 117, 10.1007/s10509-010-0530-8

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E

    Maund, J. R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 3175, 10.1093/mnras/stv2760

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    W., Jennings, Z

    Murphy, J. W., Jennings, Z. G., Williams, B., Dalcanton, J. J., & Dolphin, A. E. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 742, L4, 10.1088/2041-8205/742/1/L4

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    R., et al

    Niu , Z., Sun , N.-C., Maund , J. R., et al. 2023, , 955, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4e3

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed

    O'Connor , E. 2017, in Handbook of Supernovae, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin , 1555, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_129

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, , 688, L28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450608

    Pessi , T., Cartier , R., Hueichapan , E., et al. 2024, , 688, L28, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450608

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Salpeter , E. E. 1955, , 121, 161, 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  13. [21]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 737, 103, 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    A., Sand , D

    Shrestha , M., Bostroem , K. A., Sand , D. J., et al. 2024, , 972, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6907

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Smartt , S. J. 2009, , 47, 63, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101737

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 69, 10.33232/001c.122844

    Soker , N. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 69, 10.33232/001c.122844

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    R., & Crowther , P

    Sun , N.-C., Maund , J. R., & Crowther , P. A. 2023 a , , 521, 2860, 10.1093/mnras/stad690

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    R., Crowther, P

    Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., Crowther, P. A., Fang, X., & Zapartas, E. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 2253, 10.1093/mnras/stab994

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Crowther , P

    Sun , N.-C., Maund , J. R., Crowther , P. A., et al. 2022, , 510, 3701, 10.1093/mnras/stab3768

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Hirai , R., Crowther , P

    Sun , N.-C., Maund , J. R., Hirai , R., Crowther , P. A., & Podsiadlowski , P. 2020, , 491, 6000, 10.1093/mnras/stz3431

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Shao , Y., & Janiak , I

    Sun , N.-C., Maund , J. R., Shao , Y., & Janiak , I. A. 2023 b , , 519, 3785, 10.1093/mnras/stac3773

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-1020, 1

    Tonry , J., Denneau , L., Weiland , H., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2024-1020, 1

    2024

  23. [31]

    B., Courtois, H

    Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., Dolphin, A. E., et al. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 86, 10.1088/0004-6256/146/4/86

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Van Dyk, S. D. 2017, Supernova Progenitors Observed with HST, ed. A. W. Alsabti & P. Murdin (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 693--719, 10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_126

    2017 doi

  25. [33]

    J., Eldridge, J

    Walmswell, J. J., Eldridge, J. J., Brewer, B. J., & Tout, C. A. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 435, 2171, 10.1093/mnras/stt1444

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    2024, , 969, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b3

    Xiang , D., Mo , J., Wang , X., et al. 2024, , 969, L15, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad54b3

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, , 970, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da4

    Zhang , J., Dessart , L., Wang , X., et al. 2024, , 970, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5da4

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.