Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Asteroseismic Masses of Red Giants in the Galactic Globular Clusters M9 & M19

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 This paper reports the first asteroseismic mass-loss measurements for the globular clusters M9 and M19, and finds that M19—an iron-complex (Type II) cluster—loses significantly more mass than Type I clusters at comparable metallicity.

desk verdict First seismic mass loss for a Type II globular cluster, honestly and carefully done, but the EAGB sample is too small for the Type I/II dichotomy to be secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01089 v1 pith:DNVUT77Z submitted 2024-12-02 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Madeline Howell , Simon W. Campbell , Csilla Kalup , Dennis Stello , Gayandhi M. De Silva This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords asteroseismologystars:mass-lossoscillationsglobularclustersredgiantssolar-likemultiplepopulationsK2photometry
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

Using K2 photometry, the paper detects solar-like oscillations in 55 red giants in M9 and 37 in M19, and converts them into stellar masses through a scaling relation that uses only the frequency of maximum oscillation power, $\nu_{\rm max}$, together with effective temperature and luminosity. It aims to establish that the difference between the average RGB and early-AGB masses gives an integrated mass loss of $0.16\pm0.02\,(\mathrm{rand})\pm0.03\,(\mathrm{sys})\,M_\odot$ for M9 and $0.33\pm0.03\,(\mathrm{rand})^{+0.09}_{-0.07}\,(\mathrm{sys})\,M_\odot$ for M19. These are the first seismic mass-loss values for these clusters, and a sympathetic reader would care because they extend to four the number of globular clusters with asteroseismic mass-loss measurements and because the M19 value breaks the mass-loss-metallicity trend defined by the Type I clusters M4 and M80. The paper also argues tentatively that the EAGB mass distribution in M9 and the RGB distribution in M19 contain substructure consistent with a mass difference between stellar sub-populations, but does not claim a confirmed detection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $\Delta\nu$-independent asteroseismic scaling relation $M/M_\odot \simeq (\nu_{\rm max}/\nu_{\rm max,\odot})\,(L/L_\odot)\,(T_{\rm eff}/T_{\rm eff,\odot})^{-7/2}$, which yields stellar masses from the measured frequency of maximum oscillation power, bolometric luminosity, and effective temperature without needing a measured large frequency spacing $\Delta\nu$. The integrated mass loss is then defined as the difference between the modes of kernel-density estimates of the RGB and early-AGB mass distributions, with $\sigma$-clipping used to keep outlying stars from biasing the modes. The distance modulus, the largest systematic in the individual masses, enters through the luminosity and largely cancels in the RGB-minus-EAGB difference, which is why the paper can quote mass-loss uncertainties much smaller than the systematic uncertainties on the masses themselves.

What would settle it

Measure the early-AGB mass distribution of M19 with a sample of more than four stars, e.g., with the long-baseline space photometry of the kind the paper argues is needed; if the KDE mode shifts away from about $0.50\,M_\odot$ by more than the quoted uncertainty, the reported integrated mass loss of $0.33\,M_\odot$ is not representative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the integrated RGB-to-EAGB mass loss is $0.16\pm0.02\,(\mathrm{rand})\pm0.03\,(\mathrm{sys})\,M_\odot$ for M9 and $0.33\pm0.03\,(\mathrm{rand})^{+0.09}_{-0.07}\,(\mathrm{sys})\,M_\odot$ for M19, measured by taking the modes of the seismic mass distributions of the two evolutionary phases. The M9 value is consistent with the mass-loss-metallicity trend set by M4 and M80, while the M19 value is significantly larger, leading the authors to propose that Type II (iron-complex) globular clusters follow a different mass-loss-metallicity trend than Type I clusters. The paper also claims that the mass distributions show no definitive bimodality, but contain tentative substructure: a possible two-component split in the M9 EAGB sample with a mass difference of $0.09\pm0.04\,M_\odot$, and a possible split in the M19 RGB sample with a mass difference of $0.13\pm0.03\,M_\odot$, both of which require spectroscopic abundance classification to interpret.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest premise is that the early-AGB mode masses in M9 (5 stars) and M19 (4 stars) faithfully represent those clusters' true early-AGB populations; if the tiny samples are biased or misclassified, the quoted integrated mass-loss values change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • M9 and M19 become the third and fourth globular clusters with asteroseismic mass-loss measurements, giving a four-cluster sample from which the paper derives the first mass-loss-metallicity relation built on model-independent masses: $\Delta M_{\rm RGB-EAGB} = 0.24\,[{\rm Fe/H}] + 0.55$ (preliminary, Type I clusters only).
  • If the M19 result is correct, Type II globular clusters cannot be assembled onto the Type I mass-loss-metallicity trend: at a comparable metallicity they lose roughly twice as much mass, implying that cluster type and therefore formation history affect stellar mass loss.
  • Because the distance modulus largely cancels in the RGB-minus-EAGB difference, the integrated mass-loss values are more robust than the individual stellar masses, which carry a $\sim$0.1–0.2 $M_\odot$ systematic from the distance scale.
  • The tentative bimodal substructure in the M9 EAGB and M19 RGB distributions, if later confirmed by chemical abundances, would support models in which helium-enriched second-generation stars have lower masses and/or enhanced RGB mass loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if elevated mass loss is a genuine Type II signature, other Type II clusters with future seismic data (for example $\omega$ Centauri or M22) should also fall above the Type I trend; this is a direct, testable consequence of the paper's interpretation.
  • Editorial inference: the M9 EAGB bimodality claim rests on five stars, so a natural extension is a Monte Carlo test of how often a five-star draw from a single-peaked distribution produces a KDE shoulder as large as the one seen here.
  • Editorial inference: the preliminary Type I relation predicts near-zero mass loss for very metal-poor clusters and substantial mass loss for near-solar-metallicity clusters; observing a cluster at either extreme would discriminate the steep seismic trend from the shallower model and dust trends plotted in the paper.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's use of KDE modes rather than means is well matched to small samples, but means would be more stable if future samples grow; a useful check would be to report both statistics once larger EAGB samples are available.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first asteroseismic detection of solar-like oscillations in two Galactic globular clusters, M9 and M19, using K2 Campaign 11 photometry. The authors measure nu_max with a new pipeline (pyMON), determine stellar parameters photometrically, obtain distance moduli from PARSEC and BaSTI isochrone fits, and compute masses with the Delta-nu-independent scaling relation (Eq. 2). Average masses are estimated as modes of KDEs for RGB and EAGB samples after iterative sigma clipping, and integrated mass loss is derived as Delta M_RGB-EAGB = 0.16 +/- 0.02 (rand) +/- 0.03 (sys) M_sun for M9 and 0.33 +/- 0.03 (rand) +0.09/-0.07 (sys) M_sun for M19. They compare these values with M4 and M80, propose a preliminary Type I mass-loss-metallicity relation, and argue that M19, a Type II cluster, has anomalously high mass loss. They also search for bimodal mass distributions indicative of multiple populations.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the first seismic mass-loss measurement in M9 and M19, and the first indication that Type II clusters may follow a different mass-loss-metallicity relation. The paper provides reproducible tools (TPFstitch, pyMON) and carefully separates random and distance-modulus systematics, and the M9 measurement is a useful addition to the seismic mass-loss sample. However, the Type II claim is built on EAGB modes from four stars in M19 (and five in M9), a sample size acknowledged in the text to be too small for robust mode estimation. The paper's own caveats in Sec. 5.1 therefore need to be elevated from a caveat to a central qualification of the headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1, Table 3, Figs. 7-8] The central claim that M19 has significantly larger integrated mass loss than Type I clusters rests on the EAGB KDE mode of 0.50 +/- 0.02 M_sun, built from four stars after sigma clipping, and the M9 EAGB mode is built from five. The text itself notes (Sec. 5.1) that the M19 EAGB average is close to the white-dwarf core mass and 'may be due to the small sample size of four stars'. The quoted random uncertainty is the standard error on the mean; it does not measure the sensitivity of the KDE mode to deleting, reclassifying, or shifting one star. In particular, M19RGB275 (0.49 M_sun) appears in the EAGB sample without an independent phase confirmation, and the M9 stars M9AGB70 and M9AGB119 are admitted to be possible RGB stars (Sec. 5.5). A leave-one-out or jackknife analysis of the EAGB mode, and a recomputation of Delta M for plausible phase reassignments and for +/-110 K Teff shifts, should be reported. Without such a stability test, the abstract's 'significantly larger' and the Type II interpretation are not supported by the present sample.
  2. [Sec. 5.4, Eq. (4)] The mass-loss-metallicity relation for Type I clusters is fit through three points (M4, M80, M9) with no reported uncertainties on the fit parameters, and the same three points are used to argue that M19 deviates. With three points, the slope of 0.24 is not a meaningful fit unless fit uncertainties and a goodness-of-fit or residual test are provided. The phrase 'first mass loss-metallicity trend that uses direct model-independent mass measurements' overstates the case because the masses still depend on the scaling relation (Eq. 2), on photometric temperatures, and on isochrone-fitted distance moduli; these are model-dependent inputs even though Delta-nu is not used. Please either provide a proper fit with parameter uncertainties and a scatter estimate, or present Eq. (4) as an illustrative line and soften the 'first' claim.
  3. [Table 3, Sec. 5.2] The systematic uncertainties quoted in Table 3 are derived only from the distance-modulus variation (Sec. 5.2). The adopted +/-110 K Teff uncertainty and, for M19, the 117 +/- 16 K offset applied to photometric temperatures (Sec. 4.2.2) are not included in the quoted systematic errors for the masses or for Delta M. Since M is proportional to Teff^{-7/2}, a 110 K error at Teff about 4900 K changes individual masses by about 8%, which is comparable to the 0.16-0.33 M_sun mass-loss signal on a roughly 0.6-0.8 M_sun base. The authors should either propagate these Teff systematics into Table 3 or state explicitly why they are negligible for the mass-loss differences.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6] The text contains typos: 'loose more mass' should be 'lose more mass', and 'spectropscopy' should be 'spectroscopy'.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 9] The isochrone fits adopt a Reimers mass-loss parameter eta_R (0.3-0.45) to fit the horizontal branch, and the same isochrones are used to validate the RGB masses in Fig. 9. This is not circular because the derived mass loss is not fed back, but the consistency check in Fig. 9 is partly with models that already assume a mass-loss law; state this limitation when interpreting the 2 sigma agreement.
  3. [Sec. 5.3] The two-group splits at 0.65 M_sun (M9) and 0.75 M_sun (M19) are chosen after inspecting the data, and the reported uncertainties on the resulting mass differences do not account for the choice of split point. Please state explicitly that these splits are a posteriori and treat the mass-difference estimates as exploratory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; masses, mass loss, and the Type I/II comparison do not reduce to the paper's inputs by construction.

full rationale

The central mass measurements use the standard Δν-independent scaling relation (Eq. 2) with νmax measured from K2 power spectra and Teff and L from photometry plus an independently fitted distance modulus. The distance modulus is obtained from isochrone fits to the main-sequence turnoff; the Reimers η_R in those isochrones is chosen to match the HB but is not fed back into the seismic masses or the RGB−EAGB mass difference, so the mass-loss measurement is not self-definitional. The mass loss is defined as the difference of KDE modes of measured masses in two evolutionary phases; while the EAGB samples are small (5 and 4 stars after sigma clipping) and the paper itself flags that the M19 EAGB mode is close to the white-dwarf core mass and may reflect small-sample bias, this is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity. The mass-loss–metallicity relation Eq. (4) is an explicit a posteriori fit to three Type I clusters and is labelled preliminary; because M19 is excluded from the fit, the Type II offset is a comparison, not a fitted prediction. Self-citations to Howell+22 and Howell+24 provide the KDE/pyMON methodology and uncertainty conventions, but the key scaling relations are standard and the new νmax values are data products, so the citations are not load-bearing circular steps.

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

The central claim rests on the scaling relation, photometric phase classification, small EAGB samples, and isochrone-based distance moduli. These are domain assumptions and fitted quantities, not independent constraints. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Distance modulus (m-M)0 = 14.75±0.13 (M9), 14.93±0.17 (M19)
    Fitted via isochrones to Stetson photometry (Sec 4.1, Table 2). Directly scales luminosities and hence masses.
  • Reimers mass loss parameter eta_R in isochrones = 0.35/0.3 (M9 PARSEC/BaSTI), 0.45/0.3 (M19 PARSEC/BaSTI)
    Chosen to fit the horizontal branch in the isochrone fits (Table 2). Affects the distance modulus and thus the mass scale.
  • Isochrone metallicity [M/H] = M9: -1.27/-1.398, M19: -1.25/-1.248
    Inferred by fitting the main sequence turnoff (Table 2). Affects the isochrone-derived distance modulus.
  • M19 photometric Teff offset = 117±16 K
    Added to photometric temperatures to match spectroscopic values (Sec 4.2.2). A systematic offset in Teff directly changes the derived masses.
  • Slope and intercept of mass loss-metallicity trend = 0.24 [Fe/H] + 0.55
    Linear fit through three Type I cluster measurements (M4, M80, M9) excluding M19 (Eq. 4). This is a fitted empirical relation, not a prediction.
  • nu_max-G mag relation for target selection = nu_max = 1.229e-19 G^16.89
    Derived from the M80 sample and used to predict nu_max for target selection (Sec 2.3). Does not enter the final masses directly.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scaling relation M/M_sun = (nu_max/nu_max_sun) * (L/L_sun) * (Teff/Teff_sun)^-3.5 is valid for low-metallicity red giants.
    Invoked in Sec 5.1 (Eq. 2). Based on solar-like oscillation scaling, assumed to hold without an independent calibration for metal-poor cluster giants.
  • domain assumption The photometric classification into RGB and EAGB phases using UBVRI colours is correct.
    Sec 2.2 uses Stetson photometry and the V-(B-V) and U-(U-I) separation. Misclassification would bias the mass loss difference.
  • domain assumption The mode of the KDE of seismic masses in a phase represents the true average mass of that phase.
    Sec 5.1 uses the KDE peak as the average mass. This assumes the sample is representative and the KDE is not skewed by a few stars.
  • domain assumption The mass difference between RGB and EAGB averages equals the integrated mass loss from the RGB tip to the EAGB, with negligible mass loss during the EAGB phase.
    Sec 5.1 defines integrated mass loss this way. If EAGB stars lose non-negligible mass before the EAGB phase, the inferred loss is biased.
  • domain assumption PARSEC and BaSTI isochrones provide reliable temperature-luminosity-mass relations that anchor the distance modulus fit.
    Sec 4.1 relies on isochrone fits to determine (m-M)0. The isochrones have their own uncertainties in age, metallicity, and mass loss treatment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asteroseismic Masses of Red Giants in the Galactic Globular Clusters M9 & M19." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNVUT77Z

@misc{pith2026241201089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asteroseismic Masses of Red Giants in the Galactic Globular Clusters M9 & M19},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNVUT77Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01089}
}
abstract

Asteroseismic masses of globular cluster (GC) stars are invaluable to investigate stellar evolution. Previously, only two GCs have been seismically studied. We present new detections of solar-like oscillations in the clusters M9 and M19, focusing on two key areas: stellar mass loss and GC multiple populations. Using K2 photometry, we detect solar-like oscillations in stars on the red giant branch and early asymptotic giant branch. We measure an integrated mass-loss for M9 of $0.16\pm0.02$(rand)$\pm0.03$(sys)$M_{\odot}$ and M19 of $0.33\pm0.03$(rand)$^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$(sys)$M_{\odot}$. Comparing these to the mass-loss estimates from previous seismically studied clusters, we derive a preliminary relationship between stellar mass-loss and metallicity for Type I GCs. We find that the mass-loss for M19 -- a Type II GC -- is significantly larger, suggesting Type II clusters follow a different mass-loss-metallicity trend. We also examine the mass distributions in each evolutionary phase for evidence of a bimodality that could indicate mass differences between sub-populations. While no clear bimodality is observed, there is tentative evidence suggesting the presence of two mass populations. Classification through spectroscopic abundances into the sub-populations is needed to verify these findings. This study reinforces that asteroseismology of GC stars provides an excellent testbed for studying stellar evolution. However, to advance the field we need high-quality photometry of more GCs, a goal that could be realised with the upcoming Roman Telescope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The spatial positions of our M9 sample (coloured points) and a full Gaia EDR3 membership sample (grey; Vasiliev & Baumgardt 2021). Stars for which we were able to detect solar-like oscillations are classified into two evolutionary phases; RGB and EAGB, and are indicated by the larger coloured points. We also show the M9 K2 superstamp (blue) and the stars with their own TPFs (purple). The black cross indicates th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example TPF patch for M9 from TPFstitch. The red lines divide the patch into the 9 individual TPFs (EPIC 200145500-200145502, 200145512-200145514, & 200145488-200145490). The centre of the stars contained in the field are illustrated by the white circles, where the larger circles indicate stars with brighter magnitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power spectrum for M9RGB289 (grey), smoothed power spectrum (purple), and the linear background fit (red). The power excess of the solar-like oscillation (black) is situated between the two orange lines. pyMON estimates 𝜈max as the frequency of the maximum power in the…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Isochrone fits to dereddenned photometry for a M9 membership sample. UBVRI photometry is from Stetson et al. (2019) and dust corrections are from Alonso-García et al. (2012). We use two different isochrone models: PARSEC (cyan), and BaSTI (purple). The estimated …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The residuals between our photometric and the spectroscopic 𝑇eff estimates from Johnson et al. (2017) (red) and the APOGEE DR17 GC catalogue (blue) for M19. By combining the two samples, the mean offset between the two temperature methods was 117 ± 16 K (purple line). …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) The mass distribution for our RGB (red) and EAGB (green) samples for M9, calculated as KDE functions. The measured average masses (modes) for the RGB and EAGB evolutionary phase are shown by black vertical lines and the values are annotated. The black arrow indicate…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the initial masses from the BaSTI and PARSEC isochrones to the measured average RGB mass (black line) and 2𝜎 random uncertainty (grey shaded region). The magnitude range for our RGB sample in the dereddened V-band is indicated in red. effect is minimised …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The trend in average mass for RGB (red) and EAGB (green), and mass difference between the averages (black) when varying the distance modulus by a maximum of ±2𝜎 (as indicated on the top y-axis) for M9 (left) and M19 (right). The central value is the inferred distance …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Measurements of the integrated mass loss (Δ𝑀RGB-EAGB) be￾tween the RGB and EAGB evolutionary phases for four GCs: M9, M19, M4 (HowellM4) and M80 (HowellM80). M19 has a range in [Fe/H], which is represented by the error bar. We include three RGB mass loss-metallicity t…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: Stars with outlying masses compared to the measured average masses for each evolutionary phase (horizontal lines) for M9. The random uncertainties are demonstrated in grey for both the averages and individual mass points. The quality flags assigned to each star a…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The reddening corrected colour-magnitude diagrams for M9 (left) and M19 (right), focusing on the magnitude range for our seismic sample. We illustrate the locations of the mass outliers by individual symbols, where we distinguish stars classified as RGB (red) and EAGB…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. White Dwarf Kicks via Episodic Mass Ejection from Red Giant Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Episodic, asymmetric mass loss from red giants yields a random-walk accumulation of small kicks that explains white dwarf kick velocities and the disruption of wide binaries.

  2. Detecting Solar-Like Oscillations in the Highest Mass TESS Giants

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

    Custom-aperture TESS photometry detects solar-like oscillations in 43 intermediate-mass giants (10 above 5 M⊙) and shows APOGEE DR19 log g is ~0.23 dex too high versus seismic values.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...35A 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  3. [3]

    arXiv:1902.05569

    Akeson R., et al., 2019, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190205569A p. arXiv:1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  4. [4]

    Alonso-Garc \' a J., Mateo M., Sen B., Banerjee M., Catelan M., Minniti D., von Braun K., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/70 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....143...70A 143, 70

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/3/70 2012

  5. [5]

    Alonso A., Arribas S., Mart \' nez-Roger C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999521 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..140..261A 140, 261

    doi:10.1051/aas:1999521 1999

  6. [6]

    Arellano Ferro A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1080 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1220A 434, 1220

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1080 2013

  7. [7]

    Barker H., Paust N. E. Q., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaa597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130c4204B 130, 034204

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaa597 2018

  8. [8]

    Baumgardt H., Vasiliev E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5957B 505, 5957

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1474 2021

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    Bono G., Caputo F., Di Criscienzo M., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078206 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...476..779B 476, 779

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Bressan A., Marigo P., Girardi L., Salasnich B., Dal Cero C., Rubele S., Nanni A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.427..127B 427, 127

    2012

  3. [11]

    Brogaard K., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201219196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...543A.106B 543, A106

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Brogaard K., Arentoft T., Jessen-Hansen J., Miglio A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab2183 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.507..496B 507, 496

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Buder S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..150B 506, 150

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Carretta E., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...578A.116C 578, A116

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Catelan M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308506 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531..826C 531, 826

    2000 doi

  8. [16]

    arXiv:2108.00582

    Chontos A., Huber D., Sayeed M., Yamsiri P., 2021, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210800582C p. arXiv:2108.00582

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M., Shelton I., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...515L..85C 515, L85

    Clement C. M., Shelton I., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/311981 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...515L..85C 515, L85

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Ip P., Robert N., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AJ.....89.1707C 89, 1707

    Clement C. M., Ip P., Robert N., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/113675 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984AJ.....89.1707C 89, 1707

    1984 doi

  11. [19]

    M., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2587C 122, 2587

    Clement C. M., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323719 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2587C 122, 2587

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Fumagalli M., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0584-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..957C 2, 957

    Cooke R. J., Fumagalli M., 2018, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-018-0584-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatAs...2..957C 2, 957

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Corsaro E., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/190 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...757..190C 757, 190

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Dorman B., Rood R

    D'Cruz N. L., Dorman B., Rood R. T., O'Connell R. W., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177515 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...466..359D 466, 359

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    S., 2016, in Bragaglia A., Arnaboldi M., Rejkuba M., Romano D., eds, Vol

    Da Costa G. S., 2016, in Bragaglia A., Arnaboldi M., Rejkuba M., Romano D., eds, Vol. 317, The General Assembly of Galaxy Halos: Structure, Origin and Evolution. pp 110--115 ( @eprint arXiv 1510.00873 ), @doi 10.1017/S174392131500678X

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Deming D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...805..132D 805, 132

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Dorman B., 1995, in Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia. p. 291 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9511039 )

    1995 arXiv

  18. [26]

    T., O'Connell R

    Dorman B., Rood R. T., O'Connell R. W., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...419..596D 419, 596

    1993 doi

  19. [27]

    Dotter A., Sarajedini A., Anderson J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...738...74D 738, 74

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    D., Gilliland R

    Edmonds P. D., Gilliland R. L., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310108 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...464L.157E 464, L157

    1996 doi

  21. [29]

    Feast M., Whitelock P., Menzies J., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05126.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002MNRAS.329L...7F 329, L7

    2002

  22. [30]

    R., Paltrinieri B., Fusi Pecci F., Rood R

    Ferraro F. R., Paltrinieri B., Fusi Pecci F., Rood R. T., Dorman B., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305712 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..311F 500, 311

    1998 doi

  23. [31]

    R., Messineo M., Fusi Pecci F., de Palo M

    Ferraro F. R., Messineo M., Fusi Pecci F., de Palo M. A., Straniero O., Chieffi A., Limongi M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....118.1738F 118, 1738

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Massa D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..320F 663, 320

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518158 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..320F 663, 320

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    A., Bridges T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16373.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1203F 404, 1203

    Forbes D. A., Bridges T., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16373.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MNRAS.404.1203F 404, 1203

    2010

  26. [34]

    Frandsen S., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078267 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...475..991F 475, 991

    2007 doi

  27. [35]

    R., Bellazzini M., Djorgovski S., Piotto G., Buonanno R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ....105.1145F 105, 1145

    Fusi Pecci F., Ferraro F. R., Bellazzini M., Djorgovski S., Piotto G., Buonanno R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993AJ....105.1145F 105, 1145

    1993 doi

  28. [36]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    I., Bonifacio P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...497..497G 497, 497

    Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez J. I., Bonifacio P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200810904 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...497..497G 497, 497

    2009 doi

  31. [39]

    G., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., Lucatello S., D'Orazi V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...517A..81G 517, A81

    Gratton R. G., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., Lucatello S., D'Orazi V., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912572 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010A&A...517A..81G 517, A81

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    G., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-012-0050-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&ARv..20...50G 20, 50

    Gratton R. G., Carretta E., Bragaglia A., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s00159-012-0050-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&ARv..20...50G 20, 50

    2012 doi

  33. [41]

    M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..651G 478, 651

    Green G. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1008 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478..651G 478, 651

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    R., Chaplin W

    Handberg R., Brogaard K., Miglio A., Bossini D., Elsworth Y., Slumstrup D., Davies G. R., Chaplin W. J., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1929 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.472..979H 472, 979

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    Howell S. B., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/676406 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..398H 126, 398

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Stello D., De Silva G

    Howell M., Campbell S. W., Stello D., De Silva G. M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.3184H 515, 3184

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    W., Stello D., De Silva G

    Howell M., Campbell S. W., Stello D., De Silva G. M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3565 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.7974H 527, 7974

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Chaplin W

    Huber D., Stello D., Bedding T. R., Chaplin W. J., Arentoft T., Quirion P. O., Kjeldsen H., 2009, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.48550/arXiv.0910.2764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009CoAst.160...74H 160, 74

    2009 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Huber D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/143 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..143H 743, 143

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    J., Lee Y.-W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..116J 886, 116

    Jang S., Kim J. J., Lee Y.-W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4f69 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...886..116J 886, 116

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    I., Rich R

    Johnson C. I., Rich R. M., Pilachowski C. A., Caldwell N., Mateo M., Bailey John I. I., Crane J. D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015AJ....150...63J 150, 63

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    I., Caldwell N., Rich R

    Johnson C. I., Caldwell N., Rich R. M., Mateo M., Bailey John I. I., Clarkson W. I., Olszewski E. W., Walker M. G., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...836..168J 836, 168

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    S., Saul Davis D., Richer H

    Kalirai J. S., Saul Davis D., Richer H. B., Bergeron P., Catelan M., Hansen B. M. S., Rich R. M., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/40810.48550/arXiv.0909.2253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..408K 705, 408

    2009

  45. [53]

    Koleva M., Prugniel P., Ocvirk P., Le Borgne D., Soubiran C., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12908.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.385.1998K 385, 1998

    2008

  46. [54]

    B., Da Costa G

    Kuzma P. B., Da Costa G. S., Mackey A. D., Roderick T. A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.3639K 461, 3639

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    D., Vanderburg A., Gosnell N

    Leiner E., Mathieu R. D., Vanderburg A., Gosnell N. M., Smith J. C., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bf8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...881...47L 881, 47

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    Li Y., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01648-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..673L 6, 673

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  50. [58]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap&SS..39..447L 39, 447

    1976 doi

  51. [59]

    T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..373M 481, 373

    MacLean B. T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2297 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481..373M 481, 373

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    E., et al., 2015, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv151007674M p

    Mamajek E. E., et al., 2015, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015arXiv151007674M p. arXiv:1510.07674

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    F., Villanova S., Piotto G., Milone A

    Marino A. F., Villanova S., Piotto G., Milone A. P., Momany Y., Bedin L. R., Medling A. M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810389 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...490..625M 490, 625

    2008 doi

  54. [62]

    F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..815M 450, 815

    Marino A. F., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv420 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.450..815M 450, 815

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    Matsunaga N., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10620.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.370.1979M 370, 1979

    2006

  56. [64]

    McKenzie M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.516.3515M 516, 3515

    2022 doi

  57. [65]

    Miglio A., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19859.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.419.2077M 419, 2077

    2012

  58. [66]

    Miglio A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1555 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461..760M 461, 760

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    arXiv:2306.12459

    Moln \'a r L., Kalup C., Joyce M., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2306.12459 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230612459M p. arXiv:2306.12459

    2023 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mullally F., Barclay T., Barentsen G., 2016, K2fov: Field of view software for NASA's K2 mission , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1601.009 ), @doi 10.5281/zenodo.44283 , http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.44283

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Laher R

    Ngeow C.-C., Bhardwaj A., Henderson J.-Y., Graham M. J., Laher R. R., Medford M. S., Purdum J., Rusholme B., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac87a4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164..154N 164, 154

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    W., Saha A., Knezek P., Subramaniam A., de Boer T., Seitzer P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1570O 138, 1570

    Olszewski E. W., Saha A., Knezek P., Subramaniam A., de Boer T., Seitzer P., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1570 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AJ....138.1570O 138, 1570

    2009 doi

  63. [71]

    R., Fabbri S., Fusi Pecci F., Dalessandro E., Rich R

    Origlia L., Ferraro F. R., Fabbri S., Fusi Pecci F., Dalessandro E., Rich R. M., Valenti E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201423617 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.136O 564, A136

    2014 doi

  64. [72]

    Paparrizos J., Gravano L., 2016, @doi [SIGMOD Rec.] 10.1145/2949741.2949758 , 45, 69–76

    2016

  65. [73]

    Pietrinferni A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4d5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..102P 908, 102

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2860R 532, 2860

    Reyes C., Stello D., Hon M., Trampedach R., Sandquist E., Pinsonneault M. H., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1650 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.2860R 532, 2860

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    Ricker G. R., et al., 2015, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JATIS...1a4003R 1, 014003

    2015 doi

  68. [76]

    T., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...184..815R 184, 815

    Rood R. T., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/152373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...184..815R 184, 815

    1973 doi

  69. [77]

    Salaris M., Chieffi A., Straniero O., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...414..580S 414, 580

    1993 doi

  70. [78]

    Sandage A., Wildey R., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/149350 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967ApJ...150..469S 150, 469

    1967 doi

  71. [79]

    B., 1948, @doi [ ] 10.1086/106123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948AJ.....53Q.203S 53, 203

    Sawyer H. B., 1948, @doi [ ] 10.1086/106123 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948AJ.....53Q.203S 53, 203

    1948 doi

  72. [80]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  73. [81]

    P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1393S 528, 1393

    Schiavon R. P., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.1393S 528, 1393

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  75. [83]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  76. [84]

    Sills A., Karakas A., Lattanzio J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/692/2/1411 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...692.1411S 692, 1411

    2009 doi

  77. [85]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  78. [86]

    Sneden C., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1023/A:1002122502384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Ap&SS.265..145S 265, 145

    1999 doi

  79. [87]

    L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..949S 700, 949

    Stello D., Gilliland R. L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...700..949S 700, 949

    2009 doi

  80. [88]

    J., Basu S., Elsworth Y., Bedding T

    Stello D., Chaplin W. J., Basu S., Elsworth Y., Bedding T. R., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2009.00767.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.400L..80S 400, L80

    2009

  81. [89]

    Stello D., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/809/1/L3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809L...3S 809, L3

    2015 doi

  82. [90]

    Stello D., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.1677S 512, 1677

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    B., Pancino E., Zocchi A., Sanna N., Monelli M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3042S 485, 3042

    Stetson P. B., Pancino E., Zocchi A., Sanna N., Monelli M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.485.3042S 485, 3042

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    P., Marino A

    Tailo M., Milone A. P., Marino A. F., D'Antona F., Lagioia E. P., Cordoni G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab05cc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..123T 873, 123

    2019 doi

  85. [93]

    Tailo M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2639 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.5745T 498, 5745

    2020 doi

  86. [94]

    Tailo M., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...662L...7T 662, L7

    2022 doi

  87. [95]

    B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..247T 455, 247

    Tian B., Deng L., Han Z., Zhang X. B., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...455..247T 455, 247

    2006 doi

  88. [96]

    M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229.1046T 229, 1046

    Tinsley B. M., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157039 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...229.1046T 229, 1046

    1979 doi

  89. [97]

    L., Jimenez R., Verde L., Wandelt B

    Valcin D., Bernal J. L., Jimenez R., Verde L., Wandelt B. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/12/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JCAP...12..002V 2020, 002

    2020 doi

  90. [98]

    A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/678764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..948V 126, 948

    Vanderburg A., Johnson J. A., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/678764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..948V 126, 948

    2014 doi

  91. [99]

    Vasiliev E., Baumgardt H., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5978V 505, 5978

    2021 doi

  92. [100]

    Wallerstein G., 1962, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962ApJS....6..407W 6, 407

    1962 doi

  93. [101]

    H., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495..284W 495, 284

    Whitney J. H., et al., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305288 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...495..284W 495, 284

    1998 doi

  94. [102]

    S., Norris J

    Yong D., Da Costa G. S., Norris J. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1091 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1846Y 460, 1846

    2016 doi

  95. [103]

    C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abbee310.48550/arXiv.2012.04051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251...23Z 251, 23

    Zinn J. C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/abbee310.48550/arXiv.2012.04051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..251...23Z 251, 23

    2020 doi arXiv

  96. [104]

    C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..191Z 926, 191

    Zinn J. C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2c83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926..191Z 926, 191

    2022 doi

  97. [105]

    van den Bergh S., 1967, @doi [ ] 10.1086/110203 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967AJ.....72...70V 72, 70

    1967 doi

  98. [106]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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