Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Open Cluster Study Using $Gaia$ I:Membership and Cluster Properties

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A non-parametric Gaia DR3 method finds more member stars in 21 open clusters than two earlier catalogues, with gains up to a factor of about 2.9, mostly among low-mass binaries and blue stragglers.

desk verdict Useful non-parametric membership method, but the headline membership excess is plausible rather than proven; the local field model is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05033 v2 pith:PW57UTAV submitted 2024-12-06 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Anindya Ganguly , Prasanta K. Nayak , Sourav Chatterjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords openstarclustersGaiaDR3clustermembershipnon-parametricmethodbluestragglersbinarystarsBayesianisochronefitting
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 a fully non-parametric membership determination, using only proper motions and parallax from Gaia DR3, recovers more open-cluster members than two existing large catalogues. The authors claim that in 19 of 21 target clusters they find more members than CG20, and in all 21 more than HUNT23, with the largest gain a factor of about 2.9. The surplus persists even when the comparison is restricted to the same projected radius used by earlier work, so it is not simply an artefact of searching a larger area. They attribute the extra stars mainly to low-mass main-sequence binaries and blue stragglers, objects whose positions on the colour-magnitude diagram do not fit standard assumptions and that are commonly discarded by CMD-based validation. If correct, this provides a more complete census of cluster stars for studies of binary evolution and stellar dynamics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a non-parametric three-dimensional density pair. The cluster density $f_{\rm cl}$ is built by drawing 100 samples per star from an initial guess of members (stars within a projected radius of $\le 1$ pc that appear clustered by eye), each sample a three-dimensional Gaussian centred on the star's DR3 parallax and proper motions with the reported error covariance; the field density $f_{\rm field}$ is built the same way from all stars within 20 pc after removing the volume containing 95% of the cluster PDF. Membership probability for any star is $P_{\rm mem}=P_{\rm cl}/(P_{\rm cl}+P_{\rm field})$, where $P_{\rm cl}$ and $P_{\rm field}$ are the average probabilities of drawing that star from the two densities given its measurement errors. Because no colour-magnitude information enters after the initial guess, the mechanism can retain stars outside the standard main-sequence locus, including binaries and blue stragglers.

What would settle it

A radial-velocity or spectroscopic follow-up of the uniquely identified members in two or three of the 21 clusters, a few dozen stars per cluster: if these stars show a velocity dispersion or binary fraction matching the field rather than the cluster, the claimed extra members are largely contamination; if their velocities match the cluster, the recovery is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that membership can be determined without any parametric clustering model, and that this recovers more members than previous catalogues even within the same radius. The authors build three-dimensional probability densities $f_{\rm cl}$ and $f_{\rm field}$ for the cluster and the field in $\{\mu_{\rm RA},\mu_{\rm dec},\varpi\}$, then assign each star a membership probability $P_{\rm mem}=P_{\rm cl}/(P_{\rm cl}+P_{\rm field})$. Applied to 21 rich, nearby open clusters ($N_{\rm cl}>500$, $D<3$ kpc), they report $N_{\rm cl}$ exceeding CG20 in 19 clusters and HUNT23 in all 21, with median ratios of about 1.3 and 1.45 and a maximum near 2.9. The extra members agree with known members in colour-magnitude space but fall on the binary main sequence and in the blue-straggler region, which the authors take as evidence that the earlier methods systematically missed these populations.

Load-bearing premise

The membership counts rest on the assumption that the stars left after subtracting the suspected cluster stars from all stars within 20 pc give an accurate model of the background stellar density around the cluster's own motion; if that background model is too high or too low, the claimed extra members inflate or shrink accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The member catalogues contain more low-mass main-sequence binaries and blue stragglers, enlarging the sample available for studying binary evolution and dynamical tracers.
  • The same procedure extends to larger projected radii and fainter magnitude limits with no methodological change; the stated limit is computational cost.
  • The posterior estimates of age, metallicity, distance, and extinction agree broadly with earlier homogeneous studies, suggesting that the membership change is a selection effect rather than a global systematic shift.
  • Because the method makes no assumptions about cluster shape or CMD location, it can be applied to clusters with complex spatial or kinematic structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the extra members are genuine, the open-cluster binary fractions and total masses inferred from earlier catalogues are underestimates, which would feed back into initial-mass-function and dynamical-evolution arguments.
  • A radial-velocity follow-up of these uniquely identified members would separate the two possibilities directly: cluster-like velocities would confirm that CMD-based filtering, not the clustering step, was discarding binaries and blue stragglers in earlier work.
  • If confirmed, the result suggests that CMD-verification layers in large cluster catalogues, rather than the astrometric clustering itself, are the main source of missing low-mass binaries, and future catalogues could drop or reweight such filters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a Gaia DR3-based membership analysis of 21 open clusters (Ncl > 500 and D < 3 kpc, selected from CG20). The membership probability Pmem is built from non-parametric kernel-density models fcl and ffield in the three-dimensional space (mu_RA, mu_dec, pi), with correlated astrometric errors propagated through random draws and a data-dependent cutoff Pmem,c. The authors then fit MIST isochrones with an emcee MCMC, using a single-star main-sequence locus identified from local density modes, to jointly estimate age, [Fe/H], distance, and reddening. The headline results are that the method finds more members than CG20 in 19/21 clusters and more than HUNT23 in all 21 clusters, up to a factor of about 2.9, and that the authors attribute these extra members to low-mass MS binaries and blue stragglers, while the derived cluster properties largely agree with previous homogeneous studies.

Significance. The manuscript has real strengths. The membership scheme propagates Gaia astrometric uncertainties rather than using point estimates; the Bayesian property estimation provides full posteriors with a single pipeline; and the comparison to CG20, HUNT23, and Dias et al. is systematic, with convergence and Pmem,c sensitivity checks in the appendices. If the membership counts are accurate, the method would be a useful tool for identifying stellar exotica and for homogeneous cluster characterization. However, the central quantitative claim, namely the Ncl excess over previous catalogs, rests on the absolute normalization of a local field PDF that is not independent of the cluster, and the paper offers no external validation such as radial velocities, an independent field-control region, or an injection-recovery calibration. The property estimates are less affected and match literature values well, but the membership-count claim needs additional support before the main conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The field PDF is not an independent background estimate. ffield is constructed from all stars within rproj <= 20 pc after excluding the volume containing 95% of fcl, so the KDE must interpolate across a hole centered on the cluster's astrometric peak. If the true field density inside that hole is underestimated, Pmem = Pcl / (Pcl + Pfield) is systematically inflated for stars near the peak, which directly inflates Ncl through the Pmem,c threshold. The checks in Section 5.1 (matching D, mu, and pi distributions to CG20; clean CMDs; insensitivity of properties to Pmem,c) do not validate the absolute scale of ffield: the added members are claimed to lie in the binary and blue-straggler regions, where a CMD 'cleanness' test is least discriminating, and the astrometric agreement with CG20 only shows that the selected stars have cluster-like positions, not that contaminated field stars are absent. I request a concrete test of the field normalization, for example an independent field model built from an annulus just outside rproj = 20 pc or from control fields at the same Galactic latitude and longitude, or an injection-recovery experiment that places synthetic clusters with known Ncl into the real local field and checks the recovered counts.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Appendix C] The robustness analysis in Appendix C does not support the headline member counts. Figure 16 shows that the posterior distributions of log(tage), [Fe/H], Av, and D are insensitive to the adopted Pmem,c, but the headline comparison in Table 1 and Figure 13 is about Ncl, and Ncl changes with the threshold by construction. Moreover, no uncertainties are quoted on any of the Ncl values, even though the field-model normalization is the dominant systematic for the ratios Ncl/Ncl,CG20 and Ncl/Ncl,HUNT23. The largest claimed ratio, a factor of about 2.9 for NGC-2516, is therefore not independently calibrated. An estimate of the systematic error on Ncl, or a calibration experiment, is needed before the abstract's claim 'we identify more members than CG20 in 19 of 21 clusters' can be evaluated quantitatively.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 4.1] The method is described in the Introduction and Abstract as 'completely non-parametric' and as making 'no assumptions on the expected distributions of potential cluster members,' but it depends on a human-selected initial guess for fcl (Section 3.1) and on several tunable choices: the sliding-window size of 30 stars, the degree-5 polynomials for the main-sequence locus and its spread, the ad hoc jitter parameter f in Eq. (3), and the cutoff Pmem,c. In particular, fcl is constructed exclusively from the initial guess, so the final membership distribution inherits the shape of that guess. The paper states in Section 3.1 that tests suggest the final Pmem is insensitive to including or excluding a small number of marginal sources, but no such test is shown. Please either automate and document the initial-guess selection, or provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis showing how the derived Ncl and membership lists change when the initial guess is varied in a controlled way.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2 and Table 1] The sample selection in Section 2 says the clusters have Ncl > 500 'as mentioned in CG20,' but the table note states that Melotte-101 and NGC-2539 were included even though CG20 lists fewer than 500 members for them; please make the actual selection criterion explicit in the text.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Table 1] The definition of the HUNT23 comparison sample needs clarification. Table 1 says Ncl,Hunt is the number of HUNT23 members 'within the tidal radius,' while Section 5.1 says HUNT23 'stopped identifying cluster members at rproj/pc <= 8 similar to CG20.' These are not the same spatial masks, and the comparison should use identical cuts so that the statement 'higher than HUNT23 for all 21' is unambiguous.
  3. [Section 4.2.3] The distance prior is built from Bailer-Jones photogeometric distances of the same member stars that were selected by the membership algorithm, so the prior is not fully independent of the CMD fit; a short discussion of how much the D posteriors are driven by this prior versus the isochrone likelihood would be useful.
  4. [Table 2] The full membership table, including Pmem for all analyzed sources, is the main data product of the paper but is not yet public; because the authors explicitly invite users to choose their own Pmem,c, the table should be released with the paper or through a permanent archive link.
  5. [Figure 13] Figure 13 is very dense: 21 clusters, four property panels, and five comparison sources are shown in one layout. Separating the [Fe/H] comparison, or enlarging the panels, would make the agreement and the outliers much easier to assess.
  6. [References] Several software packages are cited collectively to VanderPlas (2016), which is not the standard reference for numpy, scipy, matplotlib, and pandas; please cite the canonical references for each package.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the membership and cluster-property results are not equivalent to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are membership counts and cluster properties. Membership probabilities (Eq. 1) come from a standard two-component likelihood ratio: fcl is a KDE built from a small, human-selected seed within rproj <= 1 pc (Sec. 3.1), and ffield is a KDE built from all sources within rproj <= 20 pc after excising the volume containing 95% of fcl (Sec. 3.2). Although ffield is estimated from the same sky region as the cluster and is not an independent background measurement, that is a statistical modeling assumption, not a definitional equivalence: the final membership extends to rproj <= 20 pc and includes sources far outside the seed, and Ncl is compared with genuinely external catalogs (CG20, HUNT23). The property estimation is anchored to external MIST isochrones, and the D posterior is not forced to its Bailer-Jones prior (e.g., NGC-2287 posterior D ~ 641 pc vs prior 717 +/- 23 pc). Citations to the authors' own prior work (e.g., Geller et al. 2017 on sub-subgiants) are contextual and not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The concerns raised about possible under- or over-estimation of ffield near the cluster peak, and the lack of radial-velocity validation, are robustness and correctness risks rather than circularity.

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

The central claims depend on a handful of modeling choices: the initial human-selected seed, the KDE bandwidth, the field subtraction scheme, and the MS-mode identification. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are relatively few, but the field model and the MS-mode assumption are the most consequential.

free parameters (4)
  • Pmem_c membership cutoff = 0.92 to 0.97 per cluster (Table 1)
    Chosen from each cluster's Pmem histogram as the point where the count rises above 5 times the background level; directly determines Ncl.
  • f likelihood jitter = not reported
    Ad hoc parameter added to the variance in Eq. 3 to stabilize the likelihood; has no physical meaning and is not constrained by the data.
  • Sliding window size for MS mode = 30 sources
    Selected by the authors after testing; affects the inferred location of the single-star main sequence and hence all isochrone-fit parameters.
  • Polynomial degree for main-sequence locus = 5
    Chosen for the fits to the empirical mode locations; the two spread polynomials also use degree 5.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each Gaia source's astrometric uncertainties are Gaussian with covariance described by the reported 1-sigma errors.
    Used throughout Section 3 to construct fcl and ffield and to compute Pmem; if the true error distribution is non-Gaussian or the covariance matrix is mis-specified, membership probabilities are biased.
  • domain assumption The binary fraction in open clusters is low enough that the densest part of the CMD at each magnitude is the single-star main sequence.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to identify the single-star MS by the dominant mode of a 30-source sliding window; if binaries are more common than about 50% at the relevant masses, the mode shifts and the fitted ages and metallicities are biased.
  • domain assumption MIST stellar models accurately predict the CMD of these clusters in Gaia bands.
    The likelihood in Eq. 2 compares the empirical MS ridge to MIST isochrones; model deficiencies (e.g., in low-mass stars, as the authors note for 0.25-0.85 Msun) directly enter the posteriors.
  • ad hoc to paper The field star distribution can be estimated from stars within 20 pc after excising the 95% cluster volume.
    Section 3.2 constructs ffield this way; this is the paper's own choice and is load-bearing for the membership probabilities.
  • domain assumption Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances provide an unbiased prior for cluster distance.
    Used in Section 4.2.3 to build the D prior from the same member stars used in the isochrone fit; any bias in those distances propagates to D and, through the CMD fit, to age and metallicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Open Cluster Study Using $Gaia$ I:Membership and Cluster Properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW57UTAV

@misc{pith2026241205033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Open Cluster Study Using $Gaia$ I:Membership and Cluster Properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW57UTAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05033}
}
abstract

Star clusters are interesting laboratories to study star formation, single and binary stellar evolution, and stellar dynamics. We have used the exquisite data from $Gaia$'s data release 3 (DR3) to study 21 relatively rich and nearby open clusters with member numbers ($N_{\rm{cl}}$)$>500$. We have developed a non-parametric method to identify cluster members. Our method works well for clusters located in both sparse and crowded environments, hence, can be applied to a wide variety of star clusters. Since the member classification scheme does not make any assumptions on the expected distributions of potential cluster members, our method can identify members associated with clusters that are oddly shaped or have complex internal spatial or kinematic structures. In addition, since the membership determination does not depend on the proximity to any well-defined sequences on the color-magnitude diagram, this method easily identifies straggler members. Furthermore, for each of these clusters, we estimate essential cluster properties including age, metallicity, distance, and reddening using detailed Markov-Chain Monte Carlo parameter estimation. We report the full posteriors for these important cluster properties for all clusters in our study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of how we select the initial guess for cluster member sources using NGC 2287. We first se￾lect all sources with rproj/pc ≤ 1. We identify all sources closely clustered in all of the {µRA, µdec} (top, green cir￾cles), {µRA, π} (middle, blue plus), and {µdec, π} planes and discard those that are not closely clustered in any of these planes. For example, in the middle panel we discard four sources (green o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PDFs for the sources in our initial guess of clus￾ter members (blue dots). Grey dots denote all other sources with rproj/pc ≤ 1. atively rich with stars, and even after considering all of the three relevant parameters, µRA, µdec, π, the contri￾bution from the OC is rather small compared to those in the field if a reasonably large rproj/pc ≤ 20 is considered. This challenge often limits the rproj up to which stars ca… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized histogram (dashed) and PDF (solid) for sources within rproj/pc ≤ 20 from the cluster center of NGC-2287. Green and orange denote all sources and those excluding our initial guess of cluster members (detailed dis￾cussion in section 3 and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Source count as a function of membership prob￾ability Pmem. Sources with very low Pmem clearly belong to the field. Source count increases sharply near Pmem ≈ 1. The dashed black vertical line denotes the cut-off value Pmem,c in Pmem for this cluster. Very few sources …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: All sources with rproj/pc ≤ 20 for NGC 2287. Colored dots denote sources with Pmem > Pmem,c, i.e., sources we identify as cluster members, where the color denotes Pmem. Sources denoted by grey dots have Pmem < Pmem,c. Top: π and |⃗µ| of all cluster members (colored dot…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The PDFs and scatter plots for our initial guess (orange) and final identified (blue) cluster members in {⃗µ, π} for NGC-2287. In the top right corner, we show the CMD. Grey dots denote non-members. The solid red line shows the KDE for the distributions created using a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two dimensional sections of µRA, µdec, and π of all sources (dots) within rproj/pc = 20 for example clusters representing three different levels of overlap with the field stars and hence difficulty in identification. The cluster NGC-2632 (top) is well separated from th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We estimate each cluster member’s distance by cross-matching the data with Bailer-Jones et al. (2021). The blue histogram shows the distance distribution of the cluster members we identify for NGC 2287 taking into account the estimated errors. The orange line shows the…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Corner plot showing two-dimensional joint and one-dimensional marginalized posterior distributions for NGC-2287 cluster properties. The contours in the two-dimensional joint posterior distributions enclose 68%, 90%, and 95% probabilities. The vertical lines in the one-…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative member count as a function of rproj for NGC 2682 as an example. Orange and blue denote the cumulative member counts from our analysis and HUNT23 using Gaia’s DR3 and those from CG20 using Gaia’s DR2. We not only identify more members at higher distances fro…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of relative errors in π (top), µRA (middle), and µdec (bottom) for the cluster members we iden￾tify (orange) and those identified by HUNT23 (green) using Gaia’s DR3. We also show the corresponding distributions for CG20 (blue) which used Gaia’s DR2. The shi…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the properties of cluster mem￾bers identified by this study (orange), HUNT23 (green), and CG20 (blue) for NGC 2682 as an example. Although we find significantly higher number of cluster members, the members are well-centered in D, µRA, and µdec. Comparis…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of cluster properties we estimate with those found in selected past studies (CG20, Netopil et al. 2016; Bossini et al. 2019; Dias et al. 2021; Hunt & Reffert 2023). Cluster names are shown along the horizontal axis. Orange dot, red triangle, violet ‘+’, bla…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Surface density (Σ) profile for example cluster NGC-2287 (red). We also show the surface density profile for all sources, cluster members and field stars (red). The black solid line and the grey-shaded region show the mean Σ for all sources within 15 ≤ rproj/pc ≤ 20 a…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  3. [3]

    2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1522

    Belokurov, V., Penoyre, Z., Oh, S., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1522

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1522 2020

  4. [4]

    R., Serenelli, A., et al

    Bergemann, M., Ruchti, G. R., Serenelli, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423456

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423456 2014

  5. [5]

    P., & Beccari, G

    Bhattacharya, S., Vaidya, K., Chen, W. P., & Beccari, G. 2019, A&A, 624, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834449

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834449 2019

  6. [6]

    2019, A&A, 623, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834693

    Bossini, D., Vallenari, A., Bragaglia, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A108, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834693

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201834693 2019

  7. [7]

    2023, MNRAS, 518, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2247

    Brandner, W., Calissendorff, P., & Kopytova, T. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2247

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2247 2023

  8. [8]

    J., & Levison, H

    Brasser, R., Duncan, M. J., & Levison, H. F. 2006, Icarus, 184, 59, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2006.04.010

    doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2006.04.010 2006

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    M., Grundahl, F., et al

    Brogaard, K., Christiansen, S. M., Grundahl, F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5062, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2504

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    2022, Universe, 8, doi: 10.3390/universe8020111

    Cantat-Gaudin, T. 2022, Universe, 8, doi: 10.3390/universe8020111

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    2018a, A&A, 615, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731251

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Vallenari, A., Sordo, R., et al. 2018a, A&A, 615, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731251

    doi

  4. [12]

    2018b, A&A, 618, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Jordi, C., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018b, A&A, 618, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476

    doi

  5. [13]

    2019, A&A, 624, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834453

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Krone-Martins, A., Sedaghat, N., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834453

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.01819

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2111.01819. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01819

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    S., Alessi, B

    Dias, W. S., Alessi, B. S., Moitinho, A., & L´ epine, J. R. D. 2002, A&A, 389, 871, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020668

    2002 doi

  10. [18]

    S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Moitinho, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab770

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab77bc

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    El-Badry, K. 2024, NewAR, 98, 101694, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2024.101694

    2024

  14. [22]

    R., Mucciarelli, A., Lanzoni, B., et al

    Ferraro, F. R., Mucciarelli, A., Lanzoni, B., et al. 2023, Nature Communications, 14, 2584, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38153-w

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022,...

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M., Hurley, J

    Geller, A. M., Hurley, J. R., & Mathieu, R. D. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/8

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Leiner, E

    Geller, A. M., Leiner, E. M., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa72ef

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    M., & Mathieu, R

    Geller, A. M., & Mathieu, R. D. 2011, Nature, 478, 356, doi: 10.1038/nature10512 —. 2012, AJ, 144, 54, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/54

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    M., Leiner, E

    Geller, A. M., Leiner, E. M., Bellini, A., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af3

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    M., Mathieu, R

    Gosnell, N. M., Mathieu, R. D., Geller, A. M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/1/L8

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Drout, M

    Grondin, S. M., Drout, M. R., Nordhaus, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04775, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.04775

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2021, A&A, 646, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039341 —. 2023, A&A, 673, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346285

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    V., Roy, K., Joshi, N., & Subramaniam, A

    Jadhav, V. V., Roy, K., Joshi, N., & Subramaniam, A. 2021, AJ, 162, 264, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac2571

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    J., von Hippel, T., van Dyk, D

    Jeffery, E. J., von Hippel, T., van Dyk, D. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 828, 79, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/2/79

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    L., & Sandage, A

    Johnson, H. L., & Sandage, A. R. 1955, ApJ, 121, 616, doi: 10.1086/146027

    1955 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, Mem

    Jorissen, A. 2019, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 90, 395

    2019

  27. [35]

    2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    Knigge, C. 2015, in Astrophysics and Space Science

    2015

  28. [36]

    413, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed

    Library, Vol. 413, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. H. M. J. Boffin, G. Carraro, & G. Beccari, 295, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-44434-4 13

    doi

  29. [37]

    2009, Nature, 457, 288, doi: 10.1038/nature07635

    Knigge, C., Leigh, N., & Sills, A. 2009, Nature, 457, 288, doi: 10.1038/nature07635

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Kounkel, M., Covey, K., & Stassun, K. G. 2020, AJ, 160, 279, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc0e6

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Pelupessy, F. I., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Portegies Zwart, S. F., & Icke, V. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1339, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18467.x

    2011

  32. [40]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 1991, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 13, The Formation and Evolution of Star Clusters, ed. K. Janes, 3–22

    1991

  33. [41]

    1982, ESO/Uppsala survey of the ESO(B) atlas

    Lauberts, A. 1982, ESO/Uppsala survey of the ESO(B) atlas

    1982

  34. [42]

    Leigh, N. W. C., Panurach, T., Simunovic, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 231, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2707

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    D., & Geller, A

    Leiner, E., Mathieu, R. D., & Geller, A. M. 2017, ApJ, 840, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6aff

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    M., & Geller, A

    Leiner, E. M., & Geller, A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd7e9

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog, VII/92A

    Lynga, G. 1995, VizieR Online Data Catalog, VII/92A

    1995

  39. [47]

    Moe, M., & Stefano, R. D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    P., Cordoni, G., et al

    Mohandasan, A., Milone, A. P., Cordoni, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 681, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347424

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Monteiro, H., & Dias, W. S. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2385, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1455

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    S., Hickel, G

    Monteiro, H., Dias, W. S., Hickel, G. R., & Caetano, T. C. 2017, NewA, 51, 15, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2016.08.001

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    S., Moitinho, A., et al

    Monteiro, H., Dias, W. S., Moitinho, A., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 1874, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2983

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    2016, A&A, 585, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526370

    Netopil, M., Paunzen, E., Heiter, U., & Soubiran, C. 2016, A&A, 585, A150, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526370

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Milliman, K

    Nine, A. C., Milliman, K. E., Mathieu, R. D., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abad3b

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, in 42nd meeting of the Astronomical Society of India (ASI, P187

    Pal, H., & Jadhav, V. 2024, in 42nd meeting of the Astronomical Society of India (ASI, P187

    2024

  47. [55]

    2013, A&A, 549, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219648

    Parmentier, G., & Pfalzner, S. 2013, A&A, 549, A132, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219648

    2013 doi

  48. [56]

    I., Pera, M

    Perren, G. I., Pera, M. S., Navone, H. D., & V´ azquez, R. A. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 4107, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2826

    2023 doi

  49. [57]

    I., V´ azquez, R

    Perren, G. I., V´ azquez, R. A., & Piatti, A. E. 2015, A&A, 576, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424946

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    2012, A&A, 545, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219881

    Pfalzner, S., Kaczmarek, T., & Olczak, C. 2012, A&A, 545, A122, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219881

    2012 doi

  51. [59]

    J., Carraro, G., Ahumada, J

    Rain, M. J., Carraro, G., Ahumada, J. A., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abc1ee Membership and Cluster Properties 21

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11d0

    Sahu, S., Subramaniam, A., Simunovic, M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab11d0

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 3937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1485

    Molino, A. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 3937, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1485

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    Sandage, A. R. 1953, AJ, 58, 61, doi: 10.1086/106822

    1953 doi

  55. [63]

    1999, AJ, 118, 2894, doi: 10.1086/301149

    Demarque, P. 1999, AJ, 118, 2894, doi: 10.1086/301149

    1999 doi

  56. [64]

    D., Kharchenko, N

    Scholz, R. D., Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., R¨ oser, S., & Schilbach, E. 2015, A&A, 581, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526312

    2015 doi

  57. [65]

    Scott, D. W. 2015, Multivariate Density Estimation:

    2015

  58. [66]

    V., et al

    Sindhu, N., Subramaniam, A., Jadhav, V. V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 882, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab31a8

    2019 doi

  59. [67]

    2014, AJ, 148, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/85

    Thompson, B., Frinchaboy, P., Kinemuchi, K., Sarajedini, A., & Cohen, R. 2014, AJ, 148, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/85

    2014 doi

  60. [68]

    2014, AJ, 148, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/61

    Platais, I. 2014, AJ, 148, 61, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/61

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    K., Agarwal, M., & Bhattacharya, S

    Vaidya, K., Rao, K. K., Agarwal, M., & Bhattacharya, S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 2402, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1667 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    2016, Python Data Science Handbook: Essential Tools for Working with Data, 1st edn

    VanderPlas, J. 2016, Python Data Science Handbook: Essential Tools for Working with Data, 1st edn. (O’Reilly

    2016

  63. [71]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 von Hippel, T., Jefferys, W. H., Scott, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 1436, doi: 10.1086/504369 von Hippel, T., & Sarajedini, A. 1998, AJ, 116, 1789, doi: 10.1086/300561

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6171

    Wang, C., Langer, N., Schootemeijer, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab6171

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    T., Girard, T

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/44

    2013 doi

  66. [74]

    2010, AJ, 139, 2184, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2184 22 Ganguly et al

    Zacharias, N., Finch, C., Girard, T., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 2184, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2184 22 Ganguly et al. APPENDIX A. SURF ACE DENISTY PROFILE We estimate the surface density profile of cluster members and all stars (field and cluster) in the vicinity of the cluste...

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.