Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Searching for star formation towards the Eos molecular cloud

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nearest CO-dark cloud Eos has no recent star formation

desk verdict A serviceable null result for a genuinely new nearby cloud, weakened by the absence of a sensitivity calculation and some under-described statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17850 v2 pith:VBBUTN3W submitted 2025-04-24 astro-ph.GA

Suryansh Saxena , Thomas J. Haworth , Blakesley Burkhart , Thavisha Dharmawardena , Edward Gillen , Kate Pattle , Janik Karoly , Erika Hamden This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords EoscloudmolecularcloudsstarformationGaiaDR3pre-main-sequencestarsCO-darkgasyoungstellarpopulationsISMevolution
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

The paper asks whether the Eos cloud, one of the nearest dark molecular clouds to the Sun, has recently formed stars. Using Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry across the cloud's full extent, it finds no young stellar population, no spatial clustering, and no kinematic coherence at distances of 70–150 pc. A small number of sub-10-Myr stars appear toward Eos, but the same numbers appear in control volumes at the same Galactic latitude, so they are field stars, not cloud members. The paper concludes that Eos has most likely not undergone any recent substantial star formation and that its future depends on cloud dynamics, not on an existing stellar population.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tools are the Gaia DR3 catalogue, providing parallaxes, photometry, and proper motions for 41,436 stars within a 25-degree radius and 70–150 pc; the Baraffe et al. (2015) pre-main-sequence evolutionary tracks and isochrones, used to assign ages and identify the locus of young stars in the color–magnitude diagram; and two control fields offset by 25 degrees in Galactic longitude, used to establish the field-star baseline. The argument works by showing that every signature of recent star formation—a young CMD locus, a spatial over-density, or coherent proper motion—is absent toward Eos and that the observed field is statistically identical to control volumes.

What would settle it

Identify a compact, kinematically coherent group of stars with ages below about 10 Myr within 94–136 pc of the Sun, spatially coincident with the Eos cloud and absent from the adjacent control fields; a deep, Gaia-limited proper-motion and photometric search of the cloud's footprint would settle whether such a population exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Eos cloud, a roughly $5.5\times10^3\,M_\odot$, mostly CO-dark molecular cloud at 94–136 pc, is in a quiescent, non-star-forming state. Comparing Gaia DR3 colors and magnitudes with Baraffe et al. (2015) pre-main-sequence isochrones shows no stars younger than about 10 Myr that would mark a recent formation episode; the few candidate young stars are statistically indistinguishable from those in nearby blank fields at the same latitude. Proper-motion and line-of-sight velocity dispersions are broad, with no coherent moving group, and a k-means test confirms no clustering toward the cloud. The absence of both a spatial and a kinematic young population, together with agreement with magnetic-field studies, leads the authors to conclude that no recent substantial star formation has occurred in Eos.

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes Gaia DR3 is complete enough to detect the low-mass pre-main-sequence stars at 70–150 pc that a star-forming episode would have produced; if faint young members are missing from the catalogue, the null result could be an artifact of incompleteness rather than a true absence of recent star formation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Eos joins the short list of nearby molecular clouds that appear genuinely quiescent, making it a useful laboratory for studying CO-dark gas and cloud evolution without the complications of ongoing star formation.
  • Any future star formation in Eos must be triggered by a change in the cloud's dynamics or gas state, since there is no embedded or nearby young population to indicate an ongoing process.
  • The non-detection sets an upper limit on recent star formation: any episode within the last roughly 10–20 Myr would have left a detectable population, given Gaia's sensitivity at these distances.
  • The CO-bright sub-cloud MBM 40, previously suspected as a possible collapse site, shows no sign of current star formation, consistent with the overall quiescent picture.
  • Because magnetic field, turbulence, and gravity are competitive in Eos, the cloud's future star-forming potential hinges on how these forces evolve on local scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension would be to apply the same control-field age comparison to other recently discovered CO-dark clouds; if quiescence is common among them, CO-dark gas may be a systematically less active reservoir for star formation than CO-bright clouds.
  • The result implicitly assumes Gaia DR3 is complete for the low-mass population at 70–150 pc; deeper optical or near-infrared photometry could reveal young brown dwarfs or very low-mass stars that Gaia missed, which would be the most plausible way the null result could be overturned.
  • If future radial-velocity data resolve the field into expanding groups, one could test whether Eos previously ejected an unbound association; this would turn the null result into evidence for past, rather than absent, star formation.
  • The paper's own caveat that the cloud is non-uniform suggests that localized collapse in dense sub-regions could still be ongoing even when the global population shows no young stars; targeted searches toward the CO-bright core would be the cleanest probe of that scenario.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper searches Gaia DR3 for evidence of recent or ongoing star formation in the Eos molecular cloud, a nearby (94–136 pc) CO-dark cloud discovered via H2 fluorescence, with a total mass of about 5.5e3 Msun. The authors select stars within a 25-degree radius around the cloud center and parallax distances 70–150 pc (41,436 sources), then study the color–magnitude diagram with Baraffe et al. (2015) pre-main-sequence isochrones and tracks, the proper motion and radial velocity distributions, and a comparison with two off-cloud control fields at the same Galactic latitude. They report no population younger than about 3 Myr, a small <20 Myr population that they argue resembles field stars, no spatial or kinematic clustering, and no statistical difference from control fields. They conclude that Eos has most likely not undergone any recent substantial star formation, and defer the question of future star formation to studies of cloud dynamics.

Significance. If the conclusion holds, Eos would be a relatively massive, nearby molecular cloud in a quiescent, non-star-forming state, providing a valuable benchmark for CO-dark cloud evolution and for the relationship between cloud properties and star formation. The paper uses public Gaia DR3 data, external PMS evolutionary models without fitting free parameters to the target sample, and independent control fields, which are appropriate tools for this question. The choice of non-magnetic Baraffe et al. (2015) models is also conservative for identifying a young population, since magnetic models would assign older ages. However, the persuasiveness of the null result currently depends on qualitative comparisons rather than a quantified detection limit, and the paper does not yet establish how many young stars a star-forming Eos would be expected to produce or how many the Gaia data would recover.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 2.1, 3.1, 4] The central null claim lacks a sensitivity estimate. The paper never computes how many pre-main-sequence stars a recent star-forming episode in a ~5.5e3 Msun cloud would be expected to produce, nor how many of those would be observable in the Gaia sample over 70–150 pc. Without such an estimate, the statement in Section 4 that 'the Eos cloud has not recently undergone any star formation episodes' is not quantitatively anchored; the abstract's qualifier 'substantial' is also never defined. Please add an explicit calculation using a range of star formation efficiencies (e.g., 1–10%), an IMF, and Gaia completeness, and express the result as an upper limit on the recent stellar yield or star formation efficiency consistent with the observed CMD.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figure 6] The claim that the age distribution toward Eos is 'statistically indistinguishable' from the control fields is asserted without any statistical test. The histograms in Figure 6 are compared only visually. Please report a quantitative test (e.g., a two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov or Anderson–Darling test) on the age distributions, state the sample sizes and test statistic, and specify the detection threshold adopted for claiming consistency versus an excess of young stars.
  3. [Section 3.2] The k-means test used to support the absence of proper-motion clustering is referenced but not described. The reader cannot assess whether the test would detect a sparse, extended young association rather than a compact cluster. Please specify the input features (e.g., proper-motion components, with or without positions), the number of clusters considered, the convergence criterion, and the metric used to judge that no clustering is present. Ideally, validate the sensitivity of the test on a synthetic population with the expected velocity dispersion of a young association at 70–150 pc.
  4. [Section 2.1] No Gaia DR3 completeness limit is established for the faint pre-main-sequence population that a recent star-forming episode would produce. At distances of 70–150 pc, low-mass PMS stars can be relatively faint in G, and Gaia completeness is magnitude- and color-dependent. If the expected PMS population lies mostly below the completeness limit, the null result could be an artifact of the catalog rather than a genuine absence of young stars. Please either impose and justify a completeness cut (e.g., based on G magnitude, astrometric quality, or Gaia catalog completeness studies) or demonstrate that the expected young sources are bright enough to be fully recovered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 / 3.1] The sentence 'there are no stars at all in that age range over the 70−150 pc distance' appears to refer only to the <3 Myr range, but this is not explicitly stated; the following sentence mentions a <20 Myr population. Please clarify the age range to avoid an apparent contradiction.
  2. [Figure 3 / Figure 4 captions] The captions say 'red lines indicates a zero reference point relative to the solar position,' which is unclear. Specify whether the red line marks zero proper motion or zero radial velocity, and clarify what 'relative to the solar position' means for the proper-motion plot.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'Distribution of stars less than 20 Myr age in the Eos region.' Since these ages are estimated from isochrones rather than known a priori, consider wording such as 'candidate stars with estimated ages less than 20 Myr.'
  4. [Introduction] There is a typo: 'The Jean's analysis is therefore insufficient' should be 'The Jeans analysis is therefore insufficient.' Also, the reference list entry 'Chol Minh Y. C. Y.' appears to be an inconsistent rendering of the author name; please verify it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the star-formation null result is an observational comparison against external isochrones and control fields, with no fitted parameter or self-citation doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that Eos has not recently undergone star formation—is derived by comparing the Gaia DR3 CMD to Baraffe et al. (2015) pre-main-sequence isochrones, by checking proper-motion and radial-velocity dispersions for kinematic clustering, and by comparing the age histogram with two offset control volumes at the same Galactic latitude. None of these steps fits a parameter to the Eos data and then re-predicts it; the isochrones are external, the control fields are independent, and the null result is simply the absence of an excess. Citations to Burkhart et al. (2025) supply the cloud position, distance range, and mass, and citations to Karoly et al. (2025) supply a consistency check on magnetic-field strength; neither enters the stellar-population inference, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The lack of a quantitative sensitivity estimate (how many young stars a Eos-like episode would produce, or a Gaia completeness limit) is a legitimate robustness concern, but it is not circularity: the conclusion is not equivalent by construction to any input. No equation in the paper reduces to a fitted value or to a prior claim by the same authors.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters, entities, or ad hoc constants. The main assumptions are standard domain assumptions about model fidelity, data completeness, and control-field representativeness.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Baraffe et al. (2015) non-magnetic PMS models provide accurate age estimates for low-mass stars
    Isochrones and tracks from these models are the sole age indicator (Sec. 2.2); systematic model errors would shift the inferred ages and could hide a young population.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 is complete for the PMS population at 70-150 pc within the search cone
    The sample is extracted without a completeness cut (Sec. 2.1); if faint low-mass PMS stars are missing, the null result could be spurious.
  • domain assumption Comparison fields offset by 25 degrees in longitude at the same latitude are representative of the background stellar population
    Sec. 3.3 uses these to argue no excess; a longitude-dependent field population could mask an excess toward Eos.
  • domain assumption Extinction toward Eos is small and adequately corrected with Kordopatis et al. (2023)
    Sec. 2.1 applies these corrections; underestimated extinction would redden colors and bias age classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for star formation towards the Eos molecular cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBBUTN3W

@misc{pith2026250417850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for star formation towards the Eos molecular cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBBUTN3W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17850}
}
abstract

The Eos cloud, recently discovered in the far ultraviolet via H$_2$ fluorescence, is one of the nearest known dark molecular clouds to the Sun, with a distance spanning from $\sim94-136$pc. However, with a mass ($\sim5.5\times10^3$M$_\odot$) just under $40$ per cent that of star forming clouds like Taurus and evidence for net molecular dissociation, its evolutionary and star forming status is uncertain. We use Gaia data to investigate whether there is evidence for a young stellar population that may have formed from the Eos cloud. Comparing isochrones and pre-main sequence evolutionary models there is no clear young stellar population in the region. While there are a small number of $<10$Myr stars, that population is statistically indistinguishable from those in similar search volumes at other Galactic latitudes. We also find no unusual spatial or kinematic clustering toward the Eos cloud over distances $70-150$pc. Overall we conclude that the Eos cloud has most likely not undergone any recent substantial star formation, and further study of the dynamics of the cloud is required to determine whether it will do so in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of stars less than 20 Myr age in the Eos region. The star markers are the dataset pulled from Gaia DR3 colored by distance, which are overplotted upon a FIMS/SPEAR grayscale map of the ratio of H2 intensity to the total FUV intensity which shows the on-sky extent of the Eos cloud. The Eos cloud extends around 20 degrees in latitude and longitude. To account for the possibility that stars formed within t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Color magnitude plot with isochrones (red) and pre-main sequence stellar tracks (blue) from Baraffe et al. (2015). Here, the gray points represents the stellar population in a 25 degree search radius over distances 70-150 pc towards the Eos cloud [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proper motions of the sources towards the Eos cloud that are ≤ 20 Myr. The red lines indicates a zero reference point relative to the solar position. The line of sight (LOS) radial velocity distribution for the Eos cloud is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proper motion histogram plotted using Gaia sample separated based on age. Red line indicates a zero reference point relative to the solar position. but offset in Galactic longitude by 25 degrees to the left (negative longitude) and right (positive longitude) from the e…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram comparing the number of stars by age group for three 25 degree radius search fields. One is centered on the Eos cloud and the others are to the left and right of the Eos search field (negative and positive longitudes, respectively). We find no evidence for th…

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. Magnetic fields in the Eos Cloud: dynamically important fields in the interface between atomic and molecular gas

    astro-ph.GA 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Magnetic fields in the Eos cloud are parallel to the cloud structure, sub-Alfvenic, and subcritical, with plane-of-sky strengths around 6 microgauss in Eos and 12 microgauss in the denser MBM 40 region.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    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...

  3. [3]

    ALMA Partnership et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/L3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...808L...3A 808, L3

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/1/l3 2015

  4. [4]

    Ansdell M., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...828...46A 828, 46

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/46 2016

  5. [5]

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

    doi:10.1086/683116 2015

  6. [6]

    Baraffe I., Homeier D., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 577, A42

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Baumgardt H., Hilker M., Sollima A., Bellini A., 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 5138

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Bialy S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...982...24B 982, 24

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb3a6 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 54, 529

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bovy J., 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1360

    2017

  3. [11]

    arXiv:2504.17843

    Burkhart B., et al., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250417843B p. arXiv:2504.17843

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102

    Choi J., Dotter A., Conroy C., Cantiello M., Paxton B., Johnson B. D., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102

    2016

  5. [13]

    Chol Minh Y. C. Y., Kim H.-G., Lee Y., Park H., Kim K.-T., Park Y.-S., Joon Kim S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S1384-1076(03)00068-X , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003NewA....8..795C 8, 795

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    5, Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II

    Comer \'o n F., 2008, in Reipurth B., ed., , Vol. 5, Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Volume II. p. 295

    2008

  7. [15]

    L., Magnani L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1152C 436, 1152

    Cotten D. L., Magnani L., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1646 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.1152C 436, 1152

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    E., Bailer-Jones C

    Dharmawardena T. E., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Fouesneau M., Foreman-Mackey D., Coronica P., Colnaghi T., M \"u ller T., Wilson A. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.3480D 532, 3480

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    W., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 89

    Dotter A., Chaboyer B., Jevremovi \'c D., Kostov V., Baron E., Ferguson J. W., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 178, 89

    2008

  10. [18]

    H., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..857E 224, 857

    Elias J. H., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1086/156436 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...224..857E 224, 857

    1978 doi

  11. [19]

    A., 2016a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, A99

    Feiden G. A., 2016a, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, A99

  12. [20]

    A., 2016b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, 11

    Feiden G. A., 2016b, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 593, 11

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...1G 649, A1

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    Galli P. A. B., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935928 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...630A.137G 630, A137

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Galli P. A. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...646A..46G 646, A46

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Groenewegen M., 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 654, A20

    2021

  19. [27]

    G., Haworth T

    Karoly J., Pattle K., Burkhart B., Dharmawardena T., Andersson B. G., Haworth T. J., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250417855K p. arXiv:2504.17855

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Hartmann L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS..101..117K 101, 117

    Kenyon S. J., Hartmann L., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/192235 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJS..101..117K 101, 117

    1995 doi

  21. [29]

    Kordopatis G., et al., 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 669, A104

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kroupa P., 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 322, 231

    2001

  23. [31]

    R., Lada C

    Krumholz M. R., Lada C. J., Forbrich J., 2025, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2501.16474 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250116474K p. arXiv:2501.16474

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    L., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9da3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...37L 165, 37

    Luhman K. L., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9da3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AJ....165...37L 165, 37

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Magnani L., Caillault J.-P., Hearty T., Stauffer J., Schmitt J. H. M. M., Neuhaeuser R., Verter F., Dwek E., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465..825M 465, 825

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    Miret-Roig N., Galli P. A. B., Olivares J., Bouy H., Alves J., Barrado D., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A.163M 667, A163

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668L...9M 668, L9

    Monaci M., Magnani L., Shore S. N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245021 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668L...9M 668, L9

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    N., Olofsson H., Joy M

    Monaci M., Magnani L., Shore S. N., Olofsson H., Joy M. R., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...676A.138M 676, A138

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    J., Zucker C., Goodman A

    O'Neill T. J., Zucker C., Goodman A. A., Edenhofer G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad61de , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...973..136O 973, 136

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Palmeirim P., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220500 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..38P 550, A38

    2013 doi

  31. [39]

    Paunzen E., Pri s egen M., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 667, L10

    2022

  32. [40]

    S \'a nchez-Sanju \'a n S., Hern \'a ndez J., P \'e rez-Villegas \'A ., Rom \'a n-Z \'u \ n iga C., Aguilar L., Ballesteros-Paredes J., Bonilla-Barroso A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2157 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2566S 534, 2566

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Seon K.-I., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/196/2/15 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..196...15S 196, 15

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab722e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...29S 891, 29

    Somers G., Cao L., Pinsonneault M. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab722e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...891...29S 891, 29

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    G., Feiden G

    Stassun K. G., Feiden G. A., Torres G., 2014, New Astronomy Reviews, 60, 1

    2014

  36. [44]

    P., Degl’Innocenti S., 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 533, A109

    Tognelli E., Moroni P. P., Degl’Innocenti S., 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 533, A109

    2011

  37. [45]

    Zucker C., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04286-5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.601..334Z 601, 334

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    L., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250400093Z p

    Zucker C., Redfield S., Starecheski S., Konietzka R., Linsky J. L., 2025, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025arXiv250400093Z p. arXiv:2504.00093

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.