Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

The stellar population in the SARAO MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cross-matching the MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey with Gaia and infrared colours, this paper identifies 629 stellar radio-emitter candidates, the largest Galactic-plane radio-optical sample to date.

desk verdict This is a genuinely new catalogue and a useful resource, but the headline 629-candidate count rests on astrometric and contamination assumptions the paper itself admits are unquantified, so it needs a careful referee rather than desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22139 v1 pith:XGW4AAFC submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.SR

Okwudili D. Egbo , David A.H. Buckley , Paul J.Groot , Francesco Cavallaro , Patrick A. Woudt , Mark A. Thompson , Mubela Mutale , Michael Bietenholz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords radiocontinuum:starsmethods:statisticalstars:variables:general(stars:)binaries:Wolf-RayetsurveysGalacticplaneGaiaDR3crossmatch
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 claims that the SARAO MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey (SMGPS), cross-matched with Gaia DR3 and AllWISE infrared colours, has produced 629 reliable stellar counterparts to 1.3 GHz radio sources, the largest Galactic-plane radio-optical crossmatch sample to date. The authors are trying to show that MeerKAT's sensitivity can dramatically expand the known population of radio-emitting stars, which are typically faint in the radio, and that a statistical crossmatch strategy can pick them out of a crowded, extragalactic-dominated field. The candidate sample spans nearly every class of radio star: massive OB and Wolf-Rayet stars, young stellar objects, chromospherically active binaries like RS CVn and BY Dra systems, red dwarfs, and some white dwarfs, with H-alpha emission confirming magnetic activity in many cases. If the sample holds up, the importance is a new reference catalogue for studying stellar radio emission across evolutionary stages in the Galactic plane.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two statistical crossmatch tools. The first is a Monte Carlo reliability estimator, $R(r_i) = 1 - N_{\mathrm{MC}}(r_i)/N_{\mathrm{initial}}(r_i)$, in which SMGPS positions are randomized 100,000 times and the mean number of chance matches with Gaia at each search radius is compared with the real match count; applied to a literature-assembled catalogue of known radio-emitting stellar populations (flare stars, RS CVn and BY Dra variables, Wolf-Rayet and OB stars, YSOs, X-ray-selected active stars), this yields about 94 percent reliability at a $2^{\prime\prime}$ radius. The second is a per-source chance-alignment measure, $f_0 = \sqrt{(\Delta x)^2+(\Delta y)^2}/\sigma_{\mathrm{radio}}$, the normalized offset between the radio and optical positions, and $S_0$, the fraction of 10,000 randomized trials in which the normalized offset is at least as small as the observed one; candidates are kept only if $f_0 \le 3$ and $S_0 \le 0.1$. An AllWISE $W2-W3 < 1.5$ mag colour cut removes extragalactic interlopers, distance limits ($\le 3500$ pc for the population route, $\le 1.5$ kpc for the AllWISE route) trim the background, and extinction-corrected colours from the Lallement and Marshall dust maps place the stars on a colour-magnitude diagram whose classes are checked against SIMBAD.

What would settle it

Compute the distribution of the normalized separation $\Sigma = \mathrm{sep}/\sigma_{\mathrm{SMGPS}}$ for all 629 candidates. Under the paper's error model, 99.7 percent should fall within $3\sigma$; the observed fraction is about 66–70 percent, so a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or chi-square test against the assumed Gaussian already rejects the model. To identify the culprit, compare a subset of bright candidates against sub-arcsecond radio positions (for example VLA or VLBI): a systematic offset or a residual dependence on proper-motion magnitude would distinguish a frame mismatch from contamination and decide whether the 629-count reliability is trustworthy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed in this paper is a catalogue of 629 potential stellar counterparts to SMGPS compact radio sources, assembled from two independent selection routes: a Monte Carlo reliability crossmatch restricted to known radio-emitting stellar populations (giving 551 candidates out to 3.5 kpc), and a per-source chance-alignment analysis with an AllWISE colour cut (giving 141 candidates within 1.5 kpc), with 63 stars common to both. Of the 629 candidates, 169 already have SIMBAD classifications, and the extinction-corrected colour-magnitude diagram shows the sample spanning massive OB stars, Wolf-Rayet stars, giants, emission-line stars, young stellar objects, red dwarfs, and white dwarfs, plus the radio-loud novalike cataclysmic variable V603 Aql. The authors argue that the sample is the largest Galactic-plane radio-optical stellar crossmatch to date and that the radio luminosity–absolute magnitude correlation (Kendall $\tau$ = 0.46) indicates a genuine stellar population. They also state clearly that completeness and contamination are not fully assessed, that MeerKAT's $8^{\prime\prime}$ resolution limits counterpart identification in crowded fields, and that only about 66–70 percent of the candidates fall within 3 times the radio positional uncertainty, which they attribute to a possible astrometric frame mismatch, proper-motion propagation errors, or residual spurious matches.

Load-bearing premise

The whole sample rests on the assumption that the MeerKAT and Gaia reference frames are aligned well enough that a Gaia star within a few arcseconds of a radio source is a genuine counterpart; the paper's own Figure 8 shows only about two-thirds of candidates lie within 3 times the radio positional error, far short of the 99.7 percent expected if only Gaussian errors were at work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 629-candidate catalogue becomes the largest radio-optical stellar crossmatch sample in the Galactic plane to date and provides a ready-made target list for follow-up at higher angular resolution and in circular polarization.
  • The strong radio luminosity–absolute magnitude correlation (Kendall $\tau=0.46$) implies the sample can be used to calibrate how radio output scales with stellar luminosity across evolutionary stages.
  • Because most candidates are chromospherically or coronally active stars (RS CVn, BY Dra, YSOs, flare stars), the sample quantifies the prevalence of magnetic activity among Galactic-plane radio emitters.
  • MeerKAT reaches flux densities near 0.1 mJy, about a factor of ten below the VLA FIRST limit, extending the radio-optical flux plane into a regime previously unexplored for stellar radio emission.
  • The candidate white dwarfs and red dwarf–white dwarf gap objects open a route to studying radio emission in compact and degenerate stars, a population that is only now being assembled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the 66–70 percent within-$3\sigma$ fraction makes the quoted 94 percent reliability at $2^{\prime\prime}$ optimistic, because even with perfect priors the astrometric tail implies additional positional error or contamination; modelling a systematic frame offset would renormalize the reliability estimates.
  • I infer that the stellar-population prior biases the sample toward already-known classes of radio emitters, so radio stars outside those catalogues (for example, certain main-sequence stars) are systematically missed; a blind X-ray-selected or spectroscopically selected search in the same SMGPS footprints could measure how much is missed.
  • I infer that single-epoch radio fluxes limit this catalogue to flare- or activity-boosted states, so the intrinsic luminosity function of quiescent radio stars is still unknown; a multi-epoch MeerKAT campaign on a subsample could measure duty cycles and correct the flux-limited selection.
  • I infer that crossmatching the 169 SIMBAD-classified candidates against higher-resolution radio surveys such as VLASS or VLBI would directly test individual associations; a systematic one-directional offset across the sample would fingerprint a reference-frame problem rather than contamination.
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

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper cross-matches the SARAO MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey (SMGPS) compact source catalogue with Gaia DR3, using two selection paths: (1) a stellar-population sample built from catalogues of known radio-emitting stars (RS CVn, BY Dra, YSOs, Wolf–Rayet, OB, X-ray active stars) with a Monte Carlo reliability estimate, and (2) a normalized-offset/chance-alignment method (f0, S0) refined with AllWISE colours and a distance cut. The union of the two paths yields 629 candidate stellar counterparts, 169 of which have SIMBAD classifications; the paper argues this is the largest Galactic-plane radio-optical crossmatch sample to date. The sample is characterized via extinction-corrected colour–magnitude diagrams, radio luminosities, and a literature/SIMBAD search, and is discussed as probing known radio-emitting stellar classes.

Significance. If the crossmatch is reliable, the catalogue is a valuable resource: it exploits MeerKAT's sensitivity to find sub-mJy radio stellar sources in a crowded Galactic-plane region and includes interesting individual objects (NaSt1, V603 Aql, several Wolf–Rayet stars). The paper is transparent about its methodology, provides a Monte Carlo framework, and promises a public catalogue. However, the central significance claim—the size and reliability of the 629-candidate sample—depends on assumptions about astrometric alignment and on the preselected input populations that are not fully supported by the paper's own diagnostics. The scientific value of specific recovered objects is real, but the statistical framing needs to be corrected before the headline claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 8] The cumulative distribution of Σ = sep/σ_SMGPS shows only ~66–70% of the 629 candidates within 3σ, far below the ~99.7% expected for Gaussian positional errors. The authors list possible causes (spurious matches, non-negligible optical positional errors from proper-motion propagation, astrometric frame mismatch) but do not quantify or correct for any of them. Since the Monte Carlo reliability calculation in Section 3.3 did not include any systematic offset, the quoted 94% reliability at 2″ likely overstates the true association probability. The selection thresholds in Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 (≤3″ and f0≤3) are of the same order as the suspected offset scale, so an uncorrected frame error directly affects the 629 count. I recommend estimating a global frame offset from background quasars or calibrators, or propagating an assumed offset through the Monte Carlo and reporting how the candidate count and reliabilities change.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.2] The stellar population sample in Section 3.3 is built from catalogues of known radio-emitting classes (RS CVn, BY Dra, YSOs, Wolf–Rayet stars, OB stars, X-ray active stars), and Section 4.2 then reports detections of those same classes as results. This is a preselection effect, not an independent discovery. The reliability estimate of 94% at 2″ in Section 3.3 applies only to this preselected sample, so it cannot validate the full 629-candidate sample without separating the preselected and AllWISE-selected subsamples. I recommend presenting the two selection paths separately in the final statistics and tempering the statement that the sample 'reveals' these populations, or explicitly acknowledging that the recovery of RS CVn/BY Dra/WR/OB stars is expected by construction.
  3. [Section 4, first paragraph] The authors explicitly state that the catalogue 'lacks a comprehensive assessment of completeness and level of potential contamination.' For a catalogue paper whose headline claim is the sample size, this is a load-bearing omission. At minimum, the paper should provide a crude contamination estimate, for example by comparing the observed surface density of matches to the Monte Carlo expectation as a function of the final selection thresholds, and a completeness estimate using injected sources or comparison with known radio star catalogues such as Driessen et al. (2024).
  4. [Section 3.4, Eq. (2)] The normalized offset f0 is computed using only σ_radio in the denominator, on the assumption that Gaia positional errors are negligible. The paper itself notes in Section 4 that proper-motion propagation errors may be non-negligible for high proper motion stars and that some radio positional uncertainties are extremely small (≪1″). For such sources, the denominator in Eq. (2) underestimates the true positional uncertainty, making f0 too large and biasing the f0≤3 cut. The claimed 1.2% fraction of high-PM stars does not address this bias because those stars may be preferentially nearby and therefore more likely to be genuine counterparts. I recommend adding the propagated Gaia error in quadrature to σ_radio in Eq. (2) and re-deriving the candidate sample.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Figure 8] The caption states that 66% of candidates are within 3σ, while the text states ~70%; please harmonize these numbers.
  2. [Section 3.1] The Monte Carlo description says positions are randomized 'within 1 arcmin radius' but then specifies a random offset length between 20″ and 60″; please clarify the exact randomization range and justify the choice of 20″–60″.
  3. [Table 2] The table is titled 'Massive bright stars from the OB Star catalogue' but includes entries with spectral types M0 (CD –33 12241) and M3 (HD 143183); please verify these entries or clarify that later-type supergiants are included.
  4. [Section 2.2 and Table A1] The appendix lists propagated position errors dRA2019/dDec2019, but the analysis in Section 3.4 does not appear to use them; please state explicitly whether these errors were incorporated anywhere.
  5. [Section 4.1] The sentence 'The code computes A_V using the Galactic coordinates (l,b) and distance estimates' is vague; please name the specific code or package used for the extinction correction.
  6. [Section 4.2.4] The reference 'Smirnov and Ramailla (in prep.)' is incomplete and should be updated or removed.
  7. [Section 1 and Abstract] The claim 'largest Galactic plane radio-optical crossmatch sample to date' should be qualified by a quantitative comparison with existing samples (e.g., SRSC, LoTSS stellar crossmatches) to justify 'largest.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cross-match catalogue uses known stellar classes as selection priors, but the radio associations are external and the final sample is not a restatement of the input catalogue.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the construction of a 629-source radio-optical stellar candidate catalogue from SMGPS and Gaia, not a first-principles derivation. The two selection paths are (i) a stellar-population prior built from literature catalogues of known radio-emitting classes and (ii) an independent f0/S0 chance-alignment plus AllWISE colour/distance selection. While Section 4.2 reports classes such as RS CVn, BY Dra, and YSOs that also appear in the Section 3.3 input sample, the paper explicitly acknowledges the overlap ('overlapping with our catalog classes used in Sect. 3.3') and does not present those class identifications as an independent prediction; they are the expected result of using those classes as priors. The radio detections themselves come from the SMGPS compact-source catalogue, which is external to the class labels, so the association is not defined in terms of the output. The Monte Carlo reliability estimates are comparisons against randomized positions rather than fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The paper's own Fig. 8 internal inconsistency (~70% rather than ~99% of candidates within 3 sigma) points to a possible astrometric frame offset or underestimated proper-motion errors; this is a correctness and contamination risk, not a circular derivation. Self-citations to Goedhart et al. (2024) and Mutale et al. (in prep) are data sources for the survey and compact-source catalogue, not load-bearing arguments that presuppose the target result. No circular step can be exhibited by equation or by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central catalogue claim rests on a chain of modelling and selection choices: the Monte Carlo background model, the assumption that optical errors are negligible, the AllWISE colour separation, and hand-chosen thresholds for f0, S0, distance, and search radius. None of these are fitted to the target result, but each shapes the 629 count, and the paper does not provide a contamination model.

free parameters (9)
  • stellar population search radius = 3 arcsec
    Counterparts within 3 arcsec of SMGPS positions were accepted for the population-sampled selection (Section 3.5.1).
  • population sample distance limit = 3500 pc
    Applied because geometric and photogeometric distances diverge beyond 3500 pc (Section 3.5.1).
  • AllWISE sample distance limit = 1.5 kpc
    Added to reject distant and faint associations in the AllWISE-selected channel (Section 3.5.2).
  • AllWISE colour cut = W2-W3 < 1.5 mag
    Used to separate Galactic stellar sources from extragalactic contamination; the paper notes this selects mostly red stars (Section 3.5.2).
  • normalized offset threshold f0 = 3
    Sources with f0 <= 3 were considered for further analysis (Section 3.4).
  • chance-alignment level threshold S0 = 0.1
    Sources with S0 <= 0.1 were considered for further analysis (Section 3.4).
  • Gaia-AllWISE separation limit = 1.0 arcsec
    Applied because AllWISE position uncertainties are usually below 1 arcsec (Section 3.5.2).
  • Monte Carlo randomization offset range = 20-60 arcsec
    Used in Section 3.1 to generate fake SMGPS positions for false-match counts.
  • S0 trial radius = 30 arcsec
    Random shifts used to compute the chance-alignment level S0 in Section 3.4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Randomizing SMGPS positions by 20-60 arcsec offsets reproduces the true chance-alignment background for Gaia matches.
    Underlies the reliability R(ri)=1-N_MC/N_initial in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Gaia optical positional uncertainties are negligible compared to SMGPS radio uncertainties, including after proper-motion propagation.
    Stated in Section 3.4 when defining f0; affects all separations.
  • domain assumption The SMGPS and Gaia astrometric reference frames share no significant systematic offset.
    Required for cross-match reliability; the paper raises frame mismatch as a possible explanation for the broad Sigma distribution in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The AllWISE W2-W3 colour cut of 1.5 mag effectively separates stellar Galactic sources from extragalactic contaminants.
    Used in Section 3.5.2 to build the 141-star sample.
  • domain assumption The literature catalogues of radio-emitting stellar classes (X-ray active stars, flare stars, OB stars, Wolf-Rayet stars, YSOs) adequately define the stellar radio population within the SMGPS footprint.
    Used to build the 360,959-source input for the population-sampled channel in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Extinction corrections from Lallement et al. (2019) and Marshall et al. (2006) are valid for the distances and lines of sight in the sample.
    Used to produce the intrinsic CMD and absolute magnitudes in Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The stellar population in the SARAO MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XGW4AAFC

@misc{pith2026250522139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The stellar population in the SARAO MeerKAT Galactic Plane Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XGW4AAFC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22139}
}
abstract

We report on optically selected stellar candidates of SARAO MeerKAT 1.3 GHz radio continuum survey sources of the Galactic plane. Stellar counterparts to radio sources are selected by cross-matching the MeerKAT source positions with \textit{Gaia} DR3, using two approaches. The first approach evaluated the probability of chance alignments between the radio survey and \textit{Gaia} sources and used AllWISE infrared colour-colour information to select potential stellar candidates. The second approach utilized a Monte Carlo method to evaluate the cross-matching reliability probability, based on populations of known radio-emitting stars. From the combined approaches, we found 629 potential stellar counterparts, of which 169 have existing SIMBAD classifications, making it the largest Galactic plane radio-optical crossmatch sample to date. A colour-magnitude analysis of the sample revealed a diverse population of stellar objects, ranging from massive OB stars, main-sequence stars, giants, young stellar objects, emission line stars, red dwarfs and white dwarfs. Some of the proposed optical counterparts include chromospherically/coronally active stars, for example RS CVn binaries, BY Dra systems, YSOs and flare stars, which typically exhibit radio emission. Based on Gaia's low-resolution spectroscopy, some of the stars show strong H$\alpha$ emission, indicating they are magnetically active, consistent with them being radio emitters. While MeerKAT's sensitivity and survey speed make it ideal for detecting faint radio sources, its angular resolution limits accurate counterpart identification for crowded fields such as the Galactic Plane. Higher frequency, and, thereby, better spatial resolution, radio observations plus circular polarization would be required to strengthen the associations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Density plot showing SMGPS flux density (in mJy) as a function of position uncertainty (in arcseconds). The colour intensity indicates regions with a higher concentration of data points. coverage area is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A plot of the reliability, 𝑅(𝑟𝑖 ) , against the search radius in arcsec￾onds. and not a true physical match as 𝑅(𝑟𝑖 ) is always smaller than 0.15. Hence, we conclude that this cross-matching method is not reliable. Therefore, we explored the other approaches in the next sections to reliably find optical counterparts. 3.2 Volume Specific Crossmatch Next, we attempted a volume-specific cross-match based on Gaia distan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot showing the reliability, 𝑅𝑖 out to a search radius of 5′′, for volume-limiting distances of 3500, 300, 100, and 50 pc, respectively. Noted in each plot is the reliability at a specific radius of 2′′ , 𝑅2 ′′ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative distribution showing the number of matches at a specific search radius. The red and black lines represent the number of matches derived from the cross-match between SMGPS positions and the Monte Carlo simulation positions with Gaia, respectively. The magenta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Confidence level, 𝑆0 against normalized distance, 𝑓0. The dashed lines represent the cutoff for 𝑆0 and 𝑓0 that were considered for further analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distribution of the geometric and photogeometric distances for the 832 sources within 3 ′′ radius of SMGPS. The dashed line indicates a distance of 3500 pc where both distance estimates diverge. their uncertainties to estimate the distance, whereas photogeometric, …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A colour-magnitude diagram showing the intrinsic colour and the absolute magnitude of the 629 SMGPS-Gaia counterparts. The stellar type classification is shown in the legend. The grey circles are all Gaia sources within 100 pc of Earth binned in uniform colour and magn…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Image view of NaSt1 (WR 122). On the left is the 1.3 GHz SMGPS continuum image. On the right is the PanSTARRS-1 𝑔−band image. SMGPS contour is shown in black, and the white circle with 10′′ radius is centred at the position of the star. 4.2.3 Young Stellar Objects The…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Gaia low-resolution spectra of SMGPS - Gaia candidates (EM* AS 270, NaSt1, IRAS 15255-5449 and BI Cru) with H𝛼 EW < −3 nm. NaSt1 spectrum shows strong He I emission, which is a common line for Wolf-Rayet stars. MNRAS 000, 1–15 (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: MeerKAT and the Dark Energy Camera Plane Survey (DECaPs) view of Wolf-Rayet stars, HD 318016, HD 79573, HD 151932 and HD 1552270. The MeerKAT contour map is overplotted in both images using logarithmic intervals from 10−5 − 101.5 Jy. A 10′′ radius circle is centred at…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Radio flux 𝐹𝑟 vs. Optical flux 𝐹𝑜 parameter space from Stewart et al. (2018) showing different radio transients. The plot shows different data points from multiple surveys. The markers in the top right legend of the plot represent the data points from VLA, SDSS and ot…

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. Discovery of a radio-flaring M dwarf in a commensal transient search of the LADUMA field

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

    MeerKAT LADUMA monitoring reveals a radio-flaring M3.5 dwarf, LP 888-63, with 13 detections in 41 epochs at 816 MHz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    C., Bieging J

    Abbott D. C., Bieging J. H., Churchwell E., 1981, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/159412 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...250..645A 250, 645

    doi:10.1086/159412 1981

  2. [2]

    C., Beiging J

    Abbott D. C., Beiging J. H., Churchwell E., Torres A. V., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...303..239A 303, 239

    doi:10.1086/164070 1986

  3. [3]

    F., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez C., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-018-0107-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&ARv..26....3A 26, 3

    Anglada G., Rodr \' guez L. F., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez C., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics Review] 10.1007/s00159-018-0107-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&ARv..26....3A 26, 3

    doi:10.1007/s00159-018-0107-z 2018

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..33A 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  5. [5]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  7. [7]

    J., Mason P

    Barrett P., Dieck C., Beasley A. J., Mason P. A., Singh K. P., 2020, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2020.04.007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AdSpR..66.1226B 66, 1226

    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020.04.007 2020

  8. [8]

    S., Dulk G

    Bastian T. S., Dulk G. A., Chanmugam G., 1988, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/165906 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...324..431B 324, 431

    doi:10.1086/165906 1988

Show all 102 references
  1. [9]

    A., et al., 2003, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/376696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..953B 115, 953

    Benjamin R. A., et al., 2003, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/376696 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115..953B 115, 953

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    O., G \"u del M., 2010, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..241B 48, 241

    Benz A. O., G \"u del M., 2010, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101757 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ARA&A..48..241B 48, 241

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    H., Abbott D

    Bieging J. H., Abbott D. C., Churchwell E. B., 1982, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/160495 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..207B 263, 207

    1982 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Abbott D

    Bieging J. H., Abbott D. C., Churchwell E. B., 1989, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/167414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...340..518B 340, 518

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    Buckley D. A. H., Meintjes P. J., Potter S. B., Marsh T. R., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-016-0029 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1E..29B 1, 0029

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    R., Vedantham H

    Callingham J. R., Vedantham H. K., Pope B. J. S., Shimwell T. W., LoTSS Team 2019, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab07c3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RNAAS...3...37C 3, 37

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    R., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01483-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1233C 5, 1233

    Callingham J. R., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01483-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5.1233C 5, 1233

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Camilo F., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab35a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...856..180C 856, 180

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    M., van der Hucht K

    Cappa C., Goss W. M., van der Hucht K. A., 2004, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/383286 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AJ....127.2885C 127, 2885

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    M., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.109C 679, A109

    Carretero-Castrillo M., Rib \'o M., Paredes J. M., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346613 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679A.109C 679, A109

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Chen X., Wang S., Deng L., de Grijs R., Yang M., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aad32b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..237...28C 237, 28

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Chen X., Wang S., Deng L., de Grijs R., Yang M., Tian H., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..249...18C 249, 18

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    C., Haynes R

    Collier A. C., Haynes R. F., Slee O. B., Wright A. E., Hillier D. J., 1982, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/200.4.869 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982MNRAS.200..869C 200, 869

    1982 doi

  14. [22]

    Comrie A., et al., 2021, CARTA: The Cube Analysis and Rendering Tool for Astronomy , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3377984

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    L., K \"o rding E

    Coppejans D. L., K \"o rding E. G., Miller-Jones J. C. A., Rupen M. P., Knigge C., Sivakoff G. R., Groot P. J., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1225 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.3801C 451, 3801

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    De Becker M., Raucq F., 2013, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322074 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..28D 558, A28

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    N., Williams D

    Driessen L. N., Williams D. R. A., McDonald I., Stappers B. W., Buckley D. A. H., Fender R. P., Woudt P. A., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab3461 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.1083D 510, 1083

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    N., et al., 2024, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2024.72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...84D 41, e084

    Driessen L. N., et al., 2024, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2024.72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41...84D 41, e084

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    A., 1985, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ARA&A..23..169D 23, 169

    Dulk G. A., 1985, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.aa.23.090185.001125 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ARA&A..23..169D 23, 169

    1985

  20. [28]

    D., Montmerle T., 1985, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/184426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...289L..19F 289, L19

    Feigelson E. D., Montmerle T., 1985, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/184426 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...289L..19F 289, L19

    1985 doi

  21. [29]

    T., 2015, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..111F 191, 111

    Ferrario L., de Martino D., G \"a nsicke B. T., 2015, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-015-0152-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..111F 191, 111

    2015 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Schmitt J

    Freund S., Robrade J., Schneider P. C., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201732009 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...614A.125F 614, A125

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    C., Schmitt J

    Freund S., Czesla S., Robrade J., Schneider P. C., Schmitt J. H. M. M., 2022, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142573 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...664A.105F 664, A105

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Freund S., et al., 2024, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348278 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.121F 684, A121

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    arXiv:2208.00211

    Gaia Collaboration 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2208.00211 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220800211G p. arXiv:2208.00211

    2022 doi arXiv

  26. [35]

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

    doi

  27. [36]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...2G 595, A2

    doi

  28. [37]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039498 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...6G 649, A6

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

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

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    M., Rib \'o M., 2003, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...403..613G 403, 613

    Garc \' a-S \'a nchez J., Paredes J. M., Rib \'o M., 2003, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030361 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...403..613G 403, 613

    2003 doi

  31. [40]

    Goedhart S., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1166 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531..649G 531, 649

    2024 doi

  32. [41]

    G\" u del M., 2002, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093806 , 40, 217

    2002

  33. [42]

    O., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/186766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405L..63G 405, L63

    Guedel M., Benz A. O., 1993, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/186766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...405L..63G 405, L63

    1993 doi

  34. [43]

    Gulati A., et al., 2023, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/pasa.2023.21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PASA...40...25G 40, e025

    2023 doi

  35. [44]

    N., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..241H 156, 241

    Heinze A. N., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..241H 156, 241

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.2542H 496, 2542

    Hewitt D. M., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa1747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.496.2542H 496, 2542

    2020 doi

  37. [46]

    Hodgkin S., et al., 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 652, A76

    2021

  38. [47]

    Jonas J., MeerKAT Team 2016, in MeerKAT Science: On the Pathway to the SKA. p. 1, @doi 10.22323/1.277.0001

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    Kaltenegger L., Pepper J., Stassun K., Oelkers R., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0e8d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...874L...8K 874, L8

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    G., 1938, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81 , 30, 81

    Kendall M. G., 1938, @doi [Biometrika] 10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81 , 30, 81

    1938 doi

  41. [50]

    M., 1985, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985A&A...149..343K 149, 343

    Kuijpers J., van der Hulst J. M., 1985, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985A&A...149..343K 149, 343

    1985

  42. [51]

    Lallement R., Babusiaux C., Vergely J. L., Katz D., Arenou F., Valette B., Hottier C., Capitanio L., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834695 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...625A.135L 625, A135

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    M., Koribalski B., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/304096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481..898L 481, 898

    Leitherer C., Chapman J. M., Koribalski B., 1997, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/304096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...481..898L 481, 898

    1997 doi

  44. [53]

    J., Mann A

    L \'e pine S., Hilton E. J., Mann A. W., Wilde M., Rojas-Ayala B., Cruz K. L., Gaidos E., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/4/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145..102L 145, 102

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...731...53M 731, 53

    2011 doi

  46. [55]

    M., Marinoni S., Fabrizio M., Altavilla G., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.144M 621, A144

    Marrese P. M., Marinoni S., Fabrizio M., Altavilla G., 2019, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...621A.144M 621, A144

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Marrese P. M., Marinoni S., Fabrizio M., Altavilla G., 2022, Gaia DR3 documentation Chapter 15: Cross-match with external catalogues , Gaia DR3 documentation, European Space Agency; Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium. Online at https://gea.esac.esa.int/archive/docume...

    2022

  48. [57]

    R., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature18620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.537..374M 537, 374

    Marsh T. R., et al., 2016, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/nature18620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Natur.537..374M 537, 374

    2016 doi

  49. [58]

    J., Robin A

    Marshall D. J., Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Schultheis M., Picaud S., 2006, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...453..635M 453, 635

    2006 doi

  50. [59]

    S., 1983, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/131190 , 95, 440

    Massey P., Conti P. S., 1983, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/131190 , 95, 440

    1983 doi

  51. [60]

    D., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670019 , 125, 313

    Matthews L. D., 2013, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/670019 , 125, 313

    2013 doi

  52. [61]

    D., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae856 , 131, 016001

    Matthews L. D., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae856 , 131, 016001

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    Mauch T., et al., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5d2d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...888...61M 888, 61

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    D., Morzinski K

    Mauerhan J., Smith N., Van Dyk S. D., Morzinski K. M., Close L. M., Hinz P. M., Males J. R., Rodigas T. J., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv257 , 450, 2551

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    McLean M., Berger E., Reiners A., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...746...23M 746, 23

    2012 doi

  56. [65]

    M., Dambis A

    Melnik A. M., Dambis A. K., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa454 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.2339M 493, 2339

    2020 doi

  57. [66]

    B., 1987, in Linsky J

    Melrose D. B., 1987, in Linsky J. L., Stencel R. E., eds, , Vol. 291, Cool Stars, Stellar Systems and the Sun. pp 83--94, @doi 10.1007/3-540-18653-0_113

    1987 doi

  58. [67]

    A., Alberdi A., Gonz \'a lez R

    Montes G., P \'e rez-Torres M. A., Alberdi A., Gonz \'a lez R. F., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/899 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...705..899M 705, 899

    2009 doi

  59. [68]

    S., Dressing C

    Muirhead P. S., Dressing C. D., Mann A. W., Rojas-Ayala B., L \'e pine S., Paegert M., De Lee N., Oelkers R., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aab710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155..180M 155, 180

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    Mutale M., et al., 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

    2024

  61. [70]

    L., Lestrade J

    Mutel R. L., Lestrade J. F., 1985, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/113756 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AJ.....90..493M 90, 493

    1985 doi

  62. [71]

    R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M

    Newton E. R., Irwin J., Charbonneau D., Berlind P., Calkins M. L., Mink J., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834...85N 834, 85

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    O., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae2020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3862O 533, 3862

    Obonyo W. O., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae2020 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.533.3862O 533, 3862

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    N., Gibson D

    Owen F. N., Gibson D. M., 1978, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/112349 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978AJ.....83.1488O 83, 1488

    1978 doi

  65. [74]

    Pelisoli I., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1275 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.531.1805P 531, 1805

    2024 doi

  66. [75]

    Plant K., Hallinan G., Bastian T., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...970...56P 970, 56

    2024 doi

  67. [76]

    Pritchard J., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab299 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5438P 502, 5438

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    S., Kaplan D

    Pritchard J., Murphy T., Heald G., Wheatland M. S., Kaplan D. L., Lenc E., O'Brien A., Wang Z., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae127 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1258P 529, 1258

    2024 doi

  69. [78]

    H., Intema H

    Quiroga-Nu \ n ez L. H., Intema H. T., Callingham J. R., Villadsen J., van Langevelde H. J., Jagannathan P., Shimwell T. W., Boven E. P., 2020, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936491 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...633A.130Q 633, A130

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1512R 493, 1512

    Rate G., Crowther P. A., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stz3614 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.493.1512R 493, 1512

    2020 doi

  71. [80]

    E., Harvin J., 2006, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/505632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..866R 132, 866

    Riaz B., Gizis J. E., Harvin J., 2006, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/505632 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....132..866R 132, 866

    2006 doi

  72. [81]

    Robitaille T., 2019, APLpy v2.0: The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.2567476 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2567476

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    Robitaille T., Bressert E., 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1208.017 )

    2012

  74. [83]

    R., 1993, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/56/9/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993RPPh...56.1145S 56, 1145

    Seaquist E. R., 1993, @doi [Reports on Progress in Physics] 10.1088/0034-4885/56/9/002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993RPPh...56.1145S 56, 1145

    1993 doi

  75. [84]

    Setia Gunawan D. Y. A., Chapman J. M., Stevens I. R., Rauw G., Leitherer C., 2003, in van der Hucht K., Herrero A., Esteban C., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 212, A Massive Star Odyssey: From Main Sequence to Supernova. p. 230

    2003

  76. [85]

    L., Zhekov S

    Skinner S. L., Zhekov S. A., G \"u del M., Schmutz W., 2002, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/340307 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...572..477S 572, 477

    2002 doi

  77. [86]

    Skumanich A., 1972, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/151310 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972ApJ...171..565S 171, 565

    1972 doi

  78. [87]

    R., Eldridge J

    Stanway E. R., Eldridge J. J., Becker G. D., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2661 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.456..485S 456, 485

    2016 doi

  79. [88]

    R., 1995, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/277.1.163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.277..163S 277, 163

    Stevens I. R., 1995, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/277.1.163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995MNRAS.277..163S 277, 163

    1995 doi

  80. [89]

    J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Fender R

    Stewart A. J., Mu \ n oz-Darias T., Fender R. P., Pietka M., 2018, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sty1671 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.479.2481S 479, 2481

    2018 doi

  81. [90]

    C., Hewitt R

    Storey M. C., Hewitt R. G., 1995, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia] 10.1017/S1323358000020233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PASA...12..174S 12, 174

    1995 doi

  82. [91]

    Toet S. E. B., Vedantham H. K., Callingham J. R., Veken K. C., Shimwell T. W., Zarka P., R \"o ttgering H. J. A., Drabent A., 2021, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141163 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...654A..21T 654, A21

    2021 doi

  83. [92]

    Traven G., et al., 2015, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...581A..52T 581, A52

    2015 doi

  84. [93]

    Umana G., et al., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv1976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454..902U 454, 902

    2015 doi

  85. [94]

    K., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1011-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..577V 4, 577

    Vedantham H. K., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1011-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..577V 4, 577

    2020 doi

  86. [95]

    Weiler M., 2018, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833462 , 617, 138

    2018 doi

  87. [96]

    J., 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&AS..109..177W 109, 177

    Wendker H. J., 1995, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&AS..109..177W 109, 177

    1995

  88. [97]

    M., Kundu M

    White S. M., Kundu M. R., Jackson P. D., 1986, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/164820 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...311..814W 311, 814

    1986 doi

  89. [98]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  90. [99]

    L., Misra P., Yang J., Pi Q., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..15Y 669, A15

    Yang Z., Zhang L., Meng G., Han X. L., Misra P., Yang J., Pi Q., 2023, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142710 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A..15Y 669, A15

    2023 doi

  91. [100]

    Yiu T. W. H., Vedantham H. K., Callingham J. R., G \"u nther M. N., 2023, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2312.07162 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv231207162Y p. arXiv:2312.07162

    2023 doi arXiv

  92. [101]

    Yu B., Zijlstra A., Jiang B., 2021, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe7050119 , 7, 119

    2021 doi

  93. [102]

    Zari E., Hashemi H., Brown A. G. A., Jardine K., de Zeeuw P. T., 2018, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...620A.172Z 620, A172

    2018 doi

  94. [103]

    L., Pi Q., Misra P., Li B., Zhu Z., 2022, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8070384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Univ....8..384Z 8, 384

    Zhang L., Cheng Y., Han X. L., Pi Q., Misra P., Li B., Zhu Z., 2022, @doi [Universe] 10.3390/universe8070384 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Univ....8..384Z 8, 384

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.