Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 117 references

A Comprehensive Study of Czernik 41 and NGC 1342 Using CCD UBV and Gaia DR3 Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining UBV photometry with Gaia astrometry settles the ages, distances, and metallicities of two poorly studied open clusters and traces their birthplaces to opposite sides of the Solar circle.

desk verdict A competent open-cluster study with a real new dataset, but the Czernik 41 age is not as precise as claimed and the cross-method agreement is partly circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05384 v1 pith:FAHQ7ZSG submitted 2025-07-07 astro-ph.GA

B. Tanik Ozturk , S. Bilir , T. Yontan , O. Plevne , T. Ak , S. Ak , R. Canbay , T. Banks This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords openclustersCzernik41NGC1342UBVphotometryGaiaDR3clustermembershipMCMCparameterestimationGalacticorbits
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 aims to pin down the fundamental properties of two little-studied open star clusters, Czernik 41 and NGC 1342, by combining ground-based UBV photometry with Gaia astrometry. For each cluster it derives membership from five-dimensional astrometric data, then fits reddening, metallicity, distance, and age two independent ways: a classical step-by-step isochrone analysis and a simultaneous Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit. The two routes agree, yielding a young, heavily reddened cluster at 2485 pc and a much older cluster at 645 pc. The authors further use the clusters' space motions to trace their orbits backward, concluding that one formed inside the Solar circle and the other outside it. If reliable, these parameters turn two poorly characterized clusters into test points for Galactic disc structure and star formation history.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-stage pipeline. Stage one is UPMASK, an unsupervised clustering algorithm that groups stars by their astrometric similarity, applied to Gaia positions, parallaxes, and proper motions; keeping membership probability $P\ge0.5$ within an 11-arcmin limiting radius leaves 382 members for Czernik 41 and 111 for NGC 1342. Stage two is dual parameter estimation: a classical route that fixes reddening from two-color diagrams and metallicity from UV-excess calibrations before fitting PARSEC isochrones, and an MCMC route in which every member star is a walker sampling a Delaunay-interpolated isochrone grid in age, metallicity, distance, and extinction with a Gaussian likelihood across the Gaia $G$, $G_{\mathrm{BP}}$, and $G_{\mathrm{RP}}$ bands. A King-profile radial density fit sets the limiting radius, and backward orbit integration in a static Galactic potential supplies the birth-region claim via the traceback early orbital radius.

What would settle it

Refit Czernik 41 with a stricter membership threshold, $P\ge0.8$, and compare the resulting age and distance: if the age moves by more than roughly 30 Myr or the distance by more than roughly 200 pc, the claimed robustness against membership contamination fails. Alternatively, high-resolution spectra of about two dozen high-probability members would directly show whether their radial velocities are coherent and whether the mean [Fe/H] is truly near +0.07 dex.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that two independent fitting strategies converge on the same cluster parameters: for Czernik 41, $E(B-V)=1.500\pm0.035$ mag, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=0.07\pm0.09$ dex, distance $2485\pm151$ pc, and age $69\pm10$ Myr; for NGC 1342, $E(B-V)=0.270\pm0.043$ mag, $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=-0.14\pm0.07$ dex, distance $645\pm42$ pc, and age $1000\pm50$ Myr. The classical route fixes reddening and metallicity first and then fits isochrones, while the MCMC route fits all parameters at once; their agreement is presented as evidence that the age-reddening-distance-metallicity degeneracy is not hiding a second solution. The paper then integrates the clusters' orbits backward and, using the traceback early orbital radius, concludes that Czernik 41 formed inside the Solar circle ($R_{\mathrm{teo}}\approx6.65$ kpc) whereas NGC 1342 formed outside it ($R_{\mathrm{teo}}\approx9.32$ kpc).

Load-bearing premise

The member list produced by UPMASK at $P\ge0.5$ inside the 11 arcmin limiting radius is clean enough that the fitted main sequence is not shifted by the few percent of field stars or unresolved binaries in the sample; the paper offers no independent spectroscopic check of that purity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Czernik 41 becomes a young (69 Myr), heavily reddened cluster at 2485 pc, nearly twice as distant and much younger than some pre-Gaia catalog estimates.
  • NGC 1342 is pinned as a 1 Gyr old, mildly metal-poor cluster at 645 pc, with its photogeometric distance matching the isochrone distance.
  • The agreement between classical and MCMC fits indicates that the age-reddening-distance-metallicity degeneracy is largely broken for these two clusters.
  • Orbit integrations imply Czernik 41 was born inside the Solar circle and NGC 1342 outside it, with both on near-circular thin-disc orbits.
  • Mass-function slopes of 1.67 and 1.56 are consistent with a typical initial mass function, and both clusters appear dynamically relaxed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not stated in the paper, but if Czernik 41 really is 69 Myr old, its turnoff is sparse enough that a single unresolved binary near the turnoff could bias the fitted age; high-cadence time-series photometry or spectra of the few turnoff stars would settle it.
  • The birth-radius inference assumes a static Galactic potential; under strong radial migration or non-axisymmetric perturbations, birth radius and early orbital radius need not coincide, so the inside/outside Solar circle conclusion is most safely read as a statement about orbits, not necessarily formation sites.
  • The agreement between the two fitting routes could be exploited further: a joint fit of the UBV and Gaia datasets in one posterior would propagate the shared reddening and membership systematics and sharpen the error bars.
  • For NGC 1342, the nine-star photometric metallicity agrees with two LAMOST spectra; adding a few more high-resolution abundance measurements would turn this cluster into a useful calibrator for the UV-excess metallicity scale.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a combined CCD UBV and Gaia DR3 analysis of the open clusters Czernik 41 and NGC 1342. Membership probabilities are derived with UPMASK, and cluster parameters are estimated twice: by a classical sequential approach (TCD reddening, photometric or adopted metallicity, then isochrone fitting of distance and age) and by a simultaneous MCMC fit of PARSEC isochrones to the Gaia photometry. The two approaches are claimed to agree, yielding for Czernik 41 E(B-V)=1.500±0.035, [Fe/H]=0.07±0.09, distance 2485±151 pc, and age 69±10 Myr, and for NGC 1342 E(B-V)=0.270±0.043, [Fe/H]=-0.14±0.07, distance 645±42 pc, and age 1000±50 Myr. The paper also derives structural parameters, proper motions, parallax and photogeometric distances, radial velocities, Galactic orbits, mass functions, relaxation times, and mass-segregation indicators. The abstract and conclusions emphasize that consistency between classical and MCMC results demonstrates robustness against parameter degeneracies, and that traceback orbits place Czernik 41's birth inside the Solar circle and NGC 1342's birth outside it.

Significance. If the derived parameters are correct, the paper provides a useful, fairly complete characterization of two under-studied open clusters, including a new MCMC fitting framework and four distance estimators that agree at the 1-2 sigma level. The explicit likelihood description and the cross-checks with Gaia parallaxes and Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances are commendable and give the distance estimates some independent grounding. However, the central claim of robustness through method agreement is weakened for Czernik 41 because the classical fit adopts the MCMC metallicity, and the reliability of both fits depends on the purity of a small, heavily contaminated member sample. The paper's value as a reference for these clusters therefore hinges on whether the membership and metallicity limitations can be addressed or at least honestly quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3.2, §4.2, Table 7] For Czernik 41, the classical UBV isochrone fit adopts Z=0.0176 from the MCMC result because the photometric metallicity cannot be measured from UBV data. Consequently, the agreement between the classical and MCMC ages and distances is not an independent confirmation; the two methods share a key input for this cluster. The claim in §7 that consistency between the methods demonstrates reliability should be restricted to NGC 1342, or the authors should obtain an independent metallicity (e.g., from spectroscopy or from the Gaia CMD with a marginalized Z) and refit Czernik 41.
  2. [§3.3, §4.3.1, Figure 12] The membership sample is the load-bearing input for both fitting methods, yet its purity is not independently validated. Only 2.34% of stars within rlim=11 arcmin pass P≥0.5 for Czernik 41 and 3.77% for NGC 1342, and the UBV sample is further filtered with a visually shifted ZAMS band and V≤20. The MCMC log-age posterior for Czernik 41 is log t = 7.94(+0.36,-0.48), i.e. roughly 30-200 Myr, which is difficult to reconcile with the quoted 69±10 Myr and suggests that the fit is not strongly constraining the turnoff age. The authors should report the full MCMC posteriors as primary age uncertainties, and should run robustness tests such as varying P threshold, removing ZAMS-band edge stars, and adding a binary fraction to see how much the age and reddening shift.
  3. [§4.3.1, Eqs. (9)-(12)] The MCMC likelihood treats every selected star as an independent, equal-weight Gaussian measurement with no outlier model and no weighting by membership probability. Given the very low membership fractions and the acknowledged presence of unresolved binaries and field contamination, the fitted parameters can be biased by a small number of interlopers. The authors should either justify the P≥0.5 cut with a contamination estimate, introduce a mixture/outlier term in the likelihood, or demonstrate by injection tests that the current likelihood is robust to the expected contamination level.
  4. [§5, §7, Figure 14] The traceback claim that Czernik 41 formed inside the Solar circle and NGC 1342 outside it is based on backward integration in the static MWPotential2014 for 2.5 Gyr with age as the integration time. For Czernik 41 the age itself is uncertain at the level of the broad MCMC posterior, and the quoted Rteo = 6.65±0.07 kpc does not include the systematic uncertainty from the assumed Galactic potential or from the age posterior. The authors should add a caveat that Rteo is model-dependent and integrate over the full age posterior rather than only the ±10 Myr classical error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 9 caption] The caption says 'Czernik 42' in the top panel; this should read 'Czernik 41'.
  2. [§3.1, Figure 2] The photometric completeness limit is described as the magnitude at which star counts reach a maximum, which is not a standard completeness definition; the comparison with Besançon models is more informative, and the authors should state explicitly whether the limit is based on the model cross-over or on the observed histogram peak.
  3. [Table 1] Several reference labels in the NGC 1342 rows are written as (02), (03), (04), (05), (21), and (22) instead of continuing the numbering used for the other rows, which makes the table harder to read.
  4. [§6.1, Eq. (14)] The relaxation-time equation appears as '8.9 × 105N 1/2R3/2h' in the text; the superscripts and the exponent on 10 are not typeset correctly and should be fixed.
  5. [§4.1, Figure 10] The skewness and standard deviations are reported but the histograms in Figure 10 are said to be fit with Gaussians; for Czernik 41 the color excess range spans 0.8-2.4 mag while the quoted dispersion is 0.33 mag, so the authors should clarify whether the Gaussian is fit to the full histogram or to a central subset.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Czernik 41's claimed cross-method agreement is partly by construction: the UBV isochrone fit adopts the MCMC metallicity, so the 'independent' confirmation is not independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Section 4.3.2, and Summary items 4-5]
    "Since no UBV photometry was obtained for main-sequence stars in Czernik 41, there is no estimate of the metallicity from the two-color diagram for this cluster. ... For Czernik 41, the Z value was adopted based on results obtained from an MCMC analysis (see Table 7). ... MCMC provided an independent estimate of these parameters ... consistent with the UBV-based results, confirming the reliability of both methods."

    The UBV/classical isochrone fit for Czernik 41 sets Z equal to the MCMC output (Z=0.0176) because no UBV F-G main-sequence stars exist for an independent photometric metallicity. The later claim that MCMC is an 'independent estimate' whose agreement with UBV 'confirms reliability' therefore makes the metallicity agreement (and any age-distance solution degenerate with Z) agree by construction: the classical fit did not determine Z independently. The quoted [Fe/H]=0.07±0.09 and the 69±10 Myr age rest on a single MCMC-derived Z feeding the UBV fit, so the 'robustness against degeneracies' claim for Czernik 41 is not supported by the two methods being independent.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained in its data reduction: UBV calibration uses Landolt standards, membership uses UPMASK on Gaia astrometry, reddening uses TCD fits against the Sung et al. (2013) ZAMS, and distances are cross-checked against Gaia parallaxes and Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distances. For NGC 1342 the metallicity is independently derived from UV-excess photometry and is consistent with LAMOST spectroscopy, and the classical UBV analysis does not borrow Z from the MCMC fit. For Czernik 41, however, the derivation chain has a genuine circular step: the paper explicitly states that no UBV metallicity could be measured, then the UBV isochrone fit adopts the MCMC-derived Z, and the abstract/summary nevertheless tout the agreement between 'classical' and MCMC methods as confirmation of reliability and robustness against degeneracies. The agreement of the metallicity is by construction, and for a young, sparse cluster like Czernik 41 the adopted Z strongly influences the inferred turnoff age, so the 69±10 Myr age and [Fe/H]=0.07±0.09 are not confirmed by two independent routes. The Rteo traceback method is cited from Akbaba et al. (2024), which shares authors with this paper, but its assumptions (static MWPotential2014, quoted astrometric inputs) are stated transparently and the cited method is not reducible to the present fitted parameters, so I do not treat it as load-bearing circularity. Overall, the central 'two methods agree' claim is partially circular for Czernik 41, but the paper contains substantial independent data and checks, especially for NGC 1342, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

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

The parameter estimation rests on a chain of external models (King profiles, isochrones, extinction law, Galactic potential) and several hand-set thresholds (rlim, P, completeness limits). The most consequential internal choice is the adoption of the MCMC metallicity as the input to the classical fit for Czernik 41, which weakens the claimed cross-method validation.

free parameters (5)
  • Limiting radius rlim = 11 arcmin (both clusters)
    Visually chosen from the intersection of the King profile with the background density in Section 3.2; defines all subsequent member-selection annuli and therefore affects every parameter.
  • Membership probability threshold P = >=0.5
    Chosen by convention to define cluster members in both Gaia and UBV samples; member counts (382/111) and CMD fits depend on this threshold.
  • Z adopted for Czernik 41 classical fit = Z=0.0176 ([Fe/H]~0.07)
    Taken from the MCMC output (Section 4.3.2) rather than independently measured, coupling the classical and MCMC results.
  • UPMASK k-means parameter k = 8 (Czernik 41), 25 (NGC 1342)
    Selected by inspecting which k best represents the cluster structure; affects the membership probability fields (Section 3.3).
  • Photometric completeness limits = V=20 mag, G=21 mag for both clusters
    Adopted from the peak of the observed star-count histograms (Section 3.1); restricts the LF/PDMF and CMD fits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption King (1962) profile is an appropriate RDP model and rlim approximates the tidal radius in the concentration parameter.
    Used in Section 3.2 to derive structural parameters; the authors acknowledge the conceptual distinction but treat rlim as a proxy.
  • domain assumption Standard R_V=3.1 extinction law (Cardelli et al. 1989; O'Donnell 1994) and constant dust scale height H=125 pc apply toward both clusters.
    Section 4.1 converts E(B-V) to A_V with factor 3.1 and uses the Bahcall-Soneira relation; differential reddening in Czernik 41 is noted but modeled with a single E(B-V).
  • domain assumption Parsec isochrones (Bressan et al. 2012) accurately predict UBV and Gaia colors for the adopted Z values.
    Sections 4.3.1-4.3.2 derive distance and age by fitting parsec isochrones; isochrone zero-point or color errors directly shift age.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax zero-point and systematics are negligible for the d_parallax checks.
    Section 3.3 computes d=1000/parallax without applying a zero-point correction, which can bias the parallax distance for Czernik 41 at 0.38 mas.
  • domain assumption The static MWPotential2014 Galactic potential and the Rteo traceback assumption (Akbaba et al. 2024) allow a cluster's birth radius to be inferred from current astrometry and age.
    Section 5 traces orbits backward for 2.5 Gyr and uses the cluster age to assign a birth location; this neglects spiral-arm perturbations, radial migration, and non-static potential evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Study of Czernik 41 and NGC 1342 Using CCD UBV and Gaia DR3 Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FAHQ7ZSG

@misc{pith2026250705384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Study of Czernik 41 and NGC 1342 Using CCD UBV and Gaia DR3 Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FAHQ7ZSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05384}
}
abstract

In this study, the structural, astrophysical, kinematic, and Galactic orbital parameters of the open clusters Czernik 41 and NGC 1342, as well as their dynamical evolution, are investigated using CCD UBV photometry and Gaia data. By applying the UPMASK algorithm to Gaia astrometric data for the estimation of cluster membership probabilities, we have determined that 382 stars in Czernik 41 and 111 stars in NGC 1342 exhibit the highest statistical likelihood of being cluster members. Fundamental parameters (including reddening, metallicity, distance, and age) were derived using both classical methods, where parameters are determined separately, and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, where parameters are estimated simultaneously. The results obtained from both approaches are in agreement, confirming the reliability of the derived parameters and demonstrating their robustness against potential degeneracies. The distances to Czernik 41 and NGC 1342 were determined as 2485$\pm$151 pc and 645$\pm$42 pc, respectively, while their ages were estimated to be 69$\pm$10 Myr and 1000$\pm$50 Myr. The metallicity values ([Fe/H]) were found to be 0.07$\pm$0.09 dex for Czernik 41 and -0.14$\pm$0.07 dex for NGC 1342. The stellar mass functions for both clusters were derived, yielding slopes of $\Gamma$=1.67$\pm$0.23 for Czernik 41 and $\Gamma$ =1.56$\pm$0.41 for NGC 1342. Kinematic orbit analysis indicates that Czernik 41 originated within the Solar circle, whereas NGC 1342 formed outside it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Star fields for Czernik 41 (a) and NGC 1342 (b) in the equatorial coordinate system. The red boundaries indicate the fields observed with the T100 telescope. North and east correspond to the up and left directions, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of stars in Czernik 41 (panels a and b) and NGC 1342 (panels c and d) as a function of V and G magnitudes. The black dashed lines show the photometric completeness limits for each band. The blue and red color bins represent the observed and the Besan¸con Galaxy model values, respectively. f0 = 7.622 ± 0.750 stars arcmin−2 , rc = 1.728 ± 0.266 arcmin, and fbg = 4.481 ± 0.171 stars arcmin−2 , while for NGC … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. King profiles of Czernik 41 (a) and NGC 1342 (b). The black solid curves represent the best-fit models, while the shaded red and grey regions indicate the confidence intervals of the model and the background stellar density, respectively. The dashed vertical lines denote the limit radii of the OCs. Consequently, clusters with low concentration param￾eters may be dynamically young or may have lost their central densi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CMDs of Czernik 41 (a-b) and NGC 1342 (c-d) in the UBV (a and c) and Gaia (b and d) photometric systems. Gray circles represent stars with membership probabilities P < 0.5, while colored circles indicate stars with P ≥ 0.5. The continuous and dashed blue curves denote …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Membership probability distributions for all stars detected in the cluster fields of Czernik 41 (a) and NGC 1342 (b), constructed for Gaia data. The filled grey histograms represent the membership probabilities of all stars identified within the cluster fields, while t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The TCDs of the most probable main-sequence stars in the regions of the OCs Czernik 41 (a) and NGC 1342 (b) are presented. The reddened ZAMS, as defined by Sung et al. (2013), is depicted by the red dashed curves, while the green solid curves indicate the ±1σ standard …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Czernik 41 (a-b) and NGC 1342 (c-d) OC fields: Gaia DR3 PM components (left panels) and sky orientation vectors in equatorial coordinates (right panels). The color scale and circles are identical to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Color excess histograms for the (a) Czernik 41 and (b) NGC 1342 OCs, estimated using the 3D-dust maps and distances between the Sun and individual stars calculated from trigonometric parallax data. The red line represents the mean color excess, while the gray-shaded a…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The spatial distributions of member stars in Cz￾ernik 42 (top) and NGC 1342 (bottom) are presented in Galactic coordinates (l, b). Contour lines were generated based on color excess values derived from dust maps. The color scale in the right-hand panels indicates the m…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: TCD for nine F-G type main-sequence stars (P ≥ 0.5) in NGC 1342 is shown in the top panel. The blue curve in this panel represents the Hyades main sequence. The bottom panel illustrates the histogram of normalized UV-excesses (δ0.6), with a Gaussian function fitted to…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Corner plot illustrating the two-dimensional joint and one-dimensional marginalized posterior distribu￾tions for the properties of Czernik 41 and NGC 1342. The contours in the two-dimensional joint posterior distributions represent confidence levels of 68%, 90%, and 9…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: UBV and Gaia based CMDs for Czernik 41 (panels a, b, c) and NGC 1342 (panels d, e, f). The blue solid lines are the parsec isochrones that best fit the observed data, providing estimates for the clusters’ distance moduli and ages. Purple solid lines represent the unce…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distances of Czernik 41 (a, b) and NGC 1342 (c, d) from the Galactic center, along with their orbital trajectories perpendicular to the Galactic plane, are presented. The yellow-filled circles and triangles represent the current and early orbital positions of the …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The histograms of LFs for Czernik 41 (a) and NGC 1342 (b). from 11 to 19 mag for NGC 1342. It is worth noting that photometry is expected to be complete even for the fainter stars in these magnitude ranges, supporting the robustness of the PDMF analysis. For the cal￾c…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The cumulative radial distribution of stars across various mass ranges for Czernik 41 (a) and NGC 1342 (b). To understand the impact of the mass segregation ef￾fect in both OCs, we divided the masses of selected stars into three intervals containing almost an equal nu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F., Yontan, T., et al

    Ak, T., Bostancı, Z. F., Yontan, T., et al. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 126, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2707-2

    doi:10.1007/s10509-016-2707-2 2016

  2. [2]

    2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 58, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00006

    Ak, T., Canbay, R., & Yontan, T. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 58, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00006

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240052, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240052

    Akbaba, F., Ak, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240052, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240052

    doi:10.1002/asna.20240052 2024

  4. [4]

    2021, Astrophysics and Space Science, 366, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-021-03975-x

    Akbulut, B., Ak, S., Yontan, T., et al. 2021, Astrophysics and Space Science, 366, 68, doi: 10.1007/s10509-021-03975-x

    doi:10.1007/s10509-021-03975-x 2021

  5. [5]

    J., Goodwin, S

    Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., et al. 2009, ApJL, 700, L99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/L99

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/l99 2009

  6. [6]

    N., & Soneira, R

    Bahcall, J. N., & Soneira, R. M. 1980, ApJS, 44, 73, doi: 10.1086/190685

    doi:10.1086/190685 1980

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 6, doi: 10.1007/s12036-020-9621-2

    Banks, T., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., & Canbay, R. 2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 6, doi: 10.1007/s12036-020-9621-2

    doi:10.1007/s12036-020-9621-2 2020

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2018, ARA&A, 56, 83, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051839

    2018 doi

  2. [11]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  3. [12]

    2010, Ap&SS, 326, 139, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0233-1

    Bilir, S., G¨ uver, T., Khamitov, I., et al. 2010, Ap&SS, 326, 139, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-0233-1

    2010 doi

  4. [13]

    F., Yontan, T., et al

    Bilir, S., Bostancı, Z. F., Yontan, T., et al. 2016, Advances in Space Research, 58, 1900, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2016.06.039 26 ¨Ozt¨urk et al

    2016 doi

  5. [14]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa656 Bostancı, Z

    Rangwal, G. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa656 Bostancı, Z. F., Ak, T., Yontan, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1095, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1665 Bostancı, Z. F., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2018, Ap&SS, 363, 143, doi: 10.1007/s10509-018-3364-4

    2020 doi

  6. [15]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    Bovy, J. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 29, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/29

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/89

    Bovy, J., & Tremaine, S. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 89, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/89

    2012 doi

  8. [17]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

    2012

  9. [18]

    Cameron, L. M. 1985, A&A, 147, 39

    1985

  10. [19]

    2020, A&A, 633, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936691

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Anders, F. 2020, A&A, 633, A99, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936691

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833476

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

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

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

    2020 doi

  13. [22]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989 doi

  14. [23]

    V., Moni Bidin, C., & Vazquez, R

    Carraro, G., Sales Silva, J. V., Moni Bidin, C., & Vazquez, R. A. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/153/3/99

    2017 doi

  15. [24]

    J., Luri, X., et al

    Castro-Ginard, A., McMillan, P. J., Luri, X., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A162, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039751 C ¸ akmak, H., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240054, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240054 C ¸ ınar, D. C., Tasdemir, S., Koc, S., & Iyer, ...

    2021

  16. [25]

    2000, A&AS, 141, 491, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000124

    Benoni, T. 2000, A&AS, 141, 491, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000124

    2000 doi

  17. [26]

    D., Kharchenko, N

    Conrad, C., Scholz, R. D., Kharchenko, N. V., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A106, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630012 Co¸ skunoˇ glu, B., Ak, S., Bilir, S., et al. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 412, 1237, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17983.x

    2017

  18. [27]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  19. [28]

    J., Liu, C., et al

    Deng, L.-C., Newberg, H. J., Liu, C., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 735, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/003

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

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

    Dias, W. S., Monteir, H., Moitinho, A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 356, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab770

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    S., Monteiro, H., Caetano, T

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Caetano, T. C., et al. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 564, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323226

    2014 doi

  22. [31]

    2019, A&A, 629, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834080

    Dib, S., & Henning, T. 2019, A&A, 629, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834080

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    2025, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 3, 43, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2025.00005

    Eker, Z., & Bakı¸ s, V. 2025, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 3, 43, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2025.00005

    2025

  24. [33]

    2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 41, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00001

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., & Bilir, S. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 41, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2024.00001

    2024

  25. [34]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1659

    Eker, Z., Soydugan, F., Bilir, S., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 496, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1659

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    Eker, Z., Bakı¸ s, V., Bilir, S., et al. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 479, 5491, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1834

    2018 doi

  27. [36]

    H., Haroon, A

    Elsanhoury, W. H., Haroon, A. A., Elkholy, E. A., & C ¸ ınar, D. C. 2025, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 46, 21, doi: 10.1007/s12036-025-10044-0

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    1987, ARA&A, 25, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.003025

    Elson, R., Hut, P., & Inagaki, S. 1987, ARA&A, 25, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.003025

    1987

  29. [38]

    2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240038, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240038

    Evcil, S., Adalalı, S., Alan, N., Canbay, R., & Bilir, S. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240038, doi: 10.1002/asna.20240038

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    1998, AJ, 115, 592, doi: 10.1086/300212

    Fischer, P., Pryor, C., Murray, S., Mateo, M., & Richtler, T. 1998, AJ, 115, 592, doi: 10.1086/300212

    1998 doi

  31. [40]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    M., Thompson, B., Jackson, K

    Frinchaboy, P. M., Thompson, B., Jackson, K. M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L1, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/1/L1

    2013 doi

  33. [42]

    2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

    Fu, X., Bragaglia, A., Liu, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243590 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, Astron...

    2022 doi

  34. [43]

    J., & Levato, H

    Garcia, B., Claria, J. J., & Levato, H. 1988, Ap&SS, 143, 317, doi: 10.1007/BF00637143

    1988 doi

  35. [44]

    2023, AJ, 166, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad08b0

    Gokmen, S., Eker, Z., Yontan, T., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad08b0

    2023 doi

  36. [45]

    J., Xu, Y., Wu, Z

    Hao, C. J., Xu, Y., Wu, Z. Y., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244570 Czernik 41 and NGC 1342 27

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    J., Xu, Y., Hou, L

    Hao, C. J., Xu, Y., Hou, L. G., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A102, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140608

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    A., Elsanhoury, W

    Haroon, A. A., Elsanhoury, W. H., Elkholy, E. A., Saad, A. S., & C ¸ ınar, D. C. 2025, PhyS, 100, 055006, doi: 10.1088/1402-4896/adbf71

    2025 doi

  39. [48]

    Heggie, D. C. 1979, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 188, 525, doi: 10.1093/mnras/188.3.525

    1979 doi

  40. [49]

    1802, Phil

    Herschel, W. 1802, Phil. Trans. R. Soc., 92, 477, doi: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1802.0021

  41. [50]

    I., Aprilia, & Hakim, M

    Hidayat, W., Arifyanto, M. I., Aprilia, & Hakim, M. I. 2019, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1231, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012032, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1231/1/012032

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    2006, AJ, 131, 414, doi: 10.1086/498647

    Hill, A., & Zaritsky, D. 2006, AJ, 131, 414, doi: 10.1086/498647

    2006 doi

  43. [52]

    A., & Hartmann, L

    Hillenbrand, L. A., & Hartmann, L. W. 1998, ApJ, 492, 540, doi: 10.1086/305076

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    A., Johnson, H

    Hoag, A. A., Johnson, H. L., Iriarte, B., et al. 1961, Publ. Us. Nav. Obs. XVII part VII, 17, 347

    1961

  45. [54]

    A., Meibom, S., & Hoq, S

    Janes, K., Barnes, S. A., Meibom, S., & Hoq, S. 2013, AJ, 145, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/7

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    C., Deepak, & Malhotra, S

    Joshi, Y. C., Deepak, & Malhotra, S. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1348321, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2024.1348321

    2024

  47. [56]

    G., Bilir, S., Karata¸ s, Y., & Gilmore, G

    Karaali, S., Ak, S. G., Bilir, S., Karata¸ s, Y., & Gilmore, G. 2003a, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 343, 1013, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06743.x

    2003

  48. [57]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 95, doi: 10.1071/AS10026

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., Ak, S., Yaz, E., & Co¸ skuno˘ glu, B. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 95, doi: 10.1071/AS10026

    2011 doi

  49. [58]

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., Karata¸ s, Y., & Ak, S. G. 2003b, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 20, 165, doi: 10.1071/AS02028

    doi

  50. [59]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., R¨ oser, S., Schilbach, E., & Scholz, R. D. 2005, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 438, 1163, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20042523

    2005 doi

  51. [60]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., R¨ oser, S., & Scholz, R. D. 2012, A&A, 543, A156, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118708

    2012 doi

  52. [61]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., R¨ oser, S., & Scholz, R. D. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322302

    2013 doi

  53. [62]

    1962, Astronomical Journal, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756 Ko¸ c, S., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al

    King, I. 1962, Astronomical Journal, 67, 471, doi: 10.1086/108756 Ko¸ c, S., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 163, 191, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac58a0

    1962 doi

  54. [63]

    2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 561, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321143

    Krone-Martins, A., & Moitinho, A. 2014, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 561, A57, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321143

    2014 doi

  55. [64]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Maschberger, T., Moeckel, N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 841, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19748.x

    2012

  56. [65]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.41.011802.094844

    2003 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Landolt, A. U. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, 4186, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/5/4186

    2009 doi

  58. [67]

    W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S

    Lang, D., Hogg, D. W., Mierle, K., Blanton, M., & Roweis, S. 2010, AJ, 139, 1782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    2010 doi

  59. [68]

    Leggett, S. K. 1992, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 82, 351, doi: 10.1086/191720

    1992 doi

  60. [69]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab530a

    Liu, L., & Pang, X. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 245, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab530a

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    V., & Beshenov, G

    Loktin, A. V., & Beshenov, G. V. 2003, Astronomy Reports, 47, 6, doi: 10.1134/1.1538491

    2003 doi

  62. [71]

    V., & Popova, M

    Loktin, A. V., & Popova, M. E. 2017, Astrophysical Bulletin, 72, 257, doi: 10.1134/S1990341317030154

    2017 doi

  63. [72]

    L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al

    Lu, Y. L., Minchev, I., Buck, T., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 535, 392, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2364

    2024 doi

  64. [73]

    2007, A&A, 467, 1065, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066588

    Maciejewski, G., & Niedzielski, A. 2007, A&A, 467, 1065, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066588

    2007 doi

  65. [74]

    2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842

    2006 doi

  66. [75]

    Maurya, J., & Joshi, Y. C. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa893

    2020 doi

  67. [76]

    F., & Ostriker, E

    McKee, C. F., & Ostriker, E. C. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 565, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.45.051806.110602

    2007 arXiv

  68. [77]

    E., Lemasle, B., & Grebel, E

    Medina, G. E., Lemasle, B., & Grebel, E. K. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1342, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1267

    2021 doi

  69. [78]

    C., Mayor, M., & Udry, S

    Mermilliod, J. C., Mayor, M., & Udry, S. 2008, A&A, 485, 303, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809664

    2008 doi

  70. [79]

    1981, Galactic astronomy

    Mihalas, D., & Binney, J. 1981, Galactic astronomy. Structure and kinematics (W.H. Freeman & Co.)

    1981

  71. [80]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2033

    2018 doi

  72. [81]

    R., et al

    Miocchi, P., Lanzoni, B., Ferraro, F. R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 151, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/2/151 Mu˜ noz, R. R., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2010, AJ, 140, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/138

    2013 doi

  73. [82]

    A., C ¸ akmak, H., Michel, R., & Karata¸ s, Y

    Netopil, M., Oralhan, ˙I. A., C ¸ akmak, H., Michel, R., & Karata¸ s, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 421, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2961 O’Donnell, J. E. 1994, ApJ, 422, 158, doi: 10.1086/173713 Pavl ´ ık, V., & Vesperini, E. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1776 Pe˜ na, J. H...

    2022 doi

  74. [83]

    E., Kharchenko, N

    Piskunov, A. E., Kharchenko, N. V., R¨ oser, S., Schilbach, E., & Scholz, R. D. 2006, A&A, 445, 545, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053764

    2006 doi

  75. [84]

    2015, PASA, 32, e043, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.44 Portegies Zwart, S

    Plevne, O., Ak, T., Karaali, S., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e043, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2015.44 Portegies Zwart, S. F., McMillan, S. L. W., & Gieles, M. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 431, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130834

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    Raboud, D., & Mermilliod, J. C. 1998, A&A, 333, 897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9802284

    1998 doi arXiv

  77. [86]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.15305, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.15305

    Liu, X. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.15305, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.15305

    2024 doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    Reddy, A. B. S., Giridhar, S., & Lambert, D. L. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 4301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv908 —. 2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 38, doi: 10.1007/s12036-020-09658-3

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S

    Robin, A. C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, A&A, 409, 523, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117

    2003 doi

  80. [89]

    C., Luri, X., Reyl´ e, C., et al

    Robin, A. C., Luri, X., Reyl´ e, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118646

    2012 doi

  81. [90]

    2010, AJ, 139, 2440, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2440

    Roeser, S., Demleitner, M., & Schilbach, E. 2010, AJ, 139, 2440, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/6/2440

    2010 doi

  82. [91]

    1966, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 17, 33

    Ruprecht, J. 1966, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 17, 33

    1966

  83. [92]

    Dluzhnevskaia, O. B. 1988, MNRAS, 234, 831, doi: 10.1093/mnras/234.4.831

    1988 doi

  84. [93]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  85. [94]

    Sarajedini, A., Milone, A. A. E., & Lowe, C. R. 1995, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 186, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #186, 49.03

    1995

  86. [95]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 Science Software Branch at STScI. 2012, PyRAF: Python alternative for IRAF, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.011

    2011 doi

  87. [96]

    2008, A&A, 488, 943, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809650

    Sestito, P., Bragaglia, A., Randich, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 943, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200809650

    2008 doi

  88. [97]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  89. [98]

    2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 619, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834020

    Soubiran, C., Cantat-Gaudin, T., Romero-G´ omez, M., et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 619, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834020

    2018 doi

  90. [99]

    2022, Universe, 8, 87, doi: 10.3390/universe8020087

    Spina, L., Magrini, L., & Cunha, K. 2022, Universe, 8, 87, doi: 10.3390/universe8020087

    2022 doi

  91. [100]

    1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    Spitzer, L. 1987, Dynamical evolution of globular clusters

    1987

  92. [101]

    Spitzer, Jr., L., & Hart, M. H. 1971, ApJ, 164, 399, doi: 10.1086/150855

    1971 doi

  93. [102]

    1991a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 312, 177, doi: 10.1002/asna.2113120306 —

    Strobel, A. 1991a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 312, 177, doi: 10.1002/asna.2113120306 —. 1991b, A&A, 247, 35

    doi

  94. [103]

    S., et al

    Sung, H., Lim, B., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2013, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 46, 103, doi: 10.5303/JKAS.2013.46.3.103 Ta¸ sdemir, S., C ¸ ınar, D. C., Canbay, R., et al. 2025, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 3, 1, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2025.00003 Ta¸ sdemir, S., & Yontan...

    2013

  95. [104]

    2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 647, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039388

    Tarricq, Y., C., S., Casamiquela, L., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 647, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039388

    2021 doi

  96. [105]

    1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1986, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI, ed. D. L. Crawford, 733, doi: 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  97. [106]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173 Tun¸ cel G¨ u¸ ctekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., &

    1993

  98. [107]

    2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1360, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.041 V´ azquez, R

    Ak, S. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1360, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2018.10.041 V´ azquez, R. A., Moitinho, A., Carraro, G., & Dias, W. S. 2010, A&A, 511, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811583

    2019 doi

  99. [108]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  100. [109]

    2023a, AJ, 165, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca6f0

    Yontan, T. 2023a, AJ, 165, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca6f0

    doi

  101. [110]

    2023b, Advances in Space Research, 72, 1454, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.04.015

    Yontan, T., Bilir, S., C ¸ akmak, H., et al. 2023b, Advances in Space Research, 72, 1454, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2023.04.015

    2023 doi

  102. [111]

    2023c, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 65, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00008

    Yontan, T., & Canbay, R. 2023c, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 65, doi: 10.26650/PAR.2023.00008

    2023

  103. [112]

    F., et al

    Yontan, T., Bilir, S., Bostancı, Z. F., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 355, 267, doi: 10.1007/s10509-014-2175-5 —. 2019, Ap&SS, 364, 152, doi: 10.1007/s10509-019-3640-y

    2015 doi

  104. [113]

    2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 538, doi: 10.1002/asna.202113837

    Yontan, T., Bilir, S., Ak, T., et al. 2021, Astronomische Nachrichten, 342, 538, doi: 10.1002/asna.202113837

    2021 doi

  105. [114]

    2022, RMxAA, 58, 333, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2022.58.02.14 Y¨ ucel, G., Bakı¸ s, V., Canbay, R., et al

    Yontan, T., C ¸ akmak, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2022, RMxAA, 58, 333, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2022.58.02.14 Y¨ ucel, G., Bakı¸ s, V., Canbay, R., et al. 2025, AJ, 169, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad9d46 Y¨ ucel, G., Canbay, R., & Bakı¸ s, V. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports,...

    2022

  106. [115]

    E., Zacharias, M

    Zacharias, N., Urban, S. E., Zacharias, M. I., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 3043, doi: 10.1086/386353 Czernik 41 and NGC 1342 29

    2004 doi

  107. [116]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

  108. [117]

    2020, A&A, 640, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937131

    Zhong, J., Chen, L., Wu, D., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A127, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937131

    2020 doi

  109. [118]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 4768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1209

    Zhou, X., & Chen, X. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1209

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.