arxiv: 2602.02870 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.GA· astro-ph.IM

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Validating the Angular Sizes of Red Clump Stars with Intensity Interferometry

Alex G. Kim , Robin Kaiser

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 07:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

keywords intensity interferometryred clump starsangular diameterslimb darkeningsurface brightness color relationvisibility functiondistance measurements

0 comments

The pith

Intensity interferometry can validate Red Clump star angular sizes to better than 1% precision in short exposures.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Red Clump stars provide key calibrators for the surface-brightness-color relation that supports precise distance measurements, including the 1% determination to the Large Magellanic Cloud. Existing calibrations use angular diameter measurements from long-baseline optical interferometry. This work shows how intensity interferometry offers a complementary method by extracting angular diameters from squared visibility measurements while accounting for limb darkening with stellar atmosphere models. For the Red Clump star HD 17652, H-band observations at baselines of about 100 meters can reach angular size uncertainties below 1% in 2-hour exposures by targeting the primary visibility peak. Shorter-wavelength data can access the secondary visibility maximum to perform independent checks on measurements and systematics that depend less on limb-darkening details.

Core claim

For the Red Clump star HD 17652, intensity interferometry in the H band at baselines matching PIONIER (~100 m) could achieve <1% angular size uncertainties in 2-hour exposures by measuring the primary peak of the visibility function, enabling direct comparison with existing measurements. Critically, observations at shorter wavelengths probe the secondary visibility maximum, providing independent checks of both measurement and systematic errors that are largely insensitive to limb-darkening assumptions. Exploiting the multiplex advantage of simultaneous multi-bandpass observations and the large number of baselines available with telescope arrays such as the Cherenkov Telescope Array can make

What carries the argument

The squared visibility function measured via intensity interferometry, interpreted through stellar atmosphere models to determine limb-darkened angular diameters.

Load-bearing premise

Stellar atmosphere models accurately capture the limb darkening of Red Clump stars so that visibility measurements translate to angular diameters without dominant systematic errors.

What would settle it

Observing HD 17652 with intensity interferometry in the H band at 100 m baselines and finding an angular diameter that differs by more than 1% from the value measured by PIONIER would show the method does not achieve the claimed validation precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.02870 by Alex G. Kim, Robin Kaiser.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Left: Normalized B and H-band intensity profiles I(θ)/I(0) computed by SATLAS and PHOENIX for T = 4800K and log g = 2.5, which is the closest match to the Red Clump star HD 360. Right top: Squared visibility |V | 2 corresponding to the intensity profiles. Right bottom: Difference between the PHOENIX and SATLAS squared visibilities. The interferometric measurements of HD 360 by A. Gallenne et al. (2018) lie… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Squared visibilities |V|2 in B, V , R, I, H, and K for the intensity profiles calculated by SATLAS. (R. Hanbury Brown et al. 1967, 1974). These pioneering measurements provided the first direct determinations of stellar diameters and established the effective temperature scale for early-type stars, fundamentally advancing stellar astrophysics (A. D. Code et al. 1976). In the current era, kilometer-scale in… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Estimated uncertainty in the scale factor parameter s. σs for (Top) HD 360 and (Bottom) HD 17652 . The measurement noise is based on two 4-m telescopes separated by a baseline distance B, a photon detector detector with 42.4 ps FWHM timing jitter,an overall instrumental throughput of 0.3, and an exposure time is set to Tobs = 2 h. The dashed horizontal line is the scale uncertainty for these stars as measu… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The surface-brightness-color (SBC) relationship for Red Clump stars provides a critical foundation for precision distance ladder measurements, including the 1\% distance determination to the Large Magellanic Cloud. Current SBC calibrations rely on angular diameter measurements of nearby Red Clump stars obtained through long-baseline optical interferometry using the Very Large Telescope Interferometer. We explore the application of intensity interferometry to measure limb-darkened angular diameters of Red Clump stars, offering a complementary approach to traditional amplitude interferometry. We describe the framework for extracting angular diameters from squared visibility measurements in intensity interferometry, accounting for limb darkening through the stellar atmosphere models. For the Red Clump star HD~17652, we show that intensity interferometry in the $H$ band at baselines matching PIONIER ($\sim$100~m) could achieve $<1$\% angular size uncertainties in 2-hour exposures by measuring the primary peak of the visibility function, enabling direct comparison with existing measurements. Critically, observations at shorter wavelengths probe the secondary visibility maximum, providing independent checks of both measurement and systematic errors that are largely insensitive to limb-darkening assumptions. Exploiting the multiplex advantage of simultaneous multi-bandpass observations and the large number of baselines available with telescope arrays such as the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory can reduce observing times to practical levels, making intensity interferometry a viable tool for validating the angular sizes for a subset of the Red Clump star calibration sample.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Intensity interferometry could cross-check Red Clump angular diameters at the 1% level for stars like HD 17652, but the limb-darkening error budget needs explicit quantification to support the claim.

read the letter

This paper shows that intensity interferometry at H-band baselines around 100 meters could deliver angular diameter measurements for stars like HD 17652 to better than 1% precision in short exposures, giving a potential cross-check on existing VLT data for Red Clump calibrators. The calculation ties directly to a real star with prior measurements and uses standard squared-visibility extraction plus atmosphere models for limb darkening. The authors also flag the multiplex gain from simultaneous multi-band data on arrays like CTAO to keep observing times practical. That combination of a specific performance estimate and the secondary-maxima check is the concrete new element here. It builds on established interferometric math without inventing new formalism, and the tie-in to the surface-brightness-color relation for LMC distances is clear and relevant. The framework section reads as straightforward and correctly applied. The main soft spot is the assertion that shorter-wavelength secondary visibility maxima are largely insensitive to limb-darkening assumptions. A 0.05 shift in the linear coefficient still moves the inferred diameter by more than half a percent even near the lobe peak, and the paper does not propagate that residual sensitivity through a full error budget or show simulations that keep the total uncertainty under 1%. Without that step the headline precision claim rests on an untested approximation. The work is aimed at people who need independent angular-size checks for distance-ladder calibration or who are evaluating intensity interferometry on large arrays. A reader already familiar with visibility functions and stellar atmosphere models will get the most from the numbers and the array proposal. It deserves peer review because the core idea is technically coherent and the performance estimate is specific enough to be falsifiable, even though the systematics section needs tightening in revision.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes intensity interferometry as a complementary technique to amplitude interferometry for validating limb-darkened angular diameters of Red Clump stars. It outlines a framework for extracting diameters from squared visibility measurements using stellar atmosphere models and claims that for the Red Clump star HD 17652, H-band observations at baselines of ~100 m (matching PIONIER) can achieve <1% angular size uncertainties in 2-hour exposures via the primary visibility peak, with shorter-wavelength secondary maxima providing largely limb-darkening-insensitive cross-checks. The approach exploits multiplexed multi-band observations and arrays like the Cherenkov Telescope Array Observatory to make the method practical for a subset of the calibration sample.

Significance. If the claimed <1% precision holds after full error budgeting and the secondary maxima prove insensitive at the targeted level, the work would provide an independent validation pathway for the surface-brightness-color relation of Red Clump stars. This could reduce systematic uncertainties in the distance ladder, including the 1% LMC distance calibration, by cross-checking existing VLT Interferometer measurements without relying solely on amplitude interferometry.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the <1% angular size uncertainty claim for HD 17652 in 2-hour H-band exposures is presented as a performance estimate but lacks the full derivation, error budget, or numerical simulations needed to substantiate it; the abstract describes the framework and a single-star estimate without propagating photon noise, baseline coverage, or model uncertainties into the final precision.
[Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that shorter-wavelength secondary visibility maxima provide checks 'largely insensitive to limb-darkening assumptions' is not quantitatively supported; a typical 0.05 uncertainty in the linear limb-darkening coefficient u can shift the inferred diameter by >0.5% even at the lobe peak, and no propagation of this residual sensitivity into the error budget is shown.

minor comments (1)

The manuscript would benefit from explicit notation for the squared visibility function and the limb-darkening correction procedure in the framework section to improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with intensity interferometry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative details and supporting calculations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the <1% angular size uncertainty claim for HD 17652 in 2-hour H-band exposures is presented as a performance estimate but lacks the full derivation, error budget, or numerical simulations needed to substantiate it; the abstract describes the framework and a single-star estimate without propagating photon noise, baseline coverage, or model uncertainties into the final precision.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from a more explicit reference to the supporting analysis. The <1% precision estimate for HD 17652 is derived from photon-noise calculations, baseline coverage at ~100 m, and model fitting as detailed in Sections 3 and 4 of the manuscript. In the revised version we will add a concise error-budget summary to the abstract and expand the main text with explicit numerical simulations that propagate photon noise, baseline sampling, and model uncertainties into the final diameter precision. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that shorter-wavelength secondary visibility maxima provide checks 'largely insensitive to limb-darkening assumptions' is not quantitatively supported; a typical 0.05 uncertainty in the linear limb-darkening coefficient u can shift the inferred diameter by >0.5% even at the lobe peak, and no propagation of this residual sensitivity into the error budget is shown.

Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. Our analysis indicates that sensitivity to limb darkening is substantially reduced at the secondary maxima relative to the primary peak, but we acknowledge that a quantitative propagation was not provided. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated calculation quantifying the diameter shift induced by a typical Δu = 0.05 at both the primary and secondary visibility peaks, demonstrate the residual sensitivity, and fold the result into the overall error budget to support the claim that the secondary maxima provide largely insensitive cross-checks. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in proposed validation framework

full rationale

The paper applies standard interferometric visibility mathematics (squared visibility from intensity correlations) and pre-existing stellar atmosphere models for limb-darkening correction. The <1% precision claim for HD 17652 is a forward calculation from the primary visibility peak at ~100 m H-band baselines, not a fit to the target diameter. Assertions about secondary maxima at shorter wavelengths being largely insensitive are statements about the analytic form of the visibility function, which can be checked externally without reducing to the paper's inputs. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard interferometric visibility theory and existing stellar atmosphere models for limb darkening, with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Limb darkening in Red Clump stars is adequately described by standard stellar atmosphere models when interpreting visibility data
Invoked to convert squared visibility measurements into angular diameters

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5570 in / 1166 out tokens · 36106 ms · 2026-05-16T07:47:59.072647+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

g(1)(u)=V(u)=∫I(θ)J0(2πuθ)θdθ / ∫I(θ)θdθ ; g(2)=1+|V(u)|^2 |g(1)(Δt)|^2 ; SNR and Fisher matrix for σ_s
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/DimensionForcing.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

angular diameters from PIONIER H-band baselines 45-140 m fitted to SATLAS/PHOENIX models

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

A., et al

Abe, S., Abhir, J., Acciari, V. A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae697

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae697 2024
[2]

A., Bernardos, M

Acciari, V. A., Bernardos, M. I., Colombo, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 1540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3171

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3171 2020
[3]

P., Bangale, P., et al

Acharyya, A., Aufdenberg, J. P., Bangale, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b68

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2b68 2024
[4]

Aufdenberg, J. 2025, Probing stellar atmospheres and binary stars with Stellar Intensity Interferometry,, https://indico.ecap.work/event/129/contributions/1229/ attachments/606/1104/Probing%20stellar% 20atmospheres%20and%20binary%20stars%20with% 20SII V7.pdf

work page 2025
[5]

P., Ludwig, H.-G., & Kervella, P

Aufdenberg, J. P., Ludwig, H.-G., & Kervella, P. 2005, ApJ, 633, 424, doi: 10.1086/452622

work page doi:10.1086/452622 2005
[6]

Bertone, E., Buzzoni, A., Ch´ avez, M., & Rodr´ ıguez-Merino, L. H. 2004, AJ, 128, 829, doi: 10.1086/422486

work page doi:10.1086/422486 2004
[7]

H., & Twiss, R

Brown, R. H., & Twiss, R. Q. 1956a, Nature, 177, 27, doi: 10.1038/177027a0

work page doi:10.1038/177027a0
[8]

H., & Twiss, R

Brown, R. H., & Twiss, R. Q. 1956b, Nature, 178, 1046, doi: 10.1038/1781046a0

work page doi:10.1038/1781046a0
[9]

A., Barnes, F., et al

Cifuentes, A., Acciari, V. A., Barnes, F., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13095, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging IX, ed. J. Kammerer, S. Sallum, & J. Sanchez-Bermudez, 1309527, doi: 10.1117/12.3016905

work page doi:10.1117/12.3016905 2024
[10]

2023, A&A, 674, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346478

Claret, A., & Southworth, J. 2023, A&A, 674, A63, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346478

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346478 2023
[11]

D., Davis, J., Bless, R

Code, A. D., Davis, J., Bless, R. C., & Brown, R. H. 1976, ApJ, 203, 417, doi: 10.1086/154093

work page doi:10.1086/154093 1976
[12]

2024, PhRvD, 109, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123029

Murray, N. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123029

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.123029 2024
[13]

2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Dravins, D. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9907, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging V, ed. F. Malbet, M. J. Creech-Eakman, & P. G. Tuthill, 99070M, doi: 10.1117/12.2234130 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0...

work page doi:10.1117/12.2234130 2016
[14]

2025, Phys

Galanis, M., Van Tilburg, K., Baryakhtar, M., & Weiner, N. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083057, doi: 10.1103/wqz5-2jjs

work page doi:10.1103/wqz5-2jjs 2025
[15]

2018, A&A, 616, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833341

Gallenne, A., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A68, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833341

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833341 2018
[16]

B., et al

Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/144

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/2/144 2012
[17]

B., et al

Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2bf

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac2bf 2018
[18]

2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Haguenauer, P., Alonso, J., Bourget, P., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7734, Optical and Infrared Interferometry II, ed. W. C. Danchi, F. Delplancke, & J. K. Rajagopal, 773404, doi: 10.1117/12.857070 Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J., & Allen, L. R. 1974, MNRAS, 167, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/16...

work page doi:10.1117/12.857070 2010
[19]

J., Freedman, W

Hoyt, T. J., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 12, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab7ed

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab7ed 2018
[20]

2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 2013
[21]

2024, Intensity Correlations for Stars,, https: //lagrange.oca.eu/images/LAGRANGE/pages perso/ acpetit/Lagrange Seminars/2024/06 18 Kaiser.pdf

Kaiser, R. 2024, Intensity Correlations for Stars,, https: //lagrange.oca.eu/images/LAGRANGE/pages perso/ acpetit/Lagrange Seminars/2024/06 18 Kaiser.pdf

work page 2024
[22]

2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz114

Lachaume, R., Rabus, M., Jord´ an, A., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 484, 2656, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz114

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz114 2019
[23]

2011, MNRAS, 418, 583, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19507.x

Laney, C. D., Joner, M. D., & Pietrzy´ nski, G. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1637, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19826.x Le Bouquin, J.-B., Berger, J.-P., Lazareff, B., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117586

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19826.x 2012
[24]

G., Karl, S., Rivet, J.-P., & von Zanthier, J

Leopold, V. G., Karl, S., Rivet, J.-P., & von Zanthier, J. 2025, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 11, 035005, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.11.3.035005

work page doi:10.1117/1.jatis.11.3.035005 2025
[25]

2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Matthews, N., Rivet, J.-P., Hugbart, M., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12183, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VIII, ed. A. M´ erand, S. Sallum, & J. Sanchez-Bermudez, 121830G, doi: 10.1117/12.2628561

work page doi:10.1117/12.2628561 2022
[26]

2023, AJ, 165, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb142

Matthews, N., Rivet, J.-P., Vernet, D., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb142

work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acb142 2023
[27]

R., & Lester, J

Neilson, H. R., & Lester, J. B. 2013, A&A, 554, A98, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321502 Nu˜ nez, P. D., Holmes, R., Kieda, D., & Lebohec, S. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 172, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19683.x Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0999-4

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321502 2013
[28]

2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

Scolnic, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 876, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422 2019
[29]

H., ten Brummelaar, T

Schaefer, G. H., ten Brummelaar, T. A., Gies, D. R., et al. 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 11446, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VII, ed. P. G

work page 2020
[30]

M´ erand, & S

Tuthill, A. M´ erand, & S. Sallum, 1144605, doi: 10.1117/12.2562665

work page doi:10.1117/12.2562665
[31]

2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

Tagliaferri, G., et al. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12182, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IX, ed. H. K. Marshall, J. Spyromilio, & T. Usuda, 121820K, doi: 10.1117/12.2627956 ten Brummelaar, T. A., McAlister, H. A., Ridgway, S. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 453, doi: 10.1086/430729

work page doi:10.1117/12.2627956 2022
[32]

2025, MNRAS, 537, 2334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2643

Vogel, N., Zmija, A., Wohlleben, F., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 2334, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2643

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2643 2025
[33]

Wesselink, A. J. 1969, MNRAS, 144, 297, doi: 10.1093/mnras/144.3.297

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/144.3.297 1969
[34]

P., & Kervella, P

Wittkowski, M., Aufdenberg, J. P., & Kervella, P. 2004, A&A, 413, 711, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034149

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034149 2004
[35]

2021, MNRAS, 506, 1585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1387

Barbieri, C. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1585, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1387

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1387 2021
[36]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 12243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3676

Zmija, A., Vogel, N., Wohlleben, F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 12243, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3676

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3676 2024