arxiv: 2604.15050 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Structure and Large-Scale Kinematics of Young Stellar Populations in the NGC 6357 and NGC 6334 Giant Molecular Cloud Complex

Matthew S. Povich , Leisa K. Townsley , Patrick S. Broos , Aldair E. Bonilla , Giaky Nguyen , Carly Soos , Michael A. Kuhn , Simran S. Singh

show 1 more author

Gordon P. Garmire

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

keywords giant molecular cloudsyoung stellar populationskinematicsGaia astrometryproto-OB associationNGC 6357NGC 6334star formation

0 comments

The pith

The G352 giant molecular cloud complex is a proto-OB association whose stellar groups are not gravitationally bound to each other and whose filament has a pitch angle inconsistent with a spiral arm.

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

The paper combines large catalogs of Chandra X-ray sources and Spitzer mid-infrared excess sources with Gaia DR3 astrometry to select 1727 young stellar members across the 150-parsec G352 filament. Parallaxes show a distance gradient along the filament, with a revised mean heliocentric distance of 1670 pc, while proper motions reveal that the three massive clusters in NGC 6357 trail Galactic circular motion by about 8 km/s and that GM1-24 has its own distinct motion. The groups display no mutual gravitational binding, and the filament's steep pitch angle into the sky does not align with spiral-arm geometry. A reader cares because this supplies a direct three-dimensional view of how a massive star-forming complex disperses before becoming a classical OB association.

Core claim

The authors identify 1727 young stellar members of G352 by cross-matching Chandra X-ray point sources and Spitzer mid-infrared excess sources to Gaia DR3. They map the complex in three dimensions, revise the mean distance to 1670 pc with a longitude-dependent trend, measure peculiar velocities (NGC 6357 groups trailing circular motion by ~8 km/s while NGC 6334 is consistent with it), and conclude that the stellar groups are not gravitationally bound to each other and that the GMC filament's steep pitch angle is inconsistent with a spiral arm, making G352 a proto-OB association.

What carries the argument

Cross-matching of Chandra X-ray point sources and Spitzer mid-infrared excess sources with Gaia DR3 to select young stellar members and derive their parallaxes and proper motions.

If this is right

The various stellar groups within G352 are not gravitationally bound to each other.
G352 qualifies as a proto-OB association rather than a bound structure.
The GMC filament has a steep pitch angle inconsistent with alignment along a galactic spiral arm.
NGC 6357 clusters exhibit peculiar velocities trailing Galactic circular motion by roughly 8 km/s.
NGC 6334 stars are more consistent with circular orbits while GM1-24 shows distinct proper motion and smaller parallax.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Large filamentary molecular clouds elsewhere in the Galaxy may commonly represent early, dynamically decoupled stages of OB associations.
The observed distance gradient along the filament could be tested with deeper astrometric data to determine whether it reflects sequential star formation.
Rapid kinematic decoupling implies that early stellar feedback quickly erases initial gravitational links within such complexes.

Load-bearing premise

That cross-matching Chandra X-ray point sources and Spitzer mid-IR excess sources to Gaia DR3 reliably selects true young stellar members of G352 without significant field-star contamination or systematic biases in parallax and proper-motion measurements.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic survey of the candidate members that checks for youth indicators such as lithium absorption or strong H-alpha emission and independently verifies the Gaia-based distances and velocities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15050 by Aldair E. Bonilla, Carly Soos, Giaky Nguyen, Gordon P. Garmire, Leisa K. Townsley, Matthew S. Povich, Michael A. Kuhn, Patrick S. Broos, Simran S. Singh.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Wide-field ACIS mosaic of the G352 giant molecular filament connecting NGC 6357 and NGC 6334. Total-band (0.5–7 keV) ACIS diffuse emission (blue) is shown with Spitzer MIR (green) and Herschel FIR (red) mosaics. To highlight diffuse X-ray emission, 11,470 X-ray point sources were excised from the ACIS mosaic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Proper motion plot in Galactic coordinates showing sample of probable members (symbols colored according to spatial/proper motion groups defined in the text) and field stars (gray symbols). The dashed vertical and horizontal lines intersect at the expected proper motion of sources at the G352 distance, assuming Galactocentric circular rotation (see text). Solid ellipses enclose the 1-sigma locus for source… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Top: Membership sample, color-coded by PM group (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Relative motions of spatial clusters within each complex (Left: NGC 6357 and Right: NGC 6334). Arrow lengths show proper motions over 1 Myr relative to Galactic rotation, while the arrow widths are scaled to the cluster sizes (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Top: Parallax versus Galactic longitude for all sources in our initial sample. Symbols and colors are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We map the three-dimensional structure and large-scale kinematics of the young stellar populations in the G352 giant molecular cloud (GMC) complex. In radio and infrared images, G352 appears as long filament extending ~$3^{\circ}$ (~150 pc) parallel to the Galactic midplane. It connects the NGC 6357 and NGC 6334 giant H II regions and the GM1-24 compact H II region. We identify 1727 stellar members of G352 via matching large catalogs of Chandra X-ray point sources and Spitzer mid-infrared excess sources to the Gaia DR3 astrometric catalog. Our catalog of 11,470 X-ray point sources ranks among the three largest contiguous X-ray survey datasets ever assembled for a massive star-forming complex. We revise the mean heliocentric distance of G352 to $1670\pm 80$ pc, with the median parallaxes of seven constituent groups exhibiting a trend toward increasing distance with decreasing Galactic longitude. We identify two foreground stellar groups superimposed on NGC 6357 that may belong to the Sag OB4 association. The three massive clusters in NGC 6357 exhibit peculiar velocities that trail Galactic circular motion by ${\sim}8$ km/s, while the stars associated with NGC 6334 are more consistent with a circular orbit. GM1-24 has a distinct proper motion and smaller parallax compared to NGC 6334. The steep pitch angle of the GMC filament into the sky appears inconsistent with a spiral arm. The various stellar groups are not gravitationally bound to each other, making G352 a proto-OB association.

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

The paper assembles a large X-ray/IR/Gaia catalog for the G352 complex and reports a revised distance plus velocity offsets, but the unbound proto-OB association claim rests on membership selection whose contamination level is not quantified.

read the letter

This paper pulls together Chandra X-ray point sources, Spitzer mid-IR excess objects, and Gaia DR3 astrometry to map the young stellar populations across the NGC 6357 and NGC 6334 area, which they label the G352 giant molecular cloud complex. The main new pieces are a mean distance of 1670 pc with a trend of increasing distance at lower longitude, an 8 km/s peculiar velocity lag for the NGC 6357 clusters relative to circular motion, and the conclusion that the seven groups are not gravitationally bound, making G352 a proto-OB association whose filament has a steep pitch angle inconsistent with a spiral arm. They also flag two foreground groups possibly tied to Sag OB4 and note distinct motion for GM1-24. The catalog scale is real: 11,470 X-ray sources and 1727 Gaia matches is substantial for this kind of contiguous survey of a massive star-forming region. That data combination and the resulting 3D kinematic picture are the parts that actually add to the literature on Milky Way structure and OB association formation. The observational core is straightforward catalog cross-matching and median statistics, which is fine as far as it goes. The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test flagged it. All the binding and pitch-angle claims depend on the parallaxes and proper motions of those 1727 selected members. Without a reported contamination fraction from offset fields, model predictions, or hardness cuts, it is hard to judge how much field-star interlopers or astrometric bias could shift the velocity dispersion or the unbound conclusion. The abstract gives error bars but does not show the membership purity checks that would make the kinematic differences robust. This work is for galactic astronomers and star-formation researchers who need a detailed 3D view of one well-studied complex for comparison or context. It is the sort of paper that turns public catalogs into a coherent map, so it has practical value. It deserves a serious referee because the dataset is large and the questions are relevant, even though the membership step needs explicit quantification before the binding interpretation can be taken as settled. I would send it to review with that focus.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper maps the 3D structure and large-scale kinematics of young stellar populations in the G352 GMC complex (connecting NGC 6357, NGC 6334, and GM1-24) by cross-matching 11,470 Chandra X-ray sources and Spitzer mid-IR excess objects to Gaia DR3, yielding 1727 members across seven groups. It revises the mean distance to 1670±80 pc with a longitude-distance trend, reports ~8 km/s peculiar velocity offsets for NGC 6357 clusters, finds the groups mutually unbound (hence a proto-OB association), and argues the GMC filament's steep pitch angle is inconsistent with a spiral arm.

Significance. If the membership selection holds, the work delivers one of the largest contiguous X-ray datasets for a massive star-forming complex and provides concrete 3D kinematic constraints on a ~150 pc filament, supporting the proto-OB association picture and offering a test case for Galactic structure interpretations. The scale of the catalog and the direct use of public Gaia data are clear strengths.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3: The selection of 1727 Gaia-matched members from the 11,470 X-ray and Spitzer sources provides no quantitative contamination estimate (offset control fields, Besançon predictions, or hardness-ratio cuts). This selection is load-bearing for every subsequent claim, including the median parallaxes, the ~8 km/s peculiar velocity offset, the relative velocity dispersion used to argue against binding, and the longitude-distance trend.
[§4–5] §4–5: The conclusion that the seven groups are not gravitationally bound (and thus form a proto-OB association) rests directly on the measured parallaxes and proper motions of the selected sample. Without an assessment of field-star contamination or astrometric bias, the reported velocity offsets and dispersions cannot be shown to be robust against even 15–20% interlopers.

minor comments (2)

The abstract states error bars on distance and velocity differences but does not summarize the membership criteria or contamination controls; a brief explicit statement would improve readability.
Table or figure captions listing the seven groups should include the exact number of members and median parallax per group for quick reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The concerns regarding the lack of a quantitative contamination estimate in the membership selection are well-taken, as this underpins the reliability of the kinematic and structural results. We will revise the paper to include such an assessment using available models and data, while maintaining that the core conclusions remain supported. Below we address each major comment in turn.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] The selection of 1727 Gaia-matched members from the 11,470 X-ray and Spitzer sources provides no quantitative contamination estimate (offset control fields, Besançon predictions, or hardness-ratio cuts). This selection is load-bearing for every subsequent claim, including the median parallaxes, the ~8 km/s peculiar velocity offset, the relative velocity dispersion used to argue against binding, and the longitude-distance trend.

Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative contamination estimate was not provided in the original manuscript. The selection leverages the established effectiveness of Chandra X-ray sources (sensitive to young, magnetically active stars) combined with Spitzer mid-IR excess (tracing circumstellar material), a combination shown in the literature to yield low field-star contamination rates (typically <10-15%) in massive star-forming regions. To address the referee's point directly, we will add to the revised §3 a contamination estimate derived from the Besançon Galactic model, predicting the expected number of field stars that would satisfy our X-ray, IR-excess, and Gaia matching criteria. We will also apply hardness-ratio filtering to the X-ray catalog as an additional purity check. These steps will quantify the impact on the reported parallaxes, velocities, and trends. revision: yes
Referee: [§4–5] The conclusion that the seven groups are not gravitationally bound (and thus form a proto-OB association) rests directly on the measured parallaxes and proper motions of the selected sample. Without an assessment of field-star contamination or astrometric bias, the reported velocity offsets and dispersions cannot be shown to be robust against even 15–20% interlopers.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that unaccounted contamination could affect the robustness of the unbound conclusion and the ~8 km/s peculiar velocity offsets. The current analysis shows the groups exhibit coherent but mutually inconsistent motions, with dispersions too large for gravitational binding across the 150-pc scale. To demonstrate resilience, the revised §§4–5 will incorporate the contamination estimate from the Besançon analysis and include a sensitivity test: we will inject synthetic 15–20% interlopers (sampled from Gaia sources in adjacent control fields) and recompute the velocity dispersions and binding criteria. We anticipate the proto-OB association interpretation will hold, but this addition will make the claim quantitatively defensible against the referee's concern. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational catalog cross-matching and kinematic measurements

full rationale

The paper's analysis consists of cross-matching Chandra X-ray and Spitzer IR-excess catalogs to Gaia DR3 astrometry (Section 3), computing median parallaxes and proper motions for seven groups, revising the distance to 1670±80 pc, calculating peculiar velocities (~8 km/s offset for NGC 6357 clusters), and assessing gravitational binding via velocity dispersions and spatial separations. These are direct statistical summaries of external public catalog data with no fitted models, no predictions of the input data, no self-definitional equations, and no load-bearing self-citations. The binding conclusion follows from comparing observed velocity dispersions to expected escape velocities given the measured distances and masses; the pitch-angle claim follows from the observed longitude-distance trend. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction. Membership selection is a potential contamination risk (as noted by the skeptic), but that is a data-quality issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that Gaia DR3 astrometry provides accurate distances and motions for the matched sources and that the identified groups trace the large-scale structure of the GMC complex. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

mean heliocentric distance = 1670 pc
Revised to 1670 pc from median parallaxes of seven groups; the value and its uncertainty are derived from the data.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallaxes and proper motions accurately reflect the true distances and velocities of the young stellar sources after standard corrections
Invoked to revise the distance, identify the longitude trend, and measure peculiar velocities relative to galactic rotation.
domain assumption Cross-matched X-ray and mid-IR excess sources are genuine young stellar members of G352 rather than field contaminants
Required for the membership count of 1727 and all subsequent kinematic analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5643 in / 1659 out tokens · 70281 ms · 2026-05-10T10:27:33.231047+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Antalova, A., & Graham, J. A. 1976, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 27, 193 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1976
[2]

A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B

Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 953, doi: 10.1086/376696

work page doi:10.1086/376696 2003
[3]

A., & Povich, M

Binder, B. A., & Povich, M. S. 2018, ApJ, 864, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b2 14 18909 18908 18910 19705 2574 23294 21680 21679 1-2 keV: 135 2-3 keV: 180 3-8 keV: 312 25:00 24:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 17:20:00 -34:40:0050:00-35:00:0010:0020:0030:0040:00 (a) 1560 ACIS sources 17:24:00 22:00 -34:40:00-35:00:0020:0040:00 (b) G352 IRDC bridge ACIS 0.5-7 keV d...

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad7b2 2018
[4]

L., Hunter, T

Brogan, C. L., Hunter, T. R., Cyganowski, C. J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/187

work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/2/187 2016
[5]

2022, ACIS Extract software package, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6084540

Broos, P., & Townsley, L. 2022, ACIS Extract software package, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6084540

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6084540 2022
[6]

2012, AE: ACIS Extract, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1203.001

Broos, P., Townsley, L., Getman, K., & Bauer, F. 2012, AE: ACIS Extract, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1203.001. http://ascl.net/1203.001

2012
[7]

S., Townsley, L

Broos, P. S., Townsley, L. K., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714, 1582, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/2/1582

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/714/2/1582 2010
[8]

R., et al

Castro-Ginard, A., Penoyre, Z., Casey, A. R., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450172

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450172 2024
[9]

1996, in Proc

Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. 1996, in Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and, 226–231

1996
[10]

10.1051/0004-6361/202555718

Frediani, J., Bik, A., Ram´ ırez-Tannus, M. C., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555718

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555718 2025
[11]

C., Allen, G

Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760

work page doi:10.1117/12.671760 2006
[12]

2018, PASJ, 70, S41, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy017 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J

Fukui, Y., Kohno, M., Yokoyama, K., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S41, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psy017 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psy017 2018
[13]

V., Feigelson, E

Getman, K. V., Feigelson, E. D., Kuhn, M. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/787/2/108 GRAVITY Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935656

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/787/2/108 2014
[14]

A 3D Dust Map Based on Gaia, Pan-STARRS 1 and 2MASS

Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 2019
[15]

L., & Maghakian, T

Gyulbudaghian, A. L., & Maghakian, T. Y. 1977, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 3, 58

1977
[16]

A., & Mandel, E

Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

2003
[17]

A., Benjamin, R

Kuhn, M. A., Benjamin, R. A., & Singh, S. S. 2026, MNRAS, 546, stag305, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stag305

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag305 2026
[18]

A., de Souza, R

Kuhn, M. A., de Souza, R. S., Krone-Martins, A., et al. 2021a, ApJS, 254, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abe465

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abe465
[19]

, keywords =

Kuhn, M. A., Hillenbrand, L. A., Sills, A., Feigelson, E. D., & Getman, K. V. 2019, ApJ, 870, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaef8c

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaef8c 2019
[20]

A., Benjamin, R

Kuhn, M. A., Benjamin, R. A., Zucker, C., et al. 2021b, A&A, 651, L10, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141198

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141198
[21]

Parallax bias versus magnitude, colour, and position

Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653 Mel’nik, A. M., & Dambis, A. K. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3887, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2225

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039653 2021
[22]

2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 15 Piˇ smiˇ s, P

Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825 15 Piˇ smiˇ s, P. 1959, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 2, 37

2011
[23]

S., Busk, H

Povich, M. S., Busk, H. A., Feigelson, E. D., Townsley, L. K., & Kuhn, M. A. 2017, ApJ, 838, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b99

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b99 2017
[24]

S., Kuhn, M

Povich, M. S., Kuhn, M. A., Getman, K. V., et al. 2013, ApJS, 209, 31, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/31 Ram´ ırez-Tannus, M. C., Poorta, J., Bik, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 633, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935941 Ram´ ırez-Tannus, M. C., Bik, A., Cuijpers, L., et al. 2023, ApJL, 958, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad03f8 Ram´ ırez-Tannus, M. C., Bik, A., Getma...

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/31 2013
[25]

J., Menten, K

Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11 Roman Galactic Plane Survey Definition Committee. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.07494, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.07494

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a11 2019
[26]

C., et al

Russeil, D., Adami, C., Bouret, J. C., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629870

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629870 2017
[27]

2010, A&A, 515, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913632

Russeil, D., Zavagno, A., Motte, F., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913632

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913632 2010
[28]

2020, A&A, 642, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037674

Russeil, D., Zavagno, A., Nguyen, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037674

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037674 2020
[29]

2016, A&A, 587, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424484

Russeil, D., Tig´ e, J., Adami, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A135, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201424484

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424484 2016
[30]

Taylor, M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, & R. Ebert, 29

2005
[31]

K., Broos, P

Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Garmire, G. P., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaaf67 —. 2014, ApJS, 213, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/1/1

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaaf67 2018
[32]

K., Broos, P

Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Garmire, G. P., & Povich, M. S. 2019, ApJS, 244, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab345b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab345b 2019
[33]

K., Broos, P

Townsley, L. K., Broos, P. S., Corcoran, M. F., et al. 2011, ApJS, 194, 1, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/1

work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/1 2011
[34]

R., Howarth, I

Walborn, N. R., Howarth, I. D., Lennon, D. J., et al. 2002, AJ, 123, 2754, doi: 10.1086/339831

work page doi:10.1086/339831 2002
[35]

2013, ApJ, 778, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/96

Willis, S., Marengo, M., Allen, L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/96

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/778/2/96 2013
[36]

J., Drake, J

Wright, N. J., Drake, J. J., Guarcello, M. G., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdd62

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdd62 2023
[37]

, keywords =

Zucker, C., Saydjari, A. K., Speagle, J. S., et al. 2025, ApJ, 992, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adfbe6

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfbe6 2025