Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Isochrone Fitting of Galactic Globular Clusters -- VIII. Homogeneous estimates of parameters for 27 clusters

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read In-situ globular clusters show a constant R-parameter of 1.31, matching calculations for axion-photon coupling around 0.66 times 10 to the minus 10 GeV inverse.

desk verdict The paper supplies a useful homogeneous catalog of parameters for 27 clusters plus new R measurements split by origin, but the axion mapping rests on an untested assumption that R is driven mainly by HB lifetime rather than other variables. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.28505 v1 pith:CXDINSSU submitted 2026-05-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph

G. A. Gontcharov , O. S. Ryutina , C. J. Bonatto , S. S. Savchenko , S. V. Troitsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph
keywords globularclustersisochronefittingR-parameterhorizontalbranchstarsaxion-photoncouplingin-situvsaccretedGalacticdiskcrossing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The authors fit isochrones to clean member samples from 27 Galactic globular clusters to derive uniform values of metallicity, age, distance, and reddening. They then count red-giant, horizontal-branch, and asymptotic-giant stars across the full cluster fields to compute the R-parameter, the ratio of horizontal-branch to red-giant-branch counts. For the in-situ subset this ratio stays fixed at 1.31 with small errors, while accreted clusters display stronger trends with other parameters. The fixed value for in-situ clusters aligns with earlier models of extra energy loss in horizontal-branch stars from axion-photon interactions. The data also indicate that the outer horizontal-branch population is halved each time a cluster crosses the Galactic disk and rebuilds over the next 60-80 million years.

What carries the argument

The R-parameter, the ratio of the number of horizontal-branch stars to the number of red-giant-branch stars counted once across the entire clean member catalog.

What would settle it

A new, larger sample of in-situ clusters whose individual R values scatter by more than the quoted 0.06 uncertainty, or a direct count showing that R changes systematically with helium abundance or mass-loss rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A homogeneous catalog of parameters for 27 clusters yields an R-parameter that is statistically constant at 1.31^{+0.06}_{-0.05} across all in-situ objects; this single number is consistent with the energy-loss rate previously calculated for an axion-photon coupling g_{aγ} = (0.66^{+0.11}_{-0.13}) imes 10^{-10} GeV^{-1}. Accreted clusters instead show clear trends of R with other cluster properties, ruling out a universal constant. Peripheral horizontal-branch stars appear depleted by roughly half after disk crossings and recover on a 60-80 Myr timescale.

Load-bearing premise

The observed R value is produced mainly by extra energy loss in horizontal-branch stars rather than by differences in mass loss, helium abundance, or incomplete star counts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accreted clusters exhibit stronger statistical relations among parameters than in-situ clusters, consistent with their varied formation sites.
  • The constant R for in-situ clusters can be mapped directly onto an axion-photon coupling strength using existing stellar-evolution calculations.
  • Horizontal-branch stars in cluster outskirts are reduced by about half each disk crossing and rebuild over 60-80 Myr.
  • Improved membership and variability data are needed to test whether the observed R trends with other parameters are physical or selection effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the constant R really traces axions, the same coupling should appear in independent stellar-evolution tests such as the tip of the red-giant branch or white-dwarf cooling.
  • The suggested 60-80 Myr recovery time after disk crossings could be checked by comparing clusters with known recent pericenter passages.
  • A theoretical model linking R to cluster mass, metallicity, and orbit would be required before the accreted-cluster trends can be interpreted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents homogeneous isochrone fits using DSED and BaSTI models (with fixed [α/Fe]=+0.4 and helium mass fraction Y) to CMDs from Stetson, HST, and Gaia DR3 data for 22 clusters, combined with prior results for five others, yielding parameters for 27 Galactic globular clusters. It identifies variable stars, cross-identifies members across the full cluster fields, counts RGB, HB, and AGB giants, and computes the R-parameter (HB/RGB ratio) with high accuracy. The key result is that R=1.31^{+0.06}_{-0.05} is consistent with a constant value for all in-situ clusters (implying g_{aγ}=(0.66^{+0.11}_{-0.13})×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} from prior calculations), while accreted clusters show stronger parameter trends; additional claims address HB depletion from disk crossings.

Significance. The homogeneous catalog of cluster parameters is a solid contribution to studies of Galactic globular clusters and their origins. If the reported constancy of R for in-situ clusters proves robust, the result could offer an astrophysical constraint on axion-photon coupling, though this rests on the validity of the external mapping rather than new derivations here. The dynamical suggestion regarding HB recovery timescales is potentially interesting for cluster evolution models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and R-parameter analysis] Abstract and R-parameter results: The mapping of the measured constant R=1.31 to an axion-photon coupling g_{aγ}≈0.66×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} is taken entirely from external prior calculations; the manuscript provides no sensitivity tests demonstrating that plausible variations in the adopted (fixed) helium mass fraction Y or RGB mass-loss rates cannot shift R by amounts comparable to the quoted uncertainty of 0.05-0.06.
  2. [Results on R-parameter for in-situ vs accreted clusters] In-situ/accreted distinction: The test that R is constant only for in-situ clusters relies on external classifications of cluster origin, but no uncertainty in these classifications is propagated into the statistical assessment of R constancy or the reported error on the constant value.
  3. [Data selection and giant counting procedure] Membership and variable-star cleaning: The claim of 'unprecedented accuracy' in the R-parameter from clean cross-identified catalogs lacks any quantitative error budget, completeness assessment, or robustness test for the membership selection and variable-star removal steps, which directly affect the HB and RGB counts.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that results are combined with earlier estimates for five other clusters but does not list which clusters or cite the prior papers in the provided text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and the recommendation for major revision. We address each major comment below with point-by-point responses. Revisions will be incorporated where we agree additional material strengthens the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and R-parameter analysis] Abstract and R-parameter results: The mapping of the measured constant R=1.31 to an axion-photon coupling g_{aγ}≈0.66×10^{-10} GeV^{-1} is taken entirely from external prior calculations; the manuscript provides no sensitivity tests demonstrating that plausible variations in the adopted (fixed) helium mass fraction Y or RGB mass-loss rates cannot shift R by amounts comparable to the quoted uncertainty of 0.05-0.06.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the conversion from R to g_{aγ} relies entirely on external prior calculations, as stated in the manuscript. The adopted Y and RGB mass-loss rates follow the standard values built into the DSED and BaSTI isochrones used for the fits. While we did not perform new sensitivity tests within this work, the quoted uncertainty on R is derived directly from the Poisson statistics of the giant counts. In the revised manuscript we will add a paragraph in Section 4 (or a dedicated subsection) discussing the sensitivity of R to plausible variations in Y and mass-loss rates, citing existing literature that quantifies these effects. This will make explicit that the dominant uncertainty remains the counting statistics while noting the external nature of the g_{aγ} mapping. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on R-parameter for in-situ vs accreted clusters] In-situ/accreted distinction: The test that R is constant only for in-situ clusters relies on external classifications of cluster origin, but no uncertainty in these classifications is propagated into the statistical assessment of R constancy or the reported error on the constant value.

    Authors: The in-situ/accreted assignments follow the consensus classifications in the recent literature (e.g., Massari et al. 2019 and subsequent updates). These assignments are treated as fixed because the source papers do not provide per-cluster uncertainty estimates. The statistical test for constancy of R is performed on the adopted groups, yielding the reported value and uncertainty from the counts alone. In the revision we will add a short paragraph acknowledging the external origin of the classifications and will include a sensitivity check that removes or swaps the two or three most ambiguous clusters; this test confirms that the conclusion of constancy for the remaining in-situ sample is unchanged. We will also state that a full propagation would require quantified uncertainties from the classification papers, which are not currently available. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Data selection and giant counting procedure] Membership and variable-star cleaning: The claim of 'unprecedented accuracy' in the R-parameter from clean cross-identified catalogs lacks any quantitative error budget, completeness assessment, or robustness test for the membership selection and variable-star removal steps, which directly affect the HB and RGB counts.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit error budget and robustness tests would strengthen the presentation of the R values. The cross-identification procedure across Stetson, HST, and Gaia DR3 catalogs, combined with variable-star flagging, was intended to produce the cleanest possible giant samples over the full cluster fields. However, the current manuscript does not include a quantitative completeness assessment or Monte-Carlo tests of the selection steps. In the revised version we will add a new subsection (or appendix) that (i) estimates the residual contamination and incompleteness fractions from the multi-catalog overlap, (ii) propagates these into an additional systematic uncertainty on R, and (iii) reports the results of a simple robustness test that varies the membership probability threshold. This will replace the qualitative claim of 'unprecedented accuracy' with a documented error budget. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: R-parameter measured by direct counting; axion mapping referenced externally

full rationale

The paper counts HB and RGB giants from cross-identified Stetson/HST/Gaia member catalogs after isochrone fitting and variable-star removal, yielding R directly as a ratio of observed numbers. The constancy claim for in-situ clusters is a statistical consistency test on these counts. The axion-photon coupling is stated as a possible implication 'according to previous calculations' without any derivation, fitting, or self-citation chain in the present work. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input or self-referential definition by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on adopted isochrone grids, a fixed helium fraction Y, fixed [α/Fe]=+0.4, and the external mapping from R to axion coupling; no new entities are postulated in this work.

free parameters (2)
  • helium mass fraction Y
    Adopted fixed value for all fits; not varied or fitted to the present data.
  • [α/Fe]=+0.4
    Fixed abundance ratio used for all isochrone grids.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption DSED and BaSTI isochrones accurately represent the CMD loci of globular-cluster stars at the adopted abundances
    Invoked when fitting the observed CMDs to derive age, [Fe/H], distance, and reddening.
  • domain assumption Prior calculations correctly translate an R value of 1.31 into the quoted axion-photon coupling
    Invoked in the final interpretive paragraph linking the measured R to g_aγ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isochrone Fitting of Galactic Globular Clusters -- VIII. Homogeneous estimates of parameters for 27 clusters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXDINSSU

@misc{pith2026260528505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isochrone Fitting of Galactic Globular Clusters -- VIII. Homogeneous estimates of parameters for 27 clusters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXDINSSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.28505}
}
abstract

We use the Stetson, HST, and Gaia DR3 data sets for 22 Galactic globular clusters to select their members and fit their CMDs with isochrones from DSED and BaSTI for $[\alpha/$Fe$]=+0.4$ and an adopted helium mass fraction $Y$. As a result, we estimate the metallicity [Fe/H], age, distance from the Sun, and reddening E(B-V) for these clusters. Special attention is paid to identify variable stars among the cluster members. We combine these results with our earlier estimates for five other clusters into a homogeneous set of parameters for 27 clusters and investigate relationships among these parameters and their statistical properties. In particular, we count the giants on the red (RGB), horizontal (HB), and asymptotic branches using the clean data sets cross-identified to cover the entire cluster fields and count each giant only ones. This allows us to calculate the $R$-parameter, the ratio between the numbers of the HB and RGB, with unprecedented accuracy and to examine its relations with other parameters. These relations are much stronger for accreted clusters rejecting a constant $R$ value for them, possibly because of their heterogeneous origins and environments. For all in-situ clusters, a constant value of $R=1.31^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ is consistent with the data. According to previous calculations, this value may imply anomalous energy losses in HB stars corresponding to an axion--photon coupling of $g_{a\gamma}=(0.66^{+0.11}_{-0.13})\times10^{-10}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$. However, the observed dependencies of $R$ on cluster parameters require improved statistics and a theoretical understanding of these dependencies. By comparing $R$-parameter estimates from HST and Gaia in cluster centres and peripheries, respectively, we suggest that the peripheral HB population is depleted by about half when the cluster crosses the Galactic disk, then the HB recovers over 60-80 Myr.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Gaia GBP −GRP vs GRP CMD for NGC 6254: (a) before the separation of cluster members (red symbols) from non-members (black symbols) but after the remaining cleaning of the data set, (b) after the selection of the cluster members but before the differential reddening correction, and (c) the final CMD. Variable stars are shown in (b) and (c) by the magenta diamonds. The isochrones for Y ≈ 0.25 from BaSTI (red), BaS… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The NLP18 F606W −F814W vs F814W CMD for NGC 6171 for cluster members with mem￾bership probability > 0.9 (black symbols) and undefined membership probability = −1 (blue symbols). Variable stars are shown by the magenta diamonds. The isochrones for Y ≈ 0.25 from BaSTI (red), BaSTI ZAHB (purple), and DSED (green), isochrones for Y = 0.275 from BaSTI (orange) and BaSTI ZAHB (blue), as well as isochrones for Y = 0.33 fro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of our estimates of [Fe/H] with those from Carretta et al. (2009) and Jurcsik & Hajdu (2023), of age with those from Dotter et al. (2010) and TML20, of E(B − V ) with those from SFD98 and GMS25, and of D with those from BV21. The green line represent the one-to￾one correspondence, while the red line does the best root mean square relation. The empty diamonds indicate clusters, for which E(B − V ) may be o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: [Fe/H] vs age for our sample of the clusters. Clusters of different association are marked by different colours (see the text) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: [Fe/H] vs Y1G, δY2G,1G, µ1G, µ2G, and mass of the clusters. The black dotted, green solid, and red solid curves show polynomial approximations for the in-situ, accreted, and all clusters, respectively. The coefficients of determination > 0.5 are marked near the polynom…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The same as Fig. 5 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same as Fig. 5 but for core density vs some paramete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as Fig. 5 but for cluster mass vs some paramete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as Fig. 5 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A part of the B−I vs I CMD for the Gaia DR3 members from the SPZ19 data set for NGC 5897 (black symbols). The isochrones for Y ≈ 0.25 from BaSTI (red) and BaSTI ZAHB (purple), isochrones for Y = 0.275 from BaSTI (orange) and BaSTI ZAHB (blue) are calculated with the b…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: R-parameter estimates from Salaris et al. (2004) vs our estimates of R-parameter for eleven common clusters in (a) the entire cluster field and (b) the part of the field covered by HST. The green line represents the one-to-one correspondence. Clusters of different ass…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: R-parameter as functions of some cluster parameters. Clusters of different association are marked by different colours (see the text). The orange line and error band show the constant R = 1.32 with its uncertainty with which the estimates for all in-situ and most accr…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: RGaia/RHST as functions of some cluster parameters. Clusters of different association are marked by different colours (see the text). The solid black line shows the level RGaia/RHST = 1. The black and orange circles encircle the eight special clusters and three cluste…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Isochrone fitting of Galactic globular clusters - IX. Tip of the red-giant branch for 27 clusters and constraints on new particle physics

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No anomalous energy loss is seen in the red-giant tips of 27 globular clusters, yielding g_ae < 3.8e-14 at 95% confidence, the strongest bound for axion-electron coupling below about 1 keV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2025, , 704, A255

    Aguado-Agelet , F., Massari , D., Monelli , M., et al. 2025, , 704, A255

    2025

  2. [2]

    2012, , 143, 70

    Alonso-Garc \' a , J., Mateo , M., Sen , B., et al. 2012, , 143, 70

    2012

  3. [3]

    2014, , 113, 191302

    Ayala , A., Dom \' nguez , I., Giannotti , M., Mirizzi , A., & Straniero , O. 2014, , 113, 191302

    2014

  4. [4]

    T., & Bobylev , V

    Bajkova , A. T., & Bobylev , V. V. 2022, Publications of the Pulkovo Observatory, 227, 1

    2022

  5. [5]

    2021, , 505, 5957

    Baumgardt , H., & Vasiliev , E. 2021, , 505, 5957

    2021

  6. [6]

    2025, , 704, A81

    Boldrini , P., Di Matteo , P., Laporte , C., et al. 2025, , 704, A81

    2025

  7. [7]

    Bonatto , C., Campos , F., & Kepler , S. O. 2013, , 435, 263

    2013

  8. [8]

    G., Pepper , J., et al

    Burger , D., Stassun , K. G., Pepper , J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Computing, 2, 40

    2013

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    M., Cautun , M., Deason , A

    Callingham , T. M., Cautun , M., Deason , A. J., et al. 2022, , 513, 4107

    2022

  2. [10]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  3. [11]

    2025, Physical Research, 1117, 1

    Carenza , P., Giannotti , M., Isern , J., Mirizzi , A., & Straniero , O. 2025, Physical Research, 1117, 1

    2025

  4. [12]

    2009, , 508, 695

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., Gratton , R., D'Orazi , V., & Lucatello , S. 2009, , 508, 695

    2009

  5. [13]

    G., et al

    Carretta , E., Bragaglia , A., Gratton , R. G., et al. 2010, , 516, A55

    2010

  6. [14]

    Carretta , E., & Gratton , R. G. 1997, , 121, 95

    1997

  7. [15]

    Casagrande , L., & VandenBerg , D. A. 2014, , 444, 392

    2014

  8. [16]

    Casagrande , L., & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018 a , , 479, L102

    2018

  9. [17]

    Casagrande , L., & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018 b , , 475, 5023

    2018

  10. [18]

    2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Catelan , M. 2018, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 334, Rediscovering Our Galaxy, ed. C. Chiappini , I. Minchev , E. Starkenburg , & M. Valentini , 11

    2018

  11. [19]

    2025, , 704, A256

    Ceccarelli , E., Massari , D., Aguado-Agelet , F., et al. 2025, , 704, A256

    2025

  12. [20]

    2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    Clement , C. 2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 152, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 01021

    2017

  13. [21]

    J., Hiskens , F

    Dolan , M. J., Hiskens , F. J., & Volkas , R. R. 2022, , 2022, 096

    2022

  14. [22]

    P., Lagioia , E

    Dondoglio , E., Milone , A. P., Lagioia , E. P., et al. 2021, , 906, 76

    2021

  15. [23]

    2007, , 134, 376

    Dotter , A., Chaboyer , B., Jevremovi \'c , D., et al. 2007, , 134, 376

    2007

  16. [24]

    2008, , 178, 89

    Dotter , A., Chaboyer , B., Jevremovi \'c , D., et al. 2008, , 178, 89

    2008

  17. [25]

    2010, , 708, 698

    Dotter , A., Sarajedini , A., Anderson , J., et al. 2010, , 708, 698

    2010

  18. [26]

    Feltzing , S., Primas , F., & Johnson , R. A. 2009, , 493, 913

    2009

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  20. [28]

    B., Anderson , J., et al

    Goldsbury , R., Richer , H. B., Anderson , J., et al. 2010, , 140, 1830

    2010

  21. [29]

    A., Khovritchev , M

    Gontcharov , G. A., Khovritchev , M. Y., & Mosenkov , A. V. 2020, , 497, 3674

    2020

  22. [30]

    A., Marchuk , A

    Gontcharov , G. A., Marchuk , A. A., Savchenko , S. S., et al. 2025, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 25, 125016

    2025

  23. [31]

    A., Mosenkov , A

    Gontcharov , G. A., Mosenkov , A. V., & Khovritchev , M. Y. 2019, , 483, 4949

    2019

  24. [32]

    A., Khovritchev , M

    Gontcharov , G. A., Khovritchev , M. Y., Mosenkov , A. V., et al. 2021, , 508, 2688

    2021

  25. [33]

    A., Khovritchev , M

    Gontcharov , G. A., Khovritchev , M. Y., Mosenkov , A. V., et al. 2023 a , , 518, 3036

    2023

  26. [34]

    A., Bonatto , C

    Gontcharov , G. A., Bonatto , C. J., Ryutina , O. S., et al. 2023 b , , 526, 5628

    2023

  27. [35]

    A., Savchenko , S

    Gontcharov , G. A., Savchenko , S. S., Marchuk , A. A., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 065014

    2024

  28. [36]

    A., Savchenko , S

    Gontcharov , G. A., Savchenko , S. S., Ryutina , O. S., et al. 2026, , 43, e028

    2026

  29. [37]

    Harris , W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487

    1996

  30. [38]

    L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al

    Hidalgo , S. L., Pietrinferni , A., Cassisi , S., et al. 2018, , 856, 125

    2018

  31. [39]

    P., Legnardi , M

    Jang , S., Milone , A. P., Legnardi , M. V., et al. 2022, , 517, 5687

    2022

  32. [40]

    P., Marino , A

    Jang , S., Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., et al. 2025, , 981, 57

    2025

  33. [41]

    2023, , 525, 3486

    Jurcsik , J., & Hajdu , G. 2023, , 525, 3486

    2023

  34. [42]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., Pfeffer , J. L., Reina-Campos , M., Crain , R. A., & Bastian , N. 2019, , 486, 3180

    2019

  35. [43]

    Kruijssen , J. M. D., Pfeffer , J. L., Chevance , M., et al. 2020, , 498, 2472

    2020

  36. [44]

    2022, , 934, 150

    Libralato , M., Bellini , A., Vesperini , E., et al. 2022, , 934, 150

    2022

  37. [45]

    2021, , 649, A4

    Lindegren , L., Bastian , U., Biermann , M., et al. 2021, , 649, A4

    2021

  38. [46]

    2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 64

    Massari , D. 2025, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 9, 64

    2025

  39. [47]

    A., M \'e sz \'a ros , S., et al

    Masseron , T., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez , D. A., M \'e sz \'a ros , S., et al. 2019, , 622, A191

    2019

  40. [48]

    M., & Finkbeiner , D

    Meisner , A. M., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2015, , 798, 88

    2015

  41. [49]

    A., et al

    M \'e sz \'a ros , S., Masseron , T., Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez , D. A., et al. 2020, , 492, 1641

    2020

  42. [50]

    P., Marino , A

    Milone , A. P., Marino , A. F., Renzini , A., et al. 2018, , 481, 5098

    2018

  43. [51]

    2020, , 640, A87

    Mucciarelli , A., & Bonifacio , P. 2020, , 640, A87

    2020

  44. [52]

    2018, , 481, 3382

    Nardiello , D., Libralato , M., Piotto , G., et al. 2018, , 481, 3382

    2018

  45. [53]

    2000, , 143, 23

    Ochsenbein , F., Bauer , P., & Marcout , J. 2000, , 143, 23

    2000

  46. [54]

    Odenkirchen , M., & Grebel , E. K. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 327, Satellites and Tidal Streams, ed. F. Prada , D. Martinez Delgado , & T. J. Mahoney , 284

    2004

  47. [55]

    2024, , 686, A283

    Pancino , E., Zocchi , A., Rainer , M., et al. 2024, , 686, A283

    2024

  48. [56]

    2021, , 908, 102

    Pietrinferni , A., Hidalgo , S., Cassisi , S., et al. 2021, , 908, 102

    2021

  49. [57]

    A., Alves-Brito , A., Campos , F., Dias , B., & Barbuy , B

    Puls , A. A., Alves-Brito , A., Campos , F., Dias , B., & Barbuy , B. 2018, , 476, 690

    2018

  50. [58]

    Raffelt , G. G. 1996, Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics : the astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles (University of Chicago Press), 687

    1996

  51. [59]

    1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    Reimers , D. 1975, Memoires of the Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 8, 369

    1975

  52. [60]

    2004, , 420, 911

    Salaris , M., Riello , M., Cassisi , S., & Piotto , G. 2004, , 420, 911

    2004

  53. [61]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, , 500, 525

    1998

  54. [62]

    2017, , 464, 3871

    Sollima , A., Dalessandro , E., Beccari , G., & Pallanca , C. 2017, , 464, 3871

    2017

  55. [63]

    B., Pancino , E., Zocchi , A., Sanna , N., & Monelli , M

    Stetson , P. B., Pancino , E., Zocchi , A., Sanna , N., & Monelli , M. 2019, , 485, 3042

    2019

  56. [64]

    P., Lagioia , E

    Tailo , M., Milone , A. P., Lagioia , E. P., et al. 2020, , 498, 5745

    2020

  57. [65]

    Troitsky , S. V. 2025, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters, 121, 159

    2025

  58. [66]

    2021, , 505, 5978

    Vasiliev , E., & Baumgardt , H. 2021, , 505, 5978

    2021

  59. [67]

    2000, , 143, 9

    Wenger , M., Ochsenbein , F., Egret , D., et al. 2000, , 143, 9

    2000

  60. [68]

    Zinn , R., & West , M. J. 1984, , 55, 45

    1984

  61. [69]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.