Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 133 references

Astro+ database. I. Description and first results

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully automatic pipeline, HiLineThere, can derive stellar parameters for massive OB stars and red supergiants, matching expert literature values within about 800 K in effective temperature, 0.1 dex in surface gravity, and 10 km/s in…

desk verdict A genuine infrastructure paper with honest caveats: the blue-path accuracy claims are plausible but partly in-sample, the red-path Teff check is circular, and the yellow path is unvalidated — still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10250 v1 pith:ZZMFJQ55 submitted 2026-08-10 astro-ph.SR

K. Rübke , A. Marco , I. Negueruela , A. Herrero , S. Simón-Díaz , H. M. Tabernero , L. R. Patrick This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords Stars:massiveAstronomicaldatabasesTechniques:spectroscopicMethods:dataanalysisFASTWINDmodelsOB-typestarsredsupergiantsautomatedstellarparameters
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 paper is trying to establish that human expertise is no longer required to extract basic stellar parameters from massive-star spectra. It presents Astro+, an open database of over 4,000 spectra, and HiLineThere, a fully automatic Python pipeline that classifies each spectrum and fits effective temperature, surface gravity, rotation, and radial velocity. The validation claim is that the automated results agree with expert literature values within about $800$ K in $T_{\rm eff}$, $0.1$ dex in $\log g$, and $10$ km s$^{-1}$ in $v\sin i$ for OB stars, and within about $7$ km s$^{-1}$ in radial velocity and $300$ K in $T_{\rm eff}$ for red supergiants. If this holds, the pipeline can digest the tens of thousands of spectra expected from upcoming multi-object surveys without the manual line selection that currently bottlenecks analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hierarchical decision tree combined with reduced chi-squared minimization over large model grids. A line-detection routine identifies Balmer, He I, He II, and metal lines; their absence or presence routes the spectrum to MARCS-based SteParSyn (red path), KURUCZ/ATLAS9 (yellow path), or FASTWIND (blue path). For blue-path stars, the projected rotation $v\sin i$ is set from the first zero of the Fourier transform of a line profile, macroturbulence $\zeta$ is then fitted, and a reduced chi-squared comparison to $46\,000$ solar-metallicity FASTWIND models yields $T_{\rm eff}$ and $\log g$, with a subroutine that discards H$\alpha$ when wind emission invalidates it.

What would settle it

Run HiLineThere on a sample of massive-star spectra that were never used in its development and whose parameters were determined independently, or on synthetic spectra from an independent atmosphere code such as CMFGEN or PoWR; if the differences systematically exceed about $800$ K in $T_{\rm eff}$, $0.1$ dex in $\log g$, or $10$ km s$^{-1}$ in $v\sin i$, the claimed autonomy overstates its accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fully automated program, HiLineThere, can take an optical spectrum of a massive star and, without any human input, classify it and determine effective temperature, surface gravity, projected rotational velocity, and radial velocity. For OB-type stars analyzed against a grid of FASTWIND models, comparison with the expert-analysis sample of Holgado et al. (2018) and early-B stars from Nieva & Przybilla (2014) yields differences within about $800$ K in $T_{\rm eff}$, $0.1$ dex in $\log g$, and $10$ km s$^{-1}$ in $v\sin i$; for red supergiants, radial velocities agree within $7$ km s$^{-1}$ and temperatures within about $300$ K. The pipeline's hierarchical logic routes spectra into blue, yellow, or red analysis paths depending on whether Balmer lines are present and whether the star is hotter or cooler than about $15\,000$ K. The authors claim this replaces human inspection for large spectroscopic surveys while providing strictly homogeneous parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The validation benchmarks are independent of how the algorithm was built: the code was iteratively adjusted until it reproduced the Holgado et al. (2018) sample, so the quoted agreement on that sample may overstate performance on truly new spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surveys such as WEAVE can have their OB and red supergiant spectra processed automatically and homogeneously, with no expert line selection.
  • Single-lined binaries and binaries with faint secondaries are analyzed without degrading parameter accuracy, since their snapshot spectra behave like single stars.
  • Spectra with chemical peculiarities, such as the ON supergiant HD 105056, are correctly recovered when the pipeline is allowed to select lines freely rather than using a fixed line list.
  • Red supergiant radial velocities from the CaT region are recovered to within about 7 km/s, making the database useful for kinematic studies of cool supergiants.
  • The model-grid experiment with TLUSTY spectra places an upper bound of roughly 2,000 K on temperature systematics for O-type stars, though part of that difference reflects known code-to-code atmosphere physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pipeline's accuracy holds on independent data, the bottleneck in massive-star spectroscopy shifts from parameter fitting to quality control: the inspection graph becomes a spot-check rather than the analysis itself.
  • A sharper validation would feed the pipeline synthetic spectra from an independent grid that includes winds, line blanketing, and non-solar abundances; the TLUSTY test already points in this direction but mixes resolution effects with atmosphere-code differences.
  • The yellow path (7,500-15,000 K) is implemented but not systematically validated, so claims of full OBAFGKM coverage currently rest on the blue and red path tests plus the early-B transition sample.
  • Because the blue-path grid is solar-metallicity with microturbulence fixed at 10 km/s, the quoted accuracies should be treated as conditional on those assumptions; extending the grid is a testable way to see how much of the residual scatter they explain.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents Astro+, a web-based database for massive-star spectra, together with HiLineThere, an automated analysis pipeline. HiLineThere routes spectra through three paths: a blue path using a large FASTWIND grid for OB stars, a yellow path using KURUCZ/ATLAS9 models for intermediate temperatures, and a red path using MARCS models and the SteParSyn code for cool stars and red supergiants. The pipeline automatically measures radial velocity, vsini, and macroturbulence from diagnostic lines, then derives Teff and logg by reduced chi-square fitting. Validation is carried out against the O-star sample of Holgado et al. (2018) and a small set of early-B stars from Nieva & Przybilla (2014), reporting differences of Teff ~ 800 K, logg ~ 0.1 dex, and vsini ~ 10 km/s for OB stars; against Dorda et al. (2018) for RSG radial velocities (within 7 km/s); and against Negueruela et al. (2018) for RSG Teff (within ~300 K). A TLUSTY model-injection experiment is added to estimate systematic errors of the blue path. The paper claims that the tool can homogeneously process large future surveys in a completely autonomous way.

Significance. If the accuracy figures are confirmed on independent data, Astro+ and HiLineThere would be a timely and valuable contribution: they address a real bottleneck for upcoming multi-object surveys of massive stars, provide a public database, and include a transparent hierarchical decision tree with quantitative comparisons against large, carefully studied samples. The authors are also commendably explicit about several limitations, such as the deferred validation of the yellow path, the use of the same code in the RSG Teff comparison, and the non-like-for-like nature of the TLUSTY test. However, the headline accuracy claims are not yet established for genuinely new spectra because the OB validation sample was used iteratively to tune the algorithm, and the RSG Teff validation is circular. The significance of the paper therefore hinges on the additional independent validation requested below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 3.1, O-type stars] The paragraph beginning 'This iterative comparison process led to progressively more complex and rigorous versions of the code' explicitly states that the Holgado et al. (2018) sample was used as a tuning set during development. Both Test 1 and Test 2 are applied to this same sample, so the reported agreement in Teff, logg, and vsini is partly in-sample and may not represent performance on new spectra. This directly affects the abstract's central claim of 'completely autonomous' analysis with quoted differences of ~800 K, ~0.1 dex, and ~10 km/s. Please add a genuinely independent validation: for example, hold out a subset of the Holgado et al. (2018) stars during all tuning and report residuals on that subset, or use another large independent sample such as IACOB or VFTS. Alternatively, if such a test is not feasible, the quoted differences should be explicitly reframed as internal consistency with the development benchmark, not as expected errors for survey data.
  2. [Sect. 3.2, Late-type stars] The Teff comparison against Negueruela et al. (2018) is circular because the same SteParSyn implementation and MARCS grid were used in both the reference analysis and the present pipeline. The text acknowledges this in the sentence 'we must keep in mind that we are using the same code as in the original paper,' but the abstract and conclusions still present ~300 K as a validation result. The only independent red-path check in the paper is the radial-velocity comparison against Dorda et al. (2018). Please remove the Teff comparison from the validation claims, or supplement it with an independent set of RSG parameters derived with a different code or method. As currently presented, the evidence for the accuracy of the red-path Teff, logg, and [Fe/H] is insufficient.
  3. [Sect. 3.3, Systematic errors on blue path] The TLUSTY experiment is a model-to-model consistency check rather than an observational validation. The injected spectra are noiseless synthetic models, so the test does not exercise the pipeline's response to normalization errors, cosmic-ray residuals, weak blends, wind variability, or other real-data artifacts that contribute to the actual error budget. The final cautionary sentence of the section is appropriate, but the earlier statement that this experiment gives 'an upper limit on the systematic differences... should be below 2,000 K' can easily be read as an accuracy claim. Please present this test strictly as a code-consistency sanity check and avoid using it to bound the systematic error of the pipeline on real spectra.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sect. 2.1.3, Eq. (8)] The displayed expression for the macroturbulence kernel appears to contain a typo: the proposed delta-function term '(-v pi^(1/2)/zeta_RT) delta(-v^2/zeta_RT^2 - 1)' is dimensionally inconsistent and is not a standard radial-tangential expression. Please check the formula; as written it cannot be implemented literally.
  2. [Sect. 3.1] The comparison with Holgado et al. (2018) would benefit from explicit summary statistics for the whole sample (mean and rms or median absolute differences for Test 1 and Test 2), rather than only qualitative statements and quoted subgroup values. This would make it easier for readers to assess the headline numbers.
  3. [Sect. 3.2 and Fig. 15] The Teff axis of Fig. 15 is labeled in kK but the plotted range is 3000-7000 K, so the units are inconsistent. In addition, the text does not provide the rms scatter for the 11-star sample; please include it.
  4. [Sect. 3.1, Test 2 description] The phrase 'the full spectrum with all the features considered by the code' is misleading: Test 2 uses all detected H, Hei, and Heii diagnostic lines from Table 1, not the entire spectral range. Consider rewording to 'all available diagnostic lines.'
  5. [Table C.3] The headers 'eTeff' and 'e(logg)' are not self-explanatory; please use standard notation such as 'sigma(Teff)' or a dedicated error column. Also, the table lists only 11 stars, while the text just says 'small sample'; please specify the sample selection from Negueruela et al. (2018).
  6. [Sect. 2.1.2, Condition IV and Sect. 5] The phrasing 'No point closer to line center than Gaussian sigma deviates by >3 sigma fit' is awkward; a clearer formulation is 'no point within one Gaussian sigma of the line center deviates from the fit by more than 3 sigma.' Also, Section 5 states that the database is public but the HiLineThere source code is not; given the paper's aim of community use, please provide a code repository or state clearly that the code is available on request.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

OB accuracy is partly in-sample: the code was iteratively tuned on the Holgado benchmark, and the RSG Teff validation re-uses the same SteParSyn code.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sect. 3.1 (O-type stars), validation of the blue path; quoted accuracy in Abstract]
    "This iterative comparison process led to progressively more complex and rigorous versions of the code, ensuring that the automated reducedχ2 minimization reproduces expert-level parameters without introducing systematic bias."

    The headline accuracy figures (Teff~800 K, logg~0.1 dex, vsini~10 km/s) are computed by comparing HiLineThere to the Holgado et al. (2018) sample. The quoted sentence states that the code was iteratively modified until its reduced chi-squared minimization reproduces the expert-level parameters of that same sample. The benchmark therefore functioned as a training set for line weighting, thresholds, and selection logic; the agreement reported on it is in-sample by construction, not an out-of-sample prediction of literature values. Test 1 additionally fixes the same lines and weights as Holgado et al. (2018), further importing the benchmark's choices into the algorithm.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sect. 3.2 (Late-type stars), red-path Teff validation]
    "There is obviously a good correlation, but we must keep in mind that we are using the same code as in the original paper."

    The red-path Teff comparison uses Negueruela et al. (2018) as the literature reference, but that work applied the same SteParSyn code (developed by co-author Tabernero et al. 2022) to the same type of MARCS model networks. The ~300 K Teff agreement therefore shows that the new pipeline reproduces an earlier run of the same code and its overlapping authors, not that an independent method agrees with the pipeline. The only genuinely independent red-path benchmark in the paper is the V_r comparison against Dorda et al. (2018), which is not circular.

full rationale

The pipeline itself is an engineering contribution with real independent content: automated line detection, Fourier-based vsini, path selection, FASTWIND grid fitting, and the Dorda et al. (2018) RV comparison are all independent of the claimed accuracy numbers. However, the two headline validation results are not independent. For OB stars, Sect. 3.1 explicitly says the comparison with Holgado et al. (2018) drove iterative code revisions until the chi-squared minimization 'reproduces expert-level parameters'; the same sample is then used to quote Teff~800 K, logg~0.1 dex, vsini~10 km/s. That is fitting the algorithm to the benchmark and then reporting agreement with the benchmark as a prediction. For red supergiants, Sect. 3.2 concedes the Teff comparison uses 'the same code as in the original paper' (Negueruela et al. 2018), so the ~300 K Teff agreement is a self-consistency check rather than an external validation. The TLUSTY experiment is transparently described as model-to-model and is not used to claim independent observational accuracy. Because the central accuracy claims reduce in part to the benchmarks that shaped the algorithm, a partial circularity score is warranted; the Vr benchmark and pipeline architecture keep the work from being wholly circular.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are model-grid choices and algorithmic thresholds that the central claim depends on because they directly affect the fitted Teff, logg and vsini. The axioms are the standard assumptions of stellar atmosphere modeling plus the explicit reliance on reference values from the literature, including one validation that uses the same code as the reference.

free parameters (6)
  • Microturbulence in FASTWIND grid = 10 km/s
    Fixed for all blue-path models (Table 3). The paper notes in Sect. 3.1 that fitting microturbulence is not implemented and that its fixed value may contribute to a systematic Teff trend.
  • Wind velocity exponent beta = 1.0
    Fixed in the FASTWIND grid (Table 3). This affects wind-sensitive lines and therefore the Halpha handling.
  • Limb darkening coefficient epsilon = 0.6
    Used in the rotation kernel Eq. 6. Chosen by hand following standard practice, and used for all stars.
  • Default Vsini = 100 km/s
    Adopted when no valid diagnostic line is available (Sect. 2.1.3). This value is inserted into the pipeline and affects the final fit when the spectrum quality is low.
  • Minifilter temperature threshold = 15000 K
    Used to route stars to the blue or yellow path (Sect. 2.2). The threshold is approximate and set by hand.
  • Line weights for temperature diagnostics = Hei4471/Heii4541 ratio emphasized
    The algorithm assigns extra weight to temperature-sensitive lines (Sect. 2.3). These weights are part of the tuning that was adjusted during the iterative comparison with Holgado et al. (2018).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption FASTWIND models with NLTE, spherical geometry, mass loss and line blanketing accurately represent OB star photospheres.
    The blue-path parameters are derived exclusively from this grid (Sect. 2.3). The TLUSTY experiment checks cross-code systematics but does not remove this dependence.
  • domain assumption MARCS models and the SteParSyn implementation provide reliable Teff and logg for red supergiants.
    The red-path Teff and logg are taken from SteParSyn using MARCS networks (Sect. 2.4). The validation against Negueruela et al. (2018) uses the same code, so it does not independently establish accuracy.
  • domain assumption Solar metallicity is appropriate for all Galactic targets analyzed in this paper.
    The FASTWIND grid is computed at Z/Zsun = 1 only (Sect. 2.3). The authors state that other metallicities are planned for future versions.
  • standard math The first zero of the Fourier transform of a line profile uniquely identifies the projected rotational velocity.
    This is the Carroll (1928) and Deeming (1975) technique used in Sect. 2.1.3. It assumes the line profile can be described by a Fourier-Bessel function, which is a standard but non-trivial assumption.
  • domain assumption The literature values from Holgado et al. (2018) and Nieva & Przybilla (2014) are accurate enough to serve as benchmarks.
    The entire OB validation compares against these references (Sect. 3.1). If the references carry systematic errors, the quoted agreement inherits them.
  • domain assumption The Teff values from Negueruela et al. (2018) are accurate despite being produced with the same SteParSyn code.
    Used for the red-path Teff comparison (Sect. 3.2). The authors acknowledge the code overlap, so this benchmark tests pipeline consistency more than physical accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Astro+ database. I. Description and first results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZMFJQ55

@misc{pith2026260810250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Astro+ database. I. Description and first results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZMFJQ55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10250}
}
read the original abstract

The vast amounts of spectroscopic data for massive stars provided by previous and existing instruments on ground-based and space-based telescopes have saturated our capability to process them by human inspection routines. Consequently, there is a pressing need for fully automatic machine-assisted tools to help handle incoming data. To this end, we present the development of a massive star spectroscopic interactive database, Astro+. We aim to provide users with a reliable, versatile, and user-friendly platform that will be significant for understanding massive stars and set an important precedent for future open-access astrophysical research. This tool allows authorized users to upload their own spectra and, by using the fully automated tool HiLineThere, a Python-based program, it can homogeneously derive basic stellar parameters, such as v_rad, v sin i, Teff and log g for massive OB-type stars, using a solar-metallicity grid of FASTWIND models, and v_rad, [Fe/H], Teff and log g for red supergiant stars, in a completely autonomous way. Here we present the first results of the tool HiLineThere on optical spectra for OB-type stars and red supergiants. We compare the output of our analysis for OB-type stars with literature values for a large sample of well-studied objects, finding differences within the expected error ranges: Teff ~ 800 K, log g ~ 0.1 dex, and v sin i ~ 10 km/s. Preliminary tests on early-B stars also show consistent results during the transition to lower temperatures. For red supergiants, we find differences within 7 km/s in v_rad and ~300 K in Teff for two test samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example output from the HiBandThereY subroutine for a star in the yellow path. The top panel shows the χ 2 distribution for the evaluated KURUCZ/ATLAS9 models across different stellar parame￾ters (Teff, log g, and [M/H]). The middle panel compares the observed spectrum (gray) with the best-fitting model (orange) for an A-type star (Teff = 11 250 K). The bottom panel displays the χ 2 cross-correlation statistics used… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Results obtained from fitting a double Gaussian function. This process is triggered when the residuals between the single Gaussian fit and the spectrum exceed a 3-σ limit above the noise. The observed spec￾trum is shown in gray. The simple Gaussians are represented as dashed lines, while the double Gaussian is shown as a black solid line. The area corresponding to the ∆ value is highlighted in gray. stored and used … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Output of the classification interface. The lines detected are shown with the label "Found" with or without the "S/N" label, along with the best Gaussian or double Gaussian fit in green. The laboratory center, uncorrected for Vr , is shown by a vertical red line, while the corrected center is indicated by the blue vertical line, and the Gaussian center from the best fit is marked by a green vertical line. When the p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cleaning process for Hδ line. The left panel displays the ob￾served line in light gray, while the two Gaussians functions fitted to the line profile are shown in dashed lines. The right panel shows the sub￾traction of the N iii component, represented as the first gauss…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example output for determining the projected rotational ve￾locity and macroturbulence components using the Si iv 4089 Å line. The top-left panel illustrates the determination of V sin i by identifying the first zero in the Fourier transform (blue line), alongside th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of spectral fits for optical lines. Observations are shown in gray, and best fit model profiles in blue. and theoretical spectra. First, the observed spectrum is corrected for Vr and the local continuum of the line is normalized, ensur￾ing that the observed …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reduced χ 2 ν over the Teff–log g model grid for two example spectra, shown on identical axes. (a), left: a normal, well-determined minimum. (b), right: a degenerate case, with a broad minimum elon￾gated along the Teff–log g plane. The black marker indicates the best￾f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Output from the HiBandThere routine for a Red Supergiant (RSG) in the Ca ii triplet (CaT) region. The top panel shows the cor￾relation statistic distribution across the 64 MARCS model spectra con￾sidered. The middle panel compares the observed spectrum (blue) with the …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the values for V sin i obtained by Holgado et al. (2018) and by our code using the same lines. The dashed line represents ±10km s−1 for small values and generally 20% of the value. The residual plot shows this work minus Holgado et al. (2018). Open black …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of values for log g obtained by HiLineThere in a fully automated analysis with those obtained by Holgado et al. (2018), using the same list of lines; dashed lines represent 0.2 and 0.3 dex. The residual plot shows this work minus Holgado et al. (2018). Open…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of the values of effective temperature (Teff) ob￾tained by our method using SteParSyn for a small sample of RSGs with those determined by Negueruela et al. (2018) warmer objects), whereas our grid covers log g values from 0 to 3. The parameters derived by A…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison between the radial velocities (Vr ) determined by Dorda et al. (2018) and those obtained automatically by HiBandThere. The plot shows the residuals of our results minus those of Dorda et al. (2018). comparison of the full spectrum against a set of model tem…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison between the Teff determined by our code and the label in the TLUSTY models. Dashed lines represent ±2 000 K. From left to right, the panels show results for resolving powers of 5 000, 25 000 and 48 000. The residual plot shows the difference between the val…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparison between the log g determined by our code and the label in the TLUSTY models. Panels as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

133 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , keywords =

    Atmospheric NLTE-models for the spectroscopic analysis of luminous blue stars with winds. , keywords =

  2. [2]

    The IACOB project. VII. The rotational properties of Galactic massive O-type stars revisited. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243851 , archivePrefix =. 2207.12776 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    An LTE effective temperature scale for red supergiants in the Magellanic clouds. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty399 , archivePrefix =. 1802.03219 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Stellar wind properties of the nearly complete sample of O stars in the low metallicity young star cluster NGC 346 in the SMC galaxy. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243281 , archivePrefix =. 2207.09333 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Fundamental properties of nearby single early B-type stars

    Fundamental properties of nearby single early B-type stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423373 , archivePrefix =. 1412.1418 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Surface abundances of ON stars

    Surface abundances of ON stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526130 , archivePrefix =. 1504.06194 , primaryClass =

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    The IACOB project. IX. Building a modern empirical database of Galactic O9 - B9 supergiants: Sample selection, description, and completeness. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346179 , archivePrefix =. 2305.00305 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Updated calibrations of fundamental parameters of Galactic O-type stars

    The IACOB project: XV. Updated calibrations of fundamental parameters of Galactic O-type stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556713 , archivePrefix =. 2508.05233 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

Show all 133 references
  1. [9]

    , keywords =

    Binarity at LOw Metallicity (BLOeM): pipeline-determined physical properties of OB stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf900 , archivePrefix =. 2506.00117 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    The Galactic O-Star Spectroscopic Survey. I. Classification System and Bright Northern Stars in the Blue-violet at R -0.5ex 2500. , keywords =. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/193/2/24 , archivePrefix =. 1101.4002 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Wolf-Rayet Stars and Interrelations with Other Massive Stars in Galaxies , year = 1991, editor =

    New Observations of LBV Environments. Wolf-Rayet Stars and Interrelations with Other Massive Stars in Galaxies , year = 1991, editor =

    1991

  4. [12]

    , keywords =

    Massive Stars in the Field and Associations of the Magellanic Clouds: The Upper Mass Limit, the Initial Mass Function, and a Critical Test of Main-Sequence Stellar Evolutionary Theory. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/175064 , adsurl =

    doi

  5. [13]

    , year = 2013, month = may, volume =

    A Comparison of the Physical Properties of the LMC and SMC O-type Stars Derived with CMFGEN and FASTWIND. , year = 2013, month = may, volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/6 , adsurl =

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    , year = 2011, month = aug, volume =

    Accurate Stellar Kinematics at Faint Magnitudes: Application to the Bo \"o tes I Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy. , year = 2011, month = aug, volume =. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/146 , adsurl =

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey. I. Introduction and observational overview. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116782 , archivePrefix =. 1103.5386 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    , keywords =

    The Gaia-ESO Survey: The analysis of the hot-star spectra. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142349 , archivePrefix =. 2202.08662 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    , keywords =

    Quantitative spectral classification of Galactic O stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833050 , archivePrefix =. 1805.08267 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Encyclopedia of Astrophysics , year = 2026, volume =

    Spectral classification. Encyclopedia of Astrophysics , year = 2026, volume =. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00057-2 , archivePrefix =. 2410.07301 , primaryClass =

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    doi:10.1017/9781009082136 , adsurl =

    The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres. doi:10.1017/9781009082136 , adsurl =

    doi

  12. [20]

    Encyclopedia of Astrophysics , year = 2026, volume =

    Stellar atmospheres. Encyclopedia of Astrophysics , year = 2026, volume =. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00021-3 , adsurl =

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    Identification in the UBC catalogue and comparison between manual and automated analyses

    Gaia colour-magnitude diagrams of young open clusters. Identification in the UBC catalogue and comparison between manual and automated analyses. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244933 , archivePrefix =. 2303.00467 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Spectroscopic and physical parameters of Galactic O-type stars. III. Mass discrepancy and rotational mixing. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731361 , archivePrefix =. 1803.03410 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    , keywords =

    Fourier Analysis with Unequally-Spaced Data. , keywords =. doi:10.1007/BF00681947 , adsurl =

    doi

  16. [24]

    Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres , year = 2003, editor =

    New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres. Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres , year = 2003, editor =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0405087 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0405087 , primaryClass =

    2003 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    , keywords =

    Model atmospheres for G, F, A, B, and O stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/190589 , adsurl =

    doi

  18. [26]

    The IACOB project. II. On the scatter of O-dwarf spectral type - effective temperature calibrations. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424742 , archivePrefix =. 1409.6653 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    , keywords =

    Line-blanketed model atmospheres for WR stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020269 , adsurl =

    doi

  20. [28]

    Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology , year = 2020, editor =

    A Modern Guide to Quantitative Spectroscopy of Massive OB Stars. Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology , year = 2020, editor =. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38509-5_6 , adsurl =

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    New interface and second data release

    The IACOB spectroscopic database. New interface and second data release. XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society , year = 2020, month = jul, eid =

    2020

  22. [30]

    , keywords =

    The wide-field, multiplexed, spectroscopic facility WEAVE: Survey design, overview, and simulated implementation. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad557 , archivePrefix =. 2212.03981 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , volume =

    Karl Pearson , title =. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , volume =. 1900 , publisher =. doi:10.1080/14786440009463897 , URL =

    1900 doi

  24. [32]

    , keywords =

    Does the radial-tangential macroturbulence model adequately describe the spectral line broadening of solar-type stars?*. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/pasj/psx022 , archivePrefix =. 1703.02233 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Improvements of the theory and first results

    Radiation-driven winds of hot luminous stars. Improvements of the theory and first results. , keywords =

  26. [34]

    OWN Survey: new binaries and trapezium-like systems

    Spectroscopic survey of galactic O and WN stars. OWN Survey: new binaries and trapezium-like systems. Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series , year = 2010, series =

    2010

  27. [35]

    Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series , year = 2014, series =

    OWN Survey: results after seven years of high-resolution spectroscopic monitoring of Southern O and WN stars. Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series , year = 2014, series =

    2014

  28. [36]

    A high-resolution spectroscopic survey of southern Galactic O and WN-type stars: I

    The OWN Survey. A high-resolution spectroscopic survey of southern Galactic O and WN-type stars: I. Project description and single-lined spectroscopic orbits. , year = 2026, month = apr, volume =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202558665 , adsurl =

    2026 doi

  29. [37]

    The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars , year = 2017, editor =

    OWN Survey: a spectroscopic monitoring of Southern Galactic O and WN-type stars. The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars , year = 2017, editor =. doi:10.1017/S1743921317003258 , adsurl =

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI , year = 2011, editor =

    The Galactic O-star spectroscopic survey (GOSSS). Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI , year = 2011, editor =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1010.5680 , adsurl =

    2011 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Science , keywords =

    The Initial Mass Function of Stars: Evidence for Uniformity in Variable Systems. Science , keywords =. doi:10.1126/science.1067524 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0201098 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    , keywords =

    Atmospheric turbulence measured in stars above the main sequence. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/153960 , adsurl =

    doi

  33. [41]

    , keywords =

    A new extensive library of PHOENIX stellar atmospheres and synthetic spectra. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219058 , archivePrefix =. 1303.5632 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    A grid of MARCS model atmospheres for late-type stars. I. Methods and general properties. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200809724 , archivePrefix =. 0805.0554 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Atmospheric NLTE-models for the spectroscopic analysis of blue stars with winds. II. Line-blanketed models. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042365 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0411398 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega , year = 2013, month = jun, eid =

    First whole-sky results from the Galactic O-Star Spectroscopic Survey. Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega , year = 2013, month = jun, eid =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1306.6417 , archivePrefix =. 1306.6417 , primaryClass =

    2013 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege , keywords =

    The IACOB spectroscopic database of Northern Galactic OB stars. Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege , keywords =

  38. [46]

    VizieR Online Data Catalog , keywords =

    VizieR Online Data Catalog: O-stars in VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey (Ramirez-Agudelo+ 2013). VizieR Online Data Catalog , keywords =

    2013

  39. [47]

    Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega , year = 2013, month = jun, eid =

    Macroturbulent broadening and its consequences on the study of rotational velocities and pulsations in massive stars. Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega , year = 2013, month = jun, eid =

    2013

  40. [48]

    , keywords =

    Fourier method of determining the rotational velocities in OB stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066060 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0703216 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Rotational velocities, stellar parameters, and oxygen abundances

    Detailed spectroscopic analysis of the Trapezium cluster stars inside the Orion nebula. Rotational velocities, stellar parameters, and oxygen abundances. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053066 , adsurl =

    doi

  42. [50]

    The IACOB project. I. Rotational velocities in northern Galactic O- and early B-type stars revisited. The impact of other sources of line-broadening. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322758 , archivePrefix =. 1311.3360 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII , year = 2015, month = may, pages =

    The IACOB spectroscopic database: recent updates and first data release. Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII , year = 2015, month = may, pages =

    2015

  44. [52]

    , keywords =

    Berkeley 51, a young open cluster with four yellow supergiants. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty718 , archivePrefix =. 1803.07477 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    The IACOB project. V. Spectroscopic parameters of the O-type stars in the modern grid of standards for spectral classification. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201731543 , archivePrefix =. 1711.10043 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    , keywords =

    STEPARSYN: A Bayesian code to infer stellar atmospheric parameters using spectral synthesis. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141763 , archivePrefix =. 2110.00444 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega , year = 2013, month = jun, eid =

    Optical and NIR Spectroscopic analysis of OB Stars. Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega , year = 2013, month = jun, eid =

    2013

  48. [56]

    , year = 1928, month = may, volume =

    The form of an absorption line in the spectrum of a rotating or expanding star. , year = 1928, month = may, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/88.7.548 , adsurl =

    1928 doi

  49. [57]

    , year = 1933, month = may, volume =

    The rotational speeds of the stars. , year = 1933, month = may, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/93.7.508 , adsurl =

    1933 doi

  50. [58]

    , year = 1933, month = may, volume =

    The spectroscopic determination of stellar rotation and its effect on line profiles. , year = 1933, month = may, volume =. doi:10.1093/mnras/93.7.478 , adsurl =

    1933 doi

  51. [59]

    , keywords =

    The rotationally broadened line profiles of Sirius. , keywords =

  52. [60]

    , keywords =

    Detection of differential rotation in psi Cap with profile analysis. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011023 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0107332 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    , keywords =

    Differential rotation in rapidly rotating F-stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034255 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0309616 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Grids of stellar models with rotation. I. Models from 0.8 to 120 M _ at solar metallicity (Z = 0.014). , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117751 , archivePrefix =. 1110.5049 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    The wide-field, multiplexed, spectroscopic facility WEAVE: Survey design, overview, and simulated implementation. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

  56. [64]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 , version =

    LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python. doi:10.5281/zenodo.11813 , version =

    doi

  57. [65]

    , keywords =

    A Grid of Non-LTE Line-blanketed Model Atmospheres of O-Type Stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1086/374373 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0210157 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    A guide for the classification of luminous red stars

    An atlas of cool supergiants from the Magellanic Clouds and typical interlopers. A guide for the classification of luminous red stars. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833219 , archivePrefix =. 1807.07456 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey . XXIV. Stellar properties of the O-type giants and supergiants in 30 Doradus. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628914 , archivePrefix =. 1701.04758 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Spectroscopic Challenges of Photoionized Plasmas , year = 2001, editor =

    CMFGEN: A non-LTE Line-Blanketed Radiative Transfer Code for Modeling Hot Stars with Stellar Winds. Spectroscopic Challenges of Photoionized Plasmas , year = 2001, editor =

    2001

  61. [69]

    , keywords =

    On stars with weak winds: the Galactic case. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052927 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0507278 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    , keywords =

    Quantitative H and K band spectroscopy of Galactic OB-stars at medium resolution. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20052739 , archivePrefix =. astro-ph/0501606 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    XIII: On the nature of O Vz stars in 30 Doradus

    The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey. XIII: On the nature of O Vz stars in 30 Doradus. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322798 , archivePrefix =. 1312.3278 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    , keywords =

    Toward Understanding Massive Star Formation. , keywords =. doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092549 , archivePrefix =. 0707.1279 , primaryClass =

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    H., Gamen , R., Arias , J

    Barb \'a , R. H., Gamen , R., Arias , J. I., et al. 2010, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 38, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 30--32

    2010

  66. [74]

    H., Gamen , R., Arias , J

    Barb \'a , R. H., Gamen , R., Arias , J. I., & Morrell , N. I. 2017, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 329, The Lives and Death-Throes of Massive Stars, ed. J. J. Eldridge , J. C. Bray , L. A. S. McClelland , & L. Xiao , 89--96

    2017

  67. [75]

    H., Gamen , R., Morrell , N

    Barb \'a , R. H., Gamen , R., Morrell , N. I., et al. 2026, , 708, A98

    2026

  68. [76]

    M., Crowther , P

    Bestenlehner , J. M., Crowther , P. A., Bronner , V. A., et al. 2025, , 540, 3523

    2025

  69. [77]

    2022, , 661, A120

    Blomme , R., Daflon , S., Gebran , M., et al. 2022, , 661, A120

    2022

  70. [78]

    Carroll , J. A. 1928, , 88, 548

    1928

  71. [79]

    Carroll , J. A. 1933, , 93, 478

    1933

  72. [80]

    Carroll , J. A. & Ingram , L. J. 1933, , 93, 508

    1933

  73. [81]

    & Kurucz , R

    Castelli , F. & Kurucz , R. L. 2003, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 210, Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres, ed. N. Piskunov , W. W. Weiss , & D. F. Gray , A20

    2003

  74. [82]

    A., & Negueruela , I

    de Burgos , A., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Urbaneja , M. A., & Negueruela , I. 2023, , 674, A212

    2023

  75. [83]

    Deeming , T. J. 1975, , 36, 137

    1975

  76. [84]

    2018, , 618, A137

    Dorda , R., Negueruela , I., Gonz \'a lez-Fern \'a ndez , C., & Marco , A. 2018, , 618, A137

    2018

  77. [85]

    1990, , 237, 137

    Dravins , D., Lindegren , L., & Torkelsson , U. 1990, , 237, 137

    1990

  78. [86]

    J., Taylor , W

    Evans , C. J., Taylor , W. D., H \'e nault-Brunet , V., et al. 2011, , 530, A108

    2011

  79. [87]

    Gr \"a fener , G., Koesterke , L., & Hamann , W. R. 2002, , 387, 244

    2002

  80. [88]

    Gray , D. F. 1975, , 202, 148

    1975

  81. [89]

    Gray , D. F. 2022, The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres

    2022

  82. [90]

    2008, , 486, 951

    Gustafsson , B., Edvardsson , B., Eriksson , K., et al. 2008, , 486, 951

    2008

  83. [91]

    Hillier , D. J. & Lanz , T. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 247, Spectroscopic Challenges of Photoionized Plasmas, ed. G. Ferland & D. W. Savin , 343

    2001

  84. [92]

    H., et al

    Holgado , G., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Barb \'a , R. H., et al. 2018, , 613, A65

    2018

  85. [93]

    2025, , 703, A175

    Holgado , G., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., & Herrero , A. 2025, , 703, A175

    2025

  86. [94]

    Holgado , G., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., & Barb \'a , R. H. 2022, , 665, A150

    2022

  87. [95]

    O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al

    Husser , T. O., Wende-von Berg , S., Dreizler , S., et al. 2013, , 553, A6

    2013

  88. [96]

    C., Dalton , G

    Jin , S., Trager , S. C., Dalton , G. B., et al. 2024, , 530, 2688

    2024

  89. [97]

    E., Gilmore , G., Walker , M

    Koposov , S. E., Gilmore , G., Walker , M. G., et al. 2011, , 736, 146

    2011

  90. [98]

    2002, Science, 295, 82

    Kroupa , P. 2002, Science, 295, 82

    2002

  91. [99]

    & Hubeny , I

    Lanz , T. & Hubeny , I. 2003, , 146, 417

    2003

  92. [100]

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Negueruela , I., & Caballero , J. A. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Vol. 2, 43--84

    2026

  93. [101]

    R., et al

    Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Sota , A., Walborn , N. R., et al. 2011, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI, ed. M. R. Zapatero Osorio , J. Gorgas , J. Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J. R. Pardo , & A. Gil de Paz , 467--472

    2011

  94. [102]

    2018, , 616, A135

    Martins , F. 2018, , 616, A135

    2018

  95. [103]

    J., et al

    Martins , F., Schaerer , D., Hillier , D. J., et al. 2005, , 441, 735

    2005

  96. [104]

    2015, , 578, A109

    Martins , F., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Palacios , A., et al. 2015, , 578, A109

    2015

  97. [105]

    C., Degioia-Eastwood , K., & Garmany , C

    Massey , P., Lang , C. C., Degioia-Eastwood , K., & Garmany , C. D. 1995, , 438, 188

    1995

  98. [106]

    F., Hillier , D

    Massey , P., Neugent , K. F., Hillier , D. J., & Puls , J. 2013, , 768, 6

    2013

  99. [107]

    & de Burgos , A

    Negueruela , I. & de Burgos , A. 2023, , 675, A19

    2023

  100. [108]

    2018, , 477, 2976

    Negueruela , I., Mongui \'o , M., Marco , A., et al. 2018, , 477, 2976

    2018

  101. [109]

    & Przybilla , N

    Nieva , M.-F. & Przybilla , N. 2014, , 566, A7

    2014

  102. [110]

    Pauldrach , A., Puls , J., & Kudritzki , R. P. 1986, , 164, 86

    1986

  103. [111]

    Puls , J., Herrero , A., & Prieto , C. A. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Vol. 2, 85--105

    2026

  104. [112]

    A., Venero , R., et al

    Puls , J., Urbaneja , M. A., Venero , R., et al. 2005, , 435, 669

    2005

  105. [113]

    H., Sana , H., de Koter , A., et al

    Ram \' rez-Agudelo , O. H., Sana , H., de Koter , A., et al. 2017, , 600, A81

    2017

  106. [114]

    & Schmitt , J

    Reiners , A. & Schmitt , J. H. M. M. 2003, , 412, 813

    2003

  107. [115]

    M., Kudritzki , R

    Repolust , T., Puls , J., Hanson , M. M., Kudritzki , R. P., & Mokiem , M. R. 2005, , 440, 261

    2005

  108. [116]

    J., Hainich , R., Hamann , W

    Rickard , M. J., Hainich , R., Hamann , W. R., et al. 2022, , 666, A189

    2022

  109. [117]

    2014, , 564, A39

    Sab \' n-Sanjuli \'a n , C., Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., et al. 2014, , 564, A39

    2014

  110. [118]

    E., Puls , J., & Herrero , A

    Santolaya-Rey , A. E., Puls , J., & Herrero , A. 1997, , 323, 488

    1997

  111. [119]

    2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, ed

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S. 2020, in Reviews in Frontiers of Modern Astrophysics; From Space Debris to Cosmology, ed. P. Kab \'a th , D. Jones , & M. Skarka , 155--187

    2020

  112. [120]

    2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 514

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Castro , N., Garcia , M., Herrero , A., & Markova , N. 2011, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 514

    2011

  113. [121]

    2013, in Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega, 28

    Simon-Diaz , S., Castro , N., Herrero , A., et al. 2013, in Massive Stars: From alpha to Omega, 28

    2013

  114. [122]

    & Herrero , A

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S. & Herrero , A. 2007, , 468, 1063

    2007

  115. [123]

    & Herrero , A

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S. & Herrero , A. 2014, , 562, A135

    2014

  116. [124]

    2006, , 448, 351

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., Esteban , C., & Najarro , F. 2006, , 448, 351

    2006

  117. [125]

    2014, , 570, L6

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Herrero , A., Sab \' n-Sanjuli \'a n , C., et al. 2014, , 570, L6

    2014

  118. [126]

    2015, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII, 576--581

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., Negueruela , I., Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., et al. 2015, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VIII, 576--581

    2015

  119. [127]

    A., Holgado , G., de Burgos , A., & Iacob Team

    Sim \'o n-D \' az , S., P \'e rez Prieto , J. A., Holgado , G., de Burgos , A., & Iacob Team . 2020, in XIV.0 Scientific Meeting (virtual) of the Spanish Astronomical Society, 187

    2020

  120. [128]

    R., et al

    Sota , A., Ma \' z Apell \'a niz , J., Walborn , N. R., et al. 2011, , 193, 24

    2011

  121. [129]

    M., Dorda , R., Negueruela , I., & Gonz \'a lez-Fern \'a ndez , C

    Tabernero , H. M., Dorda , R., Negueruela , I., & Gonz \'a lez-Fern \'a ndez , C. 2018, , 476, 3106

    2018

  122. [130]

    M., Marfil , E., Montes , D., & Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J

    Tabernero , H. M., Marfil , E., Montes , D., & Gonz \'a lez Hern \'a ndez , J. I. 2022, , 657, A66

    2022

  123. [131]

    & UeNo , S

    Takeda , Y. & UeNo , S. 2017, , 69, 46

    2017

  124. [132]

    R., Evans , I

    Walborn , N. R., Evans , I. N., Fitzpatrick , E. L., & Phillips , M. M. 1991, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 143, Wolf-Rayet Stars and Interrelations with Other Massive Stars in Galaxies, ed. K. A. van der Hucht & B. Hidayat , 505

    1991

  125. [133]

    & Yorke , H

    Zinnecker , H. & Yorke , H. W. 2007, , 45, 481

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.