pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.31714 · v1 · pith:75BY4X4Cnew · submitted 2026-06-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Chemo-dynamical Analysis of Eight UBC Open Clusters

Remziye Canbay , Deniz Cennet \c{C}{\i}nar , \"Ozcan \c{C}al{\i}\c{s}kan , Bur\c{c}in Tan{\i}k \"Ozt\"urk , Seval Ta\c{s}demir , Ege Erayd{\i}n , Sel\c{c}uk Bilir This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 04:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords open clustersGaia DR3orbital analysisradial migrationGalactic thin diskchemo-dynamical analysisisochrone fittingUBC catalog
0
0 comments X

The pith

Eight open clusters show radial displacements under 0.5 kpc between birth and present-day positions.

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

The paper performs a chemo-dynamical study of eight UBC open clusters at 2-5 kpc using Gaia DR3 to derive memberships via UPMASK, structural parameters from King models, ages and metallicities from Bayesian PARSEC isochrone fits, and orbits from backward integrations. It establishes that all clusters have nearly circular orbits with eccentricities 0.03-0.09 and maximum heights under 0.4 kpc, placing them in the thin disk, while the difference between traceback radii and guiding radii stays below 0.5 kpc. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to only mild radial redistribution for these dynamically cold clusters rather than the strong migration sometimes invoked to explain disk populations. The work also notes that present-day positions and chemistry of such clusters should be interpreted with this modest redistribution in mind.

Core claim

The analysis shows that the eight clusters follow nearly circular orbits in the thin disk and exhibit modest radial displacements of Delta R less than 0.5 kpc when comparing inferred traceback orbital radii to present-day guiding radii; these offsets match expectations for mild radial redistribution in young, dynamically cold open clusters rather than strong radial migration.

What carries the argument

Backward orbital integrations that compare inferred traceback orbital radii against present-day guiding radii to measure radial displacement.

If this is right

  • The clusters belong to the thin disk based on their low eccentricities and small vertical excursions.
  • Radial migration amplitudes for these clusters remain moderate rather than strong.
  • Present-day spatial and chemical distributions of the clusters require accounting for mild radial redistribution.
  • Distant open clusters at 2-5 kpc can be characterized with high precision from Gaia DR3 data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the modest displacements hold, chemical abundance gradients across the disk may be less smoothed by migration than strong-migration models assume.
  • Extending the same traceback method to clusters of greater age could test whether displacement grows with time.
  • The range of ages and metallicities in the sample may allow mapping how disk chemistry has evolved at different radii.

Load-bearing premise

Orbital integrations and guiding-radius calculations recover the clusters' birth radii without large uncertainties from Gaia proper motions, distances, or the assumed Galactic potential.

What would settle it

A larger sample of similar clusters showing radial displacements well above 0.5 kpc or metallicities inconsistent with disk gradients at the inferred birth radii.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.31714 by Bur\c{c}in Tan{\i}k \"Ozt\"urk, Deniz Cennet \c{C}{\i}nar, Ege Erayd{\i}n, \"Ozcan \c{C}al{\i}\c{s}kan, Remziye Canbay, Sel\c{c}uk Bilir, Seval Ta\c{s}demir.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The positions of eight UBC OCs in the Milky Way Galaxy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Two-dimensional stellar-density distributions of the selected eight UBCs in equatorial coordinates. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed (blue) and model (red) star count histograms in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: RDP analysis of UBC 1143 as an example. (a) The observed stellar density profile as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cluster membership probability of stars in the eight OC directions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: VPD of the stellar population in the direction of UBC 1143. Gray dots represent the background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Positions of OC member stars satisfying 𝜎𝜛/𝜛 ≤ 0.2 in the 𝐺 versus 𝜛 diagrams. The red line shows the median trigonometric parallax of the sample, while the shaded regions denote the ±1𝜎 standard deviations. trigonometric parallaxes and their standard deviations are calculated for each OC, while the uncertainties reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the clusters’ mean proper motion components (panels a and b) and trigonometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the clusters’ mean astrophysical parameters with those from the literature: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: CMD of the selected UBC 1143 OC, as a representative example, illustrating the member star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Galactic orbits of the UBC 1143 are shown in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: 𝑅teo × log 𝑡 distribution of OCs. UBC OCs are shown with star symbols, while open circles represent the comparison sample of 158 OCs from Otto et al. (2026). The color scale indicates the metallicity of each OC, and the horizontal dashed line marks the Sun’s Galactocentric distance. To assess the physical significance of the distance offsets inferred from the observations, we compare our results with the … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radial displacement–age diagram of the clusters. The clusters analyzed in this study are shown with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The histograms of LFs for eight UBC OCs. The red dashed lines in the panels indicate the regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: PDMFs of the eight UBC OCs. Blue solid lines show the cluster PDMFs, while green dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive chemo-dynamical analysis of eight open clusters selected from the UBC catalog using Gaia DR3 data. These clusters are located at heliocentric distances of ~2-5 kpc, probing regions of the Galactic disk beyond the solar neighborhood. Cluster membership is determined using the UPMASK algorithm, while structural parameters are derived from radial density profiles through King model fitting combined with MCMC sampling. Their structural parameters reveal diverse internal configurations, from diffuse to moderately concentrated systems. Fundamental astrophysical parameters (extinction, distance, metallicity, and age) are obtained via Bayesian isochrone fitting based on PARSEC models. The clusters span a wide age range (~20 Myr to ~5 Gyr) and show a broad metallicity distribution (-0.34 <= [Fe/H] (dex) <= +0.25). Orbital analysis based on backward integrations shows that all clusters follow nearly circular orbits (e ~ 0.03-0.09) with low vertical distances from the Galactic plane (Zmax < 0.4 kpc), confirming their membership in the Galactic thin disk and dynamically cold kinematics. Comparison between inferred traceback orbital radii and present-day guiding radii indicates modest radial displacements, with Delta R < 0.5 kpc for the UBC sample. These offsets are consistent with mild radial redistribution expected for young, dynamically cold open clusters rather than strong radial migration. The results suggest that radial migration should be considered when interpreting the present-day spatial and chemical distribution of these clusters, although the inferred migration amplitudes remain moderate. Our results demonstrate that relatively distant open clusters can be characterized with high precision using Gaia DR3 data and that mild radial redistribution should be considered when interpreting the present-day distribution of stellar populations in the Galactic disk.

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.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a chemo-dynamical analysis of eight UBC open clusters at heliocentric distances ~2-5 kpc using Gaia DR3. Membership is assigned with UPMASK, structural parameters are obtained from King-model fits via MCMC, fundamental parameters (age, metallicity, distance, extinction) come from Bayesian PARSEC isochrone fitting, and orbital properties are derived from backward integrations. All clusters show nearly circular orbits (e = 0.03-0.09), Zmax < 0.4 kpc, and Delta R < 0.5 kpc between traceback radii and present-day guiding radii; the offsets are interpreted as mild radial redistribution rather than strong migration.

Significance. If the Delta R result survives quantitative error propagation, the work usefully extends open-cluster chemo-dynamics beyond the solar neighborhood and supplies observational limits on migration amplitudes for young, cold thin-disk populations. The sample’s age range (~20 Myr to ~5 Gyr) and metallicity span (-0.34 to +0.25 dex) add leverage for disk-evolution models, and the demonstration that Gaia DR3 can yield precise parameters at 2-5 kpc is a concrete strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Orbital analysis] Orbital analysis (abstract and corresponding section): the central claim that Delta R < 0.5 kpc indicates modest displacements is stated without reported uncertainties, Monte Carlo sampling of Gaia DR3 astrometry, or covariance propagation through the backward integrations. At 2-5 kpc distances and ages up to 5 Gyr, parallax and proper-motion errors can produce orbital-radius spreads comparable to or larger than 0.5 kpc; without this quantification the distinction between mild redistribution and stronger migration cannot be drawn from the data.
minor comments (1)
  1. The Galactic potential adopted for the orbital integrations is not named in the abstract or summary; specifying the model (e.g., axisymmetric or with bar/spiral components) would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback. The single major comment identifies a genuine gap in the orbital analysis. We agree that quantitative uncertainties on Delta R are required to support the claim of modest radial displacements and will revise the manuscript to include them.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Orbital analysis] Orbital analysis (abstract and corresponding section): the central claim that Delta R < 0.5 kpc indicates modest displacements is stated without reported uncertainties, Monte Carlo sampling of Gaia DR3 astrometry, or covariance propagation through the backward integrations. At 2-5 kpc distances and ages up to 5 Gyr, parallax and proper-motion errors can produce orbital-radius spreads comparable to or larger than 0.5 kpc; without this quantification the distinction between mild redistribution and stronger migration cannot be drawn from the data.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not report uncertainties on Delta R or describe Monte Carlo error propagation. In the revised version we will (i) draw 1000 realizations of each cluster's astrometry from the Gaia DR3 covariance matrix, (ii) recompute the backward-integrated orbits for each realization, and (iii) report the resulting median and 16th/84th-percentile ranges on Delta R, guiding radius, and eccentricity. This will allow a statistically grounded assessment of whether the observed offsets remain smaller than the typical error-induced spread. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard data-driven analysis with independent orbital calculations

full rationale

The paper derives cluster parameters and Delta R via standard pipelines (UPMASK membership, MCMC King fits, Bayesian PARSEC isochrones, backward orbital integration in a Galactic potential) applied to Gaia DR3 astrometry. Traceback radii and guiding radii are computed separately from the same input data; their difference is not forced by any fit or self-citation. No equations reduce the reported Delta R < 0.5 kpc to a quantity defined by the analysis itself. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the reliability of Gaia DR3 astrometry and photometry, the accuracy of the UPMASK algorithm for membership, the suitability of the King model for cluster structure, the validity of PARSEC isochrones for deriving age and metallicity, and the fidelity of the Galactic potential used in orbital integration. No new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond these standard tools.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption PARSEC stellar evolution models accurately reproduce the observed color-magnitude diagrams of these clusters for the derived ages and metallicities
    Invoked in the Bayesian isochrone fitting step to obtain extinction, distance, metallicity, and age.
  • domain assumption The Galactic gravitational potential used for backward integration is a sufficiently accurate representation of the Milky Way for tracing orbits over the clusters' lifetimes
    Required for the orbital analysis that yields e, Zmax, and Delta R values.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5912 in / 1574 out tokens · 57562 ms · 2026-07-01T04:21:18.384970+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    F., Yontan, T., et al

    Ak, T., Bostancı, Z. F., Yontan, T., et al. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 126

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 58

    Ak, T., Canbay, R., & Yontan, T. 2024, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 2, 58

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240052

    Akbaba, F., Ak, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240052

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    2021, Astrophysics and Space Science, 366, 68

    Akbulut, B., Ak, S., Yontan, T., et al. 2021, Astrophysics and Space Science, 366, 68

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    J., Goodwin, S

    Allison, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., Parker, R. J., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, L99

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 6 Barbá, R

    Banks, T., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., & Canbay, R. 2020, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 41, 6 Barbá, R. H., Roman-Lopes, A., Nilo Castellón, J. L., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A120

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    M., Soares, J., & Barbuy, B

    Bica, E., Dutra, C. M., Soares, J., & Barbuy, B. 2003, A&A, 404, 223

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    2010, Ap&SS, 326, 139

    Bilir, S., Güver, T., Khamitov, I., et al. 2010, Ap&SS, 326, 139

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 085002

    Bilir, S., Tas,demir, S., Eraydın, E., et al. 2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 085002

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    F., Yontan, T., et al

    Bilir, S., Bostancı, Z. F., Yontan, T., et al. 2016, Advances in Space Research, 58, 1900

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    2014, A&A, 569, A24 Bostancı, Z

    Borissova, J., Chené, A.-N., Ramírez Alegría, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A24 Bostancı, Z. F., Ak, T., Yontan, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 1095 Bostancı, Z. F., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2018, Ap&SS, 363, 143

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    2025, AJ, 169, 87

    Canbay, R., Ak, T., Bilir, S., Soydugan, F., & Eker, Z. 2025, AJ, 169, 87

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    2023, AJ, 165, 163

    Canbay, R., Bilir, S., Özdönmez, A., & Ak, T. 2023, AJ, 165, 163

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    2020, A&A, 633, A99

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Anders, F. 2020, A&A, 633, A99

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    2018, A&A, 618, A93

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Jordi, C., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A93

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    2022, A&A, 658, A14

    Carrera, R., Casamiquela, L., Carbajo-Hijarrubia, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A14

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    2019, A&A, 627, A35

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., Cantat-Gaudin, T., & Balaguer-Núñez, L. 2019, A&A, 627, A35

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    2018, A&A, 618, A59 32 Canbay et al

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A59 32 Canbay et al

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    2020, A&A, 635, A45

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A45

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Hot Degenerate Components in Blue Stragglers: A Multi-Wavelength SED Analysis of Nine Open Clusters with Swift/UVOT

    Castro-Ginard, A., Jordi, C., Luri, X., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A118 Çakmak, H., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2024, Astronomische Nachrichten, 345, e20240054 Çalışkan, Ö., & Gökmen, S. 2025, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 3, 13 Çınar, D. C., Bilir, S., Şahin, T., & Plevne, O. 2025, AJ, 170, 13 Çınar, D. C., Bisht, D., Bilir, S., Qin, S., & Saker, L. 2026a...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    2025, PASJ, 77, 1050

    Chi, H., Kong, L., Chen, Z., et al. 2025, PASJ, 77, 1050

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 115021

    Chi, H., Lai, Z., Wang, F., Li, Z., & Mei, Y. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 115021

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    2023b, ApJS, 265, 20 Coşkunoˇglu, B., Ak, S., Bilir, S., et al

    Chi, H., Wei, S., Wang, F., & Li, Z. 2023b, ApJS, 265, 20 Coşkunoˇglu, B., Ak, S., Bilir, S., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1237

    work page 2011

  28. [28]

    S., Lépine, J

    Dias, W. S., Lépine, J. R. D., & Alessi, B. S. 2002, A&A, 388, 168

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

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

    Dias, W. S., Monteir, H., Moitinho, A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 356

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    S., & Monteiro, H

    Dias, W. S., & Monteiro, H. 2025, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis., 61, 3

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    S., Monteiro, H., Alessi, B., Lépine, J

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Alessi, B., Lépine, J. R. D., & Alves, R. P. 2026, AJ, 171, 24

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    S., Monteiro, H., & Assafin, M

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., & Assafin, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 5184

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    S., Monteiro, H., Caetano, T

    Dias, W. S., Monteiro, H., Caetano, T. C., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A79

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    M., Cunha, K., et al

    Donor, J., Frinchaboy, P. M., Cunha, K., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 199

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    1996, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’96) (AAAI Press), 226

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. 1996, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD’96) (AAAI Press), 226

    work page 1996

  36. [36]

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

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Frankel, N., Rix, H.-W., Ting, Y.-S., Ness, M., & Hogg, D. W. 2018, ApJ, 865, 96

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    2020, ApJ, 896, 15

    Frankel, N., Sanders, J., Ting, Y.-S., & Rix, H.-W. 2020, ApJ, 896, 15

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Friel, E. D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 381 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1

    work page 1995

  40. [40]

    Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical Science, 7, 457

    work page 1992

  41. [41]

    2023, AJ, 166, 263

    Gokmen, S., Eker, Z., Yontan, T., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 263

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    A., Elsanhoury, W

    Haroon, A. A., Elsanhoury, W. H., Elkholy, E. A., Saad, A. S., & Çınar, D. C. 2025, Phys. Scr, 100, 055006

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    Hernquist, L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 359

    work page 1990

  44. [44]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2021, A&A, 646, A104

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2023, A&A, 673, A114

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    L., & Reffert, S

    Hunt, E. L., & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    R., Friel, E

    Jacobson, H. R., Friel, E. D., Jílková, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A37

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    C., Deepak, & Malhotra, S

    Joshi, Y. C., Deepak, & Malhotra, S. 2024, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 11, 1348321 Chemo-dynamical Analysis of Eight UBC Open Clusters 33

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 95 Karagöz, H., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al

    Karaali, S., Bilir, S., Ak, S., Yaz, E., & Coşkunoğlu, B. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 28, 95 Karagöz, H., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 149

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Röser, S., Schilbach, E., & Scholz, R. D. 2005, A&A, 438, 1163

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., Röser, S., & Scholz, R. D. 2012, A&A, 543, A156

    work page 2012

  52. [52]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., Schilbach, E., Röser, S., & Scholz, R. D. 2013, A&A, 558, A53

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    1962, AJ, 67, 471 Koç, S., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al

    King, I. 1962, AJ, 67, 471 Koç, S., Yontan, T., Bilir, S., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 191

    work page 1962

  54. [54]

    2014, A&A, 561, A57

    Krone-Martins, A., & Moitinho, A. 2014, A&A, 561, A57

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Maschberger, T., Moeckel, N., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 841

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    J., & Lada, E

    Lada, C. J., & Lada, E. A. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 57

    work page 2003

  57. [57]

    A., Hernández, J., et al

    Lindegren, L., Klioner, S. A., Hernández, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A2

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 32

    Liu, L., & Pang, X. 2019, ApJS, 245, 32

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    J., Robin, A

    Marshall, D. J., Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., Schultheis, M., & Picaud, S. 2006, A&A, 453, 635

    work page 2006

  60. [60]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 112

    Minchev, I., & Famaey, B. 2010, ApJ, 722, 112

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645

    Minchev, I., Anders, F., Recio-Blanco, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 1645

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    W., Emerson, J

    Minniti, D., Lucas, P. W., Emerson, J. P., et al. 2010, New Astron., 15, 433

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    1975, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 27, 533

    Miyamoto, M., & Nagai, R. 1975, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 27, 533

    work page 1975

  64. [64]

    R., & Cuillandre, J.-C

    Moraux, E., Bouvier, J., Stauffer, J. R., & Cuillandre, J.-C. 2003, A&A, 400, 891

    work page 2003

  65. [65]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

    work page 1996

  66. [66]

    A., Çakmak, H., Michel, R., & Karataş, Y

    Netopil, M., Oralhan, İ. A., Çakmak, H., Michel, R., & Karataş, Y. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 421 Önal Tas,, Ö., Bilir, S., & Plevne, O. 2018, Ap&SS, 363, 35

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    M., Frinchaboy, P

    Otto, J. M., Frinchaboy, P. M., Myers, N. R., et al. 2026, AJ, 171, 91

    work page 2026

  68. [68]

    2015, PASA, 32, e043

    Plevne, O., Ak, T., Karaali, S., et al. 2015, PASA, 32, e043

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    2023, ApJS, 265, 12

    Qin, S., Zhong, J., Tang, T., & Chen, L. 2023, ApJS, 265, 12

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    C., Reylé, C., Derrière, S., & Picaud, S

    Robin, A. C., Reylé, C., Derrière, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, A&A, 409, 523 Roškar, R., Debattista, V. P., Quinn, T. R., Stinson, G. S., & Wadsley, J. 2008, ApJ, 684, L79

    work page 2003

  71. [71]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Schönrich, R., & Binney, J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 203

    work page 1955

  72. [72]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093, 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07093

    Schuster, W. J., Moreno, E., Nissen, P. E., & Pichardo, B. 2012, A&A, 538, A21 SDSS Collaboration, Adamane Pallathadka, G., Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07093

    work page arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    A., & Binney, J

    Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785

    work page 2002

  74. [74]

    H., Ann, H

    Sim, G., Lee, S. H., Ann, H. B., & Kim, S. 2019, Journal of Korean Astronomical Society, 52, 145

    work page 2019

  75. [75]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    work page 2006

  76. [76]

    2018, A&A, 619, A155

    Soubiran, C., Cantat-Gaudin, T., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A155

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    2022, Universe, 8, 87

    Spina, L., Magrini, L., & Cunha, K. 2022, Universe, 8, 87

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Spitzer, Jr., L., & Hart, M. H. 1971, ApJ, 164, 399 Taşdemir, S., Çınar, D. C., Canbay, R., et al. 2025, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 3, 1 34 Canbay et al. Taşdemir, S., Elsanhoury, W. H., Çınar, D. C., Haroon, A., & Bilir, S. 2026, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 26, 045016 Taşdemir, S., & Yontan, T. 2023, Physics and Astronomy Reports, 1, 1 Ta...

    work page 1971

  79. [79]

    2022, A&A, 659, A95 Tunçel Güçtekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., & Ak, S

    Tsantaki, M., Pancino, E., Marrese, P., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A95 Tunçel Güçtekin, S., Bilir, S., Karaali, S., Plevne, O., & Ak, S. 2019, Advances in Space Research, 63, 1360

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    F., et al

    Yontan, T., Bilir, S., Bostancı, Z. F., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 355, 267

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.