Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Multiwavelength Period-Luminosity and Period-Luminosity-Color relations at maximum-light for Mira variables in the Magellanic Clouds

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Maximum-light measurements of Mira variables produce period-luminosity relations with up to 30% less scatter than mean-light relations, offering a more precise distance indicator.

desk verdict Solid multiwavelength extension of the old max-light Mira PLR result; the top-decile definition deserves a synthetic test, but the core scatter reduction is likely real. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01795 v1 pith:AN6Y3LUR submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Anupam Bhardwaj , Shashi Kanbur , Shiyuan He , Marina Rejkuba , Noriyuki Matsunaga , Richard de Grijs , Kaushal Sharma , Harinder P. Singh
show 3 more authors
Tapas Baug Chow-Choong Ngeow Jia-Yu Ou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords Miravariablesperiod-luminosityrelationmaximumlightMagellanicCloudsdistancescaleasymptoticgiantbranchstellarpulsationmolecularbands
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

Maximum-light observations of Mira variables produce period-luminosity and period-luminosity-color relations with up to about 30% less scatter than their mean-light counterparts at optical wavelengths. The paper also shows that individual Miras vary less from cycle to cycle at maximum light than at minimum light, and that this stability likely arises because molecular absorption bands are weaker when the star is warmest. If these results hold, maximum-light measurements could serve as a simpler and more precise distance indicator for galaxies, and the paper demonstrates this by deriving a relative Magellanic Clouds distance modulus of 0.48 ± 0.08 mag with smaller uncertainty than mean-light relations.

What carries the argument

The key operational object is the maximum-light magnitude, defined as the mean of all observed epochs within the brightest ten percent of the peak-to-peak amplitude of each light curve in each band. To make simultaneous colors, the paper fits a Gaussian-process regression to the well-sampled I-band light curve and predicts the I-band magnitude at the epoch of each V-band observation. This phase-matched photometry, combined with the ten-percentile maximum-light definition, is what produces tighter PL and PLC relations. The physical mechanism invoked is phase-dependent molecular absorption: at maximum light the star is hottest, TiO and water-vapor bands are weak, and the observed brightness is therefore less sensitive to temperature and layer variations that inflate scatter at fainter phases.

What would settle it

Recompute the maximum-light relations using an independent estimator of the true light-curve peak—for instance, the maximum of a Gaussian-process or Fourier fit, or the mean over a fixed phase window—and compare the dispersions with the ten-percentile results. If the up-to-30% scatter reduction disappears or diminishes substantially, the paper's central claim is an artifact of the chosen maximum-light definition. Alternatively, use continuous high-cadence photometry (as from a space telescope) to measure the rms scatter of maximum-light magnitudes over many tens of cycles; if that scatter is not smaller than the scatter at minimum light, the stability claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the empirical Period-Luminosity (PL) and Period-Luminosity-Color (PLC) relations for Mira variables are intrinsically tighter when evaluated at maximum light rather than at mean light. Using hundreds of oxygen-rich Miras in the Large Magellanic Cloud and smaller samples in the Small Magellanic Cloud, the paper measures dispersions that are up to roughly 30% smaller at maximum light in optical bands, with comparable or slightly smaller dispersions in the near-infrared. The paper further demonstrates that maximum-light magnitudes are more stable over multiple pulsation cycles than minimum-light magnitudes, and that maximum-light spectra show strong Balmer emission lines with weak TiO absorption, consistent with reduced molecular-band sensitivity at the warmest phase. On this basis, the paper locates a kink in the oxygen-rich Mira PL relation at about 300 days in the optical, shifting to about 350 days in the near-infrared, and derives a relative distance modulus of 0.48 ± 0.08 mag between the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds from maximum-light relations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the operational definition of maximum light as the mean of the brightest ten percent of the peak-to-peak amplitude; if the top decile of epochs is a narrower range by construction (due to sampling or light-curve shape), the measured scatter reduction and cycle-to-cycle stability could be partly artifacts of that definition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Maximum-light Mira PL/PLC relations can serve as a distance indicator with statistical precision competitive with classical Cepheids, even in optical bands where mean-light Mira relations are notoriously scattered.
  • Because maximum-light magnitudes are stable across cycles, a single well-timed epoch near maximum could be sufficient to place a Mira on the relation, dramatically reducing the observing time needed for distance work.
  • The reported tightenings predict that the color term in the PLC relation becomes smaller and more physically interpretable at maximum light, offering a clean test for stellar atmosphere models.
  • The kink at 300–350 days gives an empirical anchor for when hot bottom burning begins to dominate in intermediate-mass AGB stars, which pulsation models can now be required to reproduce.
  • The smaller statistical uncertainty in the LMC–SMC distance modulus (0.48 ± 0.08 mag) suggests that maximum-light Mira relations could help arbitrate between conflicting distance estimates to the Magellanic Clouds and beyond.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the molecular-band explanation is correct, the scatter reduction should strengthen toward bluer bands and weaken toward the infrared, a gradient that could be tested with more extensive near- and mid-infrared time series.
  • The same maximum-light logic may apply to other large-amplitude pulsators, such as semi-regular variables or red supergiants, whose light curves also modulate via molecule formation; this would extend the method beyond Miras.
  • A critical check the paper does not perform is to vary the ten-percentile window (e.g., top 5% or 20%) and the required number of epochs; if the scatter reduction is robust to those choices, the effect is more likely physical than procedural.
  • If maximum-light stability holds in the Milky Way and in external galaxies with different metallicities, Mira maximum-light relations could become a backbone of the local distance ladder that does not depend on full phase coverage of each star.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies Mira variables in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds using OGLE-III optical light curves, Gaia DR2 photometry, NIR data from Yuan et al. (2017) and Ita et al. (2018), and Kepler/LAMOST observations for a small sample. The authors define maximum-light magnitude as the mean of all epochs within the brightest 10% of the peak-to-peak amplitude, and derive Period-Luminosity and Period-Luminosity-Color relations at mean-, maximum-, and minimum-light. They report that the maximum-light relations have up to ~30% smaller scatter than the mean-light relations at optical wavelengths, that individual Miras show smaller cycle-to-cycle variations at maximum than at minimum light, and that spectra show weaker TiO bands at maximum light. They also report a break period near 300 days in the optical, shifting to ~350 days in the near-infrared, and derive a relative LMC-SMC distance modulus of Delta(mu) = 0.48 +/- 0.08 mag from maximum-light relations.

Significance. If the claimed effect is real, maximum-light Mira relations could provide an empirical distance indicator with smaller scatter than mean-light relations, and the apparent stability of maximum-light magnitudes would be a useful constraint on Mira atmosphere models. The paper makes good use of multiple independent public datasets and includes a robustness check using the single minimum numerical magnitude in the I-band. The multiwavelength comparison and the spectroscopic evidence from LAMOST are valuable. However, the central quantitative claims rely on an operational maximum-light definition whose statistical behavior is not fully controlled, and the cycle-to-cycle stability analysis is not described with enough detail to be reproduced. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, maximum-light definition] The maximum-light magnitude is defined as the mean of all epochs within the brightest 10% of the peak-to-peak amplitude. This is a truncated average that restricts the phase window by construction, so a reduction in dispersion relative to the phase-averaged mean is expected even if the intrinsic cycle-to-cycle dispersion is unchanged. The robustness check in Section 3.1 using the single minimum numerical I-band magnitude removes the averaging effect but retains the phase-selection effect and is reported only for the I-band PLR. No analogous test is shown for the V-band, the Gaia-band relations, or the NIR relations. The authors should add a synthetic light-curve injection test that preserves the actual sampling patterns and known cycle-to-cycle scatter, reporting the expected dispersion reduction under the null hypothesis that maximum light is no more stable than mean light.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Figure 9] The claim that individual Miras have more stable maximum-light magnitudes over multiple pulsation cycles is central to the physical interpretation, but the methodology is not described. The text does not state how individual cycles are segmented, how the per-cycle maximum, minimum, and median magnitudes are estimated from the GPR predictions, how many cycles are used for each star, or how the criterion that the time coverage is equivalent to the period is applied. Without this information, Figure 9 cannot be reproduced and the comparison conflates the adopted maximum-light estimator with true cycle-to-cycle stability. The authors should specify the algorithm in detail and provide per-cycle statistics for at least the Kepler sample.
  3. [Section 3.1, F-test paragraph] The F-test is used to establish that the dispersion reduction is statistically significant, but it is applied after iterative 3-sigma outlier rejection and the final sample sizes differ between the mean- and maximum-light fits (Table 2, e.g., N_f = 440 vs 441 and 438 vs 439). The F distribution is not the correct null distribution for variance ratios of residuals from data-dependent clipped fits with different retained samples. A permutation or bootstrap test that applies the identical clipping procedure to each resample should be used to confirm that p < 0.05 is not an artifact of the clipping algorithm or of sample-size differences.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Table 6] The relative distance modulus Delta(mu) = 0.48 +/- 0.08 mag is obtained by combining three band estimates that differ by more than their formal errors: 0.45 +/- 0.08 (optical PLC), 0.46 +/- 0.08 (J), and 0.53 +/- 0.07 (K). The SMC's substantial line-of-sight depth and any metallicity-dependent differences in the color coefficients are not propagated into the quoted uncertainty. The statement that maximum-light relations provide a smaller statistical uncertainty is formally supported, but the improvement in precision is not demonstrated to survive these systematic uncertainties. The authors should either include these systematics in a combined uncertainty or restrict the claim to statistical precision only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, final sentence of the F-test paragraph] The phrase "smaller than 0.05 dex" should read "smaller than 0.05" or "p < 0.05"; dex is a logarithmic unit and is not appropriate for a probability.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The vertical dotted lines are described as showing V- and I-band magnitudes at the same epoch, but the figure would benefit from a legend or labels distinguishing the V and I magnitudes and the shaded ten-percentile region.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Tables 4-5] The abstract and conclusions state that maximum-light relations show up to 30% smaller scatter, but the NIR results in Table 5 show comparable or slightly larger scatter at maximum light in the J band (sigma = 0.15 mean vs 0.17 max for the quadratic fit). The wording should clearly restrict the 30% claim to optical wavelengths.
  4. [Section 4.2] The selection of Kepler Mira candidates from Banyai et al. (2013) and the criterion for calling a star a Mira candidate should be stated explicitly, since only two example stars are shown and the reader cannot assess how representative they are.
  5. [Section 2, extinction corrections] The paper says the median E(V-I) is taken when the reddening map does not provide a value within 2 arcsec, but it does not state how many stars are affected by this substitution; a brief statement of the sample fraction would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the max-light PL/PLC scatter comparison is an empirical measurement against public OGLE/Gaia/Kepler data, and the max-light definition is a measurement choice backed by a minimum-magnitude robustness check.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that max-light PL and PLC relations have up to about 30% smaller scatter than their mean-light counterparts, is not derived from any fitted parameter or self-citation. The max-light magnitude is defined operationally as the mean of all epochs within the brightest ten percent of the peak-to-peak amplitude, but this is a measurement definition applied to public light curves, not a parameter fitted to the relations whose scatter is then reported. The paper explicitly tests this definition by using the single minimum numerical I-band magnitude as an alternative max-light estimate and finds similar dispersion (Section 3.1), which prevents the scatter reduction from reducing to the truncation-by-construction concern. Independent Kepler high-cadence photometry is also used to show cycle-to-cycle stability at maximum light (Section 4.1), so the central empirical result is externally benchmarked rather than self-referential. The GPR model of He et al. (2016) and the NIR templates of Yuan et al. (2017) involve overlapping authorship, but they are used as data-processing tools or secondary data sources rather than as the logical basis for the optical scatter comparison; the conclusion does not require accepting any unverified claim from those citations. The F-tests and break-period tests are standard statistical comparisons, not equations that assume the result. No equation in the paper equates the predicted max-light relation to its inputs by construction, and no fitted constant is renamed as a prediction. The reader's concern about the top-decile definition is a legitimate robustness/correctness question, but it is not circularity because the definition is not fitted to the target relation and is probed by an independent minimum-magnitude check. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and empirical, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical comparison, so its assumptions are mostly about data quality and operational definitions. The main free choices are the ten-percentile maximum-light definition, the break period, the color coefficients, and the outlier clipping threshold. There are no invented physical entities.

free parameters (4)
  • Break period Pb = 300 days (optical), ~350 days (NIR)
    Selected via SIC, random-walk, testimator, and F-test on the same LMC data; used in all two-slope fits.
  • Max-light percentile threshold = 10%
    Chosen by hand; determines all max-light magnitudes and the cycle-to-cycle stability comparison.
  • Color coefficient c in PLC relations = Varies, e.g., 0.62 for LMC O-rich I-band
    Regression coefficient fitted to each PLC relation; contributes to quoted dispersions.
  • Outlier clipping threshold = 3 sigma
    Chosen by hand; iterative rejection changes final sample sizes and dispersions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The GPR model of He et al. (2016) can simultaneously model periodic and stochastic signals in Mira light curves.
    Used in Section 2 to estimate I-band magnitudes at V-band epochs; if the model is biased, same-epoch colors and max-light estimates could be too.
  • domain assumption OGLE-III O/C-rich classifications are accurate.
    The division into O-rich and C-rich samples is central to all PL/PLC fits; classification errors would mix relations and affect slopes and scatter.
  • domain assumption Reddening maps (Haschke et al. 2011) and the Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law apply to these sight lines.
    Extinction corrections are applied to fitted magnitudes; residual reddening would inflate scatter.
  • domain assumption The LMC distance modulus from Pietrzynski et al. (2019) is used for absolute calibration of Galactic Center distances.
    External input used only in Section 5.3, not in the main LMC-SMC comparison.
  • domain assumption Most Miras toward the Galactic Center are O-rich.
    Stated in Section 5.3: 'We assume that most of these Miras are O-rich as C-rich Miras are rare towards the central region of the Galaxy.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiwavelength Period-Luminosity and Period-Luminosity-Color relations at maximum-light for Mira variables in the Magellanic Clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AN6Y3LUR

@misc{pith2026190801795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiwavelength Period-Luminosity and Period-Luminosity-Color relations at maximum-light for Mira variables in the Magellanic Clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AN6Y3LUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01795}
}
abstract

We present Period-Luminosity and Period-Luminosity-Color relations at maximum-light for Mira variables in the Magellanic Clouds using time-series data from the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE-III) and {\it Gaia} data release 2. The maximum-light relations exhibit a scatter typically up to $\sim 30\%$ smaller than their mean-light counterparts. The apparent magnitudes of Oxygen-rich Miras at maximum-light display significantly smaller cycle-to-cycle variations than at minimum-light. High-precision photometric data for Kepler Mira candidates also exhibit stable magnitude variations at the brightest epochs while their multi-epoch spectra display strong Balmer emission lines and weak molecular absorption at maximum-light. The stability of maximum-light magnitudes for Miras possibly occurs due to the decrease in the sensitivity to molecular bands at their warmest phase. At near-infrared wavelengths, the Period-Luminosity relations of Miras display similar dispersion at mean and maximum-light with limited time-series data in the Magellanic Clouds. A kink in the Oxygen-rich Mira Period-Luminosity relations is found at 300 days in the $VI$-bands which shifts to longer-periods ($\sim 350$~days) at near-infrared wavelengths. Oxygen-rich Mira Period-Luminosity relations at maximum-light provide a relative distance modulus, $\Delta \mu = 0.48\pm0.08$~mag, between the Magellanic Clouds with a smaller statistical uncertainty than the mean-light relations. The maximum-light properties of Miras can be very useful for stellar atmosphere modeling and distance scale studies provided their stability and the universality can be established in other stellar environments in the era of extremely large telescopes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01795 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of Gaussian process regression model fitting to observed I-band light curves of Miras in the Magel￾lanic Clouds. The model light curve (grey line) is used to es￾timate the I-band magnitude corresponding to each V -band observation. Vertical dotted lines show the V and I-band magnitude at the same epoch. Horizontal shaded lines rep￾resent the ten-percentile range used to estimate max-light magnitudes in V an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PL and PLC relations for Miras at mean- (top) and max-light (bottom) in the LMC using OGLE-III data. The solid/dashed line displays the best-fitting quadratic/non-linear regression model. In case of a two-slope linear regression, the break period is adopted at 300 days. Small cyan circles and grey dots are outliers excluded from the O- and C-rich regression analysis, respectively. In the case of PLC relations, the c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PC relations for Miras at mean- (top) and max￾light (bottom) in the LMC using OGLE-III data. The solid line represents the best-fitting non-linear regression model with a break period at 300 days. Symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PC relations for Miras at mean- (top) and max￾light (bottom) in the LMC using Gaia data. The solid line represents a best-fitting non-linear regression model with a break period at 300 days. Symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top panel: Comparison of the scatter in me￾dian and max-light magnitudes obtained over multiple pul￾sation cycles for Kepler Mira candidates (red) and for OGLE sources. Bottom panel: As above but versus min-light mag￾nitudes. two Miras. All spectra display TiO molecula…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top panels: Light curves of two Kepler Mira candidates in the KP (red plus symbols) and V (blue circles) bands. The solid line represents the offset Kepler light curve to fill in the missing epochs, which does not fit V -band epochs perfectly because of unaccounted ph…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left panel: PL and PLC relations for Miras in the LMC using data from Yuan et al. (2017). The solid/dashed line shows the best-fitting quadratic/non-linear regression model. For two-slope linear regression, a kink in the period is adopted at 300 days. Triangles and ci…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Optical PLC and NIR PLR for O-rich Miras in the Magellanic Clouds. The dashed line indicates the fixed-LMC PL/PLC used to estimate the relative distance modulus between the Magellanic Clouds. ras in the LMC are taken from Yuan et al. (2017) and the PLRs are restricted…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Bedding, T

    B´ anyai, E., Kiss, L. L., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1576

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    2017, A&A, 605, A100

    Bhardwaj, A., Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 605, A100

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2015, A&A, 575, A105

    Bladh, S., H¨ ofner, S., Aringer, B., & Eriksson, K. 2015, A&A, 575, A105

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Bowen, G. H. 1988, ApJ, 329, 299

    1988

  5. [5]

    L., Srinivasan, S., van Loon, J

    Boyer, M. L., Srinivasan, S., van Loon, J. T., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 103

    2011

  6. [6]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  7. [7]

    W., & Luttermoser, D

    Castelaz, M. W., & Luttermoser, D. G. 1997, AJ, 114, 1584

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Piontek, R. A. 2000, AJ, 120, 2627

    work page 2000

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    2018, A&A, 617, L1

    Chiavassa, A., Freytag, B., & Schultheis, M. 2018, A&A, 617, L1

    2018

  2. [10]

    Code, A. D. 1947, ApJ, 106, 309

    1947

  3. [11]

    2012, RAA, 12, 1197 de Grijs, R., & Bono, G

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, RAA, 12, 1197 de Grijs, R., & Bono, G. 2015, AJ, 149, 179 de Grijs, R., Wicker, J. E., & Bono, G. 2014, AJ, 147, 122 D´ ek´ any, I., Minniti, D., Catelan, M., et al. 2013, ApJL, 776, L19

    2012

  4. [12]

    W., Glass, I

    Feast, M. W., Glass, I. S., Whitelock, P. A., & Catchpole, R. M. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 375

    1989

  5. [13]

    J., Hawley, S

    Fraser, O. J., Hawley, S. L., & Cook, K. H. 2008, AJ, 136, 1242

    2008

  6. [14]

    2017, A&A, 600, A137 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Freytag, B., Liljegren, S., & H¨ ofner, S. 2017, A&A, 600, A137 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2017

  7. [15]

    1988, A&A, 192, 206

    Gillet, D. 1988, A&A, 192, 206

    1988

  8. [16]

    S., & Feast, M

    Glass, I. S., & Feast, M. W. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 245

    1982

  9. [17]

    S., & Lloyd Evans, T

    Glass, I. S., & Lloyd Evans, T. 1981, Nature, 291, 303

    1981

  10. [18]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., Zijlstra, A. A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403 Mira variables at maximum-light 17

    2017

  11. [19]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. T., G´ omez, J. F., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3835

    2018

  12. [20]

    R., Boyer, M

    Goldman, S. R., Boyer, M. L., McQuinn, K. B. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 877, 49 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, L10

    2019

  13. [21]

    K., & Duffau, S

    Haschke, R., Grebel, E. K., & Duffau, S. 2011, AJ, 141, 158

    2011

  14. [22]

    Z., Long, J., & Macri, L

    He, S., Yuan, W., Huang, J. Z., Long, J., & Macri, L. M. 2016, AJ, 152, 164 H¨ ofner, S., & Olofsson, H. 2018, A&A Rv, 26, 1

    2016

  15. [23]

    D., Riess, A

    Huang, C. D., Riess, A. G., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, 67

    2018

  16. [24]

    J., Scholz, M., & Wood, P

    Ireland, M. J., Scholz, M., & Wood, P. R. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 114

    2011

  17. [25]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, 2345

    Ita, Y., & Matsunaga, N. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2345

    2011

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 4206

    Ita, Y., Matsunaga, N., Tanab´ e, T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4206

    2018

  19. [27]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145

    2018

  20. [28]

    Joy, A. H. 1926, ApJ, 63, doi:10.1086/142979 —. 1947, ApJ, 106, 288 —. 1954, ApJS, 1, 39

    1926 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Hendry, M

    Kanbur, S. M., Hendry, M. A., & Clarke, D. 1997, MNRAS, 289, 428

    1997

  22. [30]

    M., Ngeow, C., Nanthakumar, A., & Stevens, R

    Kanbur, S. M., Ngeow, C., Nanthakumar, A., & Stevens, R. 2007, PASP, 119, 512

    2007

  23. [31]

    Karakas, A. I. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 347

    2014

  24. [32]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 632

    Lacour, S., Thi´ ebaut, E., Perrin, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 632

    2009

  25. [33]

    2018, A&A, 616, L13

    Lebzelter, T., Mowlavi, N., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, L13

    2018

  26. [34]

    2018, A&A, 619, A47 Lloyd Evans, T

    Liljegren, S., H¨ ofner, S., Freytag, B., & Bladh, S. 2018, A&A, 619, A47 Lloyd Evans, T. 1971, in The Magellanic Clouds, ed. A. B

    2018

  27. [35]

    G., & Bowen, G

    Luttermoser, D. G., & Bowen, G. H. 1992, in Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. M. S. Giampapa & J. A. Bookbinder, Vol. 26, 558

    1992

  28. [36]

    M., Ngeow, C.-C., Kanbur, S

    Macri, L. M., Ngeow, C.-C., Kanbur, S. M., Mahzooni, S., & Smitka, M. T. 2015, AJ, 149, 117

    2015

  29. [37]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488

    2013

  30. [38]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 77

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 77

    2017

  31. [39]

    2012, APSS, 341, 93

    Matsunaga, N. 2012, APSS, 341, 93

    2012

  32. [40]

    W., & Menzies, J

    Matsunaga, N., Feast, M. W., & Menzies, J. W. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 933

    2009

  33. [41]

    W., Feast, M

    Matsunaga, N., Menzies, J. W., Feast, M. W., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 4949

    2017

  34. [42]

    T., Dupree, A

    McDonald, I., van Loon, J. T., Dupree, A. K., & Boyer, M. L. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1711

    2010

  35. [43]

    W., Whitelock, P

    Menzies, J. W., Whitelock, P. A., & Feast, M. W. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 910

    2015

  36. [44]

    Merrill, P. W. 1940, Spectra of long-period variable stars (Chicago, Ill., The University of Chicago press [1940])

    1940

  37. [45]

    2018, A&A, 618, A58

    Mowlavi, N., Lecoeur-Ta¨ ıbi, I., Lebzelter, T., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A58

    2018

  38. [46]

    2018, MNRAS, 473, 3131

    Muraveva, T., Subramanian, S., Clementini, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 3131

    2018

  39. [47]

    2006, ApJ, 638, 839 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al

    Nishiyama, S., Nagata, T., Kusakabe, N., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 839 Pietrzy´ nski, G., Graczyk, D., Gallenne, A., et al. 2019, Nature, 567, 200 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2018, ArXiv, 1807.06209

    2006 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J., & Goldston, J

    Reid, M. J., & Goldston, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 568, 931

    2002

  41. [49]

    2004, A&A, 413, 903

    Rejkuba, M. 2004, A&A, 413, 903

    2004

  42. [50]

    2003, A&A, 400, 319

    Sedlmayr, E. 2003, A&A, 400, 319

    2003

  43. [51]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 1195

    Riebel, D., Meixner, M., Fraser, O., et al. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1195

    2010

  44. [52]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 85

    Scolnic, D. 2019, ApJ, 876, 85

    2019

  45. [53]

    G., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Macri, L. M., Hoffmann, S. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 56

    2016

  46. [54]

    J., & Boothroyd, A

    Sackmann, I. J., & Boothroyd, A. I. 1992, ApJL, 392, L71

    1992

  47. [55]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  48. [56]

    R., Kanbur, S

    Simon, N. R., Kanbur, S. M., & Mihalas, D. 1993, ApJ, 414, 310

    1993

  49. [57]

    C., Matsunaga, N., Matsuura, M., et al

    Sloan, G. C., Matsunaga, N., Matsuura, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 719, 1274

    2010

  50. [58]

    C., Matsuura, M., Lagadec, E., et al

    Sloan, G. C., Matsuura, M., Lagadec, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 140

    2012

  51. [59]

    C., Kraemer, K

    Sloan, G. C., Kraemer, K. E., McDonald, I., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 44 Soszy´ nski, I., Wood, P. R., & Udalski, A. 2013a, ApJ, 779, 167

    2016

  52. [60]

    A., Udalski, A., et al

    Soszynski, I., Dziembowski, W. A., Udalski, A., et al. 2007, Acta Astron., 57, 201 Soszy´ nski, I., Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., et al. 2009, Acta Astron., 59, 239 —. 2011, Acta Astron., 61, 217 —. 2013b, Acta Astron., 63, 21

    2007

  53. [61]

    2015, A&A, 573, A135 18 Bhardwaj A

    Subramanian, S., & Subramaniam, A. 2015, A&A, 573, A135 18 Bhardwaj A. et al

    2015

  54. [62]

    R., Creech-Eakman, M

    Thompson, R. R., Creech-Eakman, M. J., & van Belle, G. T. 2002, ApJ, 577, 447

    2002

  55. [63]

    R., Montalb´ an, J., et al

    Trabucchi, M., Wood, P. R., Montalb´ an, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 139 —. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 929

    2017

  56. [64]

    Vassiliadis, E., & Wood, P. R. 1993, ApJ, 413, 641

    1993

  57. [65]

    Whitelock, P. A. 2012, APSS, 341, 123

    2012

  58. [66]

    A., Feast, M

    Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., & Van Leeuwen, F. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 313

    2008

  59. [67]

    A., Feast, M

    Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., van Loon, J. T., & Zijlstra, A. A. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 86

    2003

  60. [68]

    2016, A&A, 587, A12

    Wittkowski, M., Chiavassa, A., Freytag, B., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A12

    2016

  61. [69]

    2018, A&A, 613, L7

    Wittkowski, M., Rau, G., Chiavassa, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, L7

    2018

  62. [70]

    Wood, P. R. 2000, PASA, 17, 18 —. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 3829

    2000

  63. [71]

    R., Alcock, C., Allsman, R

    Wood, P. R., Alcock, C., Allsman, R. A., et al. 1999, in Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, ed. T. Le Bertre, A. Lebre, & C. Waelkens, Vol. 191, 151

    1999

  64. [72]

    2017, ApJS, 232, 16

    Yao, Y., Liu, C., Deng, L., de Grijs, R., & Matsunaga, N. 2017, ApJS, 232, 16

    2017

  65. [73]

    M., He, S., et al

    Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., He, S., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 149

    2017

  66. [74]

    M., Javadi, A., Lin, Z., & Huang, J

    Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., Javadi, A., Lin, Z., & Huang, J. Z. 2018, AJ, 156, 112

    2018

  67. [75]

    2012, RAA, 12, 723

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., Jing, Y.-P., & Deng, L.-C. 2012, RAA, 12, 723

    2012

Pith tools

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