Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

A Search for Variable Stars in the Globular Cluster M4 with K2

T0 review · 3 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 Continuous 78-day K2 observations of M4, the nearest globular cluster, produce 4554 light curves and reveal 66 variable stars among cluster members, 52 of them new.

desk verdict A solid, honest survey paper that delivers the first general variable-star catalog from a K2 cluster superstamp with public light curves; the strong detections are credible, but the low-amplitude tail needs quantitative false-alarm control. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02373 v1 pith:CQO7KQ3H submitted 2019-08-06 astro-ph.SR

Joshua J. Wallace , Joel D. Hartman , Gaspar A. Bakos , Waqas Bhatti This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords globularclustersvariablestarsK2missionRRLyraeeclipsingbinariesasteroseismologyimagesubtractionM4
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 claims that the K2 superstamp of the globular cluster M4 can be turned into a high-precision variable-star catalog despite Kepler's coarse 4-arcsecond pixels. Using image subtraction and systematics correction, the authors produce light curves for 4554 sources with $9

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is a multi-stage photometric and classification pipeline. Stitched K2 target-pixel images are subtracted against a median reference using image subtraction to suppress crowding; the residuals are corrected for spacecraft roll via position decorrelation and cleaned of common trends with a trend filter. Periodicity is searched with three algorithms (generalized Lomb-Scargle, phase dispersion minimization, and box-fitting least squares), and candidate periods are accepted only if their periodogram signal-to-noise exceeds period-dependent thresholds set empirically by comparing known variables and injected transits against noise. A Fourier-amplitude comparison identifies which star in a 12-pixel neighborhood actually produces the signal, with a recursion that unmixes blended variables, and the surviving candidates are vetted by eye. The final periods and uncertainties come from fine-grid searches with bootstrap resampling.

What would settle it

Take the public light curves, remove all cadences within one resaturation period of each thruster event, and re-run the period search; if the 1.959-day signal in W4490 and the other near-1.962-day candidates disappear, the detections are systematics rather than stellar variability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is a diverse variable-star sample extracted from continuous 78-day K2 monitoring of M4: 66 cluster-member variables (52 new), 24 non-member variables (20 new), 57 cluster-member suspected variables, 10 non-member suspected variables, and four variables of ambiguous membership. The most striking results are the horizontal-branch oscillators: six stars outside the instability strip and one inside it show asteroseismic variability at amplitudes near or below 1 mmag, extending a continuum between RR Lyrae pulsators and the previously reported millimagnitude RR Lyrae candidates. The paper also identifies a 4.6-day slightly eccentric detached eclipsing binary, an EW-class contact binary, a 22-day detached binary outside the cluster, and a 1.959-day periodic optical variation in a cluster member positionally coincident with a ROSAT X-ray source, interpreted as a candidate X-ray binary. One RR Lyrae, V7, is flagged as a candidate Blazhko variable with a period longer than the observing window.

Load-bearing premise

The catalog's reliability rests on the assumption that the period-dependent signal-to-noise thresholds, blend-removal rules, and by-eye vetting cleanly separate true stellar variability from K2 spacecraft systematics, most perilously near the 1.962-day resaturation period.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • M4's census of certain variables within the superstamp area grows substantially, giving a fuller inventory of the cluster's pulsators and binaries.
  • The sub-millimagnitude horizontal-branch light curves make M4 a testbed for studying asteroseismic oscillations outside the classical instability strip, connecting the new mmRR class to both ordinary RR Lyrae stars and non-pulsating HB stars.
  • The 4.6-day detached eclipsing binary and the EW contact binaries give future radial-velocity programs concrete targets for precise masses and radii of metal-poor, old-population stars.
  • The released 78-day light curves let other groups search for long-period variability that this paper's spline fitting demonstrably removes, and for transiting planets the paper did not focus on.
  • The candidate X-ray binary W4490 gives an X-ray observatory a specific target whose 1.959-day optical period predicts when quiescent accretion variability should appear.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test this, but the same pipeline should transfer to the other K2 cluster superstamps the authors list, with recalibrated thresholds, since crowding and distance differ.
  • The apparent continuation of the RR Lyrae period-luminosity relation to low-amplitude multiharmonic variables suggests that once modes are identified, oscillation periods could serve as density diagnostics across the horizontal branch and red giant branch in a single cluster; this goes beyond the paper's breadth-first presentation.
  • A quick test of the resaturation-systematics hypothesis would be to stack the residuals of all 4554 light curves at 1.962 days and look for a common waveform; if such a common signal persists, any single-star period within a few percent of it deserves extra scrutiny.
  • The box-shaped brightenings of W1834 and W2127 are suggestive of self-lensing by compact companions, a scenario the paper raises but does not commit to; targeted monitoring would test whether the events repeat.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a variability search in the K2 Campaign 2 superstamp observations of the globular cluster M4. The authors extract light curves for 4554 Gaia DR1 sources with G < 19, process them with image subtraction, roll decorrelation, and TFA, and search for periodic variability with GLS, PDM, and BLS, using a custom deblending routine and period-dependent SNR thresholds. They report 66 cluster-member variables (52 claimed new), 24 non-member variables (20 new), 4 ambiguous-membership variables, and 67 suspected variables, including asteroseismic detections in horizontal-branch and red-giant stars, several eclipsing binaries, and a candidate X-ray binary. All light curves are made publicly available.

Significance. If the catalog is reliable, this is a valuable resource: it provides the longest continuous high-precision light curves for a globular cluster, recovers previously known variables with sensible periods, and adds many low-amplitude variables and asteroseismic targets. The public data release, the detailed pipeline description, and the candid discussion of the method's limitations in Section 4 are genuine strengths. The main risk is that the headline counts depend on detection thresholds and a manual vetting step whose false-positive rate is not quantified, and the paper overcounts two previously reported mmRR stars as new discoveries.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.7 and Figure 4] The detection thresholds are calibrated using previously known variables and injected transits, but this procedure provides no estimate of the false-positive rate among candidates above the threshold. The final step reduces 1310 automated robust periods to 161 objects by eye, and Section 4 explicitly concedes that this manual step 'is less than ideal and likely to lead to incorrect determinations in some of the marginal cases.' Because many of the new variables in Table 3 have amplitudes at or below 0.5 mmag (e.g., W837 at 0.1 mmag and W491 at 0.3 mmag), the unquantified contamination rate directly affects the central claim of 66 cluster-member variables and 52 new discoveries. I request a quantitative false-alarm analysis (e.g., injection-recovery tests on the same cadences with the same noise properties, or empirical false-alarm probabilities from shuffled light curves) and per-object detection statistics.
  2. [Appendix A, Section 3.4, and Table 5] The retention of W92, W4268, and W4490 near the 1.962-day resaturation systematic is justified only by 'strength of signal,' with no quantitative criterion, while 26 other stars at the same period are discarded as systematics. For W4490, the adopted period of 1.959 d is only 0.15% away from the systematic period, and this period underpins the candidate X-ray binary classification. Please supply a statistical comparison of these light curves to the systematic template or to the rejected stars demonstrating that the signals cannot be produced by the resaturation artifact; otherwise these objects should be moved to the suspected-variable category with the systematic ambiguity stated.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4] The claimed number of new discoveries is inconsistent with the paper's own attribution. Section 3.3 identifies W2015 and W2386 as mmRR variables previously reported in Wallace et al. (2019a), but Section 4 states that '52 cluster members (when including the two mmRRs of Wallace et al. 2019a) ... are new discoveries.' If these two objects were already announced, they cannot be counted as new in this paper; the abstract's '52 are new discoveries' should be 50, with corresponding adjustments to the total new-variable count, unless the authors explicitly justify the double counting.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword 'Detatched binary stars' contains a typo and should be 'Detached binary stars.'
  2. [Section 5] The phrase 'all the the 67 suspected variables' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  3. [Table 1 note] The note 'There is no W1873 in this table' is confusing; please explain the numbering gap or remove the note, as it reads like an artifact.
  4. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'the theG magnitudes' contains a typo; it should read 'the G magnitudes.'
  5. [Figure 4 caption] The caption states 'the blue points show the values...' but the blue points are not described in the main text; a brief definition of what is plotted would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the catalog derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain—image subtraction, roll decorrelation, TFA detrending, GLS/PDM/BLS period searches, SNR thresholding, blend deblending, and by-eye vetting—does not reduce to its inputs. The period-dependent SNR thresholds in Section 2.7 are calibrated by comparing known variables and injected transits against the bulk of detected periods; this is standard detection-threshold calibration, and no newly reported object is defined by the threshold curve. Cluster membership for the headline count of 66 cluster-member variables is taken from the self-cited Wallace (2018b) catalog, but that catalog is an external Gaia-DR2 proper-motion product independent of this paper's variability analysis, so it is not a fitted input. The two mmRR variables (W2015, W2386) are transparently attributed to the companion paper Wallace et al. (2019a) and counted inclusively; this is a minor self-citation bookkeeping overlap, not a derivation reduction, and the remaining roughly 50 new cluster-member variables are independent. External checks against Clement, Stetson, Miglio, and Kuehn catalogs plus the public light-curve release provide independent validation. The skeptic's false-positive concern (e.g., W4490 near the 1.962-day resaturation period) is a reliability caveat the authors explicitly flag in Section 4 ('Relying so heavily on a manual and qualitative final vetting step is less than ideal and likely to lead to incorrect determinations in some of the marginal cases'); it is a correctness or completeness risk, not circularity.

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

The central catalog depends on choices of detection thresholds, blend search radius, long-term detrending timescale, and a magnitude cutoff, as well as trusted external Gaia and membership data. No new physical entity is postulated; the mmRR label is a classification, not an invented entity.

free parameters (4)
  • GLS/PDM/BLS SNR thresholds = Period-dependent curves selected from Figure 4, not tabulated numerically
    Chosen by comparing periodogram SNR of known variables and injected transits against all detected periods; this directly controls which objects pass to manual vetting (Section 2.7).
  • Blend search radius = 12 pixels
    Set by inspecting how far light from two RR Lyrae variables affected neighboring light curves (Section 2.7).
  • B-spline breakpoint spacing = 1.5 days
    Sets the timescale of long-term trend removal in roll decorrelation; the authors note it removes variability longer than this timescale (Section 2.3).
  • Gaia DR1 magnitude cutoff = G < 19
    Defines the input source catalog; fainter stars in uncrowded regions are not searched (Section 2.2 and Section 4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR1 and DR2 astrometry and photometry are accurate enough for K2 image registration, calibration, and duplicate resolution.
    The pipeline relies on Gaia DR1 source positions and G magnitudes, with DR2 used for duplicates and proper motions (Sections 2.2 and 2.6).
  • domain assumption Proper-motion membership probabilities from Wallace (2018b) correctly classify cluster members.
    The cluster versus non-cluster variable counts in the abstract depend on this two-component Gaussian mixture fit to Gaia DR2 proper motions (Section 2.6).
  • domain assumption Residual K2 systematics are either removed or identified as such during manual vetting.
    The search assumes remaining systematic variability, such as the 1.962-day resaturation period, does not masquerade as astrophysical variables; Appendix A removes many such stars.
  • ad hoc to paper The custom SNR thresholds and by-eye vetting separate true variables from noise.
    The central classification step is partly qualitative; the authors state it is 'less than ideal and likely to lead to incorrect determinations in some of the marginal cases' (Section 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Search for Variable Stars in the Globular Cluster M4 with K2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQO7KQ3H

@misc{pith2026190802373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Search for Variable Stars in the Globular Cluster M4 with K2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQO7KQ3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02373}
}
abstract

We extract light curves for 4554 objects with $9<G<19$ in the K2 superstamp observations of the globular cluster M4, including 3784 cluster members, and search for variability. Among cluster member objects, we detect 66 variables, of which 52 are new discoveries. Among objects not belonging to the cluster, we detect 24 variables, of which 20 are new discoveries. We additionally discover 57 cluster-member suspected variables, 10 cluster-non-member suspected variables, and four variables with ambiguous cluster membership. Our light curves reach sub-millimagnitude precision for the cluster horizontal branch, permitting us to detect asteroseismic activity in six horizontal branch stars outside the instability strip and one inside the strip but with only ~1 mmag amplitude variability. 19 additional stars along the red giant branch also have detected asteroseismic variability. Several eclipsing binaries are found in the cluster, including a 4.6-day detached eclipsing binary and an EW-class eclipsing binary, as well as an EW with uncertain cluster membership and three other candidate EWs. A 22-day detached eclipsing binary is also found outside the cluster. We identify a candidate X-ray binary that is a cluster member with quiescent and periodic ~20 mmag optical variability. We also obtain high-precision light curves for ten of the previously known RR Lyrae variables in the cluster and identify one as a candidate Blazhko variable with a Blazhko period in excess of 78 days. We make our light curves publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The astrometric reference image of the K2 superstamp of M4. The image is 300 pixels by 150 pixels, or approximately 200 by 100 , and is displayed with arbitrary z-scale and colors inverted. The white regions in the upper left and right corners are regions that were not included in the superstamp. The core of the cluster is ∼1 0 off of the bottom edge of the image. M4 was in the field of view of the Kepler telescope … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Subtracted image for the image in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the root-mean-square (RMS) scatter of the sigma-clipped (3-σ clipping, iterated three times) final light curves for those objects included in our vari￾ability search. Owing to significant outlier points in our final light curves, outlier removal was necessary for our subsequent period search. These outliers seem to be due to still-uncorrected systematics, the worst of which occurred when the telescope changed … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Thresholds for the periodogram SNR for the three period search methods. The corresponding period search method is shown in the upper right of each panel. The blue points show the values calculated from the best eight periods found for each object. For BLS, the orange d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Locations in the superstamp images of our detected variables and suspected variables. This is the same image as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color-magnitude diagram for the stars we obtained light curves for, with variables marked. The photometric data are taken from Gaia DR2 (Riello et al. 2018). Of the 4554 objects we obtained light curves for, 11 objects did not have any DR2 data, and 92 objects were mis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relationships of photometric properties and variability amplitudes with variability periods. The left two panels are for variables that are cluster members and the right two are for variables that are not cluster members or have ambiguous cluster membership (indicated …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Light curves for 14 previously identified variables from Clement et al. (2001), June 2016 edition, and Stetson et al. (2014) that were in the K2 superstamp and for which we have light curves. Phase-folded light curves are shown in the top 12 panels, while the bottom tw…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Light curves for V7 (candidate Blazhko variable) and V29 (Blazhko variable). The identifier is given in the upper-left corner of each panel. The x-axis scale applies to both light curves. The horizontal dashed lines in V7’s panel are arbitrary lines added to help highl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase-folded light curves and periodograms for the eight stars identified in this work as variable or suspected variable HB stars that are not RR Lyrae. Gray points show the individual magnitude measurements and the black points are binned-median values. The y-axis sh…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Phase-folded light curves for cluster members that, other than W2665 and W3033, are newly identified as variable stars in this work. W2665 and W3033 were previously identified by Miglio et al. (2016). The panels are ordered by the target identifier. Here we show the f…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as Figures 11 and 12, but for additional cluster member variables. The data from W4490 are taken from its raw light curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ""...

  3. [3]

    A Method for Optimal Image Subtraction

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Alard , C., & Lupton , R. H. 1998, , 503, 325, 10.1086/305984

    doi:10.1086/305984 1998

  5. [5]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  6. [6]

    2016, barentsen/k2mosaic: v2.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.167343

    Barentsen, G. 2016, barentsen/k2mosaic: v2.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.167343 . https://zenodo.org/record/167343#.W9nI15y1thE

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.167343 2016

  7. [7]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.12554

    Barentsen , G., Hedges , C., Saunders , N., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.12554. 1810.12554

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    2004, , 609, 755, 10.1086/421259

    Bassa , C., Pooley , D., Homer , L., et al. 2004, , 609, 755, 10.1086/421259

    doi:10.1086/421259 2004

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    R., Salaris , M., Piotto , G., et al

    Bedin , L. R., Salaris , M., Piotto , G., et al. 2009, , 697, 965, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/965

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    G., & Wallace, J

    Bhatti, W., Bouma, L. G., & Wallace, J. 2017, astrobase , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1011188 . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1011188

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, , 799, 165

    Braga, V., Dall'Ora, M., Bono, G., et al. 2015, , 799, 165

    2015

  4. [12]

    M., Muzzin , A., Dufton , Q., et al

    Clement , C. M., Muzzin , A., Dufton , Q., et al. 2001, , 122, 2587, 10.1086/323719

    2001 doi

  5. [13]

    1994, , 267, 83, 10.1093/mnras/267.1.83

    Clementini , G., Merighi , R., Pasquini , L., Cacciari , C., & Gouiffes , C. 1994, , 267, 83, 10.1093/mnras/267.1.83

    1994 doi

  6. [14]

    Eggen , O. J. 1972, , 172, 639, 10.1086/151383

    1972 doi

  7. [15]

    W., Riello , M., De Angeli , F., et al

    Evans , D. W., Riello , M., De Angeli , F., et al. 2018, , 616, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832756

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2016 a , , 595, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629512

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016 b , , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    L., Brown , T

    Gilliland , R. L., Brown , T. M., Guhathakurta , P., et al. 2000, , 545, L47, 10.1086/317334

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

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

    1996

  13. [21]

    D., & Bakos , G

    Hartman , J. D., & Bakos , G. \'A . 2016, Astronomy and Computing, 17, 1, 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.05.006

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al

    Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398, 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing In Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  16. [24]

    2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  17. [25]

    B., & Krzeminski , W

    Kaluzny , J., Thompson , I. B., & Krzeminski , W. 1997, , 113, 2219, 10.1086/118432

    1997 doi

  18. [26]

    B., Rozyczka , M., & Krzeminski , W

    Kaluzny , J., Thompson , I. B., Rozyczka , M., & Krzeminski , W. 2013 a , , 63, 181. 1306.2457

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B., Rozyczka , M., et al

    Kaluzny , J., Thompson , I. B., Rozyczka , M., et al. 2013 b , , 145, 43, 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/43

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Kov \'a cs , G., Bakos , G., & Noyes , R. W. 2005, , 356, 557, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08479.x

    2005

  21. [29]

    2002, , 391, 369, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    Kov \'a cs , G., Zucker , S., & Mazeh , T. 2002, , 391, 369, 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    2002 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Moskalik , P., & Drury , J

    Kuehn , C. A., Moskalik , P., & Drury , J. A. 2017, in Seismology of the Sun and the Distant Stars - Using Today's Successes to Prepare the Future - TASC2 & KASC9 Workshop - SPACEINN & HELAS8 Conference, Azores Islands, Portugal, Edited by Monteiro, M.J.P.F.G.; Cunha, M.S.; Fe...

    2017

  23. [31]

    M., Jek , K

    LaCourse , D. M., Jek , K. J., Jacobs , T. L., et al. 2015, , 452, 3561, 10.1093/mnras/stv1475

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    S., & Pickering , E

    Leavitt , H. S., & Pickering , E. C. 1904, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 90, 1

    1904

  25. [33]

    R., Nardiello , D., & Piotto , G

    Libralato , M., Bedin , L. R., Nardiello , D., & Piotto , G. 2016 a , , 456, 1137, 10.1093/mnras/stv2628

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    R., et al

    Libralato , M., Nardiello , D., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2016 b , , 463, 1780, 10.1093/mnras/stw1932

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, , 595, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628714

    Lindegren , L., Lammers , U., Bastian , U., et al. 2016, , 595, A4, 10.1051/0004-6361/201628714

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, , 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren , L., Hern \'a ndez , J., Bombrun , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Lomb , N. R. 1976, , 39, 447, 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  30. [38]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.10856

    Masuda , K., & Hotokezaka , K. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.10856. 1808.10856

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J., Brogaard , K., et al

    Miglio , A., Chaplin , W. J., Brogaard , K., et al. 2016, , 461, 760, 10.1093/mnras/stw1555

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    R., et al

    Nardiello , D., Libralato , M., Bedin , L. R., et al. 2016, , 463, 1831, 10.1093/mnras/stw2169

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Piotto , G., De Marchi , F., & Rich , R

    Nascimbeni , V., Bedin , L. R., Piotto , G., De Marchi , F., & Rich , R. M. 2012, , 541, A144, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118655

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 11

    Neeley, J., Marengo, M., Bono, G., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 11

    2015

  35. [43]

    2006, Guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing)

    Oliphant, T. 2006, Guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing). http://www.tramy.us/numpybook.pdf

    2006

  36. [44]

    2012, , 421, 1825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19813.x

    P\'al, A. 2012, , 421, 1825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19813.x

    2012

  37. [45]

    2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  38. [46]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    W., et al

    Riello , M., De Angeli , F., Evans , D. W., et al. 2018, , 616, A3, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832712

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Russell , H. N. 1948, The Royal Road of Eclipses , Vol. 7 (Harvard Observatory Monographs), 181

    1948

  41. [49]

    2016, , 151, 27, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/27

    Safonova , M., Mkrtichian , D., Hasan , P., et al. 2016, , 151, 27, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/27

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    N., Kazarovets , E

    Samus , N. N., Kazarovets , E. V., Durlevich , O. V., Kireeva , N. N., & Pastukhova , E. N. 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61, 80, 10.1134/S1063772917010085

    2017 doi

  43. [51]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835, 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  44. [52]

    D., Bakos , G

    Soares-Furtado , M., Hartman , J. D., Bakos , G. \'A ., et al. 2017, , 129, 044501, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa5c7c

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Stellingwerf , R. F. 1978, , 224, 953, 10.1086/156444

    1978 doi

  46. [54]

    B., Braga, V

    Stetson, P. B., Braga, V. F., Dall'Ora, M., et al. 2014, , 126, 521

    2014

  47. [55]

    W., De Angeli , F., et al

    van Leeuwen , F., Evans , D. W., De Angeli , F., et al. 2017, , 599, A32, 10.1051/0004-6361/201630064

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    A., Brogaard , K., Leaman , R., & Casagrande , L

    VandenBerg , D. A., Brogaard , K., Leaman , R., & Casagrande , L. 2013, , 775, 134, 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/134

    2013 doi

  49. [57]

    Vanderburg , A., & Johnson , J. A. 2014, , 126, 948, 10.1086/678764

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    W., Buchhave, L

    Vanderburg, A., Latham, D. W., Buchhave, L. A., et al. 2016, , 222, 14

    2016

  51. [59]

    2001, , 368, 137, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000469

    Verbunt , F. 2001, , 368, 137, 10.1051/0004-6361:20000469

    2001 doi

  52. [60]

    2018 a , M4\_pm\_membership: Version 1.0 , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1488302

    Wallace, J. 2018 a , M4\_pm\_membership: Version 1.0 , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.1488302 . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1488302

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    2019, simple\_deblend , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3248998

    Wallace, J., & Hoffman, J. 2019, simple\_deblend , Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.3248998 . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3248998

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Wallace, J. J. 2018 b , Research Notes of the AAS, 2, 213

    2018

  55. [63]

    J., Hartman , J

    Wallace , J. J., Hartman , J. D., Bakos , G. \'A ., & Bhatti , W. 2019 a , , 870, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf8ac

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2019 b , Light Curves from a Search for Variable Stars in the Globular Cluster M4 with K2, DataSpace at Princeton University

    ---. 2019 b , Light Curves from a Search for Variable Stars in the Globular Cluster M4 with K2, DataSpace at Princeton University. http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01h415pd368

    2019

  57. [65]

    A., & Price , A

    Watson , C., Henden , A. A., & Price , A. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1

    2017

  58. [66]

    Weldrake , D. T. F., Sackett , P. D., & Bridges , T. J. 2008, , 674, 1117, 10.1086/524917

    2008 doi

  59. [67]

    Weldrake , D. T. F., Sackett , P. D., Bridges , T. J., & Freeman , K. C. 2005, , 620, 1043, 10.1086/427258

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

    2006 a , , 302, 241, 10.1007/s10509-006-9040-0

    Yao , B.-A., Sheng , C.-J., & Shi , H.-M. 2006 a , , 302, 241, 10.1007/s10509-006-9040-0

    2006 doi

  61. [69]

    2006 b , , 30, 351, 10.1016/j.chinastron.2006.10.001

    Yao , B.-a., Sheng , C.-j., Zhang , C.-s., Hu , H.-m., & Lin , Q. 2006 b , , 30, 351, 10.1016/j.chinastron.2006.10.001

    2006 doi

  62. [70]

    A., Sheng , C

    Yao , B. A., Sheng , C. J., Zhang , C. S., Hu , H. M., & Lin , Q. 2007, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 48, 18

    2007

  63. [71]

    1989, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 3334, 1

    Yao , B.-A., & Tong , J.-H. 1989, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 3334, 1

    1989

  64. [72]

    A., Tong , J

    Yao , B. A., Tong , J. H., & Zhang , C. S. 1988, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 29, 243

    1988

  65. [73]

    A., Yin , J

    Yao , B. A., Yin , J. S., & Guo , Z. H. 1981 a , Acta Astrophysica Sinica, 1, 311

    1981

  66. [74]

    1981 b , , 5, 476, 10.1016/0275-1062(81)90015-1

    Yao , B.-a., Yin , J.-s., & Guo , Z.-h. 1981 b , , 5, 476, 10.1016/0275-1062(81)90015-1

    1981 doi

  67. [75]

    2009, , 496, 577, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    Zechmeister , M., & K \"u rster , M. 2009, , 496, 577, 10.1051/0004-6361:200811296

    2009 doi

  68. [76]

    X., Udalski , A., et al

    Zhu , W., Huang , C. X., Udalski , A., et al. 2017, , 129, 104501, 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7dd7

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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