Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Stellar evolution along the AGB as revealed by the shape of Miras' visual light curves

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The shape of a Mira's light curve reveals how far it has climbed the asymptotic giant branch.

desk verdict Solid empirical mapping of Mira light-curve shapes with new quantitative parameters, but the abstract oversells the evolutionary hump-climbing claim; the body is more careful and the descriptive correlations hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18044 v3 pith:VT5KYWQB submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.SR

D.T. Hoai , P.T. Nhung , P. Darriulat , M.N. Tan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords MiravariablesAGBstarslightcurveshapethirddredge-upthermalpulsestechnetiumdustmasslossstellarpulsation
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

This paper argues that the shape of a Mira variable's visual light curve can be read as an evolutionary clock for the star's final life phase, the asymptotic giant branch (AGB). Studying 71 densely observed light curves, the authors isolate a family of nearly sinusoidal, regular curves belonging to M-type stars with no trace of the element technetium, stars that have not yet experienced a third dredge-up event. Every other curve in the sample departs from this family by showing a broadened minimum that grows into a hump on the ascending branch, and the hump's position on that branch rises systematically as the spectral type moves from technetium-free M through technetium-rich M and S to carbon stars. If this reading is right, the hump height gives a quantitative, observation-based handle on the evolutionary state of an individual Mira, one that could complement period and chemical abundance indicators.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hump on the ascending branch of the normalised oscillation profile: each cycle is rescaled from maximum to maximum into phase bins, the mean profile is fitted with a sixth-degree polynomial, and the hump is located as the interval giving the best straight-line fit, with a normalised height $y_{\rm hump}$ measured from minimum to maximum. The paper also uses a single-parameter family of polynomials, $\eta = \mathrm{Sgn}\times \tfrac{1}{2}\xi(\xi^2-3)+\lambda[1-\xi^2(2-\xi^2)]$, to characterise each branch; the fit quality $p$ and the parameter $\lambda$ separate hump-free from humpy curves. A third device, the KMB index, places each star relative to the separator $K-[22]\sim 0.011(P-125)$ in the dust-colour versus period plane, linking curve shape to the dust mass-loss rate and to the presence of third dredge-up.

What would settle it

Measure the hump phase simultaneously in the visible and in a near-infrared band for a star with a well-characterised hump: if the hump appears at the same phase at both wavelengths, it is intrinsic to the pulsation; if it moves closer to maximum or disappears in the infrared, dust extinction is creating or displacing the feature and the evolutionary reading fails. A second check is to find a technetium-free M star with a hump high on the ascending branch (say yhump>0.6) and follow it over several cycles; the proposed sequence predicts no such star should exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ascending branch of the Mira light curve carries a record of the star's progress through the thermally pulsing AGB. Stars that have just entered the TP-AGB, still of spectral type M and without technetium, form a family of nearly sinusoidal curves; once third dredge-up begins, the curve develops a slowing-down episode on the lower part of the ascending branch, seen as a broader minimum, and this hump climbs toward maximum light as the star advances through the Myes, S, and C spectral types. The authors measure the hump's normalised height yhump on the ascending branch and show that the phase at minimum, the dust colour index, and the curve's irregularity all decrease as yhump increases, tying the curve shape to the C/O ratio proxy for AGB evolution. They also identify two distinct families within the technetium-free M stars, one regular, symmetric, and short-period and one irregular, asymmetric, and longer-period, and present two scenarios for what the split means, one separating E-AGB from TP-AGB stars and one separating low-mass stars that will never become carbon-rich from higher-mass stars that will.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's interpretation rests on the premise that the hump's position on the ascending branch tracks the star's genuine evolutionary state along the AGB, rather than being created or shifted by dust in the star's own atmosphere; the paper itself notes that dust can change the visual light curve dramatically, and it does not model that effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hump sitting near minimum light identifies a star that has recently entered the thermally pulsing AGB, while a hump near maximum marks a star approaching or inside the carbon-rich stage.
  • The two Mno families give an observational way to separate stars that will soon show technetium and possibly turn into carbon stars from stars that will spend the rest of their AGB life as oxygen-rich, technetium-free Miras.
  • Because the hump's slowing-down is compensated by speeding-up elsewhere on the ascending branch, the hump does not change the pulsation period; observed period changes in Miras must be generated by a different mechanism.
  • The descending branch being uniformly hump-free across all samples means the physical event causing the hump acts only during the rise to maximum light, constraining future models of AGB pulsation and shock propagation.
  • The correlations between regularity, symmetry, and dust colour allow a first estimate of a Mira's relative mass-loss rate directly from the shape of its visual light curve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hump phase is a true evolutionary clock, its scatter within a single spectral type should shrink when the hump phase is compared directly with abundance ratios such as 12C/13C or the technetium line strength for the same star; such a test is a natural next step beyond this paper.
  • A decisive way to separate intrinsic pulsation shape from dust extinction is to measure the hump phase simultaneously in the visible and near-infrared for a few stars; a hump that persists at the same phase in the infrared would confirm the evolutionary interpretation, while one that moves or vanishes would point to dust.
  • The same normalised-profile analysis could be applied to Miras in external galaxies once sufficient light-curve density exists, turning the hump phase into a distance-independent tracer of the AGB population's mean evolutionary stage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes visual light curves of Mira variables from the AAVSO database, using a large sample (A, 71 stars) and a high-quality subsample (B, 32 stars) to quantify light-curve shape. It identifies two families among M-type stars without technetium, characterizes a hump on the ascending branch of many Miras, and reports correlations between asymmetry, regularity, and dust-sensitive color indices. The central interpretive claim is that the hump appears near minimum light when a star enters the TP-AGB and progressively climbs the ascending branch as the star evolves through later spectral types (Mno, Myes, S, C). The paper is careful in defining parameters and cross-checking sample A against sample B, but the evolutionary progression is supported mainly by a cross-sectional comparison of 14 stars with substantial overlap between spectral types.

Significance. If the main correlations hold, the paper provides a useful quantitative description of Mira light-curve shapes and reinforces earlier connections between light-curve morphology, dust mass-loss proxies, and chemical/evolutionary state. The parameter definitions are mostly clear, and the use of two samples with a cross-calibration between less and more rigorous parameter extraction is a genuine strength. The claim that the hump position traces AGB evolution is potentially important, but the evidence presented for it is currently weak: the tabulated hump positions do not show a monotonic progression, no significance tests are given, and the most extreme excluded stars could influence the trend. The descriptive correlations and the identification of two Mno families are valuable independently of the speculative evolutionary interpretation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§7.2 and Table 3] The central claim that the hump 'progressively climbs the ascending branch' as stars evolve from Mno through Myes, S, and C is not supported by the quantitative data in Table 3. The 14 listed yhump values are: Mno 26, 26; Myes 71, 32, 54, 60; S 84, 46, 85, 83, 31; C 54, 39, 73. The median rises from Myes (57) to S (83) but falls to C (54), and the ranges overlap almost completely (Myes 32–71, S 31–85, C 39–73). Section 7.2 itself concedes that 'each spectral type is seen to cover the whole corresponding yhump range rather than clustering at its end.' No significance test, confidence interval, or regression is provided for the claimed progression. The abstract's statement that the trend is established 'with good confidence' therefore overstates what the body of the paper shows. The authors should either provide a quantitative test of monotonic progression (for example, a rank correlation with a continuous evolutionary indicator, with selection effects accounted for) or explicitly reframe the conclusion as a weak average tendency rather than a progressive sequence.
  2. [§2, Table A1] The selection excludes three Mno stars, X Oph, R Cen, and R Nor, described in §2 as having very broad minima or double-peaked oscillations that cannot be simply compared with the other curves. These are precisely the stars with the most extreme shapes at minimum light, and their exclusion removes cases that are potentially relevant to the hump-near-minimum sequence. Because the central evolutionary interpretation depends on the behavior of the ascending branch near minimum, the paper should justify these exclusions quantitatively or show that the main correlations are robust to their inclusion in some approximate form.
  3. [§3.2–§3.3, Table 4] The profile-type assignments and the humpy/hump-free classification rely on subjective visual inspection for sample A and on threshold choices (p < 0.1, single-parameter λ fits) for sample B. The text acknowledges that the assignment of profiles was difficult and that S Her, R Cam, and S UMa are classified as humpy despite having p < 0.1 because their humps appear near maximum light. Since the claimed evolutionary sequence is built on these categories and on the hump parameters derived from them, the paper should report the sensitivity of Tables 3 and 4 to alternative thresholds and to independent human classifications, or otherwise demonstrate that the central trend is robust to the subjective choices.
  4. [§1, §4.5, §7.2] The paper notes in §1 that dust 'dramatically affects the appearance of the visual light curve,' yet it does not model phase-dependent dust extinction. The observation in §4.5 that humps also appear in infrared bandpasses weakens a pure dust-extinction explanation, but it does not eliminate it: the I-band and visual humps are not compared quantitatively, and dust can affect both. To support the evolutionary interpretation, the authors should address more directly whether phase-dependent dust opacity can create or move the hump, for example by comparing phase-resolved color curves or by citing quantitative dust/pulsation models that predict hump phase as a function of mass-loss rate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1] The definition of the irregularity parameter contains an index typo: Δ′Mmax=|Mmax,i+i − Mmax,i| should read |Mmax,i+1 − Mmax,i|.
  2. [Table 4] The sample B column for Myes stars lists eight entries, which apparently includes the three recovered M-type stars assigned to Myes in §4.4; the table caption should state this explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [§3.3] In Figure 3 and the accompanying text, it would help to state explicitly that p is the rms deviation in normalized magnitude units and that λ is dimensionless; the current notation is understandable but the units are not stated.
  4. [Abstract and §8] The abstract uses 'with good confidence' for the average trend, while §8 emphasizes the 'speculative character' of many interpretations; the wording should be aligned so that the abstract does not promise more certainty than the body claims.
  5. [§4.3] The compensation factor k is estimated from the same curves used to test the absence of period lengthening; the paper should clarify whether the quoted uncertainty in k includes the covariance with the tested slope, or whether k should be treated as a fitted nuisance parameter in the correlation test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shape parameters and evolutionary indicators are measured independently; the hump-climbing narrative is an explicitly hedged interpretation, not a derived identity.

full rationale

None of the paper's quantitative results is obtained by fitting a parameter to the quantity it claims to predict. The shape parameters (φmin, ΔM0, A, yhump, profile type) are read or fitted from AAVSO visual light curves, while the evolutionary indicators (spectral type, technetium presence, K−[22], [3.4]−[22], 12C/13C) are inherited from Merchán Benítez et al. (2023) and Uttenthaler et al. (2019); the paper is explicit about this inheritance in Section 2. The only constructed index, KMB = 0.011(P−125) − (K−[22]) in Section 3.1, is built from an externally published separator line, and the two Mno families are not defined by KMB: Section 4.1 defines the first family by α > −15% and then notes the exceptional R Leo with positive KMB and the intermediate T UMa, showing the split is not forced by the index. The hump coordinate yhump is a measured midpoint of a fitted linear hump interval on the normalized ascending branch (Section 4.3); the correlations of yhump with C0, φmin, and ΔM0 are independent cross-correlations, not algebraic identities. The 'hump climbs the ascending branch as the star evolves' narrative is an evolutionary interpretation of a cross-sectional correlation, explicitly hedged in Section 7.2 ('each spectral type is seen to cover the whole corresponding yhump range rather than clustering at its end') and in Section 8 ('One must not underestimate the speculative character of many of the considerations that we have been proposing'). The weakness of the trend visible in Table 3 (Myes yhump 32–71, S 31–85, C 39–73) is a statistical and evidential concern, not circularity. Self-citations (Darriulat et al. 2024; Hoai et al. 2024) appear only as context for atmosphere and dust complexity and do not carry the central result; no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used to make the interpretation forced. Therefore no circular step can be identified from the quoted equations or construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is purely observational; no new physical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing inputs are external classifications (spectral type, technetium, colors) from Merchan Benitez et al. (2023) and the assumption that visual light-curve morphology tracks intrinsic pulsation. Three hand-set parameters shape the family definitions and the hump delay estimate.

free parameters (3)
  • Hump slowdown compensation factor k = 0.88 +/- 0.04
    In Section 4.3, the hump-induced delay is computed as Delta_slow = Delta_xhump - k(1-phi_min)Delta_yhump; k is evaluated separately for each of 8 curves to remove the delay before testing correlations. This fitted factor is used to define Delta_slow and could absorb part of the effect being tested.
  • Mno family separation cuts = alpha > -15%, P < 300 d, K-[22] < ~2.0
    In Section 4.1 the two Mno families are separated by hand-selected cuts in the (alpha, DeltaM0) and (C0, P) planes; boundary cases R Leo, W Dra, T UMa are acknowledged.
  • Threshold p < 0.1 for hump-free classification = 0.1
    Section 3.3: the hump-free family is defined as p < 0.1 on the ascending branch, with S Her, R Cam, S UMa as exceptions; the choice of 0.1 is arbitrary and affects the family composition.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Merchan Benitez et al. (2023) sample provides trustworthy spectral types, technetium detections, 12C/13C ratios, and K-[22], [3.4]-[22] colors for all stars.
    Section 2: the study selects stars from this sample and uses these classifications as the evolutionary state indicators against which light-curve shapes are compared.
  • domain assumption AAVSO visual observations, binned in ~2% period intervals and fit with parabolas, yield unbiased estimates of times and magnitudes of maxima and minima.
    Section 3.1: the procedure quotes 1-2% period and 0.1 mag precision, but flat maxima cause up to 8% period systematic differences; the paper does not correct for this.
  • domain assumption Visual light-curve morphology is governed by stellar pulsation rather than by phase-dependent dust extinction.
    Section 1: dust 'dramatically affects the appearance of the visual light curve' (Reid & Goldston 2002; Winters et al. 1994). The hump is interpreted as a pulsation feature, not an extinction artifact.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen polynomial form (eta = Sgn x 1/2 xi(xi^2 - 3) + lambda[1 - xi^2(2 - xi^2)]) is an adequate basis for comparing branch shapes.
    Section 3.3: introduced as 'the simplest possible polynomial forms' and used to assign hump-free status; not justified by any physical model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellar evolution along the AGB as revealed by the shape of Miras' visual light curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT5KYWQB

@misc{pith2026241118044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellar evolution along the AGB as revealed by the shape of Miras' visual light curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT5KYWQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18044}
}
read the original abstract

A new analysis of a sample of visual light curves of Mira variables is presented. The curves cover the past four decades and are selected from the AAVSO database as including a very large number of high-density and high-quality observations. The aim of the analysis is to offer a more precise, more quantitative and more systematic picture than available from earlier studies. The results corroborate earlier descriptions and reveal new correlations between the shapes of the light curves and the evolution of the star along the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB). A family of nearly sinusoidal curves associated with M spectral types and displaying no sign of having experienced third-dredge-up events, is identified with good confidence. A detailed study of its properties is presented and used to suggest possible interpretations. All other curves are clearly distinct from this family and usually start departing from it by displaying a broader luminosity minimum, progressively taking the form of a hump climbing the ascending branch as the star evolves along the AGB. The properties displayed by this hump are studied in some detail and possible interpretations are considered. New correlations between parameters defining the shape of the light curve and the state of the star are revealed; while the average trend is established with good confidence, deviations from it cause a significant scatter of the parameters defining the shapes of the curves. Comments aimed at shedding light on the underlying physics are presented together with speculative interpretations, in the hope that they could encourage and inspire new studies, in particular based on simulations using state-of-the-art models of the inner star dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of the light curves of the Merch´an Ben´ıtez et al. (2023) study in the K−[22] (upper row) and [3.4]−[22] (lower row) vs period planes. The line shown in the upper row is defined by Uttenthaler et al. (2019) as K−[22]∼0.011(P −125). The same line, simply scaled down using the ratio (0.92) between the mean values of K−[22] and [3.4]−[22], is shown in the lower row. findings, the present study aims at pro… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Typical oscillation profiles of types a to e (from left to right) In spite of such difficulty, evidence for significant correlations between the mean oscillation profile of a curve and its spectral type was obtained. In particular, the Mno spectral type was found to be present in profile types a and b exclusively, while profile type e is the exclusive domain of spectral type C. 3.3. Humpy and hump-free families For … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dependence of p on λ for the ascending (left panel) and descending (central panel) branches. Black dots are for b, c and d profiles, red dots are for a and e profiles. The right panel displays the dependence of the value of λ (ascending branch) on φmin. Open circles are for the humpy family, full circles for the hump-free family [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Superimposed normalised profiles of the ascending branch of the four curves having λ > 0.3 on the ascending branch. From left to right: R Cam, S UMa, T Cam, S Cam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Superimposed normalised profiles of the ascending (upper panels) and descending (lower panels) branches of the three curves having p > 0.1 on the descending branch ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Superimposed normalised profiles of the ascending branches of the hump-free family. From left to right: R Aql, R Boo and R Tri (upper row), T UMa, R Ser and R And (middle row), R Cyg, V CrB and T Dra (lower row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Mno curves of sample A. Left: dependence of ∆M0 on α. Right: dependence of C0 on P. The red dots are for the second family. <[3.4]−[22]>=1.7±0.3) and relatively short periods (<P >=252±42 days). The complementary family is of course asymmetric (<α>=−21±2%), less re…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The Myes and S curves of sample A. Left: dependence of ∆M0 on α. Right: dependence of C0 on P. The green and blue dots are for Myes and S spectral types, respectively. The lines show linear best fits of equations ∆M0=0.33 − 0.013α and C0=−1.12 + 0.0077P, respectively …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Curves of sample A excluding the first Mno family. Left: dependence of the regularity on colour. For each curve, we plot as ordinate a bar joining the values of ∆Mmax to ∆′Mmax and as abscissa a bar joining the values of K−[22] and [3.4]−[22]. Right: dependence of the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Left panel: illustration of the procedure used to define the hump parameters. The red curve shows the sixth-degree polynomial fit. The blue line shows the linear fit on the hump and the black lines show the hump interval. The lower panel was excluded from the sample o…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Dependence on the delay caused by the hump, ∆slow=∆xhump − 0.88(1 − φmin)∆yhump, of the relative period (left), the phase shift at minimal light φmin–<φmin)> (centre) and the relative amplitude of the preceding descending branch (right) for eight light curves of sampl…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparing the M-type curves recovered in Section 4.4 (stars) to those of sample B selected from sample A (full circles). The left panel displays their distributions in the K−[22] vs P plane, the right panel in the ∆M0 vs φmin plane. Colours distinguish between differe…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Intervals of the selected light curves (AAVSO data base) displaying significant observations in the B (blue), V (green), R (red) and I (magenta) band-passes. From left to right and up down, R Aur, T Cep, R Cam, T Cam, chi Cyg, W Cas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sample A curves of carbon stars. Distributions of ∆M0 vs C0 (left), α vs C0 (centre) and ∆M0 vs α (right). The black lines are the best fit results to the curves of oxygen-rich stars ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The ascending branches of the curves of the six carbon stars selected in sample B span the whole range of hump phases: from left to right, T Dra, V CrB, S Cep, U Cyg, W Cas and S Cam. of luminosity (Wallerstein et al. 1985; Kiss & Szatm´ary 2002; Roberts 2016). The ri…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Distribution of the curves of sample A in the plane of irregularity parameters ∆Mmax vs ∆′Mmax. The line corresponds to the relation expected for random Gaussian fluctuations. Colours distinguish between different spectral types as indicated in the insert [PITH_FULL_…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Irregular light curves of W Aql (left), AX Cep (centre) and R Lep (right) excluded from sample B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Distributions of the sample B curves in the ∆Mmax vs ∆′Mmax plane (left) and in the ∆′′Mmax vs ∆′Mmax plane (right). The analyses presented in the preceding sections, of light curves of Mira variables selected in samples A and B, have confirmed and corroborated most o…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Distributions of the 24 sample A light curves selected in sample B in the ∆dis (left) and A (right) vs C0 planes. The triplet of curves of the first Mno family is circled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Regularity of the periods of the 24 sample A curves selected in sample B. Left: distribution in the ∆P vs P plane. Right: distribution of parameter a (see text) for each spectral type separately. The horizontal line is the value expected for random measurement errors.…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Sample B curves of spectral-type M identified as preceding the occurrence of third-dredge-up events. Left: period P vs phase at minimal light, φmin. Centre: irregularity parameter ∆M0 vs φmin. Right: colour index K−[22] vs P; the line is the separator defined by Utten…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Sample B curves. Dependence on colour index C0 of the regularity parameters ∆Mmax and ∆′Mmax and of the phase at minimal light, φmin. A bar joins the values taken by ∆Mmax and ∆′Mmax at a same value of C0. Different spectral￾types are shown with different colours as s…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Left pair of panels: superimposed normalised profiles of the descending and ascending branches of sample B curves. The 8 curves of the first Mno family (∼370 oscillations) are displayed on the upper row and the 24 other curves (∼1000 oscillations) are displayed on the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, A&A, 664, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243595

    Abia, C., de Laverny, P., Romero-G´ omez, M., & Figueras, F. 2022, A&A, 664, A45, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243595

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243595 2022

  2. [2]

    1997, MNRAS, 289, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/289.4.L11 Alonso-Hern´ andez, J., S´ anchez Contreras, C., & Sahai, R

    Abia, C., & Isern, J. 1997, MNRAS, 289, L11, doi: 10.1093/mnras/289.4.L11 Alonso-Hern´ andez, J., S´ anchez Contreras, C., & Sahai, R. 2024, A&A, 684, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347317

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/289.4.l11 1997

  3. [3]

    2022, A&A, 659, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142557

    Andrassy, R., Higl, J., Mao, H., et al. 2022, A&A, 659, A193, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142557

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142557 2022

  4. [4]

    M., Luck, R

    Andrievsky, S. M., Luck, R. E., & Kovtyukh, V. V. 2005, AJ, 130, 1880, doi: 10.1086/444541

    work page doi:10.1086/444541 2005

  5. [5]

    1993, A&A, 279, 125

    Antonello, E. 1993, A&A, 279, 125

    1993

  6. [6]

    T., Francke, H., et al

    Asaki, Y., Maud, L. T., Francke, H., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf619

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf619 2023

  7. [7]

    Bono, G., Marconi, M., & Stellingwerf, R. F. 2000, A&A, 360, 245, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006229

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0006229 2000

  8. [8]

    Bowers, P. F. 1975, A&A, 39, 473

    1975

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    F., & Kerr, F

    Bowers, P. F., & Kerr, F. J. 1977, A&A, 57, 115

    1977

  2. [10]

    2018, A&A, 617, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832724

    Brunner, M., Danilovich, T., Ramstedt, S., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832724

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2014, A&A, 569, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322807

    Danilovich, T., Bergman, P., Justtanont, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 569, A76, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322807

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    T., Nhung, P

    Darriulat, P., Hoai, D. T., Nhung, P. T., et al. 2024, Comptes Rendus. Physique, 25, 219, doi: 10.5802/crphys.185 De Beck, E., & Olofsson, H. 2020, A&A, 642, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038335

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Eddington, A. S. 1917, The Observatory, 40, 290

    1917

  6. [14]

    Fernie, J. D. 1959, ApJ, 130, 611, doi: 10.1086/146750

    1959 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, A&A, 669, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244992

    Freytag, B., & H¨ ofner, S. 2023, A&A, 669, A155, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244992

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    1995, A&A, 297, 461 Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D

    Gal, J., & Szatmary, K. 1995, A&A, 297, 461 Garc ´ ıa-Hern´ andez, D. A., Zamora, O., Yag¨ ue, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321818

    1995 doi

  9. [17]

    S., & Holland, W

    Greaves, J. S., & Holland, W. S. 1997, A&A, 327, 342

    1997

  10. [18]

    A., Jackiewicz, J., & Evans, N

    Guzik, J. A., Jackiewicz, J., & Evans, N. R. 2023, in 42nd Annual Conference of the Society for Astronomical Sciences (SAS-2023), ed. J. C. Martin, R. K. Buchheim, R. M. Gill, W. Green, & J. Menke, 74–83

    2023

  11. [19]

    A., & Foster, G

    Hawkins, G., Mattei, J. A., & Foster, G. 2001, PASP, 113, 501, doi: 10.1086/319542

    2001 doi

  12. [20]

    1926, BAN, 3, 115

    Hertzsprung, E. 1926, BAN, 3, 115

    1926

  13. [21]

    2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600 28 Hoai et al

    Herwig, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150600 28 Hoai et al

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    H., Hall, D

    Hinkle, K. H., Hall, D. N. B., & Ridgway, S. T. 1982, ApJ, 252, 697, doi: 10.1086/159596

    1982 doi

  15. [23]

    T., Winters, J

    Hoai, D. T., Winters, J. M., Nhung, P. T., Darriulat, P., & Le Bertre, T. 2024, A&A, 692, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450983

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    1997, JAA VSO, 25, 115

    Hoffleit, D. 1997, JAA VSO, 25, 115

    1997

  17. [25]

    2021, A&A, 651, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140512

    Homan, W., Pimpanuwat, B., Herpin, F., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140512

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    2024, ApJ, 971, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534a

    Joyce, M., Moln´ ar, L., Cinquegrana, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 971, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad534a

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    Joyce, M., & Tayar, J. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 75, doi: 10.3390/galaxies11030075

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    L., & Szatm´ ary, K

    Kiss, L. L., & Szatm´ ary, K. 2002, A&A, 390, 585, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020744

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    S., & Rudnitskij, G

    Kudashkina, L. S., & Rudnitskij, G. M. 1994, Odessa Astronomical Publications, 7, 66

    1994

  22. [30]

    2009, ApJ, 707, 632, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/632 Le Bertre, T

    Lacour, S., Thi´ ebaut, E., Perrin, G., et al. 2009, ApJ, 707, 632, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/1/632 Le Bertre, T. 1992, A&AS, 94, 377

    2009 doi

  23. [31]

    Leavitt, H. S. 1907, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 60, 87

    1907

  24. [32]

    S., & Pickering, E

    Leavitt, H. S., & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173, 1

    1912

  25. [33]

    2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 140, doi: 10.1002/asna.201011469

    Lebzelter, T. 2011, Astronomische Nachrichten, 332, 140, doi: 10.1002/asna.201011469

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    H., Straniero, O., et al

    Lebzelter, T., Hinkle, K. H., Straniero, O., et al. 2019, ApJ, 886, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4e9b

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    2016, A&A, 589, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527885

    Liljegren, S., H¨ ofner, S., Nowotny, W., & Eriksson, K. 2016, A&A, 589, A130, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527885

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    W., & Wing, R

    Lockwood, G. W., & Wing, R. F. 1971, ApJ, 169, 63, doi: 10.1086/151118

    1971 doi

  29. [37]

    Loidl, R., Lan¸ con, A., & Jørgensen, U. G. 2001, A&A, 371, 1065, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010400

    2001 doi

  30. [38]

    1928, Handbuch der Astrophysik, 6, 49

    Ludendorff, H. 1928, Handbuch der Astrophysik, 6, 49

    1928

  31. [39]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 4210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae734

    Marconi, M., De Somma, G., Molinaro, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 4210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae734

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., & Pumo, M. L. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1034

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    I., & Andronov, I

    Marsakova, V. I., & Andronov, I. L. 2007, Astrophysics, 50, 76, doi: 10.1007/s10511-007-0008-8

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, A&A, 549, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219259

    Mayer, A., Jorissen, A., Kerschbaum, F., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219259

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    A., & Lagadec, E

    McDonald, I., De Beck, E., Zijlstra, A. A., & Lagadec, E. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4984, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2607

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    McDonald, I., & Zijlstra, A. A. 2016, ApJL, 823, L38, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L38

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    O., Boughaleb, H., & Mattei, J

    Mennessier, M. O., Boughaleb, H., & Mattei, J. A. 1997, A&AS, 124, 143, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997184 Merch´ an Ben ´ ıtez, P., & Jurado Vargas, M. 2000, A&A, 353, 264 —. 2002, A&A, 386, 244, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020208 Merch´ an Ben ´ ıtez, P., Uttenthaler, S., & Jurado-Vargas...

    1997 doi

  38. [46]

    1996, A&A, 310, 933

    Ohnaka, K., & Tsuji, T. 1996, A&A, 310, 933

    1996

  39. [47]

    Onaka, T., de Jong, T., & Willems, F. J. 1989, A&A, 218, 169

    1989

  40. [48]

    2018, Nature, 553, 310, doi: 10.1038/nature25001

    Paladini, C., Baron, F., Jorissen, A., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 310, doi: 10.1038/nature25001

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    2020, A&A, 635, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936704

    Prudil, Z., D´ ek´ any, I., Smolec, R., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A66, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936704

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Ramstedt, S., Montez, R., Kastner, J., & Vlemmings, W. H. T. 2012, A&A, 543, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118516

    2012 doi

  43. [51]

    2014, A&A, 566, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423721

    Ramstedt, S., & Olofsson, H. 2014, A&A, 566, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423721

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    2017, A&A, 600, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629337

    Rau, G., Hron, J., Paladini, C., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629337

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    J., & Goldston, J

    Reid, M. J., & Goldston, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 568, 931, doi: 10.1086/338947

    2002 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    Rizzuti, F., Hirschi, R., Varma, V., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 687, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1778

    2024 doi

  47. [55]

    2016, R Cygni, https://www.aavso.org/lpv-month-may-2020-RCyg Rosales-Guzm´ an, A., Sanchez-Bermudez, J., Paladini, C., et al

    Roberts, R. 2016, R Cygni, https://www.aavso.org/lpv-month-may-2020-RCyg Rosales-Guzm´ an, A., Sanchez-Bermudez, J., Paladini, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 688, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202349112 Sch¨ oier, F. L., & Olofsson, H. 2000, A&A, 359, 586, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005360

    2016 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    2016, LPV Humps, https://www.aavso.org/lpv-humps Soszy´ nski, I., Dziembowski, W

    Schorr, F. 2016, LPV Humps, https://www.aavso.org/lpv-humps Soszy´ nski, I., Dziembowski, W. A., Udalski, A., et al. 2007, AcA, 57, 201, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0710.2780

    2016 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    2023, European Physical Journal A, 59, 17, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00926-8

    Straniero, O., Abia, C., & Dom ´ ınguez, I. 2023, European Physical Journal A, 59, 17, doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00926-8

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    R., Mattei, J

    Templeton, M. R., Mattei, J. A., & Willson, L. A. 2005, AJ, 130, 776, doi: 10.1086/431740

    2005 doi

  51. [59]

    R., & Willson, L

    Templeton, M. R., & Willson, L. A. 2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 205, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 54.07 29

    2004

  52. [60]

    R., Montalb´ an, J., et al

    Trabucchi, M., Wood, P. R., Montalb´ an, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 139, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8998

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    2016a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 293, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512296

    Uttenthaler, S., Greimel, R., & Templeton, M. 2016a, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 293, doi: 10.1002/asna.201512296

    doi

  54. [62]

    2010, A&A, 510, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912548

    Uttenthaler, S., & Lebzelter, T. 2010, A&A, 510, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912548

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    2012, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 22, 56, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1206.2759

    Uttenthaler, S., Lebzelter, T., Busso, M., et al. 2012, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplementi, 22, 56, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1206.2759

    2012 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    2019, A&A, 622, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833794

    Uttenthaler, S., McDonald, I., Bernhard, K., Cristallo, S., & Gobrecht, D. 2019, A&A, 622, A120, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833794

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    2016b, A&A, 585, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526619

    Uttenthaler, S., Meingast, S., Lebzelter, T., et al. 2016b, A&A, 585, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526619

    doi

  58. [66]

    2011, A&A, 531, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116463

    Uttenthaler, S., van Stiphout, K., Voet, K., et al. 2011, A&A, 531, A88, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201116463

    2011 doi

  59. [67]

    2024, A&A, 690, A393, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451708 van Belle, G

    Uttenthaler, S., Shetye, S., Nanni, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A393, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451708 van Belle, G. T., Dyck, H. M., Benson, J. A., & Lacasse, M. G. 1996, AJ, 112, 2147, doi: 10.1086/118170 van Belle, G. T., Thompson, R. R., & Creech-Eakman, M. J. 2002, AJ, 124...

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    Vardya, M. S. 1987, A&A, 182, 75 —. 1988, A&AS, 73, 181

    1987

  61. [69]

    S., de Jong, T., & Willems, F

    Vardya, M. S., de Jong, T., & Willems, F. J. 1986, ApJL, 304, L29, doi: 10.1086/184664

    1986 doi

  62. [70]

    Walker, W. S. G. 2009, JAA VSO, 37, 87

    2009

  63. [71]

    H., Dominy, J

    Wallerstein, G., Hinkle, K. H., Dominy, J. F., et al. 1985, MNRAS, 215, 67, doi: 10.1093/mnras/215.1.67

    1985 doi

  64. [72]

    Whitelock, P. A. 1999, NewAR, 43, 437, doi: 10.1016/S1387-6473(99)00031-7

    1999 doi

  65. [73]

    A., Feast, M

    Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., & Van Leeuwen, F. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 313, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13032.x

    2008

  66. [74]

    M., Fleischer, A

    Winters, J. M., Fleischer, A. J., Gauger, A., & Sedlmayr, E. 1994, A&A, 290, 623

    1994

  67. [75]

    R., & Sebo, K

    Wood, P. R., & Sebo, K. M. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 958, doi: 10.1093/mnras/282.3.958

    1996 doi

  68. [76]

    R., & Zarro, D

    Wood, P. R., & Zarro, D. M. 1981, ApJ, 247, 247, doi: 10.1086/159032

    1981 doi

  69. [77]

    C., Tuthill, P

    Woodruff, H. C., Tuthill, P. G., Monnier, J. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 673, 418, doi: 10.1086/523936

    2008 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Stello, D., et al

    Yu, J., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa300

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    2012, A&A, 545, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118150

    Zhao-Geisler, R., Quirrenbach, A., K¨ ohler, R., & Lopez, B. 2012, A&A, 545, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118150

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    Zhevakin, S. A. 1953, Russian Astronom. Journal, 30, 161

    1953

  73. [81]

    A., & Bedding, T

    Zijlstra, A. A., & Bedding, T. R. 2002, JAA VSO, 31, 2

    2002

  74. [82]

    A., Bedding, T

    Zijlstra, A. A., Bedding, T. R., & Mattei, J. A. 2002, MNRAS, 334, 498, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05467.x

    2002

  75. [83]

    A., Bedding, T

    Zijlstra, A. A., Bedding, T. R., Markwick, A. J., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 325, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07927.x 30 Hoai et al. APPENDIX Figure A1. 32 stars of sample B. From left to right: the mean normalised profile, the superimposed normalised profiles of the ascending...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.