Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 12 minor 89 references

Variability in hot sub-luminous stars and binaries: Machine-learning analysis of Gaia DR3 multi-epoch photometry

T0 review · 3 major / 12 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 This paper claims that clustering photometric statistics from Gaia DR3 separates variable hot subdwarfs from cataclysmic variables, yielding 85 new TESS-confirmed variables, 108 Gaia-only variables, and 152 candidate CVs.

desk verdict Useful candidate lists and solid cluster-0 validation, but the CV candidacy rests on an untested purity assumption; referee it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18609 v2 pith:JPXYJ2SV submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

P. Ranaivomanana , M. Uzundag , C. Johnston , P.J. Groot , T. Kupfer , C. Aerts This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords hotsubdwarfstarsvariablecataclysmicvariablesGaiaDR3machinelearningt-SNEUMAPphotometricvariability
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 claims that unsupervised machine-learning clustering of statistical features extracted from sparse Gaia multi-epoch photometry can separate genuinely variable hot subdwarf stars from noisy light curves and from cataclysmic variables, without needing spectroscopy. Applied to 1,576 candidate hot subdwarfs, the method reports 108 newly identified variables from Gaia alone and 85 confirmed with TESS, mostly reflection-effect and HW Vir binaries, plus two new high-amplitude pulsators consistent with blue large amplitude pulsators. The same cluster that contains 140 known cataclysmic variables holds 152 objects the paper labels as candidate CVs. The result matters because it offers a generalisable, photometry-only route to building large samples of variable subdwarfs and CVs for binary-evolution and asteroseismic studies.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an unsupervised clustering pipeline: a hybrid Ψ-periodogram (generalised Lomb-Scargle plus Lafler-Kinman statistics) for dominant-frequency searches with Monte Carlo uncertainties; 84 features drawn from the Gaia DR3 variability statistics table, custom periodogram-peak percentiles, and Gaia source parameters; random-forest feature ranking and Pearson-correlation pruning to 27 features; t-SNE and UMAP embedding into a 2D feature space; Gaussian mixture model clustering with silhouette-score validation; and independent TESS light-curve comparison to confirm periods and refine classifications. The G-band amplitude is the single most important feature, and the paper places a lower bound of roughly 20 millimagnitudes on clear variability detectable in this sample.

What would settle it

Spectroscopically observe, or check existing spectra of, the 152 objects classified as candidate cataclysmic variables in cluster 2; if a significant fraction show hot-subdwarf or other non-CV signatures such as Balmer absorption typical of sdB stars rather than CV emission lines, the claim that cluster membership alone identifies CVs is falsified. A cheaper test is to run known high-amplitude non-CV variables, such as RR Lyrae stars or large-amplitude ellipsoidal binaries, through the same feature pipeline and see whether they land in cluster 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central finding is that a feature space built from Gaia DR3 epoch-photometry statistics and custom periodogram-peak statistics, reduced to 2D with t-SNE and UMAP and clustered with a Gaussian mixture model, yields three sharply separated groups: cluster 0 (290 objects) with clear, high signal-to-noise variability; cluster 1 (990 objects) with dubious low signal-to-noise variability; and cluster 2 (296 objects) with high-amplitude, ambiguous variability. Because all 140 previously known objects in cluster 2 are cataclysmic variables, the paper treats the remaining 152 members as candidate CVs. Within cluster 0 it classifies 78 known and 212 candidate hot subdwarfs; using TESS light curves for consistency it reports 85 new variables from Gaia and TESS and 108 new variables from Gaia alone, adding reflection-effect systems, HW Vir binaries, ellipsoidal variables, and two candidate blue large amplitude pulsators.

Load-bearing premise

Cluster 2 is labelled as cataclysmic variables purely from cluster membership: every known object in it happens to be a CV, and the 152 remaining members are assigned CV status with no spectroscopic confirmation, while the clustering is dominated by G-band amplitude so high-amplitude non-CV variables could in principle fall in the same group.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method can be applied as-is to Gaia DR4 epoch photometry, which the paper estimates would extend the analysis to the remaining roughly 59,000 candidate hot subdwarfs without retraining.
  • The newly identified reflection-effect, HW Vir, and ellipsoidal systems enlarge the known sample of variable hot subdwarfs, supporting population-level binary-evolution and asteroseismic studies.
  • The two new high-amplitude pulsators, if confirmed as blue large amplitude pulsators, add to a rare class of hot pulsators that can be found in Gaia data alone.
  • The feature set and clustering approach are survey-agnostic and transfer to other time-domain surveys such as BlackGEM, ZTF, GOTO, and LSST, as the paper argues.
  • The cluster-2 result adds 152 cataclysmic-variable candidates and 56 new candidate orbital periods for known CVs, expanding the sample available for CV population studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the G-band amplitude dominates the clustering, cluster 2 may be capturing an amplitude regime as much as a physical class; the CV purity of the 152 candidates is the least secured part of the pipeline and needs external validation.
  • The same pipeline could probably be used to search for high-amplitude pulsating subdwarfs and other blue variables in surveys without TESS coverage, but the absence of TESS confirmation for the 108 Gaia-only variables leaves their classifications provisional.
  • If the candidate CVs are spectroscopically confirmed, they would substantially increase the known CV population in this colour-magnitude region, changing estimates of CV space density and of contamination in hot-subdwarf selections.
  • The roughly 20-millimagnitude amplitude floor for clear variability is an implicit selection effect: low-amplitude sdB pulsators will be missed, so the method complements rather than replaces dedicated asteroseismic searches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 12 minor

Summary. The paper applies t-SNE and UMAP dimensionality reduction followed by Gaussian mixture modeling to 1,576 candidate hot subdwarf variables extracted from Gaia DR3 epoch photometry, using 27 features selected via random-forest importance scores. The clustering yields three groups: cluster 0 (290 objects) interpreted as clear variable hot subdwarfs, cluster 1 (990 objects) as dubious or low-S/N objects, and cluster 2 (296 objects) as cataclysmic variables. The authors report 85 new hot subdwarf variables from Gaia and TESS light curves and 108 new variables from Gaia light curves alone, with subtypes including reflection-effect systems, HW Vir systems, ellipsoidal variables, and high-amplitude pulsators. They also label 152 objects in cluster 2 as candidate CVs.

Significance. The basic experimental design is sound and the paper is a useful contribution: it demonstrates that a relatively simple unsupervised clustering pipeline fed with sparse Gaia multi-epoch statistics can separate high-amplitude variables (including known CVs) from lower-amplitude variable hot subdwarfs, and it provides a large list of candidate variables for follow-up. The independent validation is a genuine strength: 140 known CVs fall in cluster 2, and TESS periods agree with Gaia-derived periods for many cluster 0 objects. The 99% agreement between t-SNE and UMAP also supports the stability of the three-cluster solution. If the claims hold, the method will be valuable for building target lists for 4MOST, SDSS-V, and wide-field time-domain surveys. However, the paper's headline count of 152 new CV candidates rests on a purity assumption for cluster 2 that is not demonstrated, and the subtype classifications are based on visual inspection without explicit criteria.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, §4.2, Table 1] The inference that all 152 remaining members of cluster 2 are CV candidates is not supported by the evidence presented. The sentence "We considered all of these objects as candidate CVs since all known objects in cluster 2 are CVs without contamination from other classes" (§4.2) assumes that the known 140 CVs establish cluster purity, but the cluster separation is driven almost entirely by G-band amplitude, range, and interquartile range (Table A.3, Fig. 2), and §3.3 itself describes cluster 2 as containing "high-amplitude ambiguous variables." Amplitude is not a CV-specific diagnostic: deep-eclipse HW Vir systems, large-amplitude reflection/ellipsoidal systems, and BLAPs can reach comparable G-band amplitudes. The paper's own t-SNE/UMAP comparison shows that 8 objects with peak-to-peak variations of at least 0.5 mag are placed in cluster 2 by t-SNE but in cluster 0 by UMAP (§3.3), demonstrating that the high-amplitude boundary is already ambiguous for non-CV objects. Moreover, 70 of the 152 "candidate CVs" are SIMBAD hot-subdwarf candidates and only 3 are SIMBAD CV candidates (§4.2). No contamination model, spectroscopic check, or out-of-sample validation of cluster-2 purity is provided; the conclusion itself lists these objects as needing confirmation (§5). I request either a quantitative contamination estimate (e.g., the expected number of high-amplitude non-CV variables in the input catalogue) or a validation subsample with TESS light curves or spectroscopy, before presenting the 152 objects as new CV candidates in the abstract.
  2. [§3.2.1, §3.2.2, §3.3] The classification into reflection-effect, HW Vir, ellipsoidal, and pulsating variables is performed by visual inspection of phase-folded light curves, but no explicit criteria are given for these subtypes (e.g., eclipse depth or width thresholds, presence of two maxima, period ratios, or amplitude ratios). Because the abstract's headline results include specific counts of these subtypes among the 85 and 108 new variables, the reliability of these counts depends on a classification scheme that is not described. I ask for a statement of the decision rules and a validation against a known sample, e.g., a confusion matrix showing how many spectroscopically confirmed systems of each type are recovered in cluster 0.
  3. [§5 vs Abstract] The feature selection step uses random-forest importance scores computed from manually assigned labels ("clear variability" vs "ambiguous variability") to reduce the feature set from 49 to 27, and these same 27 features are then used for the unsupervised t-SNE/GMM clustering. This introduces a supervised component into the clustering pipeline, and the clusters are subsequently interpreted in terms of light-curve clarity and S/N. The circularity is not fatal, but the interpretation of the clusters as purely data-driven should be qualified. A robustness check using the full 49 features (or a purely unsupervised feature-selection method) would help confirm that the three clusters are not an artifact of the label-driven feature ranking; the silhouette scores for 49 vs 27 features are similar, but the label-based ranking is still used in both cases.
minor comments (12)
  1. [§4.2 and §5] The number of new hot subdwarf variables from Gaia and TESS is given as 85 in the abstract and Table 1, but as 89 in the conclusion bullet list; please reconcile.
  2. [§4.1.2] The number of candidate CVs in cluster 2 is given as 152 in §4.2 and the abstract, but as 156 in the conclusion bullet list; please reconcile. The conclusion also refers to "153 candidate hot subdwarf" new variables, which does not match any number in Table 1 or §4.1.2.
  3. [§4.1.1] In the text, "we found 42 reflection-effect systems, 21 HW Vir systems, 3 pulsating variables, and 2 ellipsoidal variables" for the 78 unconfirmed hot subdwarfs with TESS; Table 1 lists 40 new reflection candidates, 14 new HW Vir candidates, and 1 new pulsating candidate. The relationship between the text numbers and the table numbers is unclear; please clarify whether the text numbers include previously known variables.
  4. [Fig. 7] The sentence about the 15 systems classified from Gaia alone says "we found 5 sinusoidal-like light curves, 5 eclipsing binaries, and 2 HW Vir systems," which sums to 12, but the preceding sentence says 15 systems. The missing three objects appear as "Others/Unclear" in Table 1; the text should state this explicitly.
  5. [§3.2.1] The caption states "candidate hot subdwarfs (1682) from Culpan et al. (2022) with Gaia light curves," but the analysis sample after quality cuts is 1,576 objects. Please clarify what is plotted.
  6. [§2.1] The optimization of t-SNE hyperparameters (perplexity = 50, learning rate = 600) is described only by the final values; a brief statement of the search range and the metric used for optimization would aid reproducibility.
  7. [§4.1.3] The RUWE<7 cutoff is justified by reference to Dawson et al. (2024), but the choice of exactly 7 is presented without a sensitivity test; a short robustness statement (e.g., how the clustering changes for RUWE<3) would strengthen the analysis.
  8. [§4.1.4] The text says "nine already known pulsating variables" and then states that TIC 178626010 is a new pulsating variable; this is contradictory. Please rephrase to distinguish previously known pulsators from the newly identified one.
  9. [Table 1] For the two high-amplitude pulsating candidates, the text correctly uses the word "candidate BLAPs," but the abstract and conclusion call them "high-amplitude pulsating variables" without the candidate qualifier; please ensure the speculative nature is clear in the summary sections.
  10. [§4.2] The Table 1 layout is difficult to parse because rows mix confirmed and candidate hot subdwarfs, and the "Confirmed Variables" and "New Variables" columns are not repeated for the right-hand block. A clearer layout with explicit subheadings would make the new-variable counts easier to verify.
  11. [§5] In the period distribution of known and candidate CVs (Fig. 6), the period for candidate CVs is derived from the same cluster membership that is under scrutiny; if some candidates are not CVs, the period distribution is not meaningful. This should at least be acknowledged in the text.
  12. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that the algorithm "efficiently identifies CVs without the need for expensive follow-up spectroscopic observations." Given the concerns about cluster-2 purity, this claim should be softened to refer to candidate selection pending confirmation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Secondary CV-candidate claim reduces to amplitude-cluster membership; feature selection is influenced by manual labels, but the hot-subdwarf variable results are independently TESS-validated.

  1. renaming known result [Section 4.2 (Cataclysmic variables), supported by Section 3.3 and Table A.3]
    "The remaining 152 objects are identified by SIMBAD as candidate hot subdwarfs (70), stars (61), variables (9), and CV candidates (3). We considered all of these objects as candidate CVs since all known objects in cluster 2 are CVs without contamination from other classes."

    The candidate-CV label is not derived from a CV-specific diagnostic applied to the 152 objects; it is assigned by transferring the class of the 140 known CVs to every other member of cluster 2. The paper's own feature ranking shows that cluster separation is dominated by G-band amplitude, range, and interquartile range, and the cluster descriptions define cluster 2 as 'high-amplitude ambiguous variables.' Thus the headline output '152 candidate CVs' is the amplitude-defined cluster membership relabeled as a CV candidate list, with no contamination model or spectroscopic validation; the authors themselves list these objects as needing confirmation.

  2. other [Section 3.2 (Dimensionality reduction) and Section 3.3 (Cluster analysis)]
    "We also manually labelled each object based on their phase-folded diagrams, where objects that exhibited an obvious variability were labelled as 0, and those with an ambiguous variability were labelled as 1. These labels were used when fitting the random forest algorithm."

    The random forest importance scores fit to the manual clear-versus-ambiguous labels are used to select the 27 features on which t-SNE/UMAP and the Gaussian mixture clustering are run. The resulting clusters are then interpreted with the same vocabulary: cluster 0 is 'clear variability' and cluster 1 is 'dubious variability.' So part of the cluster separation is a projection of the manual labels used to choose the input features rather than an independent discovery. This does not invalidate the TESS-based subtype classifications inside cluster 0, but it weakens the claim that the clustering independently identifies the variability classes.

full rationale

The central hot-subdwarf claims are not circular: cluster 0 objects were further classified using Gaia and TESS light curves, the periods agree between Gaia and TESS, and the subtypes (HW Vir, reflection, ellipsoidal, pulsating) are determined from the light-curve morphology rather than from the cluster labels. Known CVs also provide an external anchor for cluster 2. However, two secondary load-bearing steps are partially circular by construction. First, the 152 'candidate CVs' are defined by cluster-2 membership itself; since the cluster is amplitude-dominated and the paper admits the objects are 'high-amplitude ambiguous variables,' calling them CV candidates is the cluster label renamed rather than an independently tested prediction. Second, the feature set is selected using manual clear/ambiguous labels, and the clusters are then described with exactly those categories, creating a mild feedback loop in the cluster interpretation. These issues do not make the whole derivation circular, because the new hot-subdwarf variable identifications have independent TESS support and the paper explicitly calls for spectroscopic confirmation of the CV and hot-subdwarf candidates.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are mostly machine-learning hyperparameters and selection cuts rather than physical constants. The axioms are domain assumptions about the parent catalogue, the period-search method, external classifications, the number of clusters, and the missing-data handling. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • t-SNE perplexity = 50
    Chosen by optimisation; controls the effective number of neighbours in the embedding.
  • t-SNE learning rate = 600
    Chosen by optimisation; affects convergence and cluster separation.
  • Number of GMM components = 3
    Set by visual inspection of t-SNE and UMAP projections; no model-selection criterion such as BIC or AIC is reported.
  • Pearson correlation threshold = 0.95
    Used to remove correlated features before t-SNE; arbitrary threshold.
  • Number of retained features = 27
    Obtained by iteratively removing least important features until the silhouette score stopped improving; this is a hand-tuned model selection.
  • Minimum number of observations = 25
    Cut based on Morales-Rueda et al. (2006); excludes objects with short light curves.
  • RUWE threshold = 7
    Astrometric quality cut adapted from Dawson et al. (2024), larger than the usual 1.4.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Culpan et al. (2022) catalogue of 61,585 hot subdwarf candidates is a valid parent sample.
    The catalogue is based on colour, absolute magnitude, and proper-motion criteria; it is known to be contaminated by CVs, white dwarfs, and main-sequence stars, which the paper exploits.
  • domain assumption The hybrid periodogram combining GLS and Lafler-Kinman statistics reliably recovers dominant periods in sparsely sampled Gaia light curves.
    Adopted from Ranaivomanana et al. (2023) without independent validation on Gaia sampling; periods drive many of the features.
  • domain assumption Known classifications from SIMBAD and cited catalogues such as Barlow et al. (2022), Hou et al. (2023), and Canbay et al. (2023) are correct.
    These are used to label cluster 2 as CVs and to claim 140 known CVs.
  • ad hoc to paper The GMM with three components captures the true structure of the 2D embedding.
    Chosen after visual inspection; no statistical comparison of 2, 3, or more components is given.
  • domain assumption Removing objects with missing values, from 1,682 to 1,576 candidates, does not bias the clustering.
    Missing values are dropped without a comparison of the removed objects' properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Variability in hot sub-luminous stars and binaries: Machine-learning analysis of Gaia DR3 multi-epoch photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JPXYJ2SV

@misc{pith2026241118609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Variability in hot sub-luminous stars and binaries: Machine-learning analysis of Gaia DR3 multi-epoch photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JPXYJ2SV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18609}
}
read the original abstract

Hot sub-luminous stars represent a population of stripped and evolved red giants that is located on the extreme horizontal branch. Since they exhibit a wide range of variability due to pulsations or binary interactions, it is crucial to unveil their intrinsic and extrinsic variability to understand the physical processes of their formation. In the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, they overlap with interacting binaries such as cataclysmic variables (CVs). By leveraging the most recent clustering algorithm tools, we investigate the variability of 1,576 candidate hot subdwarf variables using comprehensive data from Gaia DR3 multi-epoch photometry and Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) observations. We present a novel approach that uses the t-distributed stochastic neighbour embedding and the uniform manifold approximation and projection dimensionality reduction algorithms to facilitate the identification and classification of different populations of variable hot subdwarfs and CVs in a large dataset. In addition to the publicly available Gaia time-series statistics table, we adopted additional statistical features that enhanced the performance of the algorithms. The clustering results led to the identification of 85 new hot subdwarf variables based on Gaia and TESS light curves and of 108 new variables based on Gaia light curves alone, including reflection-effect systems, HW Vir, ellipsoidal variables, and high-amplitude pulsating variables. A significant number of known CVs (140) distinctively cluster in the 2D feature space among an additional 152 objects that we consider candidates for new CVs. This study paves the way for more efficient and comprehensive analyses of stellar variability from ground- and space-based observations, and for the application of machine-learning classifications of candidate variable stars in large surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18609 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Clustering results using the t-SNE (top panels) and UMAP (bottom panels) dimensionality reduction algorithms and clustering labels (right panels) from the Gaussian mixture model (GMM). The left and middle panels represent the 2D components using 49 and 27 features, respectively. The open orange stars in these panels correspond to the manually selected objects with clear variabilities. tribution) in the clusters show… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Amplitude distribution of each cluster in the Gaia G band (left panel) and gradient of the variability amplitude in the G band across the t-SNE components (right panel). 2D representation that a specific or a group of a few features cause the distinction of the clusters. 3.2.2. Dimensionality reduction with UMAP Similar to t-SNE, UMAP (McInnes et al. 2018) is a non-linear algorithm for high-dimensional data visualis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Three examples of new variable hot subdwarfs identified in this work. The light curves are phase-folded to the same periods and reference epochs. The three objects correspond to an HW Vir (left), a reflection effect (middle), and an ellipsoidal system (right). The light curves on the right are phased to twice the period to highlight the ellipsoidal variation. The blue lines represent the binned phase of the TESS lig… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three pulsating hot subdwarfs observed with Gaia and TESS. The left and middle panels correspond to known pulsating variables (Krzesinski & Balona 2022), and the right panel shows a pulsating variable identified in this work and Krzesinski et al (in prep.). The two lig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: New high-amplitude pulsating variables observed with Gaia. 0 2 4 6 8 PeriodTESS(hr) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of objects CVs CV candidates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Period distribution of the confirmed and candidate CVs in clus￾ter 2. determined in the G band. Their amplitudes in these bands are as follows: Gaia DR3 5835161264415038592 has peak-to-peak amplitudes of 0.21 mag and 0.19 mag in the BP and RP bands, respectively. Simil…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Identified variables from Gaia and TESS light curves. The shaded colours correspond to confirmed hot subdwarfs. CV objects were obtained from the literature (see Sect. 4.2). which are a result of instabilities in the accretion disk and lead to sudden higher mass transf…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Period distribution of the binary systems observed with Gaia and TESS in cluster 0. presented in Fig. A.3, with the 10th percentile, the median, and the 90th percentile of the features for each cluster. In comparison to the other two clusters, cluster 2 exhibits a broa…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    & Tkachenko , A

    Aerts , C. & Tkachenko , A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.08453

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Baluev , R. V. 2008, , 385, 1279

    2008

  5. [5]

    N., Corcoran , K

    Barlow , B. N., Corcoran , K. A., Parker , I. M., et al. 2022, , 928, 20

    2022

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Graham , M. J., et al. 2019, , 131, 018002

    2019

  7. [7]

    2014, , 569, A123

    Bloemen , S., Hu , H., Aerts , C., et al. 2014, , 569, A123

    2014

  8. [8]

    2001, , 563, 1013

    Brassard , P., Fontaine , G., Bill \`e res , M., et al. 2001, , 563, 1013

    2001

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5

    Breiman, L. 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5

    2001

  2. [10]

    2023, , 165, 163

    Canbay , R., Bilir , S., \"O zd \"o nmez , A., & Ak , T. 2023, , 165, 163

    2023

  3. [11]

    1997, , 483, L123

    Charpinet , S., Fontaine , G., Brassard , P., et al. 1997, , 483, L123

    1997

  4. [12]

    M., Baglin , A., et al

    Charpinet , S., Green , E. M., Baglin , A., et al. 2010, , 516, L6

    2010

  5. [13]

    2022, , 163, 23

    Cui , K., Liu , J., Feng , F., & Liu , J. 2022, , 163, 23

    2022

  6. [14]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    Cui , X.-Q., Zhao , Y.-H., Chu , Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197

    2012

  7. [15]

    2022, , 662, A40

    Culpan , R., Geier , S., Reindl , N., et al. 2022, , 662, A40

    2022

  8. [16]

    2024, , 686, A25

    Dawson , H., Geier , S., Heber , U., et al. 2024, , 686, A25

    2024

  9. [17]

    S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A

    de Jong , R. S., Agertz , O., Berbel , A. A., et al. 2019, The Messenger, 175, 3

    2019

  10. [18]

    R., stensen , R

    Deca , J., Marsh , T. R., stensen , R. H., et al. 2012, , 421, 2798

    2012

  11. [19]

    T., & O'Connell , R

    Dorman , B., Rood , R. T., & O'Connell , R. W. 1993, , 419, 596

    1993

  12. [20]

    2023, , 674, A13

    Eyer , L., Audard , M., Holl , B., et al. 2023, , 674, A13

    2023

  13. [21]

    2003, , 597, 518

    Fontaine , G., Brassard , P., Charpinet , S., et al. 2003, , 597, 518

    2003

  14. [22]

    J., Vanrespaille , M., Aerts , C., Hey , D., & De Ridder , J

    Fritzewski , D. J., Vanrespaille , M., Aerts , C., Hey , D., & De Ridder , J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06097

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  16. [24]

    Gaia Collaboration , Brown , A. G. A., Vallenari , A., et al. 2021 a , , 649, A1

    2021

  17. [25]

    L., Sarro , L

    Gaia Collaboration , Smart , R. L., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2021 b , , 649, A6

    2021

  18. [26]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1

    2023

  19. [27]

    2020, , 635, A193

    Geier , S. 2020, , 635, A193

    2020

  20. [28]

    2023, , 677, A11

    Geier , S., Dorsch , M., Dawson , H., et al. 2023, , 677, A11

    2023

  21. [29]

    2022, , 661, A113

    Geier , S., Dorsch , M., Pelisoli , I., et al. 2022, , 661, A113

    2022

  22. [30]

    2010, , 329, 91

    Geier , S., Heber , U., Tillich , A., et al. 2010, , 329, 91

    2010

  23. [31]

    P., & Marsh , T

    Geier , S., Raddi , R., Gentile Fusillo , N. P., & Marsh , T. R. 2019, , 621, A38

    2019

  24. [32]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98

    2019

  25. [33]

    J., Bloemen , S., Vreeswijk , P

    Groot , P. J., Bloemen , S., Vreeswijk , P. M., et al. 2024, , 136, 115003

    2024

  26. [34]

    Han , Z., Podsiadlowski , P., Maxted , P. F. L., & Marsh , T. R. 2003, , 341, 669

    2003

  27. [35]

    Han , Z., Podsiadlowski , P., Maxted , P. F. L., Marsh , T. R., & Ivanova , N. 2002, , 336, 449

    2002

  28. [36]

    2009, , 47, 211

    Heber , U. 2009, , 47, 211

    2009

  29. [37]

    2016, , 128, 082001

    Heber , U. 2016, , 128, 082001

    2016

  30. [38]

    L., Dong , Y.-Q., Chen , X.-L., & Bai , Z.-R

    Hou , W., Luo , A. L., Dong , Y.-Q., Chen , X.-L., & Bai , Z.-R. 2023, , 165, 148

    2023

  31. [39]

    A., Aerts , C., et al

    Hu , H., Dupret , M. A., Aerts , C., et al. 2008, , 490, 243

    2008

  32. [40]

    A., Glebbeek , E., & Dupret , M

    Hu , H., Tout , C. A., Glebbeek , E., & Dupret , M. A. 2011, , 418, 195

    2011

  33. [41]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  34. [42]

    C., Dalton , G

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

    2024

  35. [43]

    2024, , 76, 653

    Kao , W.-B., Zhang , Y., & Wu , X.-B. 2024, , 76, 653

    2024

  36. [44]

    Kim , D.-W., Yeo , D., Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., & Lee , G. 2021, , 653, A22

    2021

  37. [45]

    F., Blanc , G

    Kollmeier , J., Anderson , S. F., Blanc , G. A., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 274

    2019

  38. [46]

    & Balona , L

    Krzesinski , J. & Balona , L. A. 2022, , 663, A45

    2022

  39. [47]

    & Johnson, K

    Kuhn, M. & Johnson, K. 2019, Feature Engineering and Selection: A Practical Approach for Predictive Models (Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC)

    2019

  40. [48]

    2015, , 576, A44

    Kupfer , T., Geier , S., Heber , U., et al. 2015, , 576, A44

    2015

  41. [49]

    2023, , 942, 109

    Lei , Z., He , R., N \'e meth , P., et al. 2023, , 942, 109

    2023

  42. [50]

    2020, , 889, 117

    Lei , Z., Zhao , J., N \'e meth , P., & Zhao , G. 2020, , 889, 117

    2020

  43. [51]

    2024, , 167, 180

    Liao , H., Ren , G., Chen , X., Li , Y., & Li , G. 2024, , 167, 180

    2024

  44. [52]

    Lightkurve Collaboration , Cardoso , J. V. d. M., Hedges , C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1812.013

    2018

  45. [53]

    2019, , 881, 7

    Luo , Y., N \'e meth , P., Deng , L., & Han , Z. 2019, , 881, 7

    2019

  46. [54]

    A., Toma , R., Ramsay , G., et al

    Macfarlane , S. A., Toma , R., Ramsay , G., et al. 2015, , 454, 507

    2015

  47. [55]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.03426

    McInnes , L., Healy , J., & Melville , J. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.03426

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 861

    McInnes, L., Healy, J., Saul, N., & Grossberger, L. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 861

    2018

  49. [57]

    2024, , 691, A106

    Monsalves , N., Jaque Arancibia , M., Bayo , A., et al. 2024, , 691, A106

    2024

  50. [58]

    J., Augusteijn , T., et al

    Morales-Rueda , L., Groot , P. J., Augusteijn , T., et al. 2006, , 371, 1681

    2006

  51. [59]

    S., Sanjayan , S., & Sahoo , S

    Ostrowski , J., Baran , A. S., Sanjayan , S., & Sahoo , S. K. 2021, , 503, 4646

    2021

  52. [60]

    2022, , 517, 3660

    Pantoja , R., Catelan , M., Pichara , K., & Protopapas , P. 2022, , 517, 3660

    2022

  53. [61]

    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

  54. [62]

    Pelisoli , I., Vos , J., Geier , S., Schaffenroth , V., & Baran , A. S. 2020, , 642, A180

    2020

  55. [63]

    A., Latour , M., et al

    Pietrukowicz , P., Dziembowski , W. A., Latour , M., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0166

    2017

  56. [64]

    2002, , 52, 397

    Pojmanski , G. 2002, , 52, 397

    2002

  57. [65]

    J., et al

    Ranaivomanana , P., Johnston , C., Groot , P. J., et al. 2023, , 672, A69

    2023

  58. [66]

    D., Shoaf , K

    Reed , M. D., Shoaf , K. A., N \'e meth , P., et al. 2020, , 493, 5162

    2020

  59. [67]

    W., Starr , D

    Richards , J. W., Starr , D. L., Miller , A. A., et al. 2012, , 203, 32

    2012

  60. [68]

    R., Winn , J

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

    2015

  61. [69]

    & Kolb , U

    Ritter , H. & Kolb , U. 2003, , 404, 301

    2003

  62. [70]

    Rousseeuw, P. J. 1987, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20, 53

    1987

  63. [71]

    A., Bergeron , P., Koester , D., & Liebert , J

    Saffer , R. A., Bergeron , P., Koester , D., & Liebert , J. 1994, , 432, 351

    1994

  64. [72]

    & Vivas , A

    Saha , A. & Vivas , A. K. 2017, , 154, 231

    2017

  65. [73]

    K., Baran , A

    Sahoo , S. K., Baran , A. S., Heber , U., et al. 2020, , 495, 2844

    2020

  66. [74]

    Scargle , J. D. 1982, , 263, 835

    1982

  67. [75]

    N., Geier , S., et al

    Schaffenroth , V., Barlow , B. N., Geier , S., et al. 2019, , 630, A80

    2019

  68. [76]

    N., Pelisoli , I., Geier , S., & Kupfer , T

    Schaffenroth , V., Barlow , B. N., Pelisoli , I., Geier , S., & Kupfer , T. 2023, , 673, A90

    2023

  69. [77]

    N., Geier , S., & Kupfer , T

    Schaffenroth , V., Pelisoli , I., Barlow , B. N., Geier , S., & Kupfer , T. 2022, , 666, A182

    2022

  70. [78]

    1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, L107

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1996, The Astrophysical Journal, 460, L107

    1996

  71. [79]

    H., et al

    Silvotti , R., N \'e meth , P., Telting , J. H., et al. 2022, , 511, 2201

    2022

  72. [80]

    K., Ackley , K., et al

    Steeghs , D., Galloway , D. K., Ackley , K., et al. 2022, , 511, 2405

    2022

  73. [81]

    H., Kepler , S

    Uzundag , M., C \'o rsico , A. H., Kepler , S. O., et al. 2021, , 655, A27

    2021

  74. [82]

    2024, , 684, A118

    Uzundag , M., Krzesinski , J., Pelisoli , I., et al. 2024, , 684, A118

    2024

  75. [83]

    S., et al

    Uzundag , M., Silvotti , R., Baran , A. S., et al. 2023, Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 92, 11294

    2023

  76. [84]

    & Hinton, G

    van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G. 2008, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 2579

    2008

  77. [85]

    M., & Brassard , P

    Van Grootel , V., Charpinet , S., Fontaine , G., Green , E. M., & Brassard , P. 2010, , 524, A63

    2010

  78. [86]

    VanderPlas , J. T. 2018, , 236, 16

    2018

  79. [87]

    2020, , 641, A163

    Vos , J., Bobrick , A., & Vu c kovi \'c , M. 2020, , 641, A163

    2020

  80. [88]

    2019, , 482, 4592

    Vos , J., Vu c kovi \'c , M., Chen , X., et al. 2019, , 482, 4592

    2019

  81. [89]

    Webbink , R. F. 1984, , 277, 355

    1984

Pith tools

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