Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A theoretical framework for BL Her stars III. A case study: Robust light curve optimisation in the LMC

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Light-curve shape matching recovers stellar parameters of 48 BL Her stars and fixes the LMC distance at 18.582 ± 0.067.

desk verdict A solid case study in light-curve matching for BL Her stars, but the headline LMC distance overstates its precision in a way a referee should push back on. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09287 v1 pith:7UGPVEBI submitted 2024-12-12 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Susmita Das , László Molnár , Gábor B. Kovács , Radoslaw Smolec , Meridith Joyce , Shashi M. Kanbur , Tamás Szklenár , Anupam Bhardwaj
show 3 more authors
Harinder P. Singh Marcella Marconi Vincenzo Ripepi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords BLHerculisstarstypeIICepheidslightcurvefittingFourierdecompositionMESA-RSPGaiaDR3LargeMagellanicClouddistancemodulus
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 sets out to show that the full-cycle shape of a BL Herculis star's light curve can be used as a fingerprint to recover the star's physical parameters, not just its mean-light behaviour. Matching Gaia DR3 G-band light curves of 58 LMC BL Her stars against a large grid of MESA-RSP pulsation models, scored by a weighted Fourier-space distance, the authors identify best-fit models for 48 stars, 30 of which pass a stricter 'gold' cut. From those matches they report a flat mass distribution near 0.5–0.65 solar masses, a preference for convection prescriptions without radiative cooling, period-Wesenheit and period-radius slopes consistent with empirical relations, and a distance modulus to the LMC of 18.582 ± 0.067. The point of the exercise is that light-curve structure of type II Cepheids, not just mean magnitudes, can constrain stellar evolution models and serve as a distance indicator.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the weighted goodness-of-fit parameter $d$ of Eq. (8), which sums normalized squared deviations between model and observed Fourier descriptors $p \in \{\log P, A, S_k, A_c, R_{21}, R_{31}, \phi_{21}, \phi_{31}\}$ (extended to $R_{41}\dots R_{71}$ for bump stars), with amplitude and skewness given ten times the weight of the others. This score, combined with a preliminary cut $|\log P_{\rm mod} - \log P_{\rm obs}| \le 0.01$ and $|A_{\rm mod} - A_{\rm obs}| \le 0.2$ mag and a final Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit test on normalized residuals, picks the single best model from a grid of nonlinear MESA-RSP models computed in four convection prescriptions (sets A–D of Paxton et al. 2019). The Fourier machinery matters because the lower-order parameters encode mean-light behaviour while higher-order terms (especially $R_{k1}$) encode the bump feature and the fine shape of the light curve, which is what makes shape matching sensitive to mass, luminosity, temperature, and convection treatment.

What would settle it

Obtain radial-velocity curves for the 30 gold-sample BL Her stars and require the same best-fit model to reproduce both the G-band light curve and the velocity curve: if no model in the shortlisted ten reproduces both simultaneously, the claim that Fourier-shape matching recovers true stellar parameters would be refuted. A cheaper check is to fix the geometric LMC distance at 18.477 and ask whether the model absolute magnitudes then scatter symmetrically about the observed apparent magnitudes; a systematic offset would betray a bias in the model luminosities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a robust Fourier-domain scoring of modeled-observed pairs works: for 48 of 58 BL Her stars in the LMC a single best-matching MESA-RSP model can be identified by period, amplitude, skewness, acuteness, and Fourier amplitude and phase parameters, and the 30 highest-quality matches have G-band light curves that track the observed ones cycle by cycle. These 30 gold-sample models imply a relatively flat distribution of stellar masses between 0.5 and 0.65 $M_\odot$, with 90% of the best matches favouring low-mass models and roughly two-thirds sitting near the blue edge of the instability strip. A striking outcome is that 93.3% of the gold models come from convection parameter sets A and C, the two sets without radiative cooling and with the lowest eddy-viscosity parameters, although the authors caution this does not by itself prove radiative cooling is inefficient. The gold sample yields a period-Wesenheit slope of $-2.805 \pm 0.164$, statistically consistent with the empirical slope of $-2.398 \pm 0.146$, and a period-radius slope of $0.565 \pm 0.035$, in excellent agreement with the empirical $0.564 \pm 0.049$. Using Wesenheit magnitudes of the same 30 pairs gives $\mu_{\rm LMC} = 18.582 \pm 0.067$, within the bounds of the geometric distance of $18.477 \pm 0.026$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole parameter recovery rests on the assumption that the four fixed convection prescriptions plus static model atmospheres used in the model grid produce G-band light curves whose full-cycle shape is a faithful representation of real BL Her stars; if that shape is wrong, the matched masses, the preference for convection sets A and C, and the distance modulus all inherit the bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the gold sample's stellar parameters are right, BL Her light-curve matching gives a direct, model-based route to the stellar masses and luminosities of type II Cepheids without needing binaries or asteroseismology.
  • The period-radius and period-Wesenheit slopes from matched models agree with empirical LMC relations, so the models can be used to calibrate these relations in regimes where observations are sparse.
  • The 30 matched pairs yield a model-based LMC distance modulus (18.582 ± 0.067) that agrees with geometric and other distance determinations, supporting BL Her stars as distance indicators in the 1–4 day period range.
  • The systematic preference for convection sets without radiative cooling (A and C) offers a concrete constraint for future convection calibration in MESA-RSP, narrowing the free parameter space.
  • For stars with bumps, the need for higher-order Fourier amplitudes (up to $R_{71}$) shows the technique resolves the Hertzsprung-progression analogue in BL Her stars, enabling period-bump mapping to parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My reading: the individual metallicity estimates in Table 1, which for some stars span the entire grid range among the ten best matches, are probably not reliable on a star-by-star basis despite the good light-curve fits; the paper's own degeneracy analysis shows Z is the least constrained parameter, so population-level metallicity statements derived from these fits should be taken with caution.
  • A testable next step the paper leaves implicit: applying the same $d$-scoring to simultaneous multi-band light curves or adding radial-velocity curves would break the degeneracy and could be benchmarked against the few stars with independent mass estimates.
  • The preference for sets A and C could be sharpened: if the eddy-viscosity parameter is the controlling free parameter, recomputing a sub-grid with intermediate eddy-viscosity values between the A/C and B/D prescriptions should produce visibly better fits; this is a direct prediction of the paper's interpretation that the interplay of convective parameters, not radiative cooling itself, drives the
  • Because the gold-sample distance modulus sits about 0.1 mag above the geometric eclipsing-binary distance, a systematic under-luminosity of the models (for instance from static model atmospheres) would bias the distance high; comparing the same matched stars in the I band, which is less sensitive to atmosphere handling, would show whether the offset is physical or a model artifact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops and applies a light-curve matching framework for BL Her stars: it uses Gaia DR3 G-band light curves of 58 LMC BL Her stars and a grid of MESA-RSP models from the authors' previous papers, represents light curves by Fourier parameters, skewness, acuteness, period and amplitude, and minimizes a weighted distance d (Eq. 8) after period and amplitude pre-selection. For each star the ten lowest-d models are shortlisted, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on normalized residuals selects the best pair, and visual inspection separates 30 'gold' and 18 'silver' accepted matches from 10 rejected ones. The resulting stellar parameter estimates are tabulated (Table 1), the gold sample is used for a period-Wesenheit slope (-2.805 +/- 0.164), a period-radius slope (0.565 +/- 0.035), and an LMC distance modulus (18.582 +/- 0.067). Section 7 discusses the degeneracy among the ten best models for two example stars, and Section 8 lists limitations including the four fixed convection parameter sets and static model atmospheres.

Significance. If the matching procedure is trustworthy, this is a genuinely useful step: it moves beyond mean-light PL relations and uses full-cycle light-curve structure to estimate masses, luminosities, temperatures, metallicities and radii for BL Her stars, and it offers a model-based distance estimate. The paper has real strengths: the fitting pipeline is described in enough detail to reproduce, the analysis is built on a published and extensive model grid from Papers I and II, the degeneracy discussion in Section 7 is honest, and the limitations (static atmospheres, convection parameters, red-star mismatch) are stated explicitly in Sections 4.3, 5 and 8. However, the quantitative headline results currently rest on two load-bearing choices that need strengthening: the distance error bar treats model-dominated scatter as independent random noise, and the scoring weights and gold/silver classification involve choices made on the same dataset that is later used for inference. These issues are fixable, but they materially affect the central claims, so the paper requires revision rather than acceptance as is.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 1] The quoted mu_LMC = 18.582 ± 0.067 is the arithmetic mean of the 30 individual distance moduli in Table 1 divided by sqrt(30). The individual moduli have a standard deviation of about 0.37 mag (the paper itself reports sigma = 0.363 for the mu-[Fe/H] relation), with values such as 17.233, 17.499 and 19.024. Because this scatter is dominated by model-to-model differences in absolute Wesenheit magnitude (convection treatment, static atmospheres, grid discretization) rather than by independent photometric noise, the standard error substantially understates the uncertainty. The result is also not robust: removing the two lowest outliers or using the median shifts the distance by roughly 0.07-0.09 mag, comparable to the quoted 1-sigma error. Please report the scatter and a model-systematics budget, and provide a robustness test such as a jackknife over the sample or explicit outlier-exclusion variants.
  2. [Section 4.3 and Appendix B, Eq. (8)] The weights np = 10 for amplitude and skewness were selected by visual inspection of modeled-observed pairs on the same 58-star LMC sample that is later used for parameter estimation and gold/silver classification (Section 4.3, Fig. B.1). This is a form of tuning on the test set: it can inflate the apparent quality of the best matches and bias the inferred parameters. The statement that weights should be 'decided after testing what works best for a particular dataset' does not resolve the circularity. Please either fix the weights a priori on independent grounds, demonstrate that the parameter estimates and distance modulus are stable across a range of reasonable weight choices, or use a cross-validation-style separation of tuning and evaluation samples.
  3. [Section 4.3, Table 1] The gold/silver classification is not defined by a reproducible criterion. The text says the KS test is used to choose the best among the ten shortlisted models, but also that 'most of the cases do not have a goodness-of-fit above acceptance level' and that final acceptance is verified by visual inspection. Table 1 lists KS scores spanning many orders of magnitude within the gold sample (e.g., 3.98e-06 to 1.43e-39), with silver-sample scores in the same range. Please state precisely what 'Score' in Table 1 is (KS statistic, p-value, or other), define the threshold or procedure that separates the 30 gold from the 18 silver and the 10 rejected pairs, and test whether the distance modulus and PW/PR slopes are stable under reasonable alternative classifications.
  4. [Section 5, Fig. 5] The validation shows that the gold sample matches only in the blue part of the CMD ((V-I) < 0.62) and the text states that parameters of redder stars are not estimated well. Since the observed LMC sample includes redder BL Her stars, the gold sample is a selected subset, and both the distance modulus and the period-Wesenheit/period-radius slopes may be subject to selection bias. Please quantify this by comparing the CMD and period coverage of the gold sample with the full 58-star sample and by discussing the direction and magnitude of the resulting bias on the reported distance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The uncertainties on W_th are listed as ±0.0 for all entries; please clarify what quantity this is (grid discretization, model uncertainty) and how it was estimated, or state explicitly that no model-side uncertainty is propagated.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The notation np is used both as a weight and, implicitly, as a count of parameters; renaming the weight to w_p or similar would avoid confusion.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract reports mu_LMC = 18.582 ± 0.067 without conveying that this error is only the standard error of the mean of model-dependent individual distances; the abstract should reflect the larger systematic uncertainty discussed in the body.
  4. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (9)-(10)] It would help to state explicitly why R41-R71 are included for N = 7 fits but the corresponding phase parameters phi_41-phi_71 are not, even though the text motivates this in words; a one-sentence quantitative justification or reference would suffice.
  5. [Fig. B.1] The caption lists five conditions but the panels are not labeled with condition numbers inside the figure; adding condition labels to each subplot would make the comparison much easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model grid, external comparisons, and distance estimate are not defined by the fitted light-curve parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (1) take the MESA-RSP BL Her model grid computed in Papers I and II from stated inputs (Z, M, L, Teff, one of four convection sets); (2) compare Gaia DR3 G-band light curves to the grid using Fourier parameters and the score d; (3) select the lowest-d model for each star, with the KS test as a tie-breaker; (4) read off that model's M, L, Teff, Z as the stellar parameter estimate; (5) compute the model Wesenheit magnitude W_th and form the per-star distance modulus mu = W_obs - W_th; and (6) compare the resulting PW and PR slopes and the CMD against external empirical data. No step defines its output in terms of the target quantity: the model grid was not fit to the 58 LMC stars, the distance modulus is not used to calibrate W_th, and the gold sample was selected on period and light-curve shape rather than on W or R, so the PW/PR slope agreement is a genuine consistency check rather than an enforced result. The acknowledged limitations (the Paxton et al. convection sets are 'merely useful starting choices'; static model atmospheres vs. dynamic pulsating atmospheres) are model-fidelity caveats, not circular inputs. The weights np=10 for amplitude and skewness were chosen by experimenting on the same dataset, which is an in-sample model-selection concern and may inflate the apparent quality of the fits, but this is not a fitted parameter that by construction produces the reported masses, luminosities, or distance. Consequently no circular step can be exhibited, and the central results retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the fixed-convection MESA-RSP grid plus static atmospheres produces light curves whose Fourier shapes are realistic, and on tunable scoring weights and cutoffs chosen on the same data. No new physical entities are postulated. The paper's honesty about degeneracy lowers the burden somewhat, but the selection of the gold sample is still a subjective step.

free parameters (5)
  • Weight np for amplitude A and skewness Sk in d metric = 10
    Chosen after visual comparison of fits on the same dataset (Appendix B.1, Fig. B.1); the paper tested 1, 5, 10, 20 and selected 10. This tunes the objective function to the data it later validates.
  • Period matching tolerance |log(P)mod - log(P)obs| = 0.01
    Hand-set cutoff in Eq. 7; determines which models enter the scoring.
  • Amplitude matching tolerance |Amod - Aobs| = 0.2 mag
    Hand-set cutoff in Eq. 7; excludes models with too-high or too-low amplitudes.
  • Higher-order Fourier amplitude cutoff for no-bump stars Rk1 = 0.015 for 8<=k<=11
    Hand-set threshold in Eq. 6 to reject models with bumps; affects the no-bump sample.
  • Gold/silver/rejected classification threshold = None
    The 30/18/10 split is determined by visual inspection and KS score without a formal cutoff; the choice of the gold sample drives the distance estimate and PW/PR slopes.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MESA-RSP 1D nonlinear radial pulsation models with the four convection parameter sets from Paxton et al. (2019) capture the relevant pulsation behavior of BL Her stars.
    The entire match is between these model light curves and observed ones; the authors say the convection parameters are 'merely useful starting choices' (Section 4.3).
  • domain assumption Static model atmospheres are adequate to convert bolometric model light curves to Gaia G/GBP/GRP magnitudes.
    Acknowledged limitation in Section 8: 'adopting static model atmospheres while the pulsating atmosphere is clearly dynamic may also affect our extensive light curve comparison analysis'.
  • domain assumption The observed BL Her stars are single-mode radial pulsators with periods 1-4 days and can be represented by the model grid (M=0.5-0.8 Msun, L=50-300 Lsun, Z grid).
    Grid coverage limits the possible solutions; stars outside the grid cannot be matched, and 10 stars were indeed not matched (Section 8).
  • standard math Fourier decomposition and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are appropriate summaries of light curve shape.
    Standard techniques used throughout the pulsating-star literature; no issue.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.
    The paper is a model-observation comparison; it does not postulate new physical entities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A theoretical framework for BL Her stars III. A case study: Robust light curve optimisation in the LMC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UGPVEBI

@misc{pith2026241209287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A theoretical framework for BL Her stars III. A case study: Robust light curve optimisation in the LMC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UGPVEBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09287}
}
abstract

We carry out an extensive light curve comparison of BL Her stars using observations from Gaia DR3 and stellar pulsation models computed using MESA-RSP with the goal to obtain the best-matched modeled-observed pairs for BL Her stars in the LMC. We use the Fourier decomposition technique to analyse the light curves in the G band obtained from Gaia DR3 and from MESA-RSP and use a robust light curve fitting approach to score the modeled-observed pairs with respect to their pulsation periods and over their Fourier parameter space. We obtain the best-fit models for 48 BL Her stars in the LMC and thereby provide the stellar parameter estimates of these stars, 30 of which are labelled as the gold sample with superior light curve fits. We find a relatively flat distribution of stellar masses between 0.5-0.65 Msolar for the gold sample of modeled-observed pairs. An interesting result is that the majority of the best-matched models in the gold sample are computed using the convection parameter sets without radiative cooling. The period-Wesenheit relation for the best-matched gold sample of 30 BL Her models exhibits a slope of $-2.805 \pm 0.164$ while the corresponding period-radius relation exhibits a slope of $0.565 \pm 0.035$, both in good agreement with the empirical PW and PR slopes from BL Her stars in the LMC, respectively. We also used the Wesenheit magnitudes of the 30 best-matched modeled-observed pairs to estimate a distance modulus of $\mu_{\rm LMC} = 18.582 \pm 0.067$ to the LMC, which lies within the bounds of previous literature values. We also discuss the degeneracy in the stellar parameters of the BL Her models that result in similar pulsation periods and light curve structure, and highlight that caution must be exercised while using the stellar parameter estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09287 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Period distribution of the observed BL Her stars in the LMC with and without the presence of the bump feature in their G band light curve structure. Examples of BL Her stars exhibiting no bump or bump in their light curves are displayed in the upper right and lower right panels respectively. 4. Estimating the stellar parameters of BL Her stars in the LMC We now compare the theoretical and observed G band light curve… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The light curves (normalized with respect to their mean magnitudes) of the 30 BL Her stars in the LMC (in red) with their best-matched models (in blue). These 30 accepted modeled-observed pairs are considered as the gold sample with superior model fitting. The input stellar parameters of the corresponding models are included in the format (Z, M/M⊙, L/L⊙, Teff, convection set) in each sub-plot. Article number, page 5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A visualisation of the properties of the gold sample of 30 BL Her models that match the best with BL Her stars in the LMC. The top panels present histograms plotting the distribution of the BL Her models as a function of stellar mass M/M⊙, stellar luminosity L/L⊙, meta…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The colour-magnitude diagram of the gold sample (left) and the silver sample (right) of the BL Her modeled-observed pairs using the OGLE counterparts. The grey points in the background represent all BL Her models across the four sets of convection parameters [PITH_FUL…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left-hand panels display the variation of distance modulus as a function of period (top) and metal abundance (bottom). Solid lines represent µLMC = 18.477 ± 0.026 (Pietrzynski et al. ´ 2019) in the top panel and best-fitting linear regression in the bottom panel wh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of the 10 best-matched models corresponding to one particular observed BL Her star Gaia DR3 4661638790215403008. The observed light curve is shown in red while the theoretical light curves are displayed in blue. The input stellar parameters of the correspond…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A corner plot exhibiting the correlations of the different stellar parameters (chemical composition Z, stellar mass M/M⊙, stellar luminosity L/L⊙, stellar radius log(R/R⊙) and effective temperature Teff) using the 10 best-matched models corresponding to one particular …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A theoretical framework for BL Her stars IV. New period-luminosity relations in the Rubin-LSST filters

    astro-ph.SR 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    New theoretical PL and PW relations for BL Her stars in the Rubin-LSST filters show weak metallicity dependence for filters redder than g, recommending W(i,g-i), W(z,i-z) and W(y,g-y) as standard candle relations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3754

    Andrae , R., Schulze-Hartung , T., & Melchior , P. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3754

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    J., & Scott , P

    Asplund , M., Grevesse , N., Sauval , A. J., & Scott , P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  5. [5]

    Baart, M. L. 1982, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 2, 241

    1982

  6. [6]

    L., Freedman , W

    Beaton , R. L., Freedman , W. L., Madore , B. F., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 210

    2016

  7. [7]

    P., Kanbur , S

    Bellinger , E. P., Kanbur , S. M., Bhardwaj , A., & Marconi , M. 2020, , 491, 4752

    2020

  8. [8]

    & Kalaba, R

    Bellman, R. & Kalaba, R. 1959, IRE Transactions on Automatic Control, 4, 1

    1959

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    M., Marconi , M., et al

    Bhardwaj , A., Kanbur , S. M., Marconi , M., et al. 2017 a , MNRAS, 466, 2805

    2017

  2. [10]

    M., Rejkuba , M., et al

    Bhardwaj , A., Kanbur , S. M., Rejkuba , M., et al. 2022, , 668, A59

    2022

  3. [11]

    2017 b , A&A, 605, A100

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

    2017

  4. [12]

    F., Fiorentino , G., et al

    Bono , G., Braga , V. F., Fiorentino , G., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A96

    2020

  5. [13]

    1997, A&A, 317, 171

    Bono , G., Caputo , F., & Santolamazza , P. 1997, A&A, 317, 171

    1997

  6. [14]

    2000, , 532, L129

    Bono , G., Castellani , V., & Marconi , M. 2000, , 532, L129

    2000

  7. [15]

    2002, ApJ, 565, L83

    Bono , G., Castellani , V., & Marconi , M. 2002, ApJ, 565, L83

    2002

  8. [16]

    F., Bono , G., Fiorentino , G., et al

    Braga , V. F., Bono , G., Fiorentino , G., et al. 2020, A&A, 644, A95

    2020

  9. [17]

    Buchler , J. R. & Moskalik , P. 1992, ApJ, 391, 736

    1992

  10. [18]

    R., Moskalik , P., & Kovacs , G

    Buchler , J. R., Moskalik , P., & Kovacs , G. 1990, , 351, 617

    1990

  11. [19]

    1998, , 9, 33

    Caputo , F. 1998, , 9, 33

    1998

  12. [20]

    M., Singh , H

    Das , S., Bhardwaj , A., Kanbur , S. M., Singh , H. P., & Marconi , M. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 2000

    2018

  13. [21]

    M., Bellinger , E

    Das , S., Kanbur , S. M., Bellinger , E. P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 29

    2020

  14. [22]

    M., Smolec , R., et al

    Das , S., Kanbur , S. M., Smolec , R., et al. 2021, , 501, 875

    2021

  15. [23]

    M., et al

    Das , S., Moln \'a r , L., Kanbur , S. M., et al. 2024, , 684, A170

    2024

  16. [24]

    & Singh , H

    Deb , S. & Singh , H. P. 2009, A&A, 507, 1729

    2009

  17. [25]

    Deupree , R. G. 1977, ApJ, 211, 509

    1977

  18. [26]

    2007, A&A, 471, 893

    Di Criscienzo , M., Caputo , F., Marconi , M., & Cassisi , S. 2007, A&A, 471, 893

    2007

  19. [27]

    2004, ApJ, 612, 1092

    Di Criscienzo , M., Marconi , M., & Caputo , F. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1092

    2004

  20. [28]

    2002, MNRAS, 336, 841

    Di Fabrizio , L., Clementini , G., Marconi , M., et al. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 841

    2002

  21. [29]

    1983, , 124, 108

    Diethelm , R. 1983, , 124, 108

    1983

  22. [30]

    1990, , 239, 186

    Diethelm , R. 1990, , 239, 186

    1990

  23. [31]

    2001, Fourier analysis (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, U.S.A.)

    Duoandikoetxea, J. 2001, Fourier analysis (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, U.S.A.)

    2001

  24. [32]

    1987, IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 35, 1725

    Elgar, S. 1987, IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 35, 1725

    1987

  25. [33]

    Feuchtinger , M. U. & Dorfi , E. A. 1997, , 322, 817

    1997

  26. [34]

    2007, A&A, 476, 863

    Fiorentino , G., Marconi , M., Musella , I., & Caputo , F. 2007, A&A, 476, 863

    2007

  27. [35]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1

    2016

  28. [36]

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

    2023

  29. [37]

    W., Li , A., & Xue , M

    Gao , J., Jiang , B. W., Li , A., & Xue , M. Y. 2013, , 776, 7

    2013

  30. [38]

    Gingold , R. A. 1985, MmSAI, 56, 169

    1985

  31. [39]

    D., Clayton , G

    Gordon , K. D., Clayton , G. C., Misselt , K. A., Landolt , A. U., & Wolff , M. J. 2003, , 594, 279

    2003

  32. [40]

    Groenewegen , M. A. T. & Jurkovic , M. I. 2017, A&A, 604, A29

    2017

  33. [41]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    Hinshaw , G., Larson , D., Komatsu , E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 19

    2013

  34. [42]

    S., Bauer , E

    Jermyn , A. S., Bauer , E. B., Schwab , J., et al. 2023, , 265, 15

    2023

  35. [43]

    I., Marchetti , T., et al

    Joyce , M., Johnson , C. I., Marchetti , T., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 28

    2023

  36. [44]

    & Kovacs , G

    Jurcsik , J. & Kovacs , G. 1996, A&A, 312, 111

    1996

  37. [45]

    Keller , S. C. & Wood , P. R. 2002, , 578, 144

    2002

  38. [46]

    Keller , S. C. & Wood , P. R. 2006, , 642, 834

    2006

  39. [47]

    2011, , 414, 1111

    Koll \'a th , Z., Moln \'a r , L., & Szab \'o , R. 2011, , 414, 1111

    2011

  40. [48]

    1933, Giornale dell' Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, 4, 83

    Kolmogorov, A. 1933, Giornale dell' Istituto Italiano degli Attuari, 4, 83

    1933

  41. [49]

    & Kanbur , S

    Kovacs , G. & Kanbur , S. M. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 834

    1998

  42. [50]

    B., Nuspl , J., & Szab \'o , R

    Kov \'a cs , G. B., Nuspl , J., & Szab \'o , R. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4878

    2023

  43. [51]

    B., Nuspl , J., & Szab \'o , R

    Kov \'a cs , G. B., Nuspl , J., & Szab \'o , R. 2024, , 527, L1

    2024

  44. [52]

    P., et al

    Kumar , N., Bhardwaj , A., Singh , H. P., et al. 2024, , 531, 2976

    2024

  45. [53]

    Madore , B. F. 1982, ApJ, 253, 575

    1982

  46. [54]

    Majaess , D. J. 2010, Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers (JAAVSO), 38, 100

    2010

  47. [55]

    2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol

    Marconi , M. 2017, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 152, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 06001

    2017

  48. [56]

    & Clementini , G

    Marconi , M. & Clementini , G. 2005, AJ, 129, 2257

    2005

  49. [57]

    2024, , 529, 4210

    Marconi , M., De Somma , G., Molinaro , R., et al. 2024, , 529, 4210

    2024

  50. [58]

    & Degl'Innocenti , S

    Marconi , M. & Degl'Innocenti , S. 2007, , 474, 557

    2007

  51. [59]

    & Di Criscienzo , M

    Marconi , M. & Di Criscienzo , M. 2007, A&A, 467, 223

    2007

  52. [60]

    2013 a , ApJL, 768, L6

    Marconi , M., Molinaro , R., Bono , G., et al. 2013 a , ApJL, 768, L6

    2013

  53. [61]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 3206

    Marconi , M., Molinaro , R., Ripepi , V., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3206

    2017

  54. [62]

    2013 b , MNRAS, 428, 2185

    Marconi , M., Molinaro , R., Ripepi , V., Musella , I., & Brocato , E. 2013 b , MNRAS, 428, 2185

    2013

  55. [63]

    W., & Menzies , J

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

    2009

  56. [64]

    W., & Soszy \'n ski , I

    Matsunaga , N., Feast , M. W., & Soszy \'n ski , I. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 223

    2011

  57. [65]

    2006, MNRAS, 370, 1979

    Matsunaga , N., Fukushi , H., Nakada , Y., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1979

    2006

  58. [66]

    2012, , 757, L13

    Moln \'a r , L., Koll \'a th , Z., Szab \'o , R., et al. 2012, , 757, L13

    2012

  59. [67]

    & Buchler , J

    Moskalik , P. & Buchler , J. R. 1993, , 406, 190

    1993

  60. [68]

    M., Cohen , J

    Nemec , J. M., Cohen , J. G., Ripepi , V., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 181

    2013

  61. [69]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 5378

    Netzel , H., Moln \'a r , L., & Joyce , M. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5378

    2023

  62. [70]

    2022, AJ, 164, 154

    Ngeow , C.-C., Bhardwaj , A., Henderson , J.-Y., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 154

    2022

  63. [71]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  64. [72]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton , B., Cantiello , M., Arras , P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  65. [73]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton , B., Marchant , P., Schwab , J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  66. [74]

    B., et al

    Paxton , B., Schwab , J., Bauer , E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  67. [75]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    Paxton , B., Smolec , R., Schwab , J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10

    2019

  68. [76]

    Petersen , J. O. 1980, , 27, 495

    1980

  69. [77]

    2019, , 567, 200

    Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., Gallenne , A., et al. 2019, , 567, 200

    2019

  70. [78]

    2023, , 674, A17

    Ripepi , V., Clementini , G., Molinaro , R., et al. 2023, , 674, A17

    2023

  71. [79]

    2019, A&A, 625, A14

    Ripepi , V., Molinaro , R., Musella , I., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A14

    2019

  72. [80]

    Sandage , A., Diethelm , R., & Tammann , G. A. 1994, , 283, 111

    1994

  73. [81]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

    Schlegel , D. J., Finkbeiner , D. P., & Davis , M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  74. [82]

    Simon , N. R. & Davis , C. G. 1983, ApJ, 266, 787

    1983

  75. [83]

    Simon , N. R. & Lee , A. S. 1981, ApJ, 248, 291

    1981

  76. [84]

    Simon , N. R. & Teays , T. J. 1982, ApJ, 261, 586

    1982

  77. [85]

    M., Skowron , J., Udalski , A., et al

    Skowron , D. M., Skowron , J., Udalski , A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 23

    2021

  78. [86]

    1948, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 279

    Smirnov, N. 1948, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19, 279

    1948

  79. [87]

    2005, AcA, 55, 59

    Smolec , R. 2005, AcA, 55, 59

    2005

  80. [88]

    2016, , 456, 3475

    Smolec , R. 2016, , 456, 3475

    2016

  81. [89]

    & Moskalik , P

    Smolec , R. & Moskalik , P. 2008, AcA, 58, 193

    2008

  82. [90]

    & Moskalik , P

    Smolec , R. & Moskalik , P. 2012, , 426, 108

    2012

  83. [91]

    & Moskalik , P

    Smolec , R. & Moskalik , P. 2014, , 441, 101

    2014

  84. [92]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 3034

    Smolec , R., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Graczyk , D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3034

    2013

  85. [93]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 2407

    Smolec , R., Soszy \'n ski , I., Moskalik , P., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2407

    2012

  86. [94]

    2011, AcA, 61, 285

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., Pietrukowicz , P., et al. 2011, AcA, 61, 285

    2011

  87. [95]

    K., et al

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., Szyma \'n ski , M. K., et al. 2015, AcA, 65, 297

    2015

  88. [96]

    K., et al

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., Szyma \'n ski , M. K., et al. 2018, AcA, 68, 89

    2018

  89. [97]

    Stellingwerf , R. F. 1982 a , ApJ, 262, 330

    1982

  90. [98]

    Stellingwerf , R. F. 1982 b , ApJ, 262, 339

    1982

  91. [99]

    Stellingwerf , R. F. & Donohoe , M. 1987, ApJ, 314, 252

    1987

  92. [100]

    A., Sandage , A., & Reindl , B

    Tammann , G. A., Sandage , A., & Reindl , B. 2003, A&A, 404, 423

    2003

  93. [101]

    & Chen , X

    Wang , S. & Chen , X. 2023, , 946, 43

    2023

  94. [102]

    2022, ApJ, 927, 89

    Wielg \'o rski , P., Pietrzy \'n ski , G., Pilecki , B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 89

    2022

  95. [103]

    Wood , P. R., S. Arnold , A., & Sebo , K. M. 1997, ApJL, 485, L25

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.