Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

A Fast Periodicity Detection Algorithm Sensitive to Arbitrary Waveforms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims FPW, a Gaussian-process-derived phase-binning statistic, detects arbitrary periodic waveforms nearly as well as Lomb-Scargle on sinusoids, several times better on narrow eclipses, at a cost that scales as frequencies…

desk verdict A useful, honestly-written phase-binning periodicity method whose printed code disagrees with its own Eq. 1, leaving the chi-square calibration and sensitivity ratios unsupported; deserves a serious referee but needs a corrected code listing and Monte Carlo null test before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00243 v1 pith:B67RG25E submitted 2025-02-01 astro-ph.IM physics.data-an

Douglas P. Finkbeiner , Thomas A. Prince , Samuel E. Whitebook This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMphysics.data-an
keywords timeseriesanalysisperiodsearchperiodicvariablestarsphasebinningLomb-ScargleperiodogrameclipsingbinariesZwickyTransientFacilityGaussianprocess
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 introduces Fast Periodicity Weighting (FPW), a phase-binning statistic for finding periodic signals in unevenly sampled time series without assuming the shape of the phase-folded waveform. The authors argue that a single FPW periodogram can serve the full mixture of waveforms found in Zwicky Transient Facility data, from nearly sinusoidal rotators to eclipsing white-dwarf binaries. They report relative sensitivities of about 75% of Lomb-Scargle for pure sinusoids and about three times Lomb-Scargle for narrow eclipses, and they show that predictable sub-harmonic peaks can reveal periods shorter than the nominal search cutoff. Because the per-light-curve cost is the number of trial frequencies times the number of observations with a small constant, they argue the method is practical for billion-source surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-binning statistic of Eq. 1, $$S_{\rm FPW} = \sum_{m=1}^M \frac{\left(\sum_{j\in m} x_{m,j}/\sigma_{x_{m,j}}^2\right)^2}{\sum_{j\in m} 1/\sigma_{x_{m,j}}^2 + 1/\$alpha^{2}$},$$ a sum over $M$ phase bins of the squared inverse-variance-weighted bin mean, regularized by a Gaussian prior of width $\alpha$ on the signal in each bin. It is derived from a Gaussian Process model in which the periodic signal is one free amplitude per phase bin, and a standard low-rank matrix update reduces the marginal-likelihood difference to these simple per-bin sums. Because the numerator and denominator are accumulated at the finest binning, every divisor $M$ of $M_{\max}$ can be evaluated from the same sums, so $M=2,4,5,10,20$ come at almost the cost of one bin count. This object carries the argument: all sensitivity and speed claims follow from the form of these accumulated sums.

What would settle it

Generate many Gaussian-noise light curves with the same irregular sampling and per-point error bars as ZTF, run the published FPW code over the same frequency grid, and compare the empirical tail of the statistic with the claimed $\chi^2_{M-1}$ distribution; a factor-of-two offset in the statistic would show up directly as a gross mismatch in false-alarm rates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the statistic $S_{\rm FPW}$ defined in Eq. 1 is a valid detection statistic for periodic signals of arbitrary phase-folded shape. For each trial frequency, observations are binned by phase; in each bin, the inverse-variance-weighted sum of mean-subtracted fluxes is squared and normalized by the total inverse-variance, plus a regularization term $1/\alpha^2$ from a Gaussian prior on the phase-bin amplitudes. The paper derives this quantity as a chi-square difference between a phase-binned periodic model and a constant model, compares its significance with Lomb-Scargle at a fixed false-alarm level, and demonstrates on ZTF light curves that it detects both quasi-sinusoidal rotating white dwarfs and an eclipsing double white dwarf. The paper treats $S_{\rm FPW}$ as $\chi^2$ with $M-1$ degrees of freedom under the null, which yields the reported 75% and 3x sensitivity ratios.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the assumption that $S_{\rm FPW}$ follows a $\chi^2$ distribution with $M-1$ degrees of freedom when the light curve is pure noise, and the published code computes half of Eq. 1, so that calibration has to be verified before the 75% and 3x sensitivity statements can be relied on.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single run with $M_{\max}=20$ gives periodograms for $M=2,4,5,10,20$ at nearly the cost of one bin count, so a survey can search for sinusoids, intermediate waveforms, and eclipses simultaneously.
  • Sub-harmonic peaks are expected in FPW periodograms, so a detection at a sub-harmonic can reveal a true period shorter than the shortest period explicitly searched, extending effective frequency coverage by a factor of $M/2$ for even $M$.
  • For eclipse duty cycles up to about 1/20, FPW's detection distance is about 30% larger than Lomb-Scargle's, implying more eclipsing systems recoverable from the same data.
  • For pure sinusoids, FPW's significance is about 75% of Lomb-Scargle's, so the maximum detection distance is about 7.5% smaller, a modest cost for waveform generality.
  • With $\mathcal{O}(N_{\rm freqs} N_{\rm data})$ complexity and a small constant, FPW is faster than a fast Lomb-Scargle implementation for light curves with up to roughly 500 points, making billion-source blind searches feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the same per-bin weighted sums that feed FPW also feed the BLS statistic, so a combined FPW-plus-BLS periodogram could be evaluated with almost no additional arithmetic, giving both a waveform-agnostic scan and a tuned eclipse detector in one pass.
  • Extension: because FPW produces sub-harmonic peaks by design, a blind peak-ranking stage must be harmonic-aware; otherwise the true period may be mistaken for one of its sub-harmonics, especially at large $M$.
  • Extension: if the $\chi^2_{M-1}$ null calibration is confirmed after correcting the factor-of-two issue in the published code, the waveform-agnostic property makes FPW a plausible building block for multi-band period searches, though the paper defers that step.
  • Extension: the paper's connection to Bayesian blocks suggests adaptive bin widths chosen per candidate period could improve sensitivity to extremely narrow eclipses beyond the fixed $M=20$ case.
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 presents Fast Periodicity Weighting (FPW), a phase-binning statistic for detecting periodicity in irregularly sampled time series. For each trial frequency, data are folded into M phase bins and the statistic is the sum over bins of the squared inverse-variance-weighted bin sum, normalized by the sum of inverse variances plus a regularization term 1/alpha^2. The statistic is derived from a Gaussian Process model with a prior on per-bin signal amplitude (Appendix A). The paper claims FPW is waveform-agnostic, achieves ~75% of Lomb-Scargle's significance for pure sinusoids with M=4-5, and about 3x Lomb-Scargle's significance for narrow eclipses with M=20, while running fast enough for billion-source surveys. It includes C++/Python code, benchmarks against astropy Lomb-Scargle, and demonstrates the algorithm on two ZTF sources. The paper defers a full statistical evaluation and comparison to Paper II.

Significance. The algorithm is simple, computationally efficient, and the GP derivation in Appendix A is clean. If the sensitivity claims are correct, FPW would be a practical workhorse for periodicity searches in ZTF and similar surveys. However, the quantitative claims rest on the null distribution of the statistic and on the code implementing Eq. (1), both of which are problematic: the printed C++ code computes a different quantity (a factor of two and no alpha term), and the chi-square(M-1) null distribution is asserted without derivation or Monte Carlo verification. These issues are fixable but are essential to the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D, Section 4] The C++ function `deltaChi2` computes `Minv = 1.0/(2*VtCinvV[i])` and accumulates `ytCinvV[i]*Minv*ytCinvV[i]`. This corresponds to a denominator of `2*sum(1/sigma^2)` and omits the `1/alpha^2` term, so the code returns `0.5 * S_FPW` in the alpha->infinity limit of Eq. (1), not Eq. (1) as printed. Consequently, the chi-square(M-1) null distribution invoked in Sections 3.1 and 3.3, the 2e-9 false-alarm threshold, and the relative sensitivity values in Figures 1 and 4 do not apply to the provided code. The authors must reconcile the code with Eq. (1) and recalibrate the statistic's null distribution and sensitivity claims for the actual implementation.
  2. [Section 3.1, Appendix B] The paper asserts that S_FPW is distributed as chi-square with M-1 degrees of freedom under the null, but this is not derived or tested. The mean subtraction described in Section 3.5 removes a global unweighted mean, while the statistic is built from inverse-variance-weighted sums; the resulting constraint does not automatically reduce the effective degrees of freedom by one. In addition, the finite-alpha form of Eq. (1) makes each bin term a scaled chi-square variable rather than chi-square_1 unless 1/alpha^2 is negligible. The paper should provide either an explicit derivation of the null distribution for the actual pre-processing and weighting, or Monte Carlo simulations demonstrating that the empirical false-alarm rates match the claimed chi-square(M-1) thresholds on realistic ZTF-like sampling.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 3.3, Figures 1 and 4] The quantitative claims that FPW achieves ~75% of Lomb-Scargle's significance for sinusoids and ~3x for narrow eclipses are analytic predictions from Appendix B for idealized constant-error data and perfectly aligned phase bins. No simulations or injected-signal tests are presented to validate these ratios, and the two observational examples (Figures 2, 3, 5) are qualitative. Given that the code discrepancy and null-distribution issues affect the calibration, these numbers should be re-derived or replaced with empirical detection-efficiency measurements before the abstract's claims can be accepted.
  4. [Section 1, Section 5] The paper states that Paper II will 'evaluate the statistics of the algorithm' and provide quantitative comparisons. Since the present paper relies on specific significance values (e.g., 2e-9 false-alarm level and the 75%/3x ratios) to support its central claims, those statistical evaluations need to be included here, or the claims must be explicitly labeled as preliminary and the corresponding quantitative statements removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.5] The statement 'For exactly equal number of sources in each bin, Nm/Ntot = -1/M' should read '1/M' (positive).
  2. [Section 3.3] 'ilustrate' should be 'illustrate'.
  3. [Appendix D, makeIndices] The comment says 'Gets the fractional part' but `static_cast<int>(phase)` truncates; for positive inputs this is the floor, which is fine, but the comment could be more precise for negative phase values.
  4. [Section 4] The benchmark of FPW versus astropy Lomb-Scargle may not be apples-to-apples because FPW is implemented in C++ while the comparison implementation is Python-based; the text should state explicitly what code path is being timed.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B22)] The definition of X is implicit; state that X is the threshold corresponding to a tail probability of 2e-9 for chi-square with the relevant DOF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FPW statistic and sensitivity ratios are derived analytically, not fitted; remaining concerns are validation and code-consistency issues.

full rationale

The paper's central object is the statistic defined in Eq. 1 and derived in Appendix A from an explicit Gaussian-process model (baseline plus per-phase-bin signal with prior width alpha, plus noise). The derivation is a mathematical reduction: substituting the sparse P matrix into the Sherman-Morrison update yields Eq. A12, and Eq. 1 follows by dropping the small 1/alpha^2 term. The sensitivity claims in Figures 1 and 4 are analytic computations from assumed waveforms (sinusoid or box) using the relative-significance expression in Eqs. B22-B23, averaged over phase offset; they are not fits to the ZTF light curves. The two real-data examples (ZTF J190132.9+145808.7 and ZTF J1901+5309) are demonstrations, not calibration inputs. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the references to Paper II explicitly defer statistical evaluation and quantitative comparisons, and they are not used to justify the present claims. The paper itself flags this limitation ("Paper II will also evaluate the statistics of the algorithm..."), and the printed C++ code's factor of 1/2 in deltaChi2 (Minv = 1/(2*VtCinvV[i])) means the implemented statistic differs from Eq. 1; these are correctness and validation concerns, not circularity. The chi-square(M-1) null distribution is a distributional assumption inherited from the Gaussian-process derivation and is not a fitted parameter, so no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the GP derivation (Appendix A) plus the assumed null distribution of S_FPW. The free parameters alpha and M are algorithmic choices. No invented physical entities are needed.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (prior spread of phase-bin signal) = treated as infinite (1/alpha^2 neglected)
    Introduced in Eq. 1 and Appendix A as a Gaussian prior on the amplitude in each phase bin; the paper argues it has little effect and drops it, but it is a hand-chosen hyperparameter of the derivation.
  • M (number of phase bins) = 4, 5, 10, 20, 40, 60
    User-chosen parameter controlling sensitivity to waveform complexity; the paper recommends 4-5 for sinusoids and larger M for eclipses. It is not fitted, but it directly sets the degrees of freedom and affects all sensitivity claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gaussian noise with known per-point variances sigma_i^2
    The GP derivation in Appendix A and the chi-square interpretation assume each observation is drawn from a Gaussian with known standard deviation; in practice ZTF errors are estimated from ensembles, which may not be exact.
  • ad hoc to paper Signal in each phase bin is a zero-mean Gaussian with spread alpha
    This prior is the core of the GP model (Appendix A.1) and is chosen for mathematical convenience; the paper later takes the unconstrained limit alpha -> infinity.
  • ad hoc to paper Baseline drift can be pre-subtracted rather than marginalized
    Appendix A.3 sets C_B=0 after pre-subtraction, acknowledging this 'runs the risk of aliasing power onto the observing cadence'. This speeds computation but is an approximation.
  • standard math Sherman-Morrison formula and matrix identities
    Used in Appendix A.2 and A.3 to simplify the chi-square difference; standard linear algebra.
  • domain assumption S_FPW follows chi-square with M-1 DOF under the null
    Used for all false-alarm and relative-sensitivity calculations (Section 3.1, Appendix B). It is plausible if bin sums are independent Gaussians, but unverified for irregular sampling and the code's actual normalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Fast Periodicity Detection Algorithm Sensitive to Arbitrary Waveforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B67RG25E

@misc{pith2026250200243,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Fast Periodicity Detection Algorithm Sensitive to Arbitrary Waveforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B67RG25E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00243}
}
read the original abstract

A reexamination of period finding algorithms is prompted by new large area astronomical sky surveys that can identify billions of individual sources having a thousand or more observations per source. This large increase in data necessitates fast and efficient period detection algorithms. In this paper, we provide an initial description of an algorithm that is being used for detection of periodic behavior in a sample of 1.5 billion objects using light curves generated from Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) data (Bellm et al. 2019; Masci et al. 2018). We call this algorithm "Fast Periodicity Weighting" (FPW), derived using a Gaussian Process (GP) formalism. A major advantage of the FPW algorithm for ZTF analysis is that it is agnostic to the details of the phase-folded waveform. Periodic sources in ZTF show a wide variety of waveforms, some quite complex, including eclipsing objects, sinusoidally varying objects also exhibiting eclipses, objects with cyclotron emission at various phases, and accreting objects with complex waveforms. We describe the FPW algorithm and its application to ZTF, and provide efficient code for both CPU and GPU.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00243 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Significance of FPW relative to Lomb-Scargle for a sinusoidal waveform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FPW analysis of g-band photometric data for ZTF J190132.9+145808.7 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FPW analysis of ZTF J190132.9+145808.7 Caiazzo et al. (2021) as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Significance of FPW relative to Lomb-Scargle for a box-like waveform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis of the eclipsing source ZTF J1901+5309 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Benchmarking results from FPW and Astropy Lomb-Scargle in ‘fast’ mode on a 3.10 GHz Intel i9-9960X processor. Red lines show FPW for different numbers of data points. The blue curve shows Lomb-Scargle with 1000 data points. As shown in Press & Rybicki (1989), the faste…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Phase Entropy distribution for the observation times of the ZTF field 539. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    Baluev, R. V. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1279, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12689.x

    work page arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [4]

    A., Clowe, D., Collett, T

    Blazek, J. A., Clowe, D., Collett, T. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2204.01992, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2204.01992

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.01992 2022

  5. [5]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Bloemen, S., Groot, P., Woudt, P., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9906, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI, ed. H. J. Hall, R. Gilmozzi, & H. K. Marshall, 990664, doi: 10.1117/12.2232522

    doi:10.1117/12.2232522 2016

  6. [6]

    B., Prince, T

    Burdge, K. B., Prince, T. A., Fuller, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc261

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc261 2020

  7. [7]

    B., Fuller, J., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y 2021

  8. [8]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    M., Mendez, M., & Nunez, J

    Cincotta, P. M., Mendez, M., & Nunez, J. A. 1995, ApJ, 449, 231, doi: 10.1086/176050

    1995 doi

  2. [10]

    W., Burdge, K., Duev, D

    Coughlin, M. W., Burdge, K., Duev, D. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2954, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1502 Dark Energy Survey Collaboration, Abbott, T., Abdalla, F. B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1270, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw641

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 870–884, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/696/1/870 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Drake, A

    Graham, M. J., Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A. A., & Donalek, C. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 434, 2629, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1206

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    1969, Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Hutcheson, K. 1969, Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    1969 doi

  6. [14]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838 Kov´ acs, G., Zucker, S., & Mazeh, T. 2002, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 391, 369–377, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020802

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    M., Kulkarni, S

    Law, N. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Dekany, R. G., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 1395, doi: 10.1086/648598

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R

    Leahy, D. A., Darbro, W., Elsner, R. F., et al. 1983, ApJ, 266, 160, doi: 10.1086/160766

    1983 doi

  9. [17]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    Lei, L., Zhu, Q.-F., Kong, X., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    H., & Rybicki, G

    Press, W. H., & Rybicki, G. B. 1989, ApJ, 338, 277, doi: 10.1086/167197

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    R., Law, N

    Rau, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Law, N. M., et al. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 121, 1334–1351, doi: 10.1086/605911

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  16. [24]

    D., Norris, J

    Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/167

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    1989, MNRAS, 241, 153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/241.2.153 —

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1989, MNRAS, 241, 153, doi: 10.1093/mnras/241.2.153 —. 1996, ApJL, 460, L107, doi: 10.1086/309985

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 941

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1997, The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 941

    1997

  19. [27]

    1999, ApJ, 516, 315, doi: 10.1086/307081

    Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1999, ApJ, 516, 315, doi: 10.1086/307081

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953, doi: 10.1086/156444

    1978 doi

  21. [29]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    T., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ

    VanderPlas, J. T., & Ivezi´ c,ˇZ. 2015, ApJ, 812, 18, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/812/1/18

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    T., & Robinson, G

    Whittaker, E. T., & Robinson, G. 1924, The calculus of observations: a treatise on numerical mathematics (Blackie and Son limited)

    1924

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.