Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Is the Symbiotic Recurrent Nova T CrB Late? Recent Photometric Evolution and Comparison with Past Pre-Outburst Behaviour

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that T CrB's 2023 fading is not the pre-eruption dip seen before 1946, so neither that dip nor the matching super-active phase reliably predicts the next eruption, though renewed accretion suggests an eruption may still…

desk verdict A useful, cautiously hedged analysis of T CrB's photometric history that casts doubt on the pre-eruption dip as a reliable predictor, though the core comparison rests on a visual, historically heterogeneous dataset. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20592 v2 pith:GNU7K5RG submitted 2025-04-29 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Jaroslav Merc , {L}ukasz Wyrzykowski , Paul G. Beck , Przemys{l}aw J. Miko{l}ajczyk , Krzysztof Kotysz , Pawe{l} Zieliński , Staszek Zola , Sebastian Kurowski
show 41 more authors
Waldemar Og{l}oza Marek Drozdz Charles Galdies Franz-Josef Hambsch Stephen M. Brincat Barbara Joachimczyk Mateusz Bronikowski Jure Japelj Matej Mihelcic Josep Manel Carrasco Umut Burgaz Agnieszka Gurgul Karolina Bąkowska Piotr Hofbauer Krzysztof Szyszka Jan Golonka Jan K{aa}re Trandem Qvam Justas Zdanavičius Erika Pakštienė Marius Maskoliūnas Vytautas Čepas Uliana Pylypenko Dawid Moździerski Franky Dubois Siegfried Vanaverbeke Justyna M. Olszewska Alexios Liakos Milan Stojanović Goran Damljanović Adam Popowicz Mateusz Marzec Magdalena Badura Bartosz Gil Alicja Pucek Aleksandra Kowalska Mateusz Szklarz Teimuraz Kvernadze Andrea Reguitti Supachai Awiphan Michel Dennefeld Kosmas Gazeas
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords TCoronaeBorealisrecurrentnovasymbioticbinarypre-eruptiondipsuper-activephaseaccretionstatelightcurveanalysiseruptionprediction
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

T Coronae Borealis is a symbiotic recurrent nova that last erupted in 1946 and is expected to erupt again on a timescale of roughly 80 years. The paper compares recent optical light curves with historical pre-outburst records and finds that the 'super-active phase' before the anticipated eruption closely resembles the one that preceded 1946, but the subsequent behavior diverges: the 2023 fading often called a pre-eruption dip is shallower and shorter than the deep minimum recorded before 1946. It concludes that neither the super-active phase nor the 2023 dip reliably predicts the eruption date. Renewed brightening and the reappearance of emission lines, however, indicate that the white dwarf is again accreting at a high rate and may already be near the ignition threshold, so an eruption could still be imminent even without a clear photometric warning. The paper also cautions that the expected peak brightness of $V \sim 2$ mag will make the event visually modest for the public.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing comparison is the temporal alignment of the modern light curves with the historical compilation, shifting the old data by +77.8 years (28,430 days) to overlay the super-active phases. The 'super-active phase' is a roughly decade-long episode of elevated $B$-band brightness that preceded the 1946 outburst and began again in 2014; the 'pre-eruption dip' is a sharp decline, starting about a year before the 1946 eruption, that dropped the $V$-band brightness more than $1.5$ mag below the red-giant quiescent level. The analysis uses the different behavior in $B$ versus $V$ to distinguish a genuine dip from a return to quiescence, and it combines the light-curve comparison with accretion-rate estimates to argue that the white dwarf is near the ignition threshold.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to calibrate the historical plates and modern $B$-band photometry against the same set of field stars with independently known brightnesses; if the 2023 $V$-band light curve, after recalibration, contained a dip deeper than about $1.5$ mag below the quiescent giant level, the conclusion that the recent fading is shallower than the 1946 pre-eruption dip would be overturned. An empirical test is also waiting: if a future deep $V$-band dip is followed by eruption within about a year, the pre-eruption-dip predictor is restored.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the photometric history of T CrB does not support using either the super-active phase or the 2023 fading as a reliable eruption clock. Aligning the historical light curve by 77.8 years makes the $B$-band super-active phases look nearly identical, but that alignment implies an eruption around 2024, which did not happen; and in the $V$ band the 2023 decline brought the star only to its normal quiescent level, not to the more than $1.5$ mag below-quiescence dip observed before 1946. The authors therefore conclude that the 2023 event, if it is a pre-eruption dip at all, has different characteristics and cannot be used to time the outburst. They argue instead that the system appears to be re-entering a high-accretion state, with emission lines reappearing and brightness rising again, and that T CrB may have already accreted most of the mass needed for a thermonuclear runaway, so the eruption may come soon and without a distinctive photometric precursor.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the old photographic brightness measurements and modern digital measurements are calibrated in the same way, so the apparent difference between the 2023 fading and the 1946 dip is real rather than an artifact of how the data were collected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If neither the super-active phase nor the 2023 dip is a reliable precursor, the eruption could occur at any time without warning from the optical light curve, so continuous multi-wavelength monitoring is the only way to catch its onset.
  • If the white dwarf is already near the ignition threshold, the outburst may come soon even though photometric predictions have failed, meaning the failed 2024.4 prediction does not disprove the imminent-eruption scenario.
  • If the 2023 dip differed in character from the 1946 dip, claims that such dips can time eruptions for T CrB or other novae should be treated with caution until a deep $V$-band dip is actually followed by an outburst.
  • If the eruption occurs under the accretion scenario, the timing of the subsequent post-eruption high-accretion phase could shift the date of the following eruption in the next century.
  • If the eruption reaches only $V \approx 2$ mag, it will be fainter than roughly fifty other stars, so public communications should frame it as a scientifically major but visually modest event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if pre-eruption dips are caused by dust obscuration, a future dip should dim the $B$ band more than the $V$ band; simultaneous multi-band photometry of any new fading would test this directly.
  • Inference: the same shifted-alignment comparison could be applied to other symbiotic recurrent novae with long pre-outburst coverage, such as RS Oph, to see whether super-active phases or dips are consistent precursors at all.
  • Inference: if the recent super-active phase supplied only about 30 percent of the ignition mass, continued monitoring of the accretion rate could yield a quantitative estimate of when T CrB crosses the threshold, rather than relying on recurrence-interval averages.
  • Inference: a null result, meaning no eruption for several more years despite continued high accretion, would suggest that quiescent accretion between active phases contributes more mass than currently assumed.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents new BHTOM and AAVSO photometry of the symbiotic recurrent nova T CrB and compares its recent (2014–2025) optical light curves with historical data compiled by Schaefer (2023b), focusing on the "super-active" phase and the 2023 brightness decline that some authors interpreted as a pre-eruption dip. The authors find that the super-active phases before the 1946 and anticipated eruptions are qualitatively similar in the B band, but the 2023 decline in the V band is shallower and shorter than the deep pre-1946 dip. They conclude that neither the super-active phase nor the recent fading reliably predicts the eruption timing, and argue that the system's return to a high-accretion state may indicate an imminent eruption without distinct photometric precursors. The paper also discusses public expectations for the anticipated eruption, noting the expected V≈2 mag peak.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a valuable negative constraint on pre-eruption predictions for T CrB, countering earlier claims that the 2023 decline mirrors the 1946 dip and that the eruption would occur around 2024.4±0.3. The work leverages a large, clearly described dataset (over 400,000 observations) with transparent outlier filtering and publicly available data, and it carefully hedges its conclusions with three alternative interpretations. The explicit statement that the super-active phase and the recent fading have not reliably predicted the onset is a useful, falsifiable claim that can be tested as more data accumulate. The main limitation, which the authors do not fully address, is that the central visual comparison of historical and modern light curves lacks quantitative significance testing and a demonstration of photometric-system consistency. Despite this, the paper's careful tone and honest reporting of what is and is not known make it a constructive contribution to the T CrB literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Figs. 3–4] The central claim that the 2023 decline differs from the 1946 pre-eruption dip is made by visual comparison of binned light curves without per-point uncertainties, a fitted dip model, or a significance test. Please provide a quantitative measure — for example, dip depth, duration, and their uncertainties relative to the typical photometric scatter — and state the statistical confidence with which the V-band dip is shallower and shorter than the 1946 one. Without this, the claim "deviates from the deep minimum" is not independently verifiable.
  2. [§2.2, §4.2] The historical V-band data used to define the 1946 dip are a compilation of visual and photographic magnitudes from multiple sources with heterogeneous zero points and scale errors. The paper does not demonstrate that the deepest pre-1946 points are not clustered in a single observer, a single plate series, or a few nights. Please examine the individual sources contributing to the 1946 dip (e.g., show their light curves separately or at least quantify the spread among observers) and propagate those systematic uncertainties into the comparison.
  3. [§2.1, §2.2, Figs. 3–4] The modern BHTOM photometry is standardized to Gaia synthetic photometry, while the historical data are calibrated to photographic-B and visual systems. No colour-term or zero-point cross-check between these systems is presented. Since the B-band alignment is described as "remarkable" while the V-band discrepancy is the basis for the main conclusion, the apparent difference could be partly a passband-calibration artifact. Please provide a cross-check using stars observed in both systems (e.g., field stars in the overlap region) or an explicit estimate of the systematic offset and its dependence on colour.
  4. [§4.1, Fig. 3] The temporal shift of 77.8 years (28,430 days) is chosen to align the super-active phases, and the statement that "the eruption should have already occurred" follows directly from this alignment. The sensitivity of this conclusion to the alignment choice is not discussed. Please show how the inferred eruption date changes for plausible variations in the shift (e.g., ±1–2 years) and whether the conclusion remains robust.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§1, §4.1] The term "super-active phase" is used throughout but is never defined quantitatively. Please specify its duration and brightness threshold in B (or another band) to make the comparison reproducible.
  2. [Figs. 1–4] The figures show binned light curves but the binning interval and the source of each data point are not always clear. Consider adding a legend that identifies BHTOM versus AAVSO data and the binning used for each panel, particularly in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
  3. [§5, Conclusions] The discussion of public expectations, while appropriate for the broader context, is not directly supported by the photometric analysis. It may be better placed in a separate section or shortened, so the scientific conclusions remain the focus.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is a comparison of independent historical and new photometry, with an explicitly chosen alignment shift rather than a fitted parameter; the paper's negative conclusions do not reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

This paper is largely self-contained comparative photometry. The central claims—that the 2023 fading event differs from the deep 1946 pre-eruption dip in V, and that neither the super-active phase nor the recent fading has reliably predicted the eruption timing—are negative empirical results. They are derived by overlaying new BHTOM/AAVSO data on Schaefer (2023b)'s historical compilation after an explicitly stated +77.8 yr (28430-day) shift chosen to align the super-active phases. That shift is a deliberate alignment choice, not a parameter fitted to force the dip comparison; the same shift is applied in both B and V, and the V-band discrepancy is an observed outcome rather than a construction artifact. The paper's own caveats are explicitly flagged: the 1946 dip is an N=1 template ('similar behaviour has not been confirmed in any other nova', Sec. 4.2), and the historical data include heterogeneous 'photographic measurements calibrated to the B band' plus visual estimates (Sec. 2.2). These are legitimate calibration and robustness concerns, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Merc et al. 2020; Wyrzykowski et al. 2020; Merc et al. 2024) are used only as examples of BHTOM usage and are not load-bearing; the principal external data source, Schaefer (2023b), is independent prior work. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The conditional statement that the eruption 'should have already occurred' if the super-active phase is causally linked is explicitly hedged and is not used to manufacture a confirmed prediction. Overall, there is no significant circularity; the low nonzero score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations in the methodology description.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison depends on a temporal alignment chosen by hand and on assumptions about the physical link between accretion phases and eruptions. No new entities or fitted physical parameters are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • temporal shift for aligning super-active phases = 77.8 yr (28430 days)
    Chosen by hand to align the super-active phases before the 1946 outburst with the recent light curve; no fitting procedure is used, but the comparison and the resulting 'eruption should have already occurred' conclusion depend on this shift.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The super-active phases are causally linked to nova eruptions and follow a similar timescale between cycles.
    Invoked in Section 4.1 to argue that the eruption should have already occurred if the phases are analogous; the paper explicitly notes this link is not established.
  • domain assumption Historical photometry from Schaefer (2023b) and modern BHTOM/AAVSO photometry are on a consistent photometric system.
    The comparison in Section 4.2 and Figures 3-4 relies on the historical magnitudes being directly comparable to modern B and V values; any passband mismatch would affect the conclusion.
  • domain assumption The pre-eruption dip is a real, recurring phenomenon that may precede nova eruptions.
    The paper discusses this as an open question and offers three interpretations, one of which assumes the dip is not a consistent precursor; the analysis depends on the historical dip being genuine.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is the Symbiotic Recurrent Nova T CrB Late? Recent Photometric Evolution and Comparison with Past Pre-Outburst Behaviour." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNU7K5RG

@misc{pith2026250420592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is the Symbiotic Recurrent Nova T CrB Late? Recent Photometric Evolution and Comparison with Past Pre-Outburst Behaviour},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNU7K5RG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20592}
}
abstract

T CrB is a symbiotic recurrent nova that last erupted in 1946. Given its recurrence timescale of approximately 80 years, the next outburst is eagerly anticipated by the astronomical community. In this work, we analyse the optical light curves of T CrB, comparing recent photometric evolution with historical data to evaluate potential predictive indicators of nova eruptions. Although the "super-active" phases preceding both the 1946 and anticipated eruptions are strikingly similar, the subsequent photometric behaviour differs. We find that the decline in brightness observed in 2023, interpreted by some as a "pre-eruption dip", deviates from the deep minimum recorded prior to the 1946 event and does not reliably predict the eruption timing. Recent photometric and spectroscopic observations indicate that the system is returning to a high-accretion state. Given this, an eruption may be imminent, even without distinct precursors. While the next eruption of T CrB will be a major scientific event, its expected peak brightness of $V \sim 2$ mag highlights the importance of setting realistic public expectations for what will be a visually modest, yet astrophysically very significant, celestial event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Recent photometric evolution of T CrB. Light curves in the B, V, R, and I bands obtained from AAVSO and BHTOM are shown. The data have been averaged over 1-day intervals (to reduce the scatter due to flickering, that is always present in the light curves; see, e.g., Iłkiewicz et al. 2023; Merc et al. 2024, and references therein) following the removal of outliers. and more recently, making it difficult to determine … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Long-term photometry of T CrB in the V band (upper panel) and B band (lower panel), covering the period from the 1866 outburst to 2025. AAVSO observations have been averaged over 10-day intervals. All data from Schaefer (2023b) are shown, with the exception of AAVSO data collected by the author, which are taken directly from the AAVSO database [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the recent behaviour of T CrB in the B band (light and dark blue) with its pre-outburst evolution prior to the 1946 outburst (navy blue). The historical photographic data are taken from Schaefer (2023b) and have been shifted by +77.8 yr (28 430 days) to align the super-active phases observed before the 1946 outburst and in the present epoch. Recent data are taken from AAVSO and BHTOM. pronounced, the o… view at source ↗

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. When will T Coronae Borealis next erupt as a nova? Constraints from recurrence, orbital phase, and accretion-state evolution

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    T CrB's next eruption is not uniquely predictable; conditional scenarios point to a possible 2026 December eruption if the current decline mimics 1946, or a lower limit near 2029 May if the recent high state left an a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..689A 6, 689

    Acciari V. A., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022NatAs...6..689A 6, 689

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01640-z 2022

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Demleitner M., Andrae R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....161..147B 161, 147

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Shen K

    Chomiuk L., Metzger B. D., Shen K. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..391C 59, 391

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502 2021

  5. [5]

    Accrete, Accrete, Accrete... Bang! (and repeat): The Remarkable Recurrent Novae

    Darnley M. J., 2021, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects V. p. 44 ( @eprint arXiv 1912.13209 ), @doi 10.22323/1.368.0044

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  7. [7]

    H. E. S. S. Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.abn0567 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Sci...376...77H 376, 77

    doi:10.1126/science.abn0567 2022

  8. [8]

    Hachisu I., Kato M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312027 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517L..47H 517, L47

    doi:10.1086/312027 1999

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    H., Nagarajan P., Fekel F

    Hinkle K. H., Nagarajan P., Fekel F. C., Miko ajewska J., Straniero O., Muterspaugh M. W., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adbe63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...983...76H 983, 76

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Hristova M., Kandzhichka S., Marchev V., Zamanov R., Stoyanov K., Marchev D., 2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ATel17075....1H 17075, 1

    2025

  3. [11]

    I kiewicz K., Miko ajewska J., Stoyanov K., Manousakis A., Miszalski B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2695I 462, 2695

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace9dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L...7I 953, L7

    I kiewicz K., Miko ajewska J., Stoyanov K. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ace9dc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...953L...7I 953, L7

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    K., 2025, Observations from the AAVSO International Database, https://www.aavso.org

    Kloppenborg B. K., 2025, Observations from the AAVSO International Database, https://www.aavso.org

    2025

  6. [14]

    K \"o nig O., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-04635-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.605..248K 605, 248

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    Luna G. J. M., Sokoloski J. L., Mukai K., M. Kuin N. P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abbb2c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902L..14L 902, L14

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Maskoli \= u nas M., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.32023/0001-5237/74.2.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024AcA....74...77M 74, 77

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    A., Tatarnikov A

    Maslennikova N. A., Tatarnikov A. M., Tatarnikova A. A., Dodin A. V., Shenavrin V. I., Burlak M. A., Zheltoukhov S. G., Strakhov I. A., 2023, @doi [Astronomy Letters] 10.1134/S1063773723090037 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023AstL...49..501M 49, 501

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Merc J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039132 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...644A..49M 644, A49

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Mathur S., Garc \' a R

    Merc J., Beck P. G., Mathur S., Garc \' a R. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..84M 683, A84

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    C., 2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ATel17110....1M 17110, 1

    Moraitis C., Srijumnong I., Eikenberry S., Thomas T., Akers A., Bentz M. C., 2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ATel17110....1M 17110, 1

    2025

  13. [21]

    Munari U., 2023a, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ace527 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RNAAS...7..145M 7, 145

    doi

  14. [22]

    Munari U., 2023b, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad0f26 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023RNAAS...7..251M 7, 251

    doi

  15. [23]

    Munari U., Dallaporta S., Cherini G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2016.01.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NewA...47....7M 47, 7

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Munari U., Ochner P., Dallaporta S., Valisa P., Vagnozzi A., Moretti S., Bergamini A., Cherini G., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16404....1M 16404, 1

    2024

  17. [25]

    Nagy Z., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3344N 524, 3344

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Otulakowska-Hypka M., 2025, @doi [Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnaté Pleso] 10.31577/caosp.2025.55.3.67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025CoSka..55c..67O 55, 67

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Pettit E., 1946, @doi [ ] 10.1086/125797 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1946PASP...58..153P 58, 153

    1946 doi

  20. [28]

    Planquart L., Jorissen A., Van Winckel H., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202452833 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025A&A...694A..85P 694, A85

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...657A..18R 657, A18

    Rybicki K. A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039542 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...657A..18R 657, A18

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.6150S 517, 6150

    Schaefer B. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.6150S 517, 6150

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    E., 2023a, @doi [Journal for the History of Astronomy] 10.1177/00218286231200492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JHA....54..436S 54, 436

    Schaefer B. E., 2023a, @doi [Journal for the History of Astronomy] 10.1177/00218286231200492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JHA....54..436S 54, 436

    doi

  24. [32]

    E., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3146S 524, 3146

    Schaefer B. E., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad735 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.3146S 524, 3146

    doi

  25. [33]

    E., Walter F

    Schaefer B. E., Walter F. M., Hounsell R., Hillman Y., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3864S 517, 3864

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Kloppenborg B., Waagen E

    Schaefer B. E., Kloppenborg B., Waagen E. O., Observers T. A., 2023, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ATel16107....1S 16107, 1

    2023

  27. [35]

    Schaffenroth V., Guenther E., Doerr H.-P., Aufschlaeger B., 2025, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ATel17030....1S 17030, 1

    2025

  28. [36]

    M., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..224S 529, 224

    Shara M. M., et al., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529..224S 529, 224

    doi

  29. [37]

    M., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad991e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977L..48S 977, L48

    Shara M. M., et al., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad991e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...977L..48S 977, L48

    doi

  30. [38]

    Starrfield S., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/adb8ed , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...982...89S 982, 89

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    A., et al., 2025, @doi [Bulgarian Astronomical Journal] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025BlgAJ..42...29S 42, 29

    Stoyanov K. A., et al., 2025, @doi [Bulgarian Astronomical Journal] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01971 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025BlgAJ..42...29S 42, 29

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    A., Bowman M., Saunders E

    Street R. A., Bowman M., Saunders E. S., Boroson T., 2018, in Guzman J. C., Ibsen J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 10707, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy V. p. 1070711 ( @eprint arXiv 1806.09557 ), @doi 10...

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    N., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16912....1T 16912, 1

    Teyssier F., Sims F., Guarro J., Bertand E., Shore S. N., 2024, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ATel16912....1T 16912, 1

    2024

  34. [42]

    A., Gonz \'a lez-Mart \' n O., Sacchi A., Vasquez-Torres D

    Toal \'a J. A., Gonz \'a lez-Mart \' n O., Sacchi A., Vasquez-Torres D. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae1579 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.532.1421T 532, 1421

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Toone J., 2023, British Astronomical Association Variable Star Section Circular, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023BAAVC.196....8T 196, 8

    2023

  36. [44]

    Wyrzykowski ., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201935097 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...633A..98W 633, A98

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Zamanov R., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348372 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680L..18Z 680, L18

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Marchev V., Marti J., Latev G

    Zamanov R. K., Marchev V., Marti J., Latev G. Y., 2024, @doi [Bulgarian Journal of Physics] 10.48550/arXiv.2308.04104 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230804104Z 51, 263

    2024 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zieli \'n ski P., Wyrzykowski ., Rybicki K., Ko aczkowski Z., Bru \'s P., Miko ajczyk P., 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019CoSka..49..125Z 49, 125

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.