Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies That at Least Some "Standard" Optical TDEs are Partial Disruptions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2022dbl is two consecutive disruptions of the same star on a ~700-day orbit around a supermassive black hole, making it the first robust case of a partial disruption masquerading as a standard optical-UV tidal disruption event.

desk verdict A strong, honest observational paper that establishes AT 2022dbl as the first credible repeating standard optical-UV TDE, though the chance-coincidence statistic needs a correction for the trials factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16867 v1 pith:LRA3N2HD submitted 2025-05-22 astro-ph.HE

Lydia Makrygianni , Iair Arcavi , Megan Newsome , Ananya Bandopadhyay , Eric R. Coughlin , Itai Linial , Brenna Mockler , Eliot Quataert
show 32 more authors
Chris Nixon Benjamin Godson Miika Pursiainen Giorgos Leloudas K. Decker French Adi Zitrin Sara Faris Marco C. Lam Assaf Horesh Itai Sfaradi Michael Fausnaugh Ehud Nakar Kendall Ackley Moira Andrews Panos Charalampopoulos Benjamin D. R. Davies Yael Dgany Martin J. Dyer Joseph Farah Rob Fender David A. Green D. Andrew Howell Thomas Killestein Niilo Koivisto Joseph Lyman Curtis McCully Morgan A. Mitchell Estefania Padilla Gonzalez Lauren Rhodes Anwesha Sahu Giacomo Terreran Ben Warwick
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventspartialrepeatingTDEoptical-UVTDEssupermassiveblackholesAT2022dblHillsmechanismfallbackrate
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 argues that AT 2022dbl, a completely ordinary optical-ultraviolet tidal disruption event, flared twice from the same star, with the second flare nearly identical to the first after a 700-day gap. The authors rule out gravitational lensing, two unrelated TDEs, a binary black hole, and debris-tail fallback as explanations. They conclude that at least the first flare was a partial disruption of a star on a bound orbit about a supermassive black hole, likely captured through the Hills mechanism. Because AT 2022dbl is typical of its class in radiated energy, temperature, spectra, and host galaxy, the standard assumption that optical-UV TDEs are full disruptions fails at least for some members of the class. Either all optical-UV TDEs are partial disruptions, or some are partial while looking the same as full ones; both options require revised emission models and rate calculations.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the repeated partial disruption of a surviving stellar core on a bound, highly eccentric orbit around a supermassive black hole. The argument's load-bearing pieces are: (1) the chance-coincidence calculation that two unrelated TDEs in the same quiescent Balmer-strong host within 700 days is rare, estimated at 0.037% to 0.368% depending on the assumed global TDE rate; (2) the near-identical H$\alpha$ line properties across both flares, with no observed correlation between H$\alpha$ properties and black-hole mass across a comparison sample, implying the lines carry information about the star or its orbit rather than the black hole alone; and (3) hydrodynamical simulations showing that a 3$\,M_\odot$ evolved star on a 700-day bound orbit with pericenter near the tidal radius produces repeated, similar mass fallback rates consistent with both flares. The fallback scalings $t^{-5/3}$ for full disruption versus $t^{-9/4}$ for partial disruption carry the physical distinction.

What would settle it

Recompute the chance-coincidence probability using the actual distribution of host-galaxy Lick H$\delta_A$ indices among all roughly 50 discovered optical-UV TDEs rather than scaling the 15-event comparison sample; if the two-flare probability exceeds about one percent, the same-star identification loses its statistical grounding. A complementary observation is to watch for a third AT 2022dbl flare in early 2026: a third similar flare confirms the star survived both earlier passages, while no third flare would favor the first-partial/second-full scenario and would leave the repeated-partial model in question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, AT 2022dbl is the first robust example of an otherwise normal optical-ultraviolet TDE that repeats: a nearly identical flare appeared about 700 days after the first, with matching spectra, similar light-curve shape, and typical TDE luminosity and temperature. The paper systematically excludes gravitational lensing (the required intervening lens mass is ~$10^{13}\,M_\odot$), two unrelated TDEs (chance probability 0.037% to 0.368%, or 0.12% for a recent global rate estimate), a single disruption around a binary black hole, and emission from the less-bound debris tail, leaving repeated partial disruption of the same star as the explanation. At least the first flare must be partial, because the star survived to produce the second; whether the second flare also left a surviving core is undetermined. The star is on a ~700-day bound orbit, plausibly captured through the Hills mechanism, and the first flare's post-peak decline is steeper than the canonical $t^{-5/3}$ full-disruption rate, consistent with the $t^{-9/4}$ partial-disruption fallback scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The whole same-star conclusion rests on the estimate that two unrelated TDEs in this galaxy within 700 days is a roughly one-in-a-thousand coincidence; that estimate assumes the small sample of TDE host galaxies used for the rate enhancement is representative of all discovered TDEs and that the global TDE rate lies between $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-4}$ per galaxy per year.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If at least some standard optical-UV TDEs are partial disruptions, the prevalent assumption that all such events are full disruptions is wrong, so emission models built on full-disruption fallback need revision.
  • The 'missing energy problem' in optical-UV TDEs may be less severe, because a single star can radiate over multiple passages, and super-Eddington accretion could channel much of the released energy into outflows rather than radiation.
  • A post-peak decline steeper than $t^{-5/3}$ may be a practical diagnostic of partial disruption, and the first flare of AT 2022dbl shows such a steeper decline.
  • Rates and host-galaxy preferences of optical-UV TDEs need reassessment, because repeating partial disruptions contribute to the observed sample in ways that single-pass full-disruption models do not capture.
  • A third flare from AT 2022dbl, predicted for roughly early 2026 if the star survived both passages, would distinguish between two partial disruptions and a first partial followed by a full disruption of the star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If partial disruptions are common in the optical-UV class, the per-galaxy TDE rate is biased low, because a single star can flare multiple times and short-baseline surveys would either count repeats as separate events or miss long-period returns entirely.
  • The near-identical H$\alpha$ properties across the two flares suggest that TDE line diagnostics are set mainly by the surviving stellar core and its orbit rather than by the black hole alone; the same logic could be applied to archival multi-flare light curves to identify new repeating candidates.
  • A Hills-mechanism capture with a ~700-day period implies a population of tightly bound, strongly eccentric stars around low-mass supermassive black holes; if such stars are common, some apparently single TDEs may be first flares that will repeat on timescales of years to decades, making long-term monitoring of TDE hosts a direct route to more detections.
  • A systematic search of survey light curves for second flares from previously classified optical-UV TDE hosts, using color and spectral similarity as filters, could measure the partial-disruption fraction directly rather than relying on single-object chance-coincidence arguments.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents multi-wavelength observations of AT 2022dbl, an otherwise 'standard' optical-UV tidal disruption event (TDE) that shows a second, nearly identical flare about 700 days after the first. The authors use photometry, spectroscopy, radio observations, host-galaxy SED fitting, analytical TDE models, and illustrative hydrodynamical simulations to argue that the two flares are not two lensed images, are very unlikely to be two unrelated TDEs, and are not explained by a SMBH binary or by return of the less-bound debris tail. They conclude that AT 2022dbl is the repeated partial disruption of the same star by the same SMBH, with at least the first flare partial, and they discuss the implication that at least some (possibly all) standard optical-UV TDEs are partial disruptions.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, AT 2022dbl would be the first robust case in which a spectroscopically and photometrically normal optical-UV TDE is shown to be a repeating partial disruption. This has the potential to revise standard assumptions about the emission mechanism and rates of the optical-UV TDE class. The paper is strong in using a direct logical inference from repetition rather than relying on model-dependent fits: the MOSFiT impact-parameter posterior is not used as proof of partiality, and the phantom simulations are explicitly labeled as illustrative rather than fits. The prediction of a third flare in early 2026 is a concrete, falsifiable consequence. The main quantitative support for the same-star conclusion is the chance-coincidence calculation in Section 5.2.2, and that calculation needs clarification before the conclusion is fully secure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.2.2, Figure 14] The reported chance-coincidence probabilities (0.037-0.368%, and 0.12% at the Yao et al. rate) are numerically equal to 2 R_enh R_global (700/365.25) for the host's HδA bin, i.e., the conditional probability that a single already-observed TDE in such a galaxy has another TDE within ±700 days. The text states that this number is then multiplied by the total number of discovered TDEs in that galaxy bin, but the arithmetic does not reflect such a multiplication. If the intended quantity is the chance that any of the ~50 discovered TDEs in this bin is part of an unrelated pair, the quoted values must be multiplied by N_bin, which is at least about 3 under the stated assumption that the 50 events are distributed like the French et al. sample; this raises the Yao-rate estimate to roughly 0.4% and the high-rate estimate above 1%. The paragraph should state explicitly whether the quoted number is per-object or survey-wide and should show the intermediate quantities. As written, the quantitative exclusion of two unrelated TDEs is internally inconsistent.
  2. [Section 5.2.2 and Figure 14] The argument that the nearly identical Hα properties of the two flares cannot be explained by two unrelated disruptions rests on the absence of correlations between Hα width/luminosity and black hole mass in a comparison sample of roughly ten objects. This is a weak null result, and it should be presented as suggestive rather than as an independent quantitative constraint. The paper should temper the wording in the abstract and Section 6 ('ruling out' two unrelated disruptions) unless the rate calculation is clarified and the resulting probability is robustly below the percent level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1.1 and Table 5] The power-law decline fit for the first flare fixes t0 = -33.7 days before peak, stated to be the fallback time from the MOSFiT fit, but the MOSFiT best-fit t0 for the first flare in Table 5 is -11.94^+1.87_-2.11 days. This discrepancy should be explained or corrected.
  2. [Table 2] The AMI-LA epoch listed as MJD 69677 appears to be a typo; it should likely be MJD 59677 based on the surrounding epochs.
  3. [Section 5.2.2] The sentence 'the probability that the two flares of AT 2022dbl are of unrelated TDEs is 0.12%' should be rephrased as the probability of two independent TDEs occurring within the stated window under the assumed rate model, since it is a null-hypothesis probability rather than a posterior probability.
  4. [Section 5.2.2] The boundaries of the three HδA bins are described only as 'equally spaced between 1.3 and 6 Å'; please give the explicit bin ranges so that the bin assignment of the AT 2022dbl host (HδA = 2.20 Å) can be checked.
  5. [Figure 7] The efficiency values ε used to overlay the bolometric luminosity on the simulated fallback rates are stated in the figure only; please define them in the caption or text so that the reader does not mistake the overlay for a fit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the same-star and partial-disruption conclusions follow from the observed repetition plus ruled-out alternatives, not from fitted parameters or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is observational: two nearly identical flares in the same host, a 711-day peak separation, exclusion of lensing by color evolution and by the implausible lens mass, and a host-based estimate of the chance of two unrelated TDEs. The conclusion that at least the first flare was a partial disruption follows logically from the conclusion that the same star was disrupted twice: a star that survives to produce a second flare cannot have been fully destroyed in the first flare. The MOSFiT b-parameter posteriors are not used as proof of partiality; the paper states that the first-flare posterior 'spreads both below and above 1' and is consistent with both full and partial disruption. The hydrodynamical phantom runs are explicitly labeled 'not fits to the data' and 'illustrative cases', so their consistency is not a fitted-input-called-prediction. Theoretical citations for steeper partial-disruption fallback rates (Coughlin & Nixon 2019; Bandopadhyay et al. 2024) are parameter-free published calculations used only as consistency checks, not as the load-bearing step for the same-star conclusion. The Hills-mechanism section is explicitly presented as a possible dynamical scenario, not as evidence for repetition. Host-galaxy rate enhancement is taken from external samples (French et al. 2016, 2020; Arcavi et al. 2014). The main caveats are statistical robustness issues rather than circularity: the §5.2.2 coincidence probability depends on the assumed global TDE rate and on how the 50 discovered TDEs are distributed across HδA bins, and the quoted arithmetic's multiplication by per-bin occupancy is not transparent; the Hα-similarity comparison rests on a small sample. These concerns affect the strength of the chance-coincidence exclusion, but no derived quantity is equivalent by construction to an input, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not depend on a single fitted parameter; the partial-disruption inference follows from the repeated flare itself. However, the exclusion of unrelated TDEs and the formation-scenario plausibility rest on several domain assumptions (rate distribution, spectral-line driver, fallback-to-light tracing) and on illustrative simulation parameters, which are honestly labeled as not fitting the data.

free parameters (5)
  • MOSFiT model parameters (MBH, m*, b, efficiency, Rph0, lph, Tnu, t0, nH, sigma) = Flare 1: log MBH=6.698, m*=0.103 Msun, b=0.984; Flare 2: log MBH=6.629, m*=0.37 Msun, b=1.157 (Table 5)
    Fitted to multiband light curves in Section 4.1.2. The b posterior for flare 1 straddles full/partial disruption, so the fits do not establish partiality; the claim instead rests on the observed repetition.
  • Illustrative hydrodynamical simulation parameters = MBH=1e6 Msun; M*=3 Msun TAMS and 1 Msun ZAMS; P=700 d; Rp ~ Rt and Rp ~ Rt/1.4
    Chosen in Section 4.1.3 to show consistency with repeated partial disruption; the authors explicitly state these are illustrative cases, not fits to the data.
  • Overlay efficiency in Figure 7 = epsilon = 1e-2 (3 Msun case) and 3e-4 (1 Msun case)
    Ad hoc scaling constants used to overlay mass fallback rate on bolometric luminosity; not constrained by the data.
  • Assumed number of discovered optical-UV TDEs = 50
    Assumed in Section 5.2.2 to convert per-galaxy probabilities into the probability of seeing a double flare among discovered events; not derived in this paper.
  • H-delta-A binning for host rate enhancement = 3 bins, equal spacing 1.3 to 6 Angstrom
    Choice of binning in Section 5.2.2; the authors test 4 and 5 bins and find similar probabilities (0.14% and 0.16%).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Bolometric luminosity traces the mass fallback rate in shape.
    Invoked in Sections 4.1.3 and 5.3.1 to overlay simulated fallback rates on observed light curves and to convert peak-to-peak time into orbital period; the fallback-to-emission connection is acknowledged as an open problem.
  • domain assumption H-alpha emission properties in TDEs are governed by stellar or orbital properties rather than primarily by the SMBH.
    Used in Section 5.2.2 to argue that nearly identical H-alpha line strength and width across flares is unlikely for two unrelated stars; based on absence of correlation with black hole mass in a small comparison sample.
  • domain assumption The global optical TDE rate is in the range 1e-5 to 1e-4 per galaxy per year.
    Taken from Stone et al. 2020 and Yao et al. 2023 in Section 5.2.2 to convert H-delta-A-bin enhancements into chance-coincidence probabilities.
  • standard math Standard point-mass gravitational lensing equations and Lambda-CDM cosmology.
    Used in Section 5.2.1 to rule out lensing; standard results adopted without modification.
  • standard math Keplerian energy-period relation for a star on a bound orbit.
    Used in Sections 5.2.4 and 5.3.2 to estimate debris return times and orbital parameters.
  • domain assumption The host galaxy's black hole mass follows the MBH-sigma relation of Kormendy and Ho 2013.
    Used in Section 4.4 to estimate log MBH = 6.2 +/- 0.52; systematic scatter in the relation is not fully propagated into all conclusions.
  • domain assumption Stars in the galactic nucleus follow a Bahcall-Wolf density profile for the relaxation-time estimate.
    Used in Section 5.3.2 to estimate the two-body angular momentum relaxation time; different density profiles would change the inferred formation timescale.
  • ad hoc to paper The first flare's fallback time t0 = 33.7 days from the MOSFiT fit is fixed for the power-law decline fit.
    In Section 4.1.1, t0 fixed to a model-derived value for flare 1; the steep alpha = 2.7 index is partly dependent on this assumption, though a free-t0 fit gives a consistent index.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies That at Least Some "Standard" Optical TDEs are Partial Disruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LRA3N2HD

@misc{pith2026250516867,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies That at Least Some "Standard" Optical TDEs are Partial Disruptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LRA3N2HD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16867}
}
read the original abstract

Flares produced following the tidal disruption of stars by supermassive black holes can reveal the properties of the otherwise dormant majority of black holes and the physics of accretion. In the past decade, a class of optical-ultraviolet tidal disruption flares has been discovered whose emission properties do not match theoretical predictions. This has led to extensive efforts to model the dynamics and emission mechanisms of optical-ultraviolet tidal disruptions in order to establish them as probes of supermassive black holes. Here we present the optical-ultraviolet tidal disruption event AT 2022dbl, which showed a nearly identical repetition 700 days after the first flare. Ruling out gravitational lensing and two chance unrelated disruptions, we conclude that at least the first flare represents the partial disruption of a star, possibly captured through the Hills mechanism. Since both flares are typical of the optical-ultraviolet class of tidal disruptions in terms of their radiated energy, temperature, luminosity, and spectral features, it follows that either the entire class are partial rather than full stellar disruptions, contrary to the prevalent assumption, or that some members of the class are partial disruptions, having nearly the same observational characteristics as full disruptions. Whichever option is true, these findings could require revised models for the emission mechanisms of optical-ultraviolet tidal disruption flares and a reassessment of their expected rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16867 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical and ultraviolet host-subtracted light curves of AT 2022dbl normalized to each peak time and shifted in magnitude for clarity (both flares are shifted by the same amount per band; top). Both flares are very similar to each other in the optical bands and show some differences in the ultraviolet. No earlier flares were detected in the ∼1500 days preceding the first flare (bottom). Error bars denote 1σ uncertain… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our full spectral series of AT 2022dbl together with the host-galaxy spectrom from SDSS. Lines that characterize various sub-types of optical-ultraviolet TDEs are marked. Phases are noted in days relative to peak luminosity of the first flare. limits for the emission from AT 2022dbl are provided in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Radio spectra at three different epochs (left; de￾noted in days since optical discovery) and 15.5 GHz light curve (right) of AT 2022dbl, with dashed vertical lines mark￾ing the spectral epochs. Error bars denote 1σ uncertainties and triangles mark 3σ non-detection upper limits. Swift data (linearly interpolating neighbouring optical epochs), using superbol (Nicholl 2018). We exclude epochs without Swift data given t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AT 2022dbl best-fit blackbody radius, temper￾ature, and resulting bolometric luminosity (top to bottom panels) (black filled and open markers, for the first and sec￾ond flares respectively). The temperature and luminosity are within the range of a comparison sample of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reprocessed accretion emission MOSFiT model fits to the first (top) and second (top) flares of AT 2022dbl. evolved star (we do not consider more massive stars given the stellar population age of the host galaxy, see below) by a 106 M⊙ black hole, for which the binding …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Two-dimensional posterior distributions of MOSFiT model fits for both the first (red) and second (blue) flare. While the black hole mass and host-galaxy extinction are consistent for both flares, the b parameter supports both a full and partial disruption for the first…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mass fallback rates (left axes) are shown for the first, second and third pericenter passages of a 3 M⊙ terminal-age main sequence (TAMS) star on a bound orbit around a 106 M⊙ black hole, having a pericenter distance Rp ∼ Rt with eccentricity e = 0.995, consistent with…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spectroscopic comparison of AT 2022dbl with a sample of Bowen-TDEs in similar phases with respect to peak luminosity. The spectra have been continuum sub￾tracted to highlight the emission features. AT 2022dbl is clearly a member of the Bowen TDE class. of the g-band li…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hα luminosity (top), FWHM (middle) and offset (bottom) evolution of AT 2022dbl, compared with those of a sample of TDEs. AT 2022dbl has the lowest Hα luminosity and width of the sample consistently in both flares. Both flares are nearly identical in the Hα width. emiss…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Our prospector best-fit median model and 16th and 84th percentile ranges for the AT 2022dbl host￾galaxy spectral energy distribution. photometry using the prospector (Leja et al. 2017) α model, similar to what was done in previous TDE host-galaxy studies (Nicholl et a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Continuum subtracted spectra of AT 2022dbl near peak luminosity of each flare compared to those of optical-ultraviolet TDEs from the literature. Phases are noted in rest-frame days relative to peak luminosity. The spectral features seen during both flares of AT 2022db…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Compared to a sample of other Bowen-TDEs, both flares of AT 2022dbl show typical peak bolometric lu￾minosities (top) and decline rates (middle; same as top panel but normalized to the brightest point). The second flare of AT 2022dbl is fainter and shallower than the f…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The ultraviolet to optical color evolution of both AT 2022dbl flares is roughly constant in time, as seen in other optical-ultraviolet TDEs. However, the small but significant differences in color evolution between the flares from peak luminosity to late times is enou…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Black hole mass versus TDE Hα luminosity (left) and FWHM (right) around peak bolometric luminosity for AT 2022dbl (red) and the comparison sample in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Illustration of a possible Hills-mechanism for￾mation channel for AT 2022dbl. Orbits of a binary star sys￾tem of total mass Mbin = 2 M⊙ near a black hole of mass MBH = 106.2 M⊙ are shown in a phase space of pericen￾ter distance (rp) versus semi-major axis (aorb). The …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. IGR J12580+0134: A Possible Repeated Partial Tidal Disruption Event Inferred from Late-Time Radio Re-brightenin

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IGR J12580+0134 is proposed as a repeating partial tidal disruption event candidate, with two radio flares separated by ~1513 days and a possible third rebrightening.

  2. Lost and Found - A gallery of overlooked optical nuclear transients from the ZTF archive

    astro-ph.HE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Archival ZTF data reveal 19 nuclear transients, including two repeated tidal-disruption-event candidates, one >5-year outburst, and three extreme nuclear transients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S., Aguilar , G., et al

    Abolfathi , B., Aguado , D. S., Aguilar , G., et al. 2018, , 235, 42, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa9e8a 2018

  2. [2]

    S., Ahumada , R., Almeida , A., et al

    Aguado , D. S., Ahumada , R., Almeida , A., et al. 2019, , 240, 23, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651 2019

  3. [3]

    Alard , C., & Lupton , R. H. 1998, , 503, 325, 10.1086/305984

    doi:10.1086/305984 1998

  4. [4]

    D., Berger , E., Guillochon , J., Zauderer , B

    Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., Guillochon , J., Zauderer , B. A., & Williams , P. K. G. 2016, , 819, L25, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L25

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l25 2016

  5. [5]

    2022, , 937, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90c0

    Arcavi , I. 2022, , 937, 75, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac90c0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac90c0 2022

  6. [6]

    2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 47, 1

    Arcavi , I., Dgany , Y., Makrygianni , L., & Pellegrino , C. 2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 47, 1

    2022

  7. [7]

    2014, , 793, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    Arcavi , I., Gal-Yam , A., Sullivan , M., et al. 2014, , 793, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  8. [8]

    N., & Wolf , R

    Bahcall , J. N., & Wolf , R. A. 1977, , 216, 883, 10.1086/155534

    doi:10.1086/155534 1977

Show all 149 references
  1. [9]

    R., Nixon , C

    Bandopadhyay , A., Coughlin , E. R., Nixon , C. J., & Pasham , D. R. 2024, , 974, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a5a

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    Barniol Duran , R., Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2013, , 772, 78, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/78

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004

    Becker , A. 2015, HOTPANTS: High Order Transform of PSF ANd Template Subtraction , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1504.004. 1504.004

    2015

  4. [12]

    C., Kulkarni , S

    Bellm , E. C., Kulkarni , S. R., Barlow , T., et al. 2019, , 131, 068003, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2017, , 844, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7579

    Blagorodnova , N., Gezari , S., Hung , T., et al. 2017, , 844, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7579

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Kulkarni , S

    Blagorodnova , N., Cenko , S. B., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 2019, , 873, 92, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab04b0

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Bowen , I. S. 1928, , 67, 1, 10.1086/143091

    1928 doi

  8. [16]

    Brinchmann , J., Charlot , S., White , S. D. M., et al. 2004, , 351, 1151, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x

    2004

  9. [17]

    M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F

    Brown , T. M., Baliber , N., Bianco , F. B., et al. 2013, , 125, 1031, 10.1086/673168

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    N., Hill , J

    Burrows , D. N., Hill , J. E., Nousek , J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165, 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    G., et al

    Cannizzaro , G., Wevers , T., Jonker , P. G., et al. 2021, , 504, 792, 10.1093/mnras/stab851

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    K., Lee , H

    Cannizzo , J. K., Lee , H. M., & Goodman , J. 1990, , 351, 38, 10.1086/168442

    1990 doi

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Cendes , Y., Berger , E., Alexander , K. D., et al. 2022, , 938, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac88d0

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2023, , 673, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    Charalampopoulos , P., Pursiainen , M., Leloudas , G., et al. 2023, , 673, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    B., et al

    Charalampopoulos , P., Leloudas , G., Malesani , D. B., et al. 2022, , 659, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142122

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Chen , X., Madau , P., Sesana , A., & Liu , F. K. 2009, , 697, L149, 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/L149

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Chevalier, R. A. 1998, , 499, 810, 10.1086/305676

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    R., & Armitage , P

    Coughlin , E. R., & Armitage , P. J. 2018, , 474, 3857, 10.1093/mnras/stx3039

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Armitage , P

    Coughlin , E. R., Armitage , P. J., Nixon , C., & Begelman , M. C. 2017, , 465, 3840, 10.1093/mnras/stw2913

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    R., & Nixon , C

    Coughlin , E. R., & Nixon , C. J. 2019, , 883, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab412d

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    2022, , 517, L26, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac106

    ---. 2022, , 517, L26, 10.1093/mnrasl/slac106

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    R., & Nixon , C

    Cufari , M., Coughlin , E. R., & Nixon , C. J. 2022, , 929, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6021

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    J., & Coughlin , E

    Cufari , M., Nixon , C. J., & Coughlin , E. R. 2023, , 520, L38, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad001

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    M., Wright , E

    Cutri , R. M., Wright , E. L., Conrow , T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328

    2021

  25. [33]

    C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M

    Dai , L., McKinney , J. C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M. C. 2018, , 859, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Kasen , D., & Quataert , E

    Darbha , S., Coughlin , E. R., Kasen , D., & Quataert , E. 2018, , 477, 4009, 10.1093/mnras/sty822

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    1991, , 181, 313, 10.1007/BF00639097

    Demircan , O., & Kahraman , G. 1991, , 181, 313, 10.1007/BF00639097

    1991 doi

  28. [36]

    Dgany , Y., Arcavi , I., Makrygianni , L., Pellegrino , C., & Howell , D. A. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.00594, 10.48550/arXiv.2307.00594

    2023 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    2024, , 969, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72

    Faris , S., Arcavi , I., Makrygianni , L., et al. 2024, , 969, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Vallely , P

    Fausnaugh , M. M., Vallely , P. J., Kochanek , C. S., et al. 2021, , 908, 51, 10.3847/1538-4357/abcd42

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Arcavi , I., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Arcavi , I., & Zabludoff , A. 2016, , 818, L21, 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L21

    2016 doi

  32. [40]

    2017, , 835, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/176

    ---. 2017, , 835, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/176

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    D., Wevers , T., Law-Smith , J., Graur , O., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., Wevers , T., Law-Smith , J., Graur , O., & Zabludoff , A. I. 2020, , 216, 32, 10.1007/s11214-020-00657-y

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    D., & Zabludoff , A

    French , K. D., & Zabludoff , A. I. 2018, , 868, 99, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaea64

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels , N., Chincarini , G., Giommi , P., et al. 2004, , 611, 1005, 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari , S. 2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2012, , 485, 217, 10.1038/nature10990

    Gezari , S., Chornock , R., Rest , A., et al. 2012, , 485, 217, 10.1038/nature10990

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    G., Springel , V., Ohlmann , S

    Goicovic , F. G., Springel , V., Ohlmann , S. T., & Pakmor , R. 2019, , 487, 981, 10.1093/mnras/stz1368

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    Golightly , E. C. A., Nixon , C. J., & Coughlin , E. R. 2019, , 882, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab380d

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    2014, , 783, 23, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/23

    Guillochon , J., Manukian , H., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2014, , 783, 23, 10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/23

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    A., et al

    Guillochon , J., Nicholl , M., Villar , V. A., et al. 2018, , 236, 6, 10.3847/1538-4365/aab761

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    2013, , 767, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2013, , 767, 25, 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25

    2013 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo , M., Gezari , S., Yao , Y., et al. 2024, , 966, 160, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, , 942, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    Hammerstein , E., van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 942, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2018, , 855, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a5

    Hayasaki , K., Zhong , S., Li , S., Berczik , P., & Spurzem , R. 2018, , 855, 129, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab0a5

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    A., Templeton , M., Terrell , D., et al

    Henden , A. A., Templeton , M., Terrell , D., et al. 2016, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/336

    2016

  47. [55]

    C., et al

    Hickish, J., Razavi-Ghods, N., Perrott, Y. C., et al. 2018, , 475, 5677, 10.1093/mnras/sty074

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Hills , J. G. 1988, , 331, 687, 10.1038/331687a0

    1988 doi

  49. [57]

    T., Auchettl , K., Hoogendam , W

    Hinkle , J. T., Auchettl , K., Hoogendam , W. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.15326, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15326

    2024 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Prieto , J. L., Bersier , D., et al. 2014, , 445, 3263, 10.1093/mnras/stu1922

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Kochanek , C. S., Prieto , J. L., et al. 2016, , 455, 2918, 10.1093/mnras/stv2486

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    B., & Arcavi , I

    Horesh , A., Cenko , S. B., & Arcavi , I. 2021 a , Nature Astronomy, 5, 491, 10.1038/s41550-021-01300-8

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2021 b , , 920, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    Horesh , A., Sfaradi , I., Fender , R., et al. 2021 b , , 920, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac25fe

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    1986, , 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    Horne , K. 1986, , 98, 609, 10.1086/131801

    1986 doi

  55. [63]

    2017, , 842, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337

    Hung , T., Gezari , S., Blagorodnova , N., et al. 2017, , 842, 29, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337

    2017 doi

  56. [64]

    H., Chester , T., Cutri , R., et al

    Jarrett , T. H., Chester , T., Cutri , R., et al. 2000, , 119, 2498, 10.1086/301330

    2000 doi

  57. [65]

    2016, , 830, 125, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

    Jiang , Y.-F., Guillochon , J., & Loeb , A. 2016, , 830, 125, 10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/125

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    M., White , S

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., White , S. D. M., et al. 2003, , 341, 33, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x

    2003

  59. [67]

    Kormendy , J., & Ho , L. C. 2013, , 51, 511, 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811

    2013 doi

  60. [68]

    1962, , 67, 591, 10.1086/108790

    Kozai , Y. 1962, , 67, 591, 10.1086/108790

    1962 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, , 904, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc0f6

    Krolik , J., Piran , T., & Ryu , T. 2020, , 904, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc0f6

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    H., Townes , C

    Lacy , J. H., Townes , C. H., & Hollenbach , D. J. 1982, , 262, 120, 10.1086/160402

    1982 doi

  63. [71]

    C., & Smith, R

    Lam, M. C., & Smith, R. J. 2022, ASPIRED: A Python-based spectral data reduction toolkit , 0.4.6, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.6903357

    2022 doi

  64. [72]

    C., Smith , R

    Lam , M. C., Smith , R. J., Arcavi , I., et al. 2023, , 166, 13, 10.3847/1538-3881/acd75c

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    D., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P

    Leja , J., Johnson , B. D., Conroy , C., van Dokkum , P. G., & Byler , N. 2017, , 837, 170, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5ffe

    2017 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, , 887, 218, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5792

    Leloudas , G., Dai , L., Arcavi , I., et al. 2019, , 887, 218, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5792

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    Lidov , M. L. 1962, , 9, 719, 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    1962 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, , 971, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    Lin , Z., Jiang , N., Wang , T., et al. 2024, , 971, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    2024, , 527, 4317, 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    Linial , I., & Quataert , E. 2024, , 527, 4317, 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    2024 doi

  70. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01670, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01670

    Liu , C., Yarza , R., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01670, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01670

    2024 doi arXiv

  71. [80]

    2011, , 731, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    Mainzer , A., Bauer , J., Grav , T., et al. 2011, , 731, 53, 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    M., et al

    Mainzer , A., Bauer , J., Cutri , R. M., et al. 2014, , 792, 30, 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  73. [82]

    2023, , 953, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee

    Makrygianni , L., Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., et al. 2023, , 953, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace1ee

    2023 doi

  74. [83]

    J., Ma , C.-P., Gebhardt , K., et al

    McConnell , N. J., Ma , C.-P., Gebhardt , K., et al. 2011, , 480, 215, 10.1038/nature10636

    2011 doi

  75. [84]

    C., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E

    Melchor , D., Mockler , B., Naoz , S., Rose , S. C., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2024, , 960, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/acfee0

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Merritt , D. 2000, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 197, Dynamics of Galaxies: from the Early Universe to the Present, ed. F. Combes , G. A. Mamon , & V. Charmandaris , 221, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9910546

    2000 doi arXiv

  77. [86]

    2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei

    Merritt , D. 2013, Dynamics and Evolution of Galactic Nuclei

    2013

  78. [87]

    2019, , 872, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler , B., Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2019, , 872, 151, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    2021, , 906, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc955

    Mockler , B., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2021, , 906, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc955

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc) . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    2014

  81. [90]

    Netzer , H., Elitzur , M., & Ferland , G. J. 1985, , 299, 752, 10.1086/163741

    1985 doi

  82. [91]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    Nicholl , M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    2018 doi

  83. [92]

    2022, , 515, 5604, 10.1093/mnras/stac2206

    Nicholl , M., Lanning , D., Ramsden , P., et al. 2022, , 515, 5604, 10.1093/mnras/stac2206

    2022 doi

  84. [93]

    K., Berger , E., et al

    Nicholl , M., Blanchard , P. K., Berger , E., et al. 2019, , 488, 1878, 10.1093/mnras/stz1837

    2019 doi

  85. [94]

    R., et al

    Nicholl , M., Wevers , T., Oates , S. R., et al. 2020, , 499, 482, 10.1093/mnras/staa2824

    2020 doi

  86. [95]

    Norman , S. M. J., Nixon , C. J., & Coughlin , E. R. 2021, , 923, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2ee8

    2021 doi

  87. [96]

    G., et al

    Onori , F., Cannizzaro , G., Jonker , P. G., et al. 2019, , 489, 1463, 10.1093/mnras/stz2053

    2019 doi

  88. [97]

    2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3, 10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  89. [98]

    V., Shappee , B

    Payne , A. V., Shappee , B. J., Hinkle , J. T., et al. 2021, , 910, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d

    2021 doi

  90. [99]

    C., Scaife, A

    Perrott, Y. C., Scaife, A. M. M., Green, D. A., et al. 2013, , 429, 3330, 10.1093/mnras/sts589

    2013 doi

  91. [100]

    Peters , P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  92. [101]

    Phinney , E. S. 1989, in The Center of the Galaxy, ed. M. Morris , Vol. 136, 543

    1989

  93. [102]

    M., & Shiokawa , H

    Piran , T., Svirski , G., Krolik , J., Cheng , R. M., & Shiokawa , H. 2015, , 806, 164, 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164

    2015 doi

  94. [103]

    J., Wurster , J., Tricco , T

    Price , D. J., Wurster , J., Tricco , T. S., et al. 2018, , 35, e031, 10.1017/pasa.2018.25

    2018 doi

  95. [104]

    X., Hennawi, J

    Prochaska, J. X., Hennawi, J. F., Westfall, K. B., et al. 2020, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  96. [105]

    Quinlan , G. D. 1996, , 1, 35, 10.1016/S1384-1076(96)00003-6

    1996 doi

  97. [106]

    Ramsden , P., Lanning , D., Nicholl , M., & McGee , S. L. 2022, , 515, 1146, 10.1093/mnras/stac1810

    2022 doi

  98. [107]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523, 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  99. [108]

    2016, , 458, 1712, 10.1093/mnras/stw355

    Ricarte , A., Natarajan , P., Dai , L., & Coppi , P. 2016, , 458, 1712, 10.1093/mnras/stw355

    2016 doi

  100. [109]

    R., Winn , J

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

    2015 doi

  101. [110]

    Roming , P. W. A., Kennedy , T. E., Mason , K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95, 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  102. [111]

    2016, , 827, 3, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    Roth , N., Kasen , D., Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2016, , 827, 3, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    2016 doi

  103. [112]

    2020 a , , 904, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4d

    Ryu , T., Krolik , J., & Piran , T. 2020 a , , 904, 73, 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4d

    2020 doi

  104. [113]

    Ryu , T., Krolik , J., Piran , T., & Noble , S. C. 2020 b , , 904, 100, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb3ce

    2020 doi

  105. [114]

    J., Brown , T., Haynes , R., & Dubberley , M

    Sand , D. J., Brown , T., Haynes , R., & Dubberley , M. 2011, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 218, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#218, 132.03

    2011

  106. [115]

    Saxton , R., Komossa , S., Auchettl , K., & Jonker , P. G. 2021, Correction to: X-Ray Properties of TDEs , Space Science Reviews, Volume 217, Issue 1, article id.18, 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7

    2021 doi

  107. [116]

    Schneider , P., Ehlers , J., & Falco , E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses , 10.1007/978-3-662-03758-4

    1992 doi

  108. [117]

    2012, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Seibert , M., Wyder , T., Neill , J., et al. 2012, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 219, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#219, 340.01

    2012

  109. [118]

    2022, , 933, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    Sfaradi , I., Horesh , A., Fender , R., et al. 2022, , 933, 176, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bc

    2022 doi

  110. [119]

    2024, , 527, 7672, 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    Sfaradi , I., Beniamini , P., Horesh , A., et al. 2024, , 527, 7672, 10.1093/mnras/stad3717

    2024 doi

  111. [120]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, , 788, 48, 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  112. [121]

    J., Ravi , V., & Lu , W

    Somalwar , J. J., Ravi , V., & Lu , W. 2023 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03795, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03795

    2023 doi arXiv

  113. [122]

    J., Ravi , V., Yao , Y., et al

    Somalwar , J. J., Ravi , V., Yao , Y., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03782, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03782

    2023 doi arXiv

  114. [123]

    Speagle , J. S. 2020, , 493, 3132, 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  115. [124]

    Stanek , K. Z. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-1433, 1

    2022

  116. [125]

    K., Ackley , K., et al

    Steeghs , D., Galloway , D. K., Ackley , K., et al. 2022, , 511, 2405, 10.1093/mnras/stac013

    2022 doi

  117. [126]

    R., Stone , N

    Steinberg , E., Coughlin , E. R., Stone , N. C., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, , 485, L146, 10.1093/mnrasl/slz048

    2019 doi

  118. [127]

    C., Kesden , M., Cheng , R

    Stone , N. C., Kesden , M., Cheng , R. M., & van Velzen , S. 2019, General Relativity and Gravitation, 51, 30, 10.1007/s10714-019-2510-9

    2019 doi

  119. [128]

    C., Vasiliev , E., Kesden , M., et al

    Stone , N. C., Vasiliev , E., Kesden , M., et al. 2020, , 216, 35, 10.1007/s11214-020-00651-4

    2020 doi

  120. [129]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01824, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01824

    Sun , J., Guo , H., Gu , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01824, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01824

    2025 doi arXiv

  121. [130]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

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

    2018 doi

  122. [131]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., Ricci , C., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242, 10.1038/s41550-018-0661-3

    2019 doi

  123. [132]

    A., Heckman , T

    Tremonti , C. A., Heckman , T. M., Kauffmann , G., et al. 2004, , 613, 898, 10.1086/423264

    2004 doi

  124. [133]

    A., Stritzinger , M

    Valenti , S., Howell , D. A., Stritzinger , M. D., et al. 2016, , 459, 3939, 10.1093/mnras/stw870

    2016 doi

  125. [134]

    2018, , 852, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998e

    van Velzen , S. 2018, , 852, 72, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998e

    2018 doi

  126. [135]

    van Velzen , S., Holoien , T. W. S., Onori , F., Hung , T., & Arcavi , I. 2020, , 216, 124, 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    2020 doi

  127. [136]

    R., Gezari , S., et al

    van Velzen , S., Farrar , G. R., Gezari , S., et al. 2011, , 741, 73, 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/73

    2011 doi

  128. [137]

    2021, , 908, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., Hammerstein , E., et al. 2021, , 908, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    2021 doi

  129. [138]

    Veitch-Michaelis, J., & Lam, M. C. 2021, Rascal, 0.3.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.4124170

    2021 doi

  130. [139]

    Veitch Michaelis , J., & Lam , M. C. 2020, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 527, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIX, ed. R. Pizzo , E. R. Deul , J. D. Mol , J. de Plaa , & H. Verkouter , 627. 1912.05883

    2020 arXiv

  131. [140]

    M., Franckowiak , A., van Velzen , S., et al

    Veres , P. M., Franckowiak , A., van Velzen , S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17419, 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    2024 doi

  132. [141]

    2011, , 738, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/738/1/L8

    Wegg , C., & Nate Bode , J. 2011, , 738, L8, 10.1088/2041-8205/738/1/L8

    2011 doi

  133. [142]

    G., Levan , A

    Wen , S., Jonker , P. G., Levan , A. J., et al. 2024, , 970, 116, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4da3

    2024 doi

  134. [143]

    R., van Velzen , S., et al

    Wevers , T., Pasham , D. R., van Velzen , S., et al. 2019, , 488, 4816, 10.1093/mnras/stz1976

    2019 doi

  135. [144]

    R., Pasham , D

    Wevers , T., Coughlin , E. R., Pasham , D. R., et al. 2023, , 942, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f36

    2023 doi

  136. [145]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    Yao , Y., Chornock , R., LeBaron , N., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    2024

  137. [146]

    2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao , Y., Ravi , V., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  138. [147]

    Zwart, J. T. L., Barker, R. W., Biddulph, P., et al. 2008, , 391, 1545, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13953.x

    2008

  139. [148]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.stat...

  140. [149]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.d...

  141. [150]

    k+>9lJʬ Kq F/j ׷ygOǯ^ Wǁ7 ?4>ݠ1 4 5 ? WO#V<Ê;* [

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' en...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.