Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 59 references

Identification of New Candidate Be/X-Ray Binary Systems in the Small Magellanic Cloud via Analysis of S-CUBED Source Catalog

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 The paper claims that six previously overlooked Be/X-ray binary systems in the Small Magellanic Cloud can be identified from their persistent optical, infrared, and ultraviolet emission, and that one of them was later confirmed by an…

desk verdict Useful, honest candidate paper with one confirmed source; the missing chance-coincidence estimate is a fixable but important gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24766 v1 pith:252XRBLL submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Thomas M. Gaudin , Jamie A. Kennea , Malcolm J. Coe , Phil A. Evans This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords Be/X-raybinariesSmallMagellanicCloudS-CUBEDsurveyspectralenergydistributionfittingultravioletvariabilityX-raytransientscircumstellardisksarchivalastronomy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to find Be/X-ray binaries in the Small Magellanic Cloud that have stayed quiet in X-rays for the entire S-CUBED survey, and therefore would be missed by searches that wait for an X-ray outburst. Its method is to look instead at the persistent optical, infrared, and ultraviolet light of the Be companion star: find faint X-ray sources with hard or unmeasured spectra, identify a nearby bright B-type star, fit its archival spectral energy distribution with a distance-modified blackbody, and check whether the ultraviolet light varies on the timescales BeXRBs show. Working through the S-CUBED catalog this way, the paper arrives at six candidate systems. One of them, Swift J010902.6-723710, went into X-ray outburst in October 2023 after being flagged, which is direct evidence that the approach can catch binaries that X-ray monitoring alone misses. If the other five candidates hold up, the SMC's census of BeXRBs is incomplete and multiwavelength archival methods are needed to finish it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the distance-modified blackbody SED fit, $F(\nu,R,T)=\pi(R/D)^2 (2h\nu^3/c^2)(e^{h\nu/kT}-1)^{-1}$ with $D=62.44$ kpc, used to convert archival magnitudes into estimates of stellar radius $R$ and temperature $T$ for every star within 8 arcseconds of an X-ray position. Extinction is removed first using a reddening map and a standard extinction law with $R_V=3.1$, because unreddened fits understate both temperature and radius for OB stars. A companion selection then keeps stars whose parameters land in the OB region of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and whose SEDs show the infrared excess expected from a Be circumstellar disk. The second mechanism is the UVOT $uvw1$-band light curve: persistent emission brighter than magnitude 17 plus variability of order 0.1 magnitude on weekly timescales, and larger over hundreds of days, is treated as the ultraviolet signature of a BeXRB, consistent with known systems.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo count of bright B-type stars within 10 arcseconds of random positions in the SMC, using the same archival catalogs, would measure the expected number of chance alignments; if that number is close to one per source, the six candidates are not secure. A spectroscopic campaign would settle the issue directly: H-alpha emission or radial-velocity variations at plausible orbital periods would confirm BeXRB nature, and their absence would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that six S-CUBED X-ray sources that lack convincing X-ray outbursts are nevertheless Be/X-ray binary systems, identifiable through the persistent emission of their Be-star companions. For each candidate, the paper fits archival UV-to-IR photometry with a blackbody of free radius and temperature at the adopted SMC distance, requiring the counterpart to look like an OB star and to show a circumstellar-disk infrared excess; it then requires the source to be persistent and variable in the UVOT ultraviolet band. This pipeline reduces more than 2,000 catalog sources to 20 plausible quiescent systems and finally to six candidates. The paper reports that one candidate, Swift J010902.6-723710, was independently confirmed as a BeXRB when it underwent an X-ray outburst on October 9, 2023, which the authors present as validation that the method uncovers systems missed by automated transient detection.

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the premise that a faint X-ray source and a bright B-type star within a few arcseconds are the same physical system; the paper never computes how often chance alignments occur in the crowded Small Magellanic Cloud.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quiescent BeXRBs are recoverable from archival multiwavelength data, so the SMC's roughly 111 known systems are not a complete census.
  • X-ray sources with hard or unmeasurable spectra that sit near a bright B star deserve SED and UV-variability follow-up before being dismissed as background active galactic nuclei.
  • UV variability is a workable BeXRB diagnostic even when X-ray light curves are sparse or contain only upper limits.
  • The one confirmed outburst shows that candidate lists from this pipeline can be validated by continued monitoring rather than by waiting for historical detections.
  • Applying the same procedure to the remaining unidentified S-CUBED sources could yield further candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A Monte Carlo chance-coincidence calculation using the local density of bright B stars would directly measure the contamination rate; the paper does not provide one, and several fields are exactly the ambiguous cases that such a test would resolve.
  • Because the blackbody model ignores reprocessed disk emission, the reported radii for Be stars with infrared excess are likely biased low; fitting a disk-plus-star model would tighten spectral types and could separate Be stars from reddened normal B stars.
  • The weekly UVOT sampling cannot resolve orbital periods shorter than about ten days; combining with ground-based optical light curves would convert several candidates into confirmed binaries if eclipses or ellipsoidal modulation appear.
  • The same archival selection could estimate the hidden BeXRB fraction in other nearby galaxies, provided a distance and reddening map exist.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents an archival search for new Be/X-ray binary candidates in the Small Magellanic Cloud using the S-CUBED Swift survey catalog. The authors filter 2014 X-ray sources by quality flag, photon index, SIMBAD matches, and the presence of a nearby bright B-type star; they then fit modified blackbody SEDs to archival VizieR photometry and analyze UVOT uvw1-band light curves. They report six new candidate BeXRBs, one of which (Swift J010902.6-723710) was subsequently confirmed by an X-ray outburst in October 2023. The paper argues that the combination of SED fitting and UV variability can identify quiescent BeXRBs missed by automated transient pipelines.

Significance. If the candidate list is robust, the paper offers a genuinely useful new route to finding quiescent BeXRBs in the SMC, complementing transient-based searches and making progress on the census problem. The one confirmed source (Swift J010902.6-723710) provides an independent anchor for the method, and the HR-diagram comparison with known BeXRBs is a sensible sanity check. The method is also computationally inexpensive and makes use of public archival data, which aids reproducibility. However, the central six-candidate claim is not yet statistically anchored: the paper lacks a chance-coincidence estimate, the SED fitting ignores measurement errors for a large fraction of points, and one candidate does not satisfy the stated UV-variability criterion. These issues do not invalidate the method but they do limit the confidence that can be placed in the unconfirmed candidates.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, §4] The central six-candidate claim rests on the assumption that a B-type star within the XRT error circle is the physical counterpart of the X-ray source, but no chance-coincidence probability or control-field estimate is presented anywhere in the paper. This is not a pedantic point: the SMC is crowded, and the paper's own results contain explicit ambiguities. In §4.4, 1SCUBEDX J011535.0-731931 has two plausible counterparts with mutually inconsistent parameters (T=36900 K, R=2.3 R_sun versus T=50000 K, R=4.7 R_sun); in §4.3, 1SCUBEDX J010203.7-715130 is retained with no UVOT light curve; in §4.2, the counterpart of 1SCUBEDX J005606.0-722749 is a known eclipsing binary (OGLE-SMC-ECL-3357) that the authors admit could be 'some other type of eclipsing binary system'; and in §4.6, 1SCUBEDX J005708.8-724202 has weak IR excess and a remarkably stable long-term UV light curve. The one confirmed source (Swift J010902.6-723710) validates the method, but it does not validate the remaining five candidates. A quantitative background estimate (e.g., from random field positions or from the density of B stars in the SMC) is needed before the six-candidate list can be considered statistically anchored.
  2. [§3.3] The SED-fitting procedure as described discards measurement errors for roughly half of the photometric points: the text states that 'for approximately half of the measurements included in the VizieR photometry tool, no error is given for the reported flux measurement' and that fitting was performed 'without the inclusion of flux measurement errors.' The quoted uncertainties on T_opt and R_opt are then taken from the covariance matrix of an unweighted least-squares fit, which is not a valid error estimate when a large fraction of the data have unknown noise. Because the HR diagram placement in §5 and the selection of the best optical counterpart in §4 both depend on these parameters, the formal errors in Table 1 are not trustworthy. The authors should restrict the fits to points with errors, propagate the errors consistently, or provide a sensitivity test showing that the conclusions are unchanged.
  3. [§3.4, §4.3] The UV-variability criterion is not applied uniformly. Section 3.4 states that 'all sources that show no signs of UV variability are excluded from the final candidates list,' yet 1SCUBEDX J010203.7-715130 is included in the final list with no UVOT light curve at all, as stated in §4.3 and in the Figure 3 caption. This candidate passes only the SED-fitting filter, so the stated pipeline does not describe the actual selection. The authors should either remove this source from the headline list of six, reclassify it as a lower-confidence SED-only candidate, or explicitly relax the UV criterion for it and explain why.
  4. [§3, §5] For the five unconfirmed candidates, the evidence cited in the Discussion is largely the same as the selection criteria used in the Methods. The pipeline keeps sources with B-type SED shapes, IR excess, and UV variability (§3.3, §3.4), and §5 then presents the presence of these same features as evidence that the candidates are BeXRBs. This is partly circular. The confirmed X-ray outburst of Swift J010902.6-723710 breaks the circularity for that source only. The remaining candidates should be presented as photometrically selected candidates whose BeXRB nature is unconfirmed, and the Discussion should separate selection diagnostics from confirmation evidence.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1, §4.4] The SC151 row in Table 1 lists the separation as 3.89 arcseconds, which corresponds to Star 2, but the listed T_opt and R_opt (36900 K, 2.3 R_sun) correspond to Star 1 in §4.4; the table mixes parameters from the two counterparts and should state explicitly which star is being tabulated.
  2. [Figure 17] The legend lists 'Source 151' and 'Source 430' twice; presumably one occurrence of each should be a different source (e.g., Source 131 and Source 251), and this should be corrected.
  3. [§1 vs §2] The Introduction says S-CUBED observes '149 overlapping tiles' while Section 2 says 'The survey's 142 tiles are designed...'; the number should be reconciled.
  4. [§4.6] The text says 'Six stars are found by Gaia to intersect the XRT error region,' but Figure 14 and its caption show five stars; the count should be made consistent.
  5. [Table 1 vs Figure 6] Table 1 lists T_opt = 22600 ± 1400 K for SC72, while Figure 6 reports 22200 ± 1300 K for the same star; the same fitted parameters should appear in both places.
  6. [§4 vs §6] Section 4 states that the full sample contained 2014 sources, while the Conclusion says the analysis covered a 'small subset of the 1900+ identified S-CUBED sources'; these numbers should be reconciled.
  7. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical slips (e.g., 'shown be capable' in §5, 'insersect' in §4.6, 'this variation is does not shift' in §4.5) that should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Selection criteria are reused as confirmation for the five unconfirmed candidates: OB-like SED shape, IR excess, and UV variability are used to retain sources and then cited as evidence of BeXRB nature.

  1. self definitional [Sections 3.4 and 6 (Light Curve Analysis selection; Conclusion)]
    "Thus, all sources that show no signs of UV variability are excluded from the final candidates list. ... UV light curves were generated to confirm that the sources were both UV-bright and variable on the timescales expected of BeXRBs."

    UV variability is first used as a filter: non-variable sources are removed, variable sources are retained as candidates. The conclusion then invokes the same variability as confirmation of BeXRB nature. For the five candidates without an X-ray outburst, the 'confirmation' is the selection criterion restated, not an independent test. The one confirmed source (Swift J010902.6-723710) breaks the loop, but the remaining five are supported by the same UV-variability property that put them on the list.

  2. self definitional [Sections 3.1/3.3 and 5 (archival filtering, SED fitting; Discussion)]
    "The presence of circumstellar disk material in companion Be stars is additionally expected to produce a positive I−R magnitude (Reig 2011). ... The IR SED shows a significant IR excess over what would be expected from a star with no disk. Given how strong this feature can be in some cases, visual evidence of an IR excess present in SED-fitting results is likely one of the best diagnostic tools available for identifying candidate BeXRBs."

    A positive I−R magnitude (IR excess) is an input filter used to retain candidate stars, and SED fitting is used to keep only OB-like stars. The Discussion then presents IR excess as a diagnostic confirming BeXRB candidacy. For the unconfirmed candidates, the classification therefore reduces to the same selection criteria, with no independent measurement such as spectroscopy or an observed outburst added.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is largely transparent and data-driven: S-CUBED X-ray source selection, SIMBAD filtering, VizieR archival photometry, extinction correction, blackbody SED fitting, and UVOT light curve generation are all described from observations. The unquantified chance-coincidence background is a correctness risk, not a circularity, because it concerns whether nearby B stars are true counterparts rather than whether the method reduces to its inputs. The main circular element is that the features used to retain candidates (OB-like SED shape, IR excess, UV variability) are later cited as evidence that the candidates are BeXRBs. This is mitigated by independent information: one candidate, Swift J010902.6-723710, was subsequently confirmed by an X-ray outburst, two candidates have hard X-ray photon indices, and one shows periodic X-ray detections. Self-citations such as Kennea et al. (2018), Coe et al. (2021), and Gaudin et al. (2024) are empirical anchors from prior observational work, not uniqueness theorems used to force the present conclusion. The score of 3 reflects partial circularity confined to the five unconfirmed candidates, whose candidacy is supported by the same properties that selected them.

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

The paper's central claim rests on a chain of assumptions: the adopted SMC distance, a Milky Way extinction law applied to SMC sightlines, the expectation that BeXRB companions are OB stars with IR excess and UV variability, and an unquantified neglect of chance alignments. The main fitted parameters are the per-source SED temperatures and radii; the main hand-chosen thresholds are the photon index window, the brightness cut, the search radii, and the UV variability criteria.

free parameters (7)
  • Per-source effective temperature T_opt (SED fit) = 10500-50000 K across candidates
    Free parameter in the modified blackbody fit to each candidate counterpart; central to identifying B-type companions.
  • Per-source stellar radius R_opt (SED fit) = 2.3-17.0 R_sun across candidates
    Free parameter in the same fit; used to place candidates on the HR diagram and to argue for OB-star companions.
  • Photon index selection interval = 0.5 to 1.5
    Hand-chosen window to select hard X-ray spectra typical of BeXRBs; sources without spectral fits were also kept.
  • UVOT persistent emission threshold = average uvw1 magnitude brighter than 17
    Hand-chosen cutoff for persistent UV emission in Section 3.4.
  • UV variability threshold = about 0.1 mag on weekly timescales
    Expected short-timescale variability from previous S-CUBED studies; used to reject five sources.
  • Brightness filter for SED photometry = > 12th magnitude removed
    Flux measurements brighter than 12 mag are assumed to be foreground stars rather than SMC members.
  • Search radii for counterparts = 10 arcsec (VizieR), 8 arcsec (Gaia), 1 arcsec (SED photometry)
    Hand-chosen angular scales to match the XRT error region and reduce crowding and spurious matches.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Planck/blackbody radiation law
    Used as the modified blackbody model in Eq. 3 for stellar SED fitting.
  • domain assumption SMC distance D = 62.44 kpc
    Adopted from Graczyk et al. 2020; this distance converts fitted flux to radius and luminosity, so an error propagates to all derived stellar parameters.
  • domain assumption Fitzpatrick extinction law with R_V = 3.1 and E(V-I) = 1.237 E(B-V)
    Assumed extinction law for all sightlines; SMC dust composition may differ from the Milky Way law, as the paper notes via Gorski et al. 2020.
  • domain assumption BeXRBs have hard X-ray spectra with photon index between 0.5 and 1.5
    Used as an initial sample filter; sources without spectral fits were retained, weakening the constraint for many candidates.
  • ad hoc to paper UV variability on weekly and multi-year timescales is a fundamental BeXRB feature
    Used to reject non-varying sources; this assumption makes the selection depend on the very property being tested.
  • domain assumption Counterpart stars emit as unobscured blackbodies with IR excess from a disk
    The SED model neglects disk emission in the blue part and companion contamination; IR excess is later used as Be-star evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Chance coincidence rate is negligible for an unrelated bright B star within the XRT error circle
    No quantitative coincidence analysis is performed; this assumption is load-bearing for the candidate list.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of New Candidate Be/X-Ray Binary Systems in the Small Magellanic Cloud via Analysis of S-CUBED Source Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/252XRBLL

@misc{pith2026250524766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of New Candidate Be/X-Ray Binary Systems in the Small Magellanic Cloud via Analysis of S-CUBED Source Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/252XRBLL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24766}
}
read the original abstract

It has long been known that a large population of Be/X-ray Binaries (BeXRBs) exists in the Milky Way's neighboring dwarf galaxy, the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), due to a recent period of intense star formation. Since 2016, efforts have been made to monitor this population and identify new BeXRBs through the Swift SMC Survey (S-CUBED). S-CUBED's weekly observation cadence has identified many new BeXRBs that exist within the SMC, but evidence suggests that more systems exist that have thusfar escaped detection. A major challenge in identifying new BeXRBs is their transient nature at high-energy wavelengths, which prevents them from being detected via their X-ray emission characteristics when not in outburst. In order to identify sources that may have been missed due to a long period of quiescence, it becomes necessary to devise methods of detection that rely on wavelengths at which BeXRBs are more persistent emitters. In this work, we attempt to use archival analysis of infrared, optical, and ultraviolet observations to identify new candidate BeXRBs that have been overlooked within the S-CUBED source catalog. Using X-ray/optical selection of source properties, unsupervised clustering, SED-fitting to VizieR archival measurements, and ultraviolet light curve analysis, we are able to identify six new candidate BeXRB systems that otherwise would have been missed by automated analysis pipelines. Using these results, we demonstrate the use of ultraviolet through near-infrared observational data in identifying candidate BeXRBs when they cannot be identified using their X-ray emission.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24766 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the results of extinction correc￾tions applied to a source in the SMC. Red points repre￾sent the original data downloaded from the VizieR photom￾etry database. Blue points represent the flux measurements after extinction correction has been applied. The flux in￾creases by almost half an order of magnitude for points in the optical/near-UV wavelength regimes, implying that the temperature and radius of can… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of best-fitting modified Planck function for each star within 8 arcseconds of the S-CUBED target. Data for each star was retrieved from the VizieR photom￾etry database. Nearby stars were identified using the Gaia database. the two was removed from the list. Only after all dupli￾cates were identified and removed could the SED data be downloaded for each star. For some sources, there were no duplicates to remo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Combined UVOT and XRT light curves for 5 of the 6 candidate BeXRBs identified via archival analysis. For all light curves, the uvw1 -band magnitude is plotted above the XRT count rate for the source. Arrows represent upper limits for the XRT flux when the source was not detected. No UVOT light curve is available for 1SCUBEDX J010203.7-715130 as its position on the sky places it in a gap between UVOT tiles [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The locations of all photometric data for each star detected by Gaia near Swift J010902.6-723710. Pho￾tometric positions are plotted over a Digitized Sky Survey (DSS; STScI 2020) reference image for the region. The black circle represents the Swift XRT error region for…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The locations of all photometric data for each star detected by Gaia near 1SCUBEDX J005606.0-722749. Photometric positions are plotted over a DSS (STScI 2020) reference image for the region. The black circle represents the Swift XRT error region for the source. Nine st…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Modified blackbody curve fit for each star near 1SCUBEDX J005606.0-722749. Star 1 is the candidate optical companion to a BeXRB. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 Phase 0.980 0.985 0.990 0.995 1.000 1.005 1.010 UVW1 Mag - Trend Mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Phase-folded UVOT light curve for the eclipsing binary OGLE SMC-ECL-3357. No evidence can be found of an eclipsing behavior in the UVOT light curve despite a clear eclipse being present in the OGLE light curve published by Schmidtke et al. (2008). indeed not a BeXRB an…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The locations of all photometric data for each star detected by Gaia near 1SCUBEDX J011535.0-731931. Photometric positions are plotted over a DSS (STScI 2020) reference image for the region. The black circle represents the Swift XRT error region for the source. Only t…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Modified blackbody curve fit for each star near 1SCUBEDX J010203.7-715130. Star 1 is the candidate op￾tical companion to a BeXRB. star is located 3.65 arcseconds from the center of the XRT error region and fits to our modified blackbody curve with an effective temperat…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Modified blackbody curve fit for each star near 1SCUBEDX J011535.0-731931. Either star could be the can￾didate optical companion to a BeXRB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The locations of all photometric data for each star detected by Gaia near 1SCUBEDX J003802.8-734458. Photometric positions are plotted over a DSS (STScI 2020) reference image for the region. The black circle represents the Swift XRT error region for the source. Two st…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Modified blackbody curve fit for each star near 1SCUBEDX J003802.8-734458. Star 2 is the candidate op￾tical companion to a BeXRB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The locations of all photometric data for each star detected by Gaia near 1SCUBEDX J005708.8-724202. Photometric positions are plotted over a DSS (STScI 2020) reference image for the region. The black circle represents the Swift XRT error region for the source. Five s…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Modified blackbody curve fit for each star near 1SCUBEDX J005708.8-724202. Star 4 is the candidate optical companion to a BeXRB. using SED-fitting. In order to further validate these techniques, the same SED-fitting method can be applied to the population of known BeX…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: A selected group of SEDs for BeXRBs that have been identified as part of the S-CUBED source catalogue. Each source SED has has been fit using the methods described in Section 3.3 in order to get a temperature and radius for the companion star in each system. The best-…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: HR Diagram showing stellar parameters derived via SED fitting for the six candidate BeXRBs identified by this study and the population of known BeXRBs within the S-CUBED sample. Also plotted are the stellar parameters for all OB stars within the SMC as derived spectro…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Antoniou, V., Zezas, A., Hatzidimitriou, D., & McDowell, J. C. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1695, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1695

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1695 2009

  2. [2]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17 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 a...

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 1996

  3. [3]

    A., & Wolff, M

    Becker, P. A., & Wolff, M. T. 2007, ApJ, 654, 435, doi: 10.1086/509108

    doi:10.1086/509108 2007

  4. [4]

    K., Shaw, R

    Blackburn, J. K., Shaw, R. A., Payne, H. E., Hayes, J. J. E., & Heasarc. 1999, FTOOLS: A general package of software to manipulate FITS files, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:9912.002. http://ascl.net/9912.002 B´ odi, A., & Hajdu, T. 2021, ApJS, 255, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac082c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac082c 1999

  5. [5]

    N., Hill, J

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

    doi:10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2 2005

  6. [6]

    S., Fossati, L., & Langer, N

    Castro, N., Oey, M. S., Fossati, L., & Langer, N. 2018, ApJ, 868, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae6d0

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aae6d0 2018

  7. [7]

    J., Bartlett, E

    Coe, M. J., Bartlett, E. S., Bird, A. J., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2387, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2568

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2568 2015

  8. [8]

    J., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., Evans, P. A., et al. 2021a, MNRAS, 504, 1398, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab972

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab972

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    J., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., Evans, P. A., & Udalski, A. 2020, MNRAS, 497, L50, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa112

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    J., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Kennea, J. A., Monageng, I. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 7115, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae495

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Udalski, A., Kennea, J

    Coe, M. J., Udalski, A., Kennea, J. A., & Evans, P. A. 2021b, MNRAS, 505, 4417, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1609

    doi

  4. [12]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Beardmore, A

    Evans, P. A., Beardmore, A. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14913.x

    2009

  6. [14]

    A., Osborne, J

    Evans, P. A., Osborne, J. P., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2014, ApJS, 210, 8, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/210/1/8

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Fitzpatrick, E. L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63, doi: 10.1086/316293 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    1999 doi

  9. [17]

    M., Kennea, J

    Gaudin, T. M., Kennea, J. A., Coe, M. J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 965, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad354a G´ orski, M., Zgirski, B., Pietrzy´ nski, G., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab65ed

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 904, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb2b

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    D., Pietsch, W., & Kahabka, P

    Haberl, F., Filipovi´ c, M. D., Pietsch, W., & Kahabka, P. 2000, A&AS, 142, 41, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000136

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    2004, AJ, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953

    Harris, J., & Zaritsky, D. 2004, AJ, 127, 1531, doi: 10.1086/381953

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    J., Mulders, G

    Hippke, M., David, T. J., Mulders, G. D., & Heller, R. 2019, AJ, 158, 143, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3984

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    D., Cioni, M.-R

    Ivanov, V. D., Cioni, M.-R. L., Dennefeld, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346504 19

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    1996, A&A, 312, 919, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706075

    Kahabka, P., & Pietsch, W. 1996, A&A, 312, 919, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706075

    1996 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    A., Coe, M

    Kennea, J. A., Coe, M. J., Evans, P. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa154 —. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 781, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2632

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Jasko, R. E. 2018, ApJ, 868, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aae839

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    M., Lattanzi, M

    Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 735, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/2/735

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, A&A, 554, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321238

    Maggi, P., Haberl, F., Sturm, R., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321238

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15886, 1

    Maitra, C., Haberl, F., Kaltenbrunner, D., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15886, 1

    2023

  21. [29]

    M., et al

    Martayan, C., Floquet, M., Hubert, A. M., et al. 2007, A&A, 472, 577, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077390

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Mathis, J. S. 1990, ARA&A, 28, 37, doi: 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.000345

    1990

  23. [31]

    2002, A&A, 393, 887, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020916

    Szewczyk, O. 2002, A&A, 393, 887, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020916

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Di Criscienzo, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2640, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty661

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Coe, M

    Monageng, I. M., Coe, M. J., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 3615, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1739

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    G., Levine, S

    Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984, doi: 10.1086/345888

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    Figueiredo, A. L. 2024, ApJ, 970, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad500f

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.3.1, 1.3.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10998841

    Newville, M., Otten, R., Nelson, A., et al. 2024, lmfit/lmfit-py: 1.3.1, 1.3.1, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10998841

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169

    Ochsenbein, F., Bauer, P., & Marcout, J. 2000, A&AS, 143, 23, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000169

    2000 doi

  30. [38]

    T., & Negueruela, I

    Okazaki, A. T., & Negueruela, I. 2001, A&A, 377, 161, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20011083

    2001 doi

  31. [39]

    M., & Rivinius, T

    Porter, J. M., & Rivinius, T. 2003, PASP, 115, 1153, doi: 10.1086/378307

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    2011, Ap&SS, 332, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    Reig, P. 2011, Ap&SS, 332, 1, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0575-8

    2011 doi

  33. [41]

    Rezaeikh, S., Javadi, A., Khosroshahi, H., & van Loon, J. T. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2214, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1807

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 69, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0069-0

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

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

    2005 doi

  36. [44]

    2013, ApJ, 770, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/19 Rouco Escorial, A., Wijnands, R., van den Eijnden, J., et al

    Rothschild, R., Markowitz, A., Hemphill, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 770, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/19 Rouco Escorial, A., Wijnands, R., van den Eijnden, J., et al. 2020, A&A, 638, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936287

    2013 doi

  37. [45]

    E., Bildsten, L., Brown, E

    Rutledge, R. E., Bildsten, L., Brown, E. F., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 514, doi: 10.1086/510183

    2007 doi

  38. [46]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    2011 doi

  39. [47]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525, doi: 10.1086/305772

    1998 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Chobanian, J

    Schmidtke, P. C., Chobanian, J. B., & Cowley, A. P. 2008, AJ, 135, 1350, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1350

    2008 doi

  41. [49]

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

    Skowron, D. M., Skowron, J., Udalski, A., et al. 2021, ApJS, 252, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abcb81

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    E., & Rosner, R

    Stella, L., White, N. E., & Rosner, R. 1986, ApJ, 308, 669, doi: 10.1086/164538 STScI. 2020, Digitized Sky Survey, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA441

    1986 doi

  43. [51]

    2013, A&A, 558, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219935

    Sturm, R., Haberl, F., Pietsch, W., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219935

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Kennea, J

    Townsend, L. J., Kennea, J. A., Coe, M. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 3878, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1865

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    2025, A&A, 694, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451132

    Udalski, A. 2025, A&A, 694, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451132

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    1997, AcA, 47, 319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710091

    Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., & Szymanski, M. 1997, AcA, 47, 319, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9710091

    1997 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    Yang, J., Laycock, S. G. T., Christodoulou, D. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 839, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6898

    2017 doi

  49. [57]

    2000, ApJS, 128, 491, doi: 10.1086/313394

    Yokogawa, J., Imanishi, K., Tsujimoto, M., et al. 2000, ApJS, 128, 491, doi: 10.1086/313394

    2000 doi

  50. [58]

    G., Levine, S

    Zacharias, N., Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., et al. 2004, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 205, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 48.15

    2004

  51. [59]

    C., Hadzidimitriou, D., et al

    Zezas, A., McDowell, J. C., Hadzidimitriou, D., et al. 2003, in The Local Group as an Astrophysical Laboratory, ed. M. Livio & T. M. Brown, 111, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0310562

    2003 doi arXiv

Pith tools

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