Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 100 references

The VMC Survey -- LIV. Anomalous Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds Period-Luminosity relations in the near-infrared bands

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Anomalous Cepheid relations create a metal-poor distance ruler.

desk verdict Useful new AC PL/PW relations from a doubled VMC sample, but the Draco distance quotes a statistical error that excludes a likely ~0.15 mag metallicity systematic the paper itself suspects. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08208 v1 pith:3JKXIFEY submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Teresa Sicignano , Vincenzo Ripepi , Marina Rejkuba , Martino Romaniello , Marcella Marconi , Roberto Molinaro , Anupam Bhardwaj , Giulia De Somma
show 7 more authors
Maria-Rosa Cioni Felice Cusano Gisella Clementini Richard de Grijs Valentin Ivanov Jesper Storm Martin Groenewegen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords anomalousCepheidsperiod-luminosityrelationperiod-Wesenheitnear-infraredphotometryMagellanicCloudsdistancescaleDracodwarfspheroidalVMCsurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to turn anomalous Cepheids, the metal-poor pulsating stars found in dwarf galaxies and old globular clusters, into reliable standard candles. Using near-infrared time series for nearly two hundred anomalous Cepheids in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, it derives period-luminosity and period-Wesenheit relations in the Y, J, and Ks bands, calibrates their zero points with the geometric distance to the LMC from eclipsing binaries, and applies them to systems such as the Draco dwarf galaxy and Galactic globular clusters. The authors report that the relations become steeper and tighter toward longer wavelengths, that first-overtone pulsators can be combined with fundamental-mode pulsators via a newly determined period ratio, and that the resulting distance scale agrees with independent geometric distances within about two sigma. If the scale holds, anomalous Cepheids would provide an independent distance ladder for metal-poor stellar populations across the Local Group.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the template-fitting pipeline that converts sparse VMC near-infrared time series into intensity-averaged magnitudes, combined with linear fits of dereddened magnitudes and Wesenheit magnitudes against log period. The Wesenheit relations, such as $W_{JK_s} = K_s - 0.69(J-K_s)$, are reddening-free by construction and are the tightest relations used. A newly derived fundamentalization ratio $P_{\rm 1O}/P_{\rm F}=0.716$ (equivalently $\log(1/R)=0.145$) lets first-overtone and fundamental-mode anomalous Cepheids be fitted as one sample, roughly doubling the usable statistics. The zero points are anchored to the geometric LMC distance from eclipsing binaries, and the same relations are independently calibrated with Gaia parallaxes of Galactic field ACs through the photometric-parallax method.

What would settle it

Measure iron abundances for anomalous Cepheids in the LMC, SMC, and Draco; if the zero-point residual between AC and RR Lyrae distances tracks [Fe/H] (the Draco offset is ~0.1 mag and the LMC–SMC offset ~0.10 mag), the metallicity-free calibration is falsified and a metallicity term must be added.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that anomalous Cepheids obey tight near-infrared period-luminosity and period-Wesenheit relations in the Magellanic Clouds, calibrated in zero point by the LMC's geometric distance modulus of 18.477 ± 0.026 mag, and that these relations are precise enough to measure distances to other Local Group systems. For the first time, fundamental-mode and first-overtone anomalous Cepheids are treated together, after shifting the first-overtone periods by log(1/R) = 0.145, and the slopes of the relations steepen while their scatter shrinks from optical to near-infrared wavelengths. Applied to the Draco dwarf spheroidal, the PW_JKs relation gives a distance modulus of 19.425 ± 0.048 mag; applied to globular clusters, it confirms M22 V11 as an anomalous Cepheid and the known AC nature of M92 V7 and NGC 5466 V19, while the LMC–SMC relative distance from ACs agrees with eclipsing-binary values only after a +0.10 ± 0.04 mag correction. The paper therefore argues that anomalous Cepheids are dependable distance indicators for metal-poor stellar systems, with the caveat that a residual metallicity dependence may be present and is not yet modeled.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LMC-calibrated zero points transfer unchanged to more metal-poor systems, meaning the AC period-luminosity relations have no significant metallicity dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Anomalous Cepheids can serve as an independent distance indicator for metal-poor Local Group systems, complementing RR Lyrae stars and classical Cepheids.
  • Combining first-overtone and fundamental-mode ACs into a single PL/PW relation makes the method usable where only a handful of ACs are known, such as Draco.
  • The new Ks-band and Wesenheit relations, calibrated on the LMC, provide a test of globular-cluster distance scales, and the authors find consistency within 1 sigma for the clusters they examine.
  • The LMC–SMC relative distance derived from ACs requires a +0.10 ± 0.04 mag correction to match eclipsing-binary geometry, indicating a possible metallicity term.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the suspected metallicity dependence is confirmed spectroscopically, the AC PL/PW zero points would need a metallicity term; the paper's own Draco and LMC–SMC residuals suggest the term is around -0.26 to -0.34 mag/dex.
  • The fundamentalization ratio found here for ACs (0.716) differs from the RR Lyrae value, so applying RR Lyrae fundamentalization to ACs would bias combined-mode distances; this is a parameter future pulsation models should reproduce.
  • Extending the template-fitting method to additional bands or to deeper photometry of more distant dwarf galaxies could push the AC distance ladder beyond the Local Group, where only a few ACs are currently resolvable.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents new near-infrared (Y, J, Ks) Period-Luminosity (PL) and Period-Wesenheit (PW) relations for anomalous Cepheids (ACs) in the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, based on VMC time-series photometry for 118 LMC and 75 SMC ACs, complemented by Gaia DR3 and OGLE-IV optical data. The authors use custom light-curve templates to derive intensity-averaged magnitudes, fit PL/PW relations for fundamental, first-overtone, and, for the first time, combined F+1O samples via a fundamentalization ratio, and calibrate the zero points with the geometric LMC distance from eclipsing binaries (Pietrzyński et al. 2019). They analyze the wavelength dependence of the relations, derive an LMC distance modulus from Gaia parallaxes of Galactic ACs, measure an LMC-SMC relative distance, confirm the AC nature of several globular-cluster candidates, and obtain a Draco distance modulus of 19.425 +/- 0.048 mag from the PWJK relation.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable step toward establishing ACs as standard candles: the sample is large and homogeneous, the photometric treatment is careful (template fitting with Monte Carlo uncertainties and robust LTS regression), and the main zero-point calibration is anchored to a geometric distance rather than to an assumed distance scale. The first combined F+1O relations and the wavelength-dependence analysis are useful additions, and the paper explicitly compares with previous empirical and theoretical relations. The main limitation is that the transfer of the LMC-calibrated zero points to more metal-poor systems is not empirically established; the paper itself reports internal residuals that point to a metallicity dependence. The quoted uncertainties on the Draco distance and on the zero-point transfer therefore understate the full systematic error, and the application-level claims in the abstract and Section 6 need to be revised accordingly.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 6.2, Table 10] The Draco distance modulus quoted as 19.425 +/- 0.048 mag is derived from the LMC-calibrated PWJK relation under the implicit assumption that the zero point transfers with no metallicity dependence. The paper itself reports an LMC-SMC relative-distance residual of +0.10 +/- 0.04 mag relative to the eclipsing-binary value (Sect. 5.5, Table 8) and a 0.1 mag discrepancy between AC and RR Lyrae distances to Draco (Sect. 6.2). Both are consistent with a metallicity term of order -0.3 mag/dex; applying such a term to Draco, whose [Fe/H] is about 0.5 dex lower than the LMC, shifts the distance by roughly 0.13-0.17 mag, much larger than the quoted 0.048 mag uncertainty. The manuscript should either add this systematic to the reported error or explicitly present the Draco value as conditional on a zero metallicity dependence, and the abstract's distance-application claim should be softened accordingly.
  2. [Sect. 4.3, Table 4] The combined F+1O relations rest on the fundamentalization ratio log(1/R) = 0.145, which is obtained by minimizing the dispersion of the same LMC sample used to fit those relations. No uncertainty on R is quoted and no sensitivity analysis is shown. Because the Draco application fundamentalizes one 1O AC (Sect. 6.2) and the combined relations in Table 4 are used in several later applications, the paper should report how the combined zero points and the Draco distance change when R is varied over a plausible range (e.g., between the RR Lyrae value 0.127 and values bracketing 0.145), or justify R with an independent dataset or pulsation models.
  3. [Sect. 5.4, Tables 6-7, Fig. 11] The Gaia-parallax calibration is presented as determining the LMC distance modulus, but the adopted counter zero-point offset (varpi_ZP = -0.022 mas) is effectively selected because it reproduces the geometric LMC distance of 18.477 +/- 0.026 mag from Pietrzyński et al. (2019). With the offset chosen in this way, the agreement with the geometric value is not an independent validation, and Fig. 11 shows that the inferred modulus shifts by about 0.3 mag as the offset is varied from 0 to -0.022 mas. The text partially acknowledges this in the discussion of a possible metallicity term, but the abstract's statement that Gaia parallaxes are used to determine the LMC distance modulus overstates what is demonstrated. This part should be reframed as a consistency test or paired with an independently derived zero-point offset.
  4. [Sect. 5.5, Table 8, Table 4] The LMC-SMC relative-distance determinations for 1O-mode ACs rely on the assumption that the LMC and SMC PL/PW slopes are equal, but Table 4 shows large slope differences for some 1O relations (e.g., PWVI 1O: -2.61 +/- 0.11 for the LMC versus -4.29 +/- 0.23 for the SMC; PWJK 1O: -3.50 +/- 0.21 versus -4.12 +/- 0.49). With partial period overlap and steep slopes, the inferred zero-point difference and hence Delta-mu are sensitive to the adopted slope. The paper should either restrict the relative-distance calculation to relations and modes with statistically consistent slopes or explicitly test and justify the slope-equality assumption before quoting 1O-based Delta-mu values.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sect. 3.2] The extinction-coefficient list repeats "in the GBP band" twice; the fourth coefficient (1.615) should presumably refer to the GRP band, and the sentence "For the Gaia bands we used the coefficients published by Casagrande & VandenBerg (2018)" is duplicated.
  2. [Table 5 and Table 9] There are small typographical errors: "autors" in the Table 5 note should be "authors", and "VSH_DR5" in the Table 9 flag should be "VHS_DR5".
  3. [Fig. 7] The caption contains "Upper panles" which should be "Upper panels", and the text in Sect. 4.2 contains an incomplete cross-reference "Fig. E.1 in the Appendix ??" that should cite Appendix E explicitly.
  4. [References] Several Ripepi et al. entries appear to be duplicated with identical journal and page numbers (2017a/2017b, 2022a/2022b, 2023a/2023b); these should be merged or clearly distinguished with different article identifiers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the zero points are anchored to the external P19 geometric LMC distance, and the Draco/globular-cluster applications use external photometry.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external anchors. The PL/PW zero points are calibrated using the geometric LMC distance modulus from Pietrzynski et al. (2019), an external eclipsing-binary measurement, and the Draco distance is computed from Bhardwaj et al. (2024) NIR photometry of Draco ACs. The 1O fundamentalization ratio (log(1/R)=0.145) is fitted to minimize the scatter of the combined F+1O LMC sample, but it is then applied to an external target (the Draco 1O AC); the Draco distance is not statistically forced by that fit, so this is a calibration transfer rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The Gaia-parallax exercise in Sect. 5.4 is a consistency check: the authors try three parallax zero-point offsets and note which one reproduces the adopted geometric LMC distance, but they do not use that offset as the basis for the distance applications; all applications use the P19-anchored relations. The acknowledged 0.1 mag Draco RRL discrepancy and the +0.10 mag LMC-SMC correction are explicitly attributed by the paper to a possible, unmodeled metallicity dependence, which is a systematic-uncertainty limitation rather than a circular reduction; no equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the quantity it is later used to predict. Self-citations (R14, S24, Ripepi et al. 2022b, Ripepi et al. 2019) supply methodology, comparison data, and the Gaia-band PW coefficient, but none of them is the load-bearing premise that forces the central distance claims; they are external published support. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central relations rest on external catalogs (OGLE, Gaia), the geometric LMC distance, and a handful of fitted calibration constants (fundamentalization ratio, parallax offset, amplitude ratios). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • log(1/R) fundamentalization ratio = 0.145
    Chosen to minimize the dispersion of the combined F+1O PL/PW relations in the LMC (Sect. 4.3); applied to all 1O ACs to build the combined sample.
  • Gaia parallax counter zero-point offset = -0.022 mas (selected)
    Among 0, -0.014, -0.022 mas, the value -0.022 mas brings the derived LMC distance modulus into agreement with the geometric P19 value (Sect. 5.4).
  • Optical-to-NIR amplitude ratios for MW ACs = A_Ks/A_G=0.30, A_J/A_G=0.45, A_Ks/A_I=0.45, A_J/A_I=0.73
    Determined from the LMC/SMC AC sample and applied to convert single-epoch 2MASS photometry to mean magnitudes for Galactic ACs (Appendix D).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The LMC geometric distance modulus from Pietrzynski et al. (2019) is adopted as the calibration anchor.
    Used for all absolute calibrations (Sect. 5.2).
  • domain assumption The PL/PW relations are linear in log P with a single slope for each mode.
    Adopted empirical form (Eqs. 2-3), standard in the field.
  • domain assumption The reddening maps (Skowron et al. 2021; Schlegel et al. 1998) and Cardelli et al. (1989) extinction law with RV=3.23 are correct for the MC fields.
    Used for dereddening (Sect. 3.2); alternative laws tested in Appendix C.
  • domain assumption The pulsation modes and periods from OGLE-IV and Gaia DR3 are correct, with the one reclassification in Appendix A.
    All period/mode inputs are taken from external catalogs (Sect. 2).
  • domain assumption AC light-curve templates derived from well-sampled MC stars are representative of all ACs of the same mode and band, including MW and Draco ACs.
    Used to compute intensity-averaged magnitudes (Sect. 3.1, Appendix D).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The VMC Survey -- LIV. Anomalous Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds Period-Luminosity relations in the near-infrared bands." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JKXIFEY

@misc{pith2026250608208,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The VMC Survey -- LIV. Anomalous Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds Period-Luminosity relations in the near-infrared bands},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JKXIFEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08208}
}
read the original abstract

Anomalous Cepheids (ACs) are less studied metal-poor pulsating stars ([Fe/H]<-1.5) compared to Classical Cepheids (CCs) and RR Lyrae stars. They follow distinct Period-Luminosity (PL) and Period-Wesenheit (PW) relations and pulsate in either the fundamental (F) or first overtone (1O) mode. Our goal is to assess the precision and accuracy of AC-based distances and evaluate their potential for establishing an independent distance scale. We derive new PL and PW relations for F-mode, 1O-mode, and, for the first time, combined F+1O ACs in the Magellanic Clouds. We study their wavelength dependence and apply the relations to estimate distances to Local Group stellar systems hosting ACs, while also confirming AC classifications. Our analysis is based on near-infrared time-series photometry in the Y, J, and Ks bands for about 200 ACs in the Magellanic Clouds from the VISTA survey of the Magellanic Clouds system (VMC, 2009-2018). VMC data are complemented with optical photometry from Gaia DR3 and OGLE-IV, which also provide periods and pulsation modes. Custom light-curve templates were used to derive precise intensity-averaged magnitudes for 118 ACs in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and 75 in the Small Magellanic Cloud. These data were used to derive multi-band PL and PW relations, calibrated using the geometric LMC distance from eclipsing binaries. We find that PL relation slopes increase and dispersions decrease with wavelength. Using Gaia parallaxes, we determine the LMC distance modulus and the LMC-SMC relative distance. We also confirm the AC nature of several new candidates in Galactic Globular Clusters and derive a distance modulus for the Draco dSph galaxy of 19.425+/-0.048 mag. A 0.1 mag discrepancy with RR Lyrae-based distances may reflect metallicity effects. Future spectroscopic surveys and Gaia DR4 will help refine the AC distance scale and quantify metallicity impacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08208 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of the ACs data set in MCs: red points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of epochs in the VMC Y, J, Ks bands for our ACs sample. In this study, the ACs’ light curves typically have 5-6 epochs in Y and J, and 14-15 in Ks , as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Templates created in every band: Y (top), J (middle) and Ks (bottom). Where Npts is the number of epochs, mi , ϕi and σi are the observed magnitudes, the corresponding phases and uncertain￾ties on the magnitudes, respectively; Mt(ϕi) is the template. Outliers are detected by analyzing the distribution of the residuals from the fit and identifying points outside the inter￾val −3.5 × DMAD to +3.5 × DMAD, where DMAD is… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of template-fitted AC light curves in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Period–luminosity relations in the NIR bands for the ACs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example best fits for the F ACs in the LMC. Left to right we show in the top panels the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of fits for the F and 1O ACs in the LMC, after 1O ACs were fundametalized by adding 0.145 to the logarithm of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: From top to bottom: dependency of the LMC PL relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between the LMC and SMC PWJK rela [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of the inferred LMC absolute distance mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Position of the known and candidate ACs in GGCs from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of different Draco distance moduli. The reference values are taken from Stetson (1979); Nemec (1985); Aparicio et al. (2001); Bellazzini et al. (2002); Bonanos et al. (2004); Cioni & Habing (2005); Kinemuchi et al. (2008); Sesar et al. (2017); Hernitschek e…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2001, , 122, 2524

    Aparicio , A., Carrera , R., & Mart \' nez-Delgado , D. 2001, , 122, 2524

    2001

  4. [4]

    & Vasiliev , E

    Baumgardt , H. & Vasiliev , E. 2021, , 505, 5957

    2021

  5. [5]

    R., Origlia , L., et al

    Bellazzini , M., Ferraro , F. R., Origlia , L., et al. 2002, , 124, 3222

    2002

  6. [6]

    2024, , 167, 247

    Bhardwaj , A., Rejkuba , M., Ngeow , C.-C., et al. 2024, , 167, 247

    2024

  7. [7]

    Z., Stanek , K

    Bonanos , A. Z., Stanek , K. Z., Szentgyorgyi , A. H., Sasselov , D. D., & Bakos , G. \'A . 2004, , 127, 861

    2004

  8. [8]

    1997, , 113, 2209

    Bono , G., Caputo , F., Santolamazza , P., Cassisi , S., & Piersimoni , A. 1997, , 113, 2209

    1997

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    F., Stetson , P

    Braga , V. F., Stetson , P. B., Bono , G., et al. 2016, , 152, 170

    2016

  2. [10]

    G., Casertano, S., et al

    Breuval, L., Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, L1

    2024

  3. [11]

    2013, , 432, 1709

    Cappellari , M., Scott , N., Alatalo , K., et al. 2013, , 432, 1709

    2013

  4. [12]

    2004, , 424, 927

    Caputo , F., Castellani , V., Degl'Innocenti , S., Fiorentino , G., & Marconi , M. 2004, , 424, 927

    2004

  5. [13]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  6. [14]

    & VandenBerg , D

    Casagrande , L. & VandenBerg , D. A. 2018, , 479, L102

    2018

  7. [15]

    & Salaris , M

    Cassisi , S. & Salaris , M. 2013, Old Stellar Populations: How to Study the Fossil Record of Galaxy Formation

    2013

  8. [16]

    2021, , 507, 4752

    Choudhury , S., de Grijs , R., Bekki , K., et al. 2021, , 507, 4752

    2021

  9. [17]

    2020, , 497, 3746

    Choudhury , S., de Grijs , R., Rubele , S., et al. 2020, , 497, 3746

    2020

  10. [18]

    T., Jayasinghe , T., Stanek , K

    Christy , C. T., Jayasinghe , T., Stanek , K. Z., et al. 2023, , 519, 5271

    2023

  11. [19]

    Cioni , M. R. L., Clementini , G., Girardi , L., et al. 2011, , 527, A116

    2011

  12. [20]

    Cioni , M. R. L. & Habing , H. J. 2005, , 442, 165

    2005

  13. [21]

    2016, , 595, A133

    Clementini , G., Ripepi , V., Leccia , S., et al. 2016, , 595, A133

    2016

  14. [22]

    2019, , 622, A60

    Clementini , G., Ripepi , V., Molinaro , R., et al. 2019, , 622, A60

    2019

  15. [23]

    & Bono , G

    de Grijs , R. & Bono , G. 2015, , 149, 179

    2015

  16. [24]

    E., & Bono , G

    de Grijs , R., Wicker , J. E., & Bono , G. 2014, , 147, 122

    2014

  17. [25]

    2022, , 262, 25

    De Somma , G., Marconi , M., Molinaro , R., et al. 2022, , 262, 25

    2022

  18. [26]

    M., Bono , G., et al

    Del Principe , M., Piersimoni , A. M., Bono , G., et al. 2005, , 129, 2714

    2005

  19. [27]

    W., Riello , M., De Angeli , F., et al

    Evans , D. W., Riello , M., De Angeli , F., et al. 2018, , 616, A4

    2018

  20. [28]

    Feast , M. W. & Catchpole , R. M. 1997, , 286, L1

    1997

  21. [29]

    & Monelli , M

    Fiorentino , G. & Monelli , M. 2012, , 540, A102

    2012

  22. [30]

    Fitzpatrick , E. L. 1999, , 111, 63

    1999

  23. [31]

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

    2016

  24. [32]

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

    2023

  25. [33]

    & Saio , H

    Gautschy , A. & Saio , H. 2017, , 468, 4419

    2017

  26. [34]

    2023, A&A, 674, A22

    Gavras, Panagiotis , Rimoldini, Lorenzo , Nienartowicz, Krzysztof , et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A22

    2023

  27. [35]

    T., Irwin , M

    Gonz \'a lez-Fern \'a ndez , C., Hodgkin , S. T., Irwin , M. J., et al. 2018, , 474, 5459

    2018

  28. [36]

    D., Clayton , G

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

    2003

  29. [37]

    B., et al

    Graczyk, D., Pietrzyński, G., Thompson, I. B., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 904, 13

    2020

  30. [38]

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

    2017

  31. [39]

    Harris , W. E. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1012.3224

    2010 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G., Rix , H.-W., et al

    Hernitschek , N., Cohen , J. G., Rix , H.-W., et al. 2019, , 871, 49

    2019

  33. [41]

    2013, , 764, 84

    Inno , L., Matsunaga , N., Bono , G., et al. 2013, , 764, 84

    2013

  34. [42]

    2018, , 68, 213

    Iwanek , P., Soszy \'n ski , I., Skowron , D., et al. 2018, , 68, 213

    2018

  35. [43]

    C., Smith , H

    Kinemuchi , K., Harris , H. C., Smith , H. A., et al. 2008, , 136, 1921

    2008

  36. [44]

    1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173

    Leavitt, H. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 173

    1912

  37. [45]

    2021, , 649, A4

    Lindegren , L., Bastian , U., Biermann , M., et al. 2021, , 649, A4

    2021

  38. [46]

    Luri , X., Brown , A. G. A., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2018, , 616, A9

    2018

  39. [47]

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

    1982

  40. [48]

    Madore , B. F. & Freedman , W. L. 1991, , 103, 933

    1991

  41. [49]

    Madore , B. F. & Freedman , W. L. 2012, , 744, 132

    2012

  42. [50]

    2015, , 808, 50

    Marconi , M., Coppola , G., Bono , G., et al. 2015, , 808, 50

    2015

  43. [51]

    2004, , 417, 1101

    Marconi , M., Fiorentino , G., & Caputo , F. 2004, , 417, 1101

    2004

  44. [52]

    2021, , 508, 245

    Mazzi , A., Girardi , L., Zaggia , S., et al. 2021, , 508, 245

    2021

  45. [53]

    G., Banerji , M., Gonzalez , E., et al

    McMahon , R. G., Banerji , M., Gonzalez , E., et al. 2013, The Messenger, 154, 35

    2013

  46. [54]

    G., Banerji , M., Gonzalez , E., et al

    McMahon , R. G., Banerji , M., Gonzalez , E., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The VISTA Hemisphere Survey (VHS) catalog DR5 (McMahon+, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/367. Originally published in: 2013Msngr.154...35M

    2021

  47. [55]

    2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog: VISTA Variable in the Via Lactea Survey DR2 (Minniti+, 2017) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/348

    Minniti , D., Lucas , P., & VVV Team . 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog: VISTA Variable in the Via Lactea Survey DR2 (Minniti+, 2017) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/348. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., 537, A107 (2002)

    2002

  48. [56]

    2023, , 520, 4154

    Molinaro , R., Ripepi , V., Marconi , M., et al. 2023, , 520, 4154

    2023

  49. [57]

    & Fiorentino , G

    Monelli , M. & Fiorentino , G. 2022, Universe, 8, 191

    2022

  50. [58]

    I., Clementini , G., Muraveva , T., et al

    Moretti , M. I., Clementini , G., Muraveva , T., et al. 2014, , 437, 2702

    2014

  51. [59]

    2020, , 499, 4040

    Muraveva , T., Clementini , G., Garofalo , A., & Cusano , F. 2020, , 499, 4040

    2020

  52. [60]

    R., & El-Badry , K

    Nagarajan , P., Weisz , D. R., & El-Badry , K. 2022, , 932, 19

    2022

  53. [61]

    2015, , 577, A99

    Navarrete , C., Contreras Ramos , R., Catelan , M., et al. 2015, , 577, A99

    2015

  54. [62]

    Nemec , J. M. 1985, , 90, 204

    1985

  55. [63]

    J., et al

    Ngeow , C.-C., Bhardwaj , A., Graham , M. J., et al. 2022, , 164, 191

    2022

  56. [64]

    & Zinn , R

    Norris , J. & Zinn , R. 1975, , 202, 335

    1975

  57. [65]

    M., Marinoni , S., et al

    Pancino , E., Marrese , P. M., Marinoni , S., et al. 2022, , 664, A109

    2022

  58. [66]

    2019, , 567, 200

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

    2019

  59. [67]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L14

    Pilecki, B. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970, L14

    2024

  60. [69]

    T., Nidever , D

    Povick , J. T., Nidever , D. L., Massana , P., et al. 2023 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.14299

    2023 arXiv

  61. [70]

    G., & Sweigart , A

    Renzini , A., Mengel , J. G., & Sweigart , A. V. 1977, , 56, 369

    1977

  62. [71]

    C., Anderson, R

    Reyes, M. C., Anderson, R. I., & Das, S. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18158

    2025 arXiv

  63. [72]

    G., Anand , G

    Riess , A. G., Anand , G. S., Yuan , W., et al. 2024, , 962, L17

    2024

  64. [73]

    G., Casertano , S., Yuan , W., et al

    Riess , A. G., Casertano , S., Yuan , W., et al. 2021, , 908, L6

    2021

  65. [74]

    G., Yuan , W., Macri , L

    Riess , A. G., Yuan , W., Macri , L. M., et al. 2022, , 934, L7

    2022

  66. [75]

    2022 a , , 659, A167

    Ripepi , V., Catanzaro , G., Clementini , G., et al. 2022 a , , 659, A167

    2022

  67. [76]

    2022 b , , 659, A167

    Ripepi , V., Catanzaro , G., Clementini , G., et al. 2022 b , , 659, A167

    2022

  68. [77]

    2024, , 682, A1

    Ripepi , V., Catanzaro , G., Trentin , E., et al. 2024, , 682, A1

    2024

  69. [78]

    2022, , 512, 563

    Ripepi, V., Chemin, L., Molinaro, R., et al. 2022, , 512, 563

    2022

  70. [79]

    L., Moretti , M

    Ripepi , V., Cioni , M.-R. L., Moretti , M. I., et al. 2017 a , , 472, 808

    2017

  71. [80]

    L., Moretti , M

    Ripepi , V., Cioni , M.-R. L., Moretti , M. I., et al. 2017 b , , 472, 808

    2017

  72. [81]

    2023 a , , 674, A17

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

    2023

  73. [82]

    2023 b , , 674, A17

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

    2023

  74. [83]

    I., et al

    Ripepi , V., Marconi , M., Moretti , M. I., et al. 2014, , 437, 2307

    2014

  75. [84]

    I., et al

    Ripepi , V., Marconi , M., Moretti , M. I., et al. 2016 a , , 224, 21

    2016

  76. [85]

    I., et al

    Ripepi , V., Marconi , M., Moretti , M. I., et al. 2016 b , , 224, 21

    2016

  77. [86]

    2019, , 625, A14

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

    2019

  78. [87]

    I., Marconi, M., et al

    Ripepi, V., Moretti, M. I., Marconi, M., et al. 2015, , 446, 3034

    2015

  79. [88]

    I., Marconi , M., et al

    Ripepi , V., Moretti , M. I., Marconi , M., et al. 2012, , 424, 1807

    2012

  80. [89]

    J., Finkbeiner , D

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

    1998

  81. [90]

    2017, , 153, 204

    Sesar , B., Hernitschek , N., Mitrovi \'c , S., et al. 2017, , 153, 204

    2017

  82. [91]

    J., Prieto , J

    Shappee , B. J., Prieto , J. L., Grupe , D., et al. 2014, , 788, 48

    2014

  83. [92]

    2024, , 685, A41

    Sicignano , T., Ripepi , V., Marconi , M., et al. 2024, , 685, A41

    2024

  84. [93]

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

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

    2021

  85. [94]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 1163

    2006

  86. [95]

    K., et al

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

    2018

  87. [96]

    Stetson , P. B. 1979, , 84, 1149

    1979

  88. [97]

    & Subramaniam , A

    Subramanian , S. & Subramaniam , A. 2015, , 573, A135

    2015

  89. [98]

    2024, , 681, A65

    Trentin , E., Ripepi , V., Molinaro , R., et al. 2024, , 681, A65

    2024

  90. [99]

    & Chen, X

    Wang, S. & Chen, X. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 43

    2023

  91. [100]

    Wheeler , J. C. 1979, , 234, 569

    1979

  92. [101]

    & Searle , L

    Zinn , R. & Searle , L. 1976, , 209, 734

    1976

Pith tools

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