Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

New Symbiotic Stars from LAMOST DR10 Spectra and Multi-band Photometry

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 This paper identifies two new symbiotic stars and twelve accreting-only symbiotic candidates from LAMOST DR10 spectra and multi-band photometry.

desk verdict Two new LAMOST symbiotics look real; the 12 accreting-only candidates and the 'bona fide' claim rest on an untested X-ray-to-accretion conversion. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09352 v1 pith:ATMMC2DQ submitted 2025-06-11 astro-ph.SR

Jing Chen , Liang Wang , Yin-Bi Li , Xiao-Xiao Ma , A-Li Luo , Zi-Chong Zhang , Ming-Yi Ding , Kai Zhang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords symbioticstarsbinaries:stars:late-typeemission-linemethods:dataanalysistechniques:spectroscopicaccreting-onlycandidateswhitedwarftemperatures
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

Symbiotic stars are long-period binaries in which a white dwarf accretes from a red giant, and they are thought to be far more numerous than the few hundred cataloged so far. The paper searches the LAMOST DR10 spectral archive for their signature—red-giant TiO absorption bands combined with Balmer, He II, and [O III] emission—and reports nine confirmed examples, two of them new: V758 Cyg, previously filed as a Mira variable, and LAMOST J072528.17+342530.4. It then uses GALEX ultraviolet, 2MASS/WISE infrared, and X-ray photometry to identify 12 accreting-only symbiotic candidates whose accretion is too weak to produce strong emission lines, and fits their spectral energy distributions to find white-dwarf temperatures of roughly 10,000–15,000 K. The accretion rates of those candidates overlap those of confirmed symbiotics, which the paper presents as evidence that the photometric selection is finding real members of the class rather than mimics. If the interpretation is right, much of the missing symbiotic population may be hiding in exactly this quiet, accreting-only state.

What carries the argument

The search runs on two detection machines. The spectroscopic one fits a pseudo-continuum to each LAMOST spectrum, flags stars with Hα, Hβ, Hγ, or He II emission, keeps only objects in the red-giant region of the HR diagram, and confirms by eye the combination of TiO bands and emission lines; the nine survivors are classified as S-type using the J−H versus H−K color diagram. The photometric one for accreting-only systems applies the color cuts $m_{\rm FUV}-m_{\rm NUV}<1$ and the S-type infrared criteria ($J-H \ge 0.78$, $0 < K_s-W3 < 1.18$, with $W1-W2$ and $W1-W4$ conditions), then demands an X-ray counterpart. The physical parameter stage fits each surviving candidate's GALEX, Gaia, 2MASS, and WISE photometry with a red-giant stellar atmosphere model plus a white-dwarf model, and converts X-ray flux into an accretion rate via $\dot{M}_{\rm acc} = L_{\rm acc} R_* / (G M_*)$.

What would settle it

Take optical spectra of the 12 accreting-only candidates: if most show chromospheric emission without the TiO bands of an M giant, or show no radial-velocity variations over months, the photometric selection fails. For V758 Cyg and LAMOST J072528.17+342530.4, high-resolution radial-velocity monitoring over a full orbit would show whether the emission lines move with the giant; if they do not, the symbiotic identification collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LAMOST DR10 low-resolution spectroscopy reveals nine S-type symbiotic stars—seven previously cataloged and two new—and that a photometric route can recover a further 12 accreting-only symbiotic candidates. For the two new systems, the decisive evidence is a single spectrum showing M-giant TiO bands together with high-excitation emission lines: the Balmer series, He I, He II at 4686 Å, and [O III]. For the 12 photometric candidates, the evidence is the simultaneous presence of far-UV excess, infrared excess in the color region of S-type symbiotics, a red-giant position on the HR diagram, and an X-ray match; spectral energy distribution fitting with a red-giant stellar atmosphere model plus a white-dwarf model yields white-dwarf temperatures of about 10,000–15,000 K for 11 of them. Their derived accretion rates, assuming a 0.8-solar-mass white dwarf, overlap the distribution of known symbiotics, which the paper takes as evidence that these candidates are bona fide symbiotics.

Load-bearing premise

For the 12 accreting-only candidates, the load-bearing premise is that the combination of a blue ultraviolet color, a red infrared excess, and an X-ray detection uniquely identifies a white dwarf accreting from a red giant, with no optical spectrum to exclude magnetically active giants or unrelated X-ray sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • V758 Cyg, previously classified only as a Mira variable, should be reclassified as an S-type symbiotic star on the strength of its LAMOST spectrum.
  • The 12 accreting-only candidates provide concrete targets for follow-up spectroscopy that, if confirmed, would expand the known symbiotic population.
  • White-dwarf temperatures near 10,000–15,000 K and accretion rates overlapping those of confirmed symbiotics imply the photometric search is selecting the same physical class, not a separate one.
  • Because observed symbiotics are far fewer than predicted, recovering a population that lacks strong emission lines supports the idea that many symbiotic stars have so far escaped detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An inference the authors do not draw: applying the same ultraviolet-plus-infrared-plus-X-ray color recipe to other all-sky surveys could multiply the accreting-only candidate list well beyond these 12 objects.
  • V758 Cyg's reclassification implies that some Mira and long-period variables in variability catalogs may hide white-dwarf companions; checking their ultraviolet colors and X-ray matches could reveal more symbiotics without new spectroscopy.
  • The fixed 0.8-solar-mass white dwarf used for accretion rates is a simplification; mass estimates from orbital motion or SED fitting would sharpen the overlap between candidates and confirmed systems.
  • One candidate is already cataloged as a low-mass X-ray binary, which suggests the photometric route can pick up neutron-star accretors as well; separating those from white-dwarf symbiotics will need X-ray spectral or timing follow-up.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a systematic search for symbiotic stars in LAMOST DR10 low-resolution spectra and multi-band photometry. The authors select 58,110 emission-line spectra, apply an HR-diagram cut based on known symbiotics, visually inspect 8,845 candidates, and report nine S-type symbiotics, of which two (V758 Cyg and LAMOST J072528.17+342530.4) are considered newly identified. In a separate photometric search, they use GALEX FUV-NUV color, near-IR color cuts from Akras et al., an RGB HR-diagram cut, and SIMBAD screening to define a sample of accreting-only symbiotic candidates, 12 of which have X-ray counterparts. For these 12 they fit GALEX-to-WISE SEDs with Kurucz and Koester models to derive white-dwarf temperatures and use X-ray fluxes to estimate accretion rates, finding a distribution similar to that of known X-ray-detected symbiotics.

Significance. The two new spectroscopic identifications appear well supported by public spectra and standard line criteria, and the explicit foreground-star check for V758 Cyg strengthens that result. The paper also assembles a useful multi-wavelength candidate list for follow-up. However, the claim that the 12 X-ray-selected objects are 'bona fide SySts' goes beyond the evidence presented: the accretion-rate derivation assumes all X-rays come from a 0.8 Msun white dwarf, with no vetting against coronal activity, active binaries, or background AGN, and one candidate is already classified as a low-mass X-ray binary in SIMBAD. The manuscript's own concluding sentence correctly calls for follow-up spectroscopy, and the abstract should be aligned with that more cautious framing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (1), Table 3] The derivation of accretion rates from X-ray fluxes assumes that all detected X-rays arise from accretion onto a white dwarf of mass 0.8 Msun. No hardness ratios, variability information, or Lx/Lbol constraints are presented to distinguish WD accretion from coronal emission of an active giant, an active binary, or a background AGN. This assumption is already violated for one of the 12 sources: Table 3 lists GALEX J170634.5+235818 as a LowMassXBin in SIMBAD. Consequently, the 'bona fide SySts' statement in the abstract is not supported, and the similarity of the accretion-rate distributions in Fig. 8 is not independent evidence because the same formula with the same assumed WD mass is applied to both the candidate sample and the known-SySt comparison sample. Please either remove this object and add vetting, or reframe the 12 objects as candidates requiring follow-up.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 5.2; Sec. 6] The abstract claims that the acc-SySt candidates 'constitute bona fide SySts,' but Sec. 5.2 ends by stating that 'follow-up spectroscopic observations are required for confirmation,' and Sec. 6 repeats that they are 'likely genuine SySts.' These statements are in tension. Since the photometric and X-ray diagnostics used here are indirect, the abstract should be moderated to 'candidates' and the 'bona fide' wording should be removed unless additional evidence (e.g., radial-velocity variations, optical spectra, or X-ray hardness) is provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption says 'the well-fitted 273 accreting-only symbiotic stars,' while Sec. 5.1 and Table 3 refer to 12 candidates with 11 satisfactory SED fits; please correct the number to 11.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption describes LAMOST SySts as green and the two new SySts as red, but Sec. 3.3 states that the two new SySts are highlighted in green and the seven known ones are red; please reconcile the caption with the text.
  3. [Table 1] The column headers 'type L' and 'type S' are ambiguous; please rename them to clarify that they are the LAMOST spectral type and the SIMBAD classification.
  4. [Sec. 6] 'SIMABD' should be 'SIMBAD.'
  5. [Sec. 5.2] 'genetic SySts' should likely be 'genuine SySts.'
  6. [Sec. 3.2] For LAMOST J072528.17+342530.4, no explicit check for a chance line-of-sight companion is described, unlike the foreground-star check performed for V758 Cyg; please add a similar neighbor inspection or note the LAMOST fiber diameter and the absence of a nearby source in DSS/Gaia.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: the two new spectroscopic SySts are independently confirmed, and the acc-SySt accretion-rate comparison is a shared-model assumption rather than a reduction by construction.

full rationale

The paper's two headline discoveries, V758 Cyg and LAMOST J072528.17+342530.4, are supported by LAMOST spectra showing M-giant TiO bands together with Balmer, He I, He II, and [O III] emission; the V758 Cyg identification includes a check that a nearby 13'' star is a foreground F5 star with no emission lines. These identifications do not reduce to the photometric selection boxes; they rest on independent spectroscopic evidence. The SySt search pipeline in Section 3.2 uses the HRD locus of known SySts (Akras et al. 2019a) and the J-H versus H-K S-type boxes to pre-filter and classify, so the candidates inherit the known-sample color distribution, but that is benchmark-driven selection rather than equation-level circularity. For the 12 acc-SySt candidates, the pipeline is deliberately trained on known S-type SySts: the FUV-NUV<1 cut (Akras 2023), the infrared excess criteria (Akras et al. 2019b, 2021), the RGB HRD cuts, and the requirement of an X-ray counterpart. The accretion-rate comparison in Section 5.2 applies Equation (1) with the same assumed 0.8 solar-mass white dwarf to both the candidates and the X-ray-detected known SySts. This is a shared modeling assumption, and the abstract's 'bona fide SySts' wording overstates the paper's own final caveat that follow-up spectroscopy is required; Table 3 even lists one candidate as a SIMBAD LowMassXBin. However, the Mdot values are not identities with the input selection, and the two spectroscopic discoveries are independent. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present. Internal inconsistencies (Fig. 7 caption reporting 273 acc-SySts versus 12 candidates; Sec. 4.2 reporting 361 versus 387 sources) are manuscript errors, not circular steps. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained; the correct finding is no significant circularity, with the accretion-rate evidence flagged as a modeling caveat rather than a circular reduction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical objects or model components; it reuses standard stellar atmosphere models, empirical selection criteria, and fixed white dwarf parameters. The main ledger items are the 0.8 solar-mass white dwarf assumption, the inherited IR color thresholds, and the implicit assumption that GALEX UV excess plus X-ray detection equals accretion onto a white dwarf.

free parameters (3)
  • White dwarf mass M* = 0.8 M_sun = 0.8 solar masses
    Assumed constant for all targets in the accretion rate formula (Equation 1, Section 5.2). A different mass changes all accretion rates by a common factor and could change conclusions for borderline candidates.
  • WD mass-radius relation = not specified
    The paper does not state which mass-radius relation is used despite the accretion-rate formula depending on R*. Radius is implied by the assumed mass, so this is an unstated model choice.
  • Infrared excess criteria thresholds = J-H >= 0.78; 0 < Ks-W3 < 1.18; W1-W2 < 0.09 or 0 < W1-W4 < 0.92
    Thresholds inherited from Akras et al. (2019b, 2021) and calibrated on known S-type symbiotics, not derived from first principles for this sample. They directly determine which of the 12 candidates survive.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LAMOST pipeline spectral classifications and redshifts are correct for the selected targets.
    Relied on for the emission-line pre-selection and for rejecting chromospherically active dwarfs (Section 3.2). A handful of misclassified spectra could change the final lists.
  • domain assumption GALEX FUV-NUV color < 1 traces a hot white dwarf component rather than other UV-bright phenomena.
    Applied to 6.9 million sources as the foundation of the accreting-only search (Section 4.1). Chromospheric activity, UV-bright giants, and blends could mimic this color.
  • domain assumption The adopted S-type infrared color boxes isolate symbiotics from ordinary giants and dusty objects.
    The color cuts come from known symbiotics, so they are empirical population priors. The paper itself notes W3/W4 contamination and the need for further verification.
  • domain assumption Bayesian distances from Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) are accurate for all targets.
    Distances enter the HR-D selection, reddening estimates, luminosities, and accretion rates. Several candidates sit at 1,400 to 3,800 pc where parallax-based distances carry large relative errors.
  • domain assumption The selected X-ray flux is dominated by accretion onto the white dwarf, not the red giant's corona, an unrelated background source, or an unrelated binary.
    X-ray detection is the paper's evidence of accretion (Section 4.3), and the X-ray match radius is not stated explicitly. Field contamination is a realistic failure mode for faint candidates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Symbiotic Stars from LAMOST DR10 Spectra and Multi-band Photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATMMC2DQ

@misc{pith2026250609352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Symbiotic Stars from LAMOST DR10 Spectra and Multi-band Photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATMMC2DQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09352}
}
abstract

Symbiotic star (SySt) is long-period interacting binary system, typically consisting of a white dwarf and a red giant surrounded by a nebula. These systems are natural astrophysical laboratories for investigating binary star evolution. In this paper, we identified nine SySts from the LAMOST DR10 low-resolution spectra survey, seven of which were previously known, while two are newly identified. Initially, we selected LAMOST spectra exhibiting typical SySt emission lines (e.g., $\rm H_{\alpha}, ~H_{\beta}, ~H_{\gamma}, ~and ~He II$). Subsequently, we utilized the distribution of known SySts on the HR diagram to select SySt candidates, and visually inspected their spectra. Ultimately, we classified all nine as S-type SySts using the $J - H$ vs. $H - K$ diagram. Additionally, based on multi-band photometric data from GALEX, Gaia, 2MASS, ALLWISE, and several X-ray catalogs, we found 12 accreting-only SySt (acc-SySt) candidates, characterized by concurrent ultraviolet and infrared excess and accretion process. Furthermore, we estimated the white dwarf temperatures by fitting their observed SEDs using a combination of Kurucz stellar atmosphere model and Koester white dwarf model. We compared the accretion rates of acc-SySt candidates and confirmed SySts, and found they have similar accretion rate distribution, providing evidence that these acc-SySt candidates constitute bona fide SySts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LAMOST LRS of V2428 Cyg. The black and red lines are the observed spectrum and pseudo-continuum of the objects, respectively. allaxes, as this naive approach becomes unreliable be￾yond 2 kpc where Gaia parallax uncertainties exceed 5% (Luri et al. 2018). Instead, we adopted the Bayesian distance estimates from Bailer-Jones et al. (2018), which provide physically meaningful distances even for sources with negative pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The positions of the selected emission-line stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, with a color-coded density distribution indicating their distribution. The red dots de￾note the known symbiotic stars as cataloged by Akras et al. (2019a). The blue dashed line delineates the criteria used for selecting the symbiotic candidates. Subsequently, we conducted a visual inspection of the 8,845 spectra focused on their st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The LAMOST low-resolution spectra of the two newly identified symbiotic stars are presented. The top left panel displays the observed spectrum, while the upper right panel shows the DSS DR2 red image of the source, with north oriented upwards and east to the left. The bottom panel provides a closer view of the Hγ, [O III] 4363 ˚A, He II 4686 ˚A, He I 4713 ˚A, Hβ, He I 4922 ˚A, Hα and He I 6678 ˚A emission lines. ter… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The J - H vs. H - K color-color diagram of the known SySts sample from Akras et al. (2019a) (gray) and SySts from LAMOST DR10 LRS (green), and the two new identified SySts (red). The solid and dashed boxes indicate the region of S- and D-type SySts region defined in Co…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 2MASS MH vs. (J − K)0 HR diagram for the 407 sources. The blue dashed lines represent the criteria in section 3.2. 4.2. Cross-matching with SIMBAD To further enhance the purity of our acc-SySts can￾didates samples, we cross-matched the 387 sources with the SIMBAD d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The white dwarf effective temperature distribu￾tion of the well-fitted 273 accreting-only symbiotic stars. accretion rates using the following formula: Macc = Lacc · R∗ G · M∗ , (1) where M∗ and R∗ represent the mass and radius of the white dwarf, respectively, and Lac…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The best-fitting SED (black line) for GALEX J083531.3-090417 using GALEX, Gaia, 2MASS, and WISE broadband photometry (red dots). The blue line is the best Kurucz model fit for the red giant and the cyan line represent the best-fitting Koester model for the white dwarf.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The mass accretion rate distribution of the acc￾SySt candidates (red), and the known SySts (black), respec￾tively. 6. SUMMARY In this paper, we identified nine SySts from LAMOST DR10 database, comprising seven previously known and two newly discovered. Initially, we ob…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Symbiotic star candidates in Gaia Data Release 3

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Gaia DR3 machine-learning search yields 1,674 new symbiotic star candidates, 25 with X-ray emission.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * 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.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    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.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    & /K adxk'93糃ps a pw @Z

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 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' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    2023, , 519, 6044, 10.1093/mnras/stad096

    Akras , S. 2023, , 519, 6044, 10.1093/mnras/stad096

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad096 2023

  5. [5]

    R., Alvarez-Candal , A., & Pereira , C

    Akras , S., Gon c alves , D. R., Alvarez-Candal , A., & Pereira , C. B. 2021, , 502, 2513, 10.1093/mnras/stab195

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab195 2021

  6. [6]

    L., & Ramos-Larios , G

    Akras , S., Guzman-Ramirez , L., Leal-Ferreira , M. L., & Ramos-Larios , G. 2019 a , , 240, 21, 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf88c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf88c 2019

  7. [7]

    L., Guzman-Ramirez , L., & Ramos-Larios , G

    Akras , S., Leal-Ferreira , M. L., Guzman-Ramirez , L., & Ramos-Larios , G. 2019 b , , 483, 5077, 10.1093/mnras/sty3359

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3359 2019

  8. [8]

    M., & Gim \'e nez , A

    Alfonso-Garz \'o n , J., Domingo , A., Mas-Hesse , J. M., & Gim \'e nez , A. 2012, , 548, A79, 10.1051/0004-6361/201220095

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201220095 2012

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Allen , D. A. 1984, , 5, 369, 10.1017/S1323358000017215

    1984 doi

  2. [10]

    2020, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 50, 672, 10.31577/caosp.2020.50.3.672

    Andreoli , V., & Munari , U. 2020, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 50, 672, 10.31577/caosp.2020.50.3.672

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    R., Stassun , K

    Anguiano , B., Majewski , S. R., Stassun , K. G., et al. 2022, , 164, 126, 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8357

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Bailer-Jones , C. A. L., Rybizki , J., Fouesneau , M., Mantelet , G., & Andrae , R. 2018, , 156, 58, 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    2008, , 492, 277, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    Bayo , A., Rodrigo , C., Barrado Y Navascu \'e s , D., et al. 2008, , 492, 277, 10.1051/0004-6361:200810395

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    1932, , 44, 318, 10.1086/124255

    Berman , L. 1932, , 44, 318, 10.1086/124255

    1932 doi

  8. [16]

    2011, , 411, 2770, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17890.x

    Bianchi , L., Efremova , B., Herald , J., et al. 2011, , 411, 2770, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17890.x

    2011

  9. [17]

    2017, , 230, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    Bianchi , L., Shiao , B., & Thilker , D. 2017, , 230, 24, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    2007, , 173, 659, 10.1086/516648

    Bianchi , L., Rodriguez-Merino , L., Viton , M., et al. 2007, , 173, 659, 10.1086/516648

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Boyarchuk , A. A. 1969, Izvestiya Ordena Trudovogo Krasnogo Znameni Krymskoj Astrofizicheskoj Observatorii, 39, 124

    1969

  12. [20]

    A., Esipov , V

    Boyarchuk , A. A., Esipov , V. F., & Moroz , V. I. 1966, , 10, 331

    1966

  13. [21]

    J., Fleming , W., & Pickering , E

    Cannon , A. J., Fleming , W., & Pickering , E. C. 1911, Harvard College Observatory Circular, 168, 1

    1911

  14. [22]

    G., & Kurucz , R

    Castelli , F., Gratton , R. G., & Kurucz , R. L. 1997, , 318, 841

    1997

  15. [23]

    G., Nordhaus , J., & Carroll-Nellenback , J

    Chen , Z., Frank , A., Blackman , E. G., Nordhaus , J., & Carroll-Nellenback , J. 2017, , 468, 4465, 10.1093/mnras/stx680

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    E., & Tielens , A

    Chiar , J. E., & Tielens , A. G. G. M. 2006, , 637, 774, 10.1086/498406

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Corradi , R. L. M., Rodr \' guez-Flores , E. R., Mampaso , A., et al. 2008, , 480, 409, 10.1051/0004-6361:20078989

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Corradi , R. L. M., Valentini , M., Munari , U., et al. 2010, , 509, A41, 10.1051/0004-6361/200913231

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    N., Primini , F

    Evans , I. N., Primini , F. A., Glotfelty , K. J., et al. 2010, , 189, 37, 10.1088/0067-0049/189/1/37

    2010 doi

  20. [28]

    A., Page , K

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

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Fleming , W. P. S., & Pickering , E. C. 1912, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 56, 165

    1912

  22. [30]

    2022, , 662, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141828

    Fouesneau , M., Andrae , R., Dharmawardena , T., et al. 2022, , 662, A125, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141828

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    2022 a , VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 4

    Gaia Collaboration . 2022 a , VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 4. Variability (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/358. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    2022 b , VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 3

    ---. 2022 b , VizieR Online Data Catalog: Gaia DR3 Part 3. Non-single stars (Gaia Collaboration, 2022) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: I/357. Originally published in: Astron. Astrophys., in prep. (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023, , 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Gaudenzi , S., & Polcaro , V. F. 1999, , 347, 473

    1999

  28. [36]

    M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J

    Green , G. M., Schlafly , E., Zucker , C., Speagle , J. S., & Finkbeiner , D. 2019, , 887, 93, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    H., Fekel , F

    Hinkle , K. H., Fekel , F. C., Joyce , R. R., et al. 2019, , 872, 43, 10.3847/1538-4357/aafba5

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2006, , 641, 479, 10.1086/500350

    ---. 2006, , 641, 479, 10.1086/500350

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    Hogg , F. S. 1936, in Publications of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 8, Publications of the American Astronomical Society, 14

    1936

  32. [40]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 105012, 10.1088/1674-4527/ace9b2

    Jia , Y., Guo , S., Zhu , C., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 105012, 10.1088/1674-4527/ace9b2

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Kenyon , S. J. 1986, The symbiotic stars

    1986

  34. [42]

    J., & Webbink , R

    Kenyon , S. J., & Webbink , R. F. 1984, , 279, 252, 10.1086/161888

    1984 doi

  35. [43]

    2010, , 81, 921

    Koester , D. 2010, , 81, 921

    2010

  36. [44]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1332, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/016

    Li , J., Miko ajewska , J., Chen , X.-F., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1332, 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/016

    2015 doi

  37. [45]

    L., Zhang , H.-T., Zhao , Y.-H., et al

    Luo , A. L., Zhang , H.-T., Zhao , Y.-H., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1243, 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/004

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    Luri , X., Brown , A. G. A., Sarro , L. M., et al. 2018, , 616, A9, 10.1051/0004-6361/201832964

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Magrini , L., Corradi , R. L. M., & Munari , U. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed. R. L. M. Corradi , J. Mikolajewska , & T. J. Mahoney , 539, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0208085

    2003 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    C., Fanson , J., Schiminovich , D., et al

    Martin , D. C., Fanson , J., Schiminovich , D., et al. 2005, , 619, L1, 10.1086/426387

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 682, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni , A., Lamer , G., Liu , T., et al. 2024, , 682, A34, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Merrill , P. W. 1941, , 53, 124, 10.1086/125283

    1941 doi

  43. [51]

    1942, , 95, 386, 10.1086/144410

    ---. 1942, , 95, 386, 10.1086/144410

    1942 doi

  44. [52]

    W., & Humason , M

    Merrill , P. W., & Humason , M. L. 1932, , 44, 56, 10.1086/124191

    1932 doi

  45. [53]

    G., Kafatos , M., & Hobbs , R

    Michalitsianos , A. G., Kafatos , M., & Hobbs , R. W. 1980, , 237, 506, 10.1086/157895

    1980 doi

  46. [54]

    2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 1

    Miko ajewska , J. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 1

    2007

  47. [55]

    A., et al

    Morrissey , P., Conrow , T., Barlow , T. A., et al. 2007, , 173, 682, 10.1086/520512

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    Mukai , K., Luna , G. J. M., Cusumano , G., et al. 2016, , 461, L1, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw087

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.01389, 10.48550/arXiv.1909.01389

    Munari , U. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.01389, 10.48550/arXiv.1909.01389

    2019 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    M., Frasca , A., et al

    Munari , U., Alcal \'a , J. M., Frasca , A., et al. 2022, , 661, A124, 10.1051/0004-6361/202142058

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    1992, , 397, L87, 10.1086/186551

    Munari , U., & Renzini , A. 1992, , 397, L87, 10.1086/186551

    1992 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, , 505, 6121, 10.1093/mnras/stab1620

    Munari , U., Traven , G., Masetti , N., et al. 2021, , 505, 6121, 10.1093/mnras/stab1620

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2000, , 143, 23, 10.1051/aas:2000169

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

    2000 doi

  54. [62]

    Plaskett , H. H. 1931, Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria, 4, 119

    1931

  55. [63]

    R., Corradi , R

    Rodr \' guez-Flores , E. R., Corradi , R. L. M., Mampaso , A., et al. 2014, , 567, A49, 10.1051/0004-6361/201323182

    2014 doi

  56. [64]

    F., Cutri , R

    Skrutskie , M. F., Cutri , R. M., Stiening , R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163, 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  57. [65]

    1940, , 91, 546, 10.1086/144195

    Swings , P., & Struve , O. 1940, , 91, 546, 10.1086/144195

    1940 doi

  58. [66]

    1941, , 94, 291, 10.1086/144335

    ---. 1941, , 94, 291, 10.1086/144335

    1941 doi

  59. [67]

    Taylor , M. B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell , M. Britton , & R. Ebert , 29

    2005

  60. [68]

    2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tomov , T. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed. R. L. M. Corradi , J. Mikolajewska , & T. J. Mahoney , 376

    2003

  61. [69]

    A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al

    Webb , N. A., Coriat , M., Traulsen , I., et al. 2020, , 641, A136, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937353

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    L., & Allen , D

    Webster , B. L., & Allen , D. A. 1975, , 171, 171, 10.1093/mnras/171.1.171

    1975 doi

  63. [71]

    2000, , 143, 9, 10.1051/aas:2000332

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

    2000 doi

  64. [72]

    E., Giommi , P., & Angelini , L

    White , N. E., Giommi , P., & Angelini , L. 2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog: The WGACAT version of ROSAT sources (White+ 2000) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: IX/31. Originally published in: Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics (LHEA/NASA), Greenbelt (2000)

    2000

  65. [73]

    L., Eisenhardt , P

    Wright , E. L., Eisenhardt , P. R. M., Mainzer , A. K., et al. 2010, , 140, 1868, 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  66. [74]

    2024, , 962, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ec

    Xu , X.-j., Shao , Y., & Li , X.-D. 2024, , 962, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad20ec

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2006, , 6, 265, 10.1088/1009-9271/6/3/01

    Zhao , G., Chen , Y.-Q., Shi , J.-R., et al. 2006, , 6, 265, 10.1088/1009-9271/6/3/01

    2006 doi

Pith tools

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