Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 117 references

Multi-wavelength variability analysis of the blazar S5 0716+714 during a long-lasting period of low activity

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read During a low-activity stretch, blazar S5 0716+714 pulsed optically every 43.5 days.

desk verdict A careful low-state campaign with useful empirical results, but the 43.5 d QPO rests on an extrapolated red-noise null and the physical modeling is a fit, not a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01184 v1 pith:UI2UQ5CW submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

B. M. Mihov , E. G. Elhosseiny , L. S. Slavcheva-Mihova , A. Takey , M. N. Ismail , R. Mawad This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords blazarS50716+714quasi-periodicoscillationhelicaljetmodelopticalvariabilitygamma-rayintranightsynchrotronflare
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 reports an optical monitoring campaign of the blazar S5 0716+714 from November 2022 to May 2023, a period when both its optical and gamma-ray emission were falling to a long-lasting low state. The central claim is that the short-term optical light curves contain a transient quasi-periodic oscillation with period 43.5±3.6 days, detected independently by autocorrelation, red-noise spectral fitting, and wavelet analysis. The paper then interprets that periodicity as the Doppler modulation produced by two blobs moving helically inside the jet, with the excess near one epoch explained as a synchrotron flare. If correct, the result connects a specific geometric jet configuration to a periodically varying optical signal and gives physical size and field limits for the flare region.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the interpretation is the helical-blob Doppler modulation model: a blob moving with Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ along a helix changes its viewing angle $\theta(t)$ through $\cos\theta(t)=\cos\zeta\,\cos\psi+\sin\zeta\,\sin\psi\,\cos(2\pi t/P+\varphi_0)$, so the Doppler factor $\delta(t)=1/[\Gamma(1-\beta\cos\theta(t))]$ and the observed flux $F(t,\nu)=F'(\nu')\,\delta(t)^{\alpha+3}$ oscillate with the helix period. Fitting two such blobs plus a double-exponential synchrotron flare to the V-band curve yields the geometry and the flare-region limits. Supporting machinery includes the discrete autocorrelation function, the redfit AR1 red-noise test, and the weighted wavelet Z-transform, all of which independently point to $43.5\pm 3.6$ d.

What would settle it

Compute the periodogram of the same combined V-band light curve with a PSD that includes a spectral break, or use a Gaussian-process fit, and re-run the significance test; if the 43.5 d peak drops below the 99 per cent band, the QPO claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During the 2022–2023 low-activity state, the V-band light curve of S5 0716+714 varies with a transient quasi-period of $43.5\pm 3.6$ d, matching the $44\pm 6$ d period previously reported for 2017–2018 data. The $BVR$ light curves are strongly correlated with no measurable inter-band lags, show a moderate flatter-when-brighter spectral trend whose strength weakens toward longer wavelengths, and the V-band curve is reproduced by a model of two helically moving blobs viewed at changing Doppler factors. After subtracting that geometric model, the residual around JD 2459980 is fitted as a synchrotron flare with a rise time of about 1 day and a decay of about 4.9 days; deboosting that flare gives an upper limit $R_{\rm max}\simeq 3.3\times 10^{16}$ cm, $B_{\rm min}\simeq 0.3$ G, and $\gamma_{\rm max}\simeq 6300$ for the emitting region. On intranight time-scales the source is unusually quiet, with a duty cycle of roughly 10–20 per cent and no flares, which the paper attributes to a temporarily homogeneous jet flow in which a strong magnetic field suppresses Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The 43.5-day oscillation is judged real by comparing the data to fake light curves generated from a single power-law noise spectrum whose slope is measured from the same light curve; if the true noise spectrum is curved or the sampling creates aliases, the significance bands could be wrong and the peak could be a red-noise fluctuation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 43.5 d period is consistent with the $44\pm 6$ d QPO found by Lu et al. (2024) in 2017–2018, suggesting the same helical geometry may persist across low states.
  • The derived emission-region radius $R_{\rm max}\simeq 3.3\times 10^{16}$ cm, $B_{\rm min}\simeq 0.3$ G, and $\gamma_{\rm max}\simeq 6300$ provide concrete numbers for SED modelling of the 2022–2023 state.
  • A duty cycle of only ~10–20 per cent means that low-activity states can be identified by the absence of intranight flares, not just by lowered flux.
  • The simultaneous optical and gamma-ray excess near JD 2459980 supports a single electron population producing both synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission.
  • If the QPO is real, it offers a geometric, rather than intrinsic, origin for optical quasi-periodicities in blazars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue: check whether the 43.5 d period reappears at the same phase in the next low-activity season; a stable phase would favour a persistent helical structure, while a random phase would favour transient jet disturbances.
  • The same two-blob geometry could be tested in other blazars by searching for simultaneous periodicity and spectral-index modulation, since Doppler modulation should make the spectrum flatter at flux maxima.
  • The paper's Kelvin–Helmholtz suppression argument suggests a testable prediction: the intranight flare rate should anti-correlate with the large-scale magnetic-field estimate across different activity states.
  • Because the QPO significance is tied to a single power-law PSD, reanalysing the same light curves with a broken power-law or a Gaussian-process model would tell whether the 43.5 d peak is robust to PSD shape.
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 paper presents a multi-wavelength monitoring campaign of the BL Lac object S5 0716+714 from 2022 November 26 to 2023 May 28, consisting of 84 epochs of ground-based optical photometry (11 with intranight monitoring), combined with ASAS-SN optical and Fermi-LAT gamma-ray survey data. The authors report a gradual decline of activity since about JD 2459000, strong cross-band correlations with no time lags, moderate flatter-when-brighter spectral behavior whose strength decreases toward longer wavelengths, a transient quasi-periodic oscillation with period 43.5 ± 3.6 d detected by DACF, redfit, and WWZ, and a two-helical-blob plus synchrotron-flare model of the V-band light curve that yields limits on the flare region (R ≲ 3.3×10^16 cm, B ≳ 0.3 G, γ ≲ 6300). The intranight data show smooth variability with a duty cycle of 10–20 per cent, which the authors interpret as evidence for a homogeneous jet flow.

Significance. If the 43.5 d QPO is genuine, the paper is a valuable addition: it corroborates the independent 44 ± 6 d period of Lu et al. (2024), extends QPO studies to a low-activity state, and provides a concrete geometric interpretation. The strengths are the careful multi-telescope data reduction, the use of three periodicity estimators with Monte Carlo uncertainty bands, the multi-band consistency checks, and the honest labeling of speculative elements (e.g., the VLBA ejection episodes and the Kelvin–Helmholtz argument). The principal weakness is that the significance of the QPO is calibrated with a red-noise model fitted only at lags below 12 d and then extrapolated to the 43.5 d period, so the quantitative support for the headline claim is not yet fully established. The physical parameters of the flare and the blob geometry are contingent on the QPO interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.3.2–5.3.4, Table 6, Eq. (7)] The QPO significance is calibrated with a red-noise null whose parameters are fitted only at lags below the structure-function turn-off δt_to ≈ 12 d. The single-power-law fit of Eq. (7) is restricted to δt < δt_to, the PSD slope κ ≈ 2 is inferred via κ − ρ ≈ 1, and this κ is then used in 2500 Timmer–König simulations for both the WWZ significance (Sect. 5.3.4) and the DCCF significance (Sect. 5.3.3), while redfit uses an AR1 null with a decorrelation time of about 12 d. The claimed period of 43.5 d is thus outside the range of lags actually fitted, and the SF itself changes slope at δt_to, so the single-power-law PSD may not describe the low-frequency variability. The DACF peak at τ ≈ 2P and the agreement with the 44 ± 6 d period of Lu et al. (2024) partially mitigate this concern, but neither provides a calibrated significance at the claimed period. Because the QPO is the basis for the helical-blob and flare modelling in Sect. 6.2, I request a sensitivity analysis: re-run the WWZ and redfit significance tests with steeper PSD slopes (e.g., κ ≈ 2.5), with broken power-law PSDs whose break is at about 12 d, and with an empirical PSD estimated directly from the observed light curve, and report whether the 43.5 d peak remains above the 99 per cent band.
  2. [§6.2.2, Table 9, Eqs. (15)–(17)] The limits on the emission-region radius, magnetic field, and electron Lorentz factor are derived from the rise and decay times of the residual after subtracting the two-blob helical model, but the two-blob model parameters and the period P = 43.5 d are fitted to the same light curve being interpreted, so these constraints are not independent of the QPO detection. The quoted values (R_max ≈ 3.3×10^16 cm, B_min ≈ 0.3 G, γ_max ≈ 6300) are given without propagating the flare-timescale uncertainties (Tr = 1.01 ± 0.09 d, Td = 4.91 ± 0.67 d; Table 9) and with fixed δ = 15.6 and q = 0.3. Since Eq. (15) scales linearly in δ and Eqs. (16)–(17) scale as δ^{-1/3} and q^{-2/3}, I recommend adding a small sensitivity table showing how the three limits vary over plausible ranges of δ and q, along with a statement of how the flare interpretation would be affected if the QPO significance were compromised by the red-noise issue raised in Major Comment 1.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.3.4, Fig. 11] The folded light curve in Fig. 11 covers only about 4.2 cycles of the 43.5 d period; a brief statement of the number of cycles and the goodness of the sine fit would help the reader assess the coherence of the QPO visually.
  2. [§5.3.2] The conversion κ − ρ ≃ 1 between PSD and SF slopes holds only for a restricted lag range (1/f_max ≪ δt ≪ 1/f_min); stating this condition explicitly, and noting that the SF slope is measured only for δt < 12 d, would make the extrapolation to the QPO frequency transparent.
  3. [§5.3.4, Fig. 10] The transient nature of the QPO is inferred from the WWZ time-frequency map (Fig. 10), but the quoted 95 and 99 per cent bands apply to the time-averaged power; a time-resolved significance estimate would better support the word 'transient' in the abstract.
  4. [Data availability] The light curves are the core product of the campaign and are needed to reproduce the periodicity analysis; I encourage the authors to deposit the nightly and intranight photometry in a public archive (e.g., CDS or Zenodo) in addition to the statement on request.
  5. [Throughout] The object designation is rendered as 'S50716+714' in most of the body text; please verify that the correct designation S5 0716+714 is used consistently in the final version.
  6. [§5.3.1, Table 5] The claim that the spectral-index–flux anti-correlation weakens toward longer wavelengths rests on slopes of −0.035 ± 0.005 (B) and −0.021 ± 0.004 (R), which differ by about 2.3σ; a direct test of slope equality or a joint fit of the slope–wavelength trend would place this statement on firmer ground.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 43.5 d QPO is a measured feature, and the helical-blob and flare parameters are presented as in-sample model fits rather than as independent predictions.

full rationale

We walked the paper's derivation chain and found no load-bearing step that reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs. The QPO period is measured directly from the light curve using DACF, redfit, and WWZ (Sect. 5.3.4, Table 7), and the significance procedure uses standard null models (AR1 and power-law PSD) fitted to the same data; this is a standard goodness-of-fit calibration, not a prediction derived from the fitted values. The helical-blob model (Sect. 6.2.1) sets P = 43.5 d as an input and fits angles to the same V-band light curve; the resulting parameters are explicitly called a model fit, not an independent prediction. The synchrotron flare parameters (Sect. 6.2.2) are likewise fitted to the residual after subtracting the model, and the limits on R, B, and gamma follow from those fitted timescales plus external assumed values (delta = 15.6, q = 0.3). No quantity claimed as a result is equivalent by construction to an input; no self-citation is load-bearing; and the comparison with Lu et al. (2024) is an external consistency check. Therefore we find no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central QPO detection depends on the red-noise calibration assumption. The physical interpretation adds many fitted parameters (helix angles, flare shape) and literature-adopted constants (Gamma, delta, q, redshift, electron density) that are not independently measured in this work.

free parameters (4)
  • QPO period P = 43.5 ± 3.6 d
    Derived from DACF, redfit, and WWZ of the same V-band LC; then fixed as input to the helical blob model.
  • Helical blob angles = zeta=2.2 deg, psi1=2.4 deg, phi0,1=32.6 deg, psi2=0.15 deg, phi0,2=134.9 deg
    Fitted to the combined V-band LC in the two-blob model (Table 8).
  • Flare parameters = F0=4.79 mJy, Tr=1.01 d, omega=4.86, t0=9976.44 JD
    Fitted to the deboosted LC with the double-exponential flare law (Table 9).
  • Spectral index alpha = 1.139 ± 0.004
    Weighted mean from nightly SED fits, held fixed in the helical model; depends on the SED fitting and photometric calibration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The aperiodic optical variability is described by a first-order autoregressive / single power-law red-noise process; Monte Carlo light curves from Timmer-König with this PSD and observed sampling give valid QPO significance.
    Used in Sects. 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 for DCCF/redfit/WWZ significance; if the PSD has a break or non-Gaussian flux distribution, the significance levels are unreliable.
  • domain assumption Helical motion of blobs Doppler-boosts the synchrotron emission according to Eqs. (9)-(13) with exponent s=3 for resolved blobs.
    Underpins the two-blob model in Sect. 6.2.1; alternative geometries or intrinsic variations could mimic the same LC.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual after subtracting the two-blob model is an isolated synchrotron flare whose rise and decay times map to source radius, magnetic field, and electron Lorentz factor via Eqs. (15)-(17).
    Adopted in Sect. 6.2.2; the flare identification is not independently confirmed and assumes a single zone, leptonic emission, and q=0.3.
  • domain assumption The source redshift is 0.2304, the group-mean redshift of Pichel et al. (2023), and the bulk Lorentz factor / Doppler factor are taken from literature weighted means (Gamma=14, delta=15.6).
    Used to convert observed time-scales to rest-frame values and to estimate physical parameters.
  • domain assumption Kelvin-Helmholtz instability suppression by magnetic field B > Bcrit explains the absence of intranight flares (Eq. 18), with electron density taken from Ouyang et al. (2025).
    Interpretive framework in Sect. 6.3; not directly tested by the data.
  • standard math Standard statistical tools (DCCF, structure function, redfit, WWZ) are valid for unevenly sampled time series.
    These are established methods used throughout Sect. 5; no formal proofs are provided, but they are standard in the field.
invented entities (1)
  • Two helically moving blobs (blob #1 and #2)
    purpose: To reproduce the 43.5 d quasi-periodic modulation of the V-band light curve via Doppler boosting.
    No direct imaging or polarimetric detection of these specific blobs; their parameters (angles, phases) are fit to the same optical LC. Helical jets are a known phenomenon, but the specific model components are not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-wavelength variability analysis of the blazar S5 0716+714 during a long-lasting period of low activity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UI2UQ5CW

@misc{pith2026250701184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-wavelength variability analysis of the blazar S5 0716+714 during a long-lasting period of low activity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UI2UQ5CW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01184}
}
read the original abstract

We conducted a multi-wavelength monitoring campaign of the blazar S5 0716+714 from 2022 November 26 to 2023 May 28 using optical telescopes in Egypt and Bulgaria. Data were taken during 84 nights in 11 of which intranight monitoring was performed. We also use optical and gamma-ray survey data. On long-term time-scales, we find a gradual decrease of the S5 0716+714 activity since the beginning of 2020 in both optical and gamma-rays. On short-term time-scales, the individual optical light curves are strongly correlated among each other with no time lags observed. The V-band percentage variability amplitude equals 97.59 +/- 0.02 per cent. We find moderate flatter-when-brighter spectral behaviour with the strength of the 'spectral index - flux' anti-correlation decreasing towards the longer wavelengths. The main feature of the short-term light curves is a transient quasi-periodic oscillation with a period of 43.5 +/- 3.6 d. The V-band light curve is modelled with two helically moving blobs and a synchrotron flare. We estimate the resulting parameters, as well as limits on the radius, magnetic field strength, and electron Lorentz factor of the region responsible for the flare. On intranight time-scales, we find smooth flux variations with no flares and derive a duty cycle in the range ~10-20 per cent. The lack of flares on intranight time-scales could result from a temporarily homogeneous jet flow without formation of turbulent cells in terms of prevented Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. The analysis of the data reveals a low activity of S5 0716+714 on all time-scales during the observation period.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01184 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Weekly binned 𝛾-ray LC of S5 0716+714 (top panel). The hori￾zontal solid line is the upper limit of the quiescent state, the dash-dotted line is the lower limit of the active state, and the dashed line is the lower limit of the flaring state. Bottom panel: combined long-term 𝑉-band LC; the orange curves represent the LC envelope. The vertical dotted line in both panels marks the start of our observations. 5.2 Long-t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectral index 𝛼 against the 𝑅-band flux. The solid line is the linear fit to the data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three-day binned 𝛾-ray LC of S5 0716+714 for the period covered by our optical observations (top panel). Bottom panel: short-term 𝐵𝑉𝑅-band LCs (ordered from bottom to top, respectively); the offsets applied for a better presentation are listed. The open squares mark the ASAS-SN data points. The short vertical lines mark the boundaries of the three chunks considered in Sect. 5.3.3. (around 2013.5–2014.1 and 2016.3–20… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure function analysis of the combined 𝑉-band LC. Top panel: SF with the best fitted SPL model overplotted. Bottom panel: time asymmetry. and bin size d𝑡, we calculated the first-order SF as: 𝐷 1 (𝛿𝑡, d𝑡) = 1 𝑁(𝛿𝑡, d𝑡) ∑︁ 𝑗>𝑖 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p00…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cross-correlation of the 𝐵- vs. 𝑅-band LCs divided into chunks. The dotted, dash-dotted (plus diamonds), and dashed lines are the DCCFs for the chunks marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Discrete auto-correlation function for the combined 𝑉-band LC. The broad peaks for 𝜏 > 0 are related to a QPO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The combined 𝑉-band LC folded with a period of 43.5 d; the symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Periodicity analysis of the combined 𝑉-band LC using the WWZ method. Left panel: the WWZ power as a function of the period and observing time. Right panel: the time-averaged WWZ power against the period (black line). The significance levels of 95 and 99 per cent are p…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Contour maps of the S5 0716+714 radio images taken at six epochs with the Very Long Baseline Array at 43 GHz (the project BEAM-ME); the images were downloaded from https://www.bu.edu/blazars/BEAM-ME.html. The contour levels are 1.25, 2.5, 7.5, 22.5, and 100 mJy beam−1…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sketch of the blob helical motion within the blazar jet. The directions used to define the relevant angles are denoted (see text for details). 6 DISCUSSION In this paper we have presented the results from the MWL monitor￾ing of the blazar S5 0716+714 for the period 20…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results from the modelling of the combined 𝑉-band LC (top panels, the symbols are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Colour-magnitude diagram using only data points around JD 2459980. A clockwise spectral hysteresis loop can be traced. The different colours denote the different observing times as indicated on the right. (with respect to the baseline level), 𝑡0 is the position in tim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716...30A 716, 30

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/716/1/30 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...716...30A 716, 30

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/1/30

  2. [2]

    A., et al., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1425A 721, 1425

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010b, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...721.1425A 721, 1425

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/721/2/1425

  3. [3]

    A., et al., 2010c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..520A 722, 520

    Abdo A. A., et al., 2010c, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/520 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...722..520A 722, 520

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/722/1/520

  4. [4]

    Abdollahi S., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...31A 265, 31

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbb6a 2023

  5. [5]

    Abe H., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acc181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..266...37A 266, 37

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc181 2023

  6. [6]

    Agarwal A., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv2345 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.455..680A 455, 680

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2345 2016

  7. [7]

    Agarwal A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acbcbd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..265...51A 265, 51

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acbcbd 2023

  8. [8]

    Angel J. R. P., Stockman H. S., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.18.090180.001541 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ARA&A..18..321A 18, 321

    arXiv 1980

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    E., 2017, eaydin/WWZ: First release, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.375648 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.375648

    Aydin M. E., 2017, eaydin/WWZ: First release, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.375648 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.375648

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-021-09802-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ExA....53...45A 53, 45

    Azzam Y. A., et al., 2022, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-021-09802-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ExA....53...45A 53, 45

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Bachev R., 2018, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018BlgAJ..28...22B 28, 22

    2018

  4. [12]

    Bachev R., Strigachev A., Kurtenkov A., Spassov B., Nikolov Y., Boeva S., Semkov E., 2021, Bulgarian Astronomical Journal, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021BlgAJ..34...79B 34, 79

    2021

  5. [13]

    D., Bhatt N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41..103B 41, e103

    Baheeja C., Thekkoth A., Sahayanathan S., Ravikumar C. D., Bhatt N., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2024.106 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASA...41..103B 41, e103

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    H., Digel S

    Ballet J., Burnett T. H., Digel S. W., Lott B., 2020, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2005.11208 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv200511208B p. arXiv:2005.11208

    2020 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    S., Castelli F., Plez B., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...333..231B 333, 231

    Bessell M. S., Castelli F., Plez B., 1998, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...333..231B 333, 231

    1998

  8. [16]

    Bhatta G., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...558A..92B 558, A92

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    T., Rogers J

    Boggs P. T., Rogers J. E., 1990, Contemporary Mathematics, 112, 183

    1990

  10. [18]

    B \"o ttcher M., Reimer A., Sweeney K., Prakash A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/54 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...768...54B 768, 54

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Bradley L., et al., 2022, astropy/photutils: 1.5.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.6825092 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6825092

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    G., 2008, @doi [Dendrochronologia] 10.1016/j.dendro.2008.01.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Dendr..26..115B 26, 115

    Bunn A. G., 2008, @doi [Dendrochronologia] 10.1016/j.dendro.2008.01.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Dendr..26..115B 26, 115

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    F., Hogg D

    Calistro Rivera G., Lusso E., Hennawi J. F., Hogg D. W., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/833/1/98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833...98C 833, 98

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Chen J., Yi T., Gong Y., Yang X., Chen Z., Chang X., Mao L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac91c3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...938....8C 938, 8

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    H., Lister M

    Cohen M. H., Lister M. L., Homan D. C., Kadler M., Kellermann K. I., Kovalev Y. Y., Vermeulen R. C., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511063 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...658..232C 658, 232

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    Covino S., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201525674 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...578A..68C 578, A68

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Craig M., et al., 2017, astropy/ccdproc: v1.3.0.post1, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1069648 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1069648

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Dai B.-z., et al., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/218/2/18 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJS..218...18D 218, 18

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    W., Nalewajko K., France K., Keeney B

    Danforth C. W., Nalewajko K., France K., Keeney B. A., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/764/1/57 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...764...57D 764, 57

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/1269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1269D 139, 1269

    Diego De de Diego J. A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/1269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1269D 139, 1269

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    Dokkum Van van Dokkum P. G., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PASP..113.1420V 113, 1420

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    G., Bloom J., Tewes M., 2012, L.A.Cosmic: Laplacian Cosmic Ray Identification , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.005 ( @eprint ascl 1207.005 )

    Dokkum Van van Dokkum P. G., Bloom J., Tewes M., 2012, L.A.Cosmic: Laplacian Cosmic Ray Identification , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1207.005 ( @eprint ascl 1207.005 )

    2012

  23. [31]

    A., Krolik J

    Edelson R. A., Krolik J. H., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166773 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...333..646E 333, 646

    1988 doi

  24. [32]

    Ege E., \"O zd \"o nmez A., Agarwal A., Ak T., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5cef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...971...74E 971, 74

    2024 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Papadakis I

    Emmanoulopoulos D., McHardy I. M., Papadakis I. E., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433..907E 433, 907

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    H., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..226...20F 226, 20

    Fan J. H., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/226/2/20 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..226...20F 226, 20

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    Fan X.-L., Yan D.-H., Wu Q.-W., Chen X., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/ac299e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..302F 21, 302

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Feng H.-C., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb366 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...902...42F 902, 42

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    Foster G., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118137 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AJ....112.1709F 112, 1709

    1996 doi

  30. [39]

    Ghisellini G., et al., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9706254 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...327...61G 327, 61

    1997 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    N., Kidger M

    Gonz \'a lez-P \'e rez J. N., Kidger M. R., Mart \' n-Luis F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/322129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AJ....122.2055G 122, 2055

    2001 doi

  32. [41]

    A., Butuzova M

    Gorbachev M. A., Butuzova M. S., Sergeev S. G., Nazarov S. V., Zhovtan A. V., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4fc3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...928...86G 928, 86

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    Haiyan Y., Xiefei S., Xiaopan L., Na J., Haitao Y., Yuhui L., Li Z., Yan C., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-023-04247-6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023Ap&SS.368...88H 368, 88

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    J., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...305...42H 305, 42

    Heidt J., Wagner S. J., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...305...42H 305, 42

    1996

  35. [44]

    Hong S., Xiong D., Bai J., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9d89 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....155...31H 155, 31

    2018 doi

  36. [45]

    B., Mitchell K

    Howell S. B., Mitchell K. J., Warnock A. I., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/114634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AJ.....95..247H 95, 247

    1988 doi

  37. [46]

    M., Chen X., Guo D

    Hu S. M., Chen X., Guo D. F., Jiang Y. G., Li K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1373 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.443.2940H 443, 2940

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    Jaeger De de Jaeger T., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad060 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.6349D 519, 6349

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118493 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....114..565J 114, 565

    Jang M., Miller H. R., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/118493 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AJ....114..565J 114, 565

    1997 doi

  40. [49]

    Jester S., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432466 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AJ....130..873J 130, 873

    2005 doi

  41. [50]

    Jockers K., et al., 2000, Kinematika i Fizika Nebesnykh Tel Supplement, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000KFNTS...3...13J 3, 13

    2000

  42. [51]

    Jorstad S., Marscher A., 2016, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies4040047 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Galax...4...47J 4, 47

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...98J 846, 98

    Jorstad S. G., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8407 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...846...98J 846, 98

    2017 doi

  44. [53]

    G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05038-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.609..265J 609, 265

    Jorstad S. G., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-022-05038-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.609..265J 609, 265

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    C., Wiita P

    Joshi R., Chand H., Gupta A. C., Wiita P. J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18099.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.412.2717J 412, 2717

    2011

  46. [55]

    P., Vogeley M

    Kasliwal V. P., Vogeley M. S., Richards G. T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1230 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.451.4328K 451, 4328

    2015 doi

  47. [56]

    S., Chandra S., Sameer Ganesh S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac5e4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...36K 156, 36

    Kaur N., Baliyan K. S., Chandra S., Sameer Ganesh S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aac5e4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...36K 156, 36

    2018 doi

  48. [57]

    L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504..671K 504, 671

    Kawaguchi T., Mineshige S., Umemura M., Turner E. L., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...504..671K 504, 671

    1998 doi

  49. [58]

    Kim D.-W., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac31b4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...925...64K 925, 64

    2022 doi

  50. [59]

    G., Rieger F

    Kirk J. G., Rieger F. M., Mastichiadis A., 1999, in Takalo L. O., Sillanp \"a \"a A., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 159, BL Lac Phenomenon. p. 325

    1999

  51. [60]

    S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    Kochanek C. S., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4502K 129, 104502

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    W., Mierle K., Blanton M., Roweis S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1782L 139, 1782

    Lang D., Hogg D. W., Mierle K., Blanton M., Roweis S., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....139.1782L 139, 1782

    2010 doi

  53. [62]

    Li X.-P., Luo Y.-H., Yang H.-Y., Yang C., Cai Y., Yang H.-T., Zhou L., Shan Y.-Q., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-018-3391-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Ap&SS.363..169L 363, 169

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    Li X.-P., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acae8c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..157L 943, 157

    2023 doi

  55. [64]

    Li H.-Z., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/adaeb6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJS..277...18L 277, 18

    2025 doi

  56. [65]

    H., Bai J

    Liao N. H., Bai J. M., Liu H. T., Weng S. S., Chen L., Li F., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...783...83L 783, 83

    2014 doi

  57. [66]

    Liu X.-L., Yuan Y.-H., Huang H.-R., 2021, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/21/4/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021RAA....21..102L 21, 102

    2021 doi

  58. [67]

    Lu L., Sun B., Fang Z.-X., Wan M., Gong Y., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad07db , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..180L 961, 180

    2024 doi

  59. [68]

    MAGIC Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832677 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A..45M 619, A45

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841..113M 841, 113

    Mao P., Urry C. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6fef , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...841..113M 841, 113

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    Maoz D., Netzer H., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/236.1.21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989MNRAS.236...21M 236, 21

    1989 doi

  62. [71]

    Marcha M. J. M., Browne I. W. A., Impey C. D., Smith P. S., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/281.2.425 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996MNRAS.281..425M 281, 425

    1996 doi

  63. [72]

    Mudelsee M., 2002, @doi [Computers and Geosciences] 10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00041-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002CG.....28...69M 28, 69

    2002 doi

  64. [73]

    Otero-Santos J., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa134 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.5524O 492, 5524

    2020 doi

  65. [74]

    Ouyang Z., et al., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ada3bc , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025ApJ...980...19O 980, 19

    2025 doi

  66. [75]

    M., Wanders I., Horne K., Collier S., Alexander T., Kaspi S., Maoz D., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..660P 110, 660

    Peterson B. M., Wanders I., Horne K., Collier S., Alexander T., Kaspi S., Maoz D., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316177 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..660P 110, 660

    1998 doi

  67. [76]

    M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..682P 613, 682

    Peterson B. M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/423269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...613..682P 613, 682

    2004 doi

  68. [77]

    Pichel A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202245574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A..52P 680, A52

    2023 doi

  69. [78]

    H., Fu J

    Poon H., Fan J. H., Fu J. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/511 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..185..511P 185, 511

    2009 doi

  70. [79]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.552..374R 552, 374

    Raiteri C. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature24623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Natur.552..374R 552, 374

    2017 doi

  71. [80]

    M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1100R 501, 1100

    Raiteri C. M., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3561 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.501.1100R 501, 1100

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    C., Joshi U

    Rani B., Gupta A. C., Joshi U. C., Ganesh S., Wiita P. J., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/719/2/L153 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...719L.153R 719, L153

    2010 doi

  73. [82]

    Robertson D. R. S., Gallo L. C., Zoghbi A., Fabian A. C., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1575 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.3455R 453, 3455

    2015 doi

  74. [83]

    E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00627281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.234...49R 234, 49

    Romero G. E., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00627281 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap&SS.234...49R 234, 49

    1995 doi

  75. [84]

    E., Cellone S

    Romero G. E., Cellone S. A., Combi J. A., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999184 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..135..477R 135, 477

    1999 doi

  76. [85]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  78. [87]

    Schleicher B., et al., 2019, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies7020062 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Galax...7...62S 7, 62

    2019 doi

  79. [88]

    J., et al., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...278..391S 278, 391

    Schramm K. J., et al., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...278..391S 278, 391

    1993

  80. [89]

    Schulz M., Mudelsee M., 2002, @doi [Computers and Geosciences] 10.1016/S0098-3004(01)00044-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002CG.....28..421S 28, 421

    2002 doi

  81. [90]

    J., Naylor T., Littlefair S

    Sergison D. J., Naylor T., Littlefair S. P., Bell C. P. M., Williams C. D. H., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3398 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5035S 491, 5035

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  83. [92]

    H., Cordes J

    Simonetti J. H., Cordes J. M., Heeschen D. S., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163418 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...296...46S 296, 46

    1985 doi

  84. [93]

    K., Meintjes P

    Singh K. K., Meintjes P. J., 2020, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.202013731 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AN....341..713S 341, 713

    2020 doi

  85. [94]

    B., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PASP...99..191S 99, 191

    Stetson P. B., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1086/131977 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987PASP...99..191S 99, 191

    1987 doi

  86. [95]

    W., Kuehr H., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&AS...98..393S 98, 393

    Stickel M., Fried J. W., Kuehr H., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&AS...98..393S 98, 393

    1993

  87. [96]

    Timmer J., K\" o nig M., 1995, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995A&A...300..707T 300, 707

    1995

  88. [97]

    P., 1998, @doi [Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society] 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0061:APGTWA>2.0.CO;2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998BAMS...79...61T 79, 61

    Torrence C., Compo G. P., 1998, @doi [Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society] 10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0061:APGTWA>2.0.CO;2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998BAMS...79...61T 79, 61

    1998 doi

  89. [98]

    Tripathi T., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.5220T 527, 5220

    2024 doi

  90. [99]

    M., Lanteri L., Sobrito G., Cavallone M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1998415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&AS..130..305V 130, 305

    Villata M., Raiteri C. M., Lanteri L., Sobrito G., Cavallone M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1998415 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&AS..130..305V 130, 305

    1998 doi

  91. [100]

    Villata M., et al., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020662 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A&A...390..407V 390, 407

    2002 doi

  92. [101]

    Villata M., et al., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035895 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..103V 421, 103

    2004 doi

  93. [102]

    Villata M., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20064817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...453..817V 453, 817

    2006 doi

  94. [103]

    J., Witzel A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..163W 33, 163

    Wagner S. J., Witzel A., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.001115 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33..163W 33, 163

    1995

  95. [104]

    Wang C.-J., Xiong D.-R., Bai J.-M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-019-3569-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019Ap&SS.364...83W 364, 83

    2019 doi

  96. [105]

    R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac589c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260...12W 260, 12

    Weaver Z. R., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac589c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..260...12W 260, 12

    2022 doi

  97. [106]

    R., 2016, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies4030015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Galax...4...15W 4, 15

    Webb J. R., 2016, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies4030015 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016Galax...4...15W 4, 15

    2016 doi

  98. [107]

    R., Eikenberry S., Dalliar Y., Meng N., Laurence D

    Webb J. R., Eikenberry S., Dalliar Y., Meng N., Laurence D. H., 2017, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies5040077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017Galax...5...77W 5, 77

    2017 doi

  99. [108]

    R., et al., 2021, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies9040114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Galax...9..114W 9, 114

    Webb J. R., et al., 2021, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies9040114 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021Galax...9..114W 9, 114

    2021 doi

  100. [109]

    E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789..135W 789, 135

    Williamson K. E., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/135 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...789..135W 789, 135

    2014 doi

  101. [110]

    Xiong D., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab789b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJS..247...49X 247, 49

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    R., Bhatta G., Jiang Y., Chen X., Alexeeva S., Li Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...92X 884, 92

    Xu J., Hu S., Webb J. R., Bhatta G., Jiang Y., Chen X., Alexeeva S., Li Y., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3e50 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884...92X 884, 92

    2019 doi

  103. [112]

    H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7deb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...18Y 262, 18

    Yang J. H., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac7deb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..262...18Y 262, 18

    2022 doi

  104. [113]

    Yuan Y.-H., Fan J.-h., Tao J., Qian B.-C., Costantin D., Xiao H.-B., Pei Z.-Y., Lin C., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201630338 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017A&A...605A..43Y 605, A43

    2017 doi

  105. [114]

    Zhang B.-K., Zhao X.-Y., Wu Q., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5a52 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJS..259...49Z 259, 49

    2022 doi

  106. [115]

    J., Vadakkumthani J., Morrell N., Zhang P., Zhang J., 2018, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-018-07103-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatCo...9.4599Z 9, 4599

    Zhou J., Wang Z., Chen L., Wiita P. J., Vadakkumthani J., Morrell N., Zhang P., Zhang J., 2018, @doi [Nature Communications] 10.1038/s41467-018-07103-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NatCo...9.4599Z 9, 4599

    2018 doi

  107. [116]

    A., Carpintero D

    Zibecchi L., Andruchow I., Cellone S. A., Carpintero D. D., Romero G. E., Combi J. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx054 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467..340Z 467, 340

    2017 doi

  108. [117]

    A., Carpintero D

    Zibecchi L., Andruchow I., Cellone S. A., Carpintero D. D., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa2544 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.498.3013Z 498, 3013

    2020 doi

  109. [118]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.