Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

The ZTF archive still hides 19 missed nuclear flares around black holes, including repeated and ultra-bright events.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:34 UTC pith:56MX7I7B

load-bearing objection A useful, honest archival catalog with several genuinely new nuclear transients; the qualitative AGN-variability cut is the main soft spot but the paper deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.19016 v1 pith:56MX7I7B submitted 2025-11-24 astro-ph.HE

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

E. Quintin , E. Russeil , M. Llamas Lanza , S. Karpov , E. E. O. Ishida , J. Peloton , M. V. Pruzhinskaya , A. M\"oller
show 7 more authors
M. Giustini G. Miniutti R.S. Saxton P. S\'anchez-S\'aez S. Zheltoukhov A. Dodin A. Belinski
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidal disruption eventsnuclear transientsZTF archival searchactive galactic nucleirepeated transientsextreme nuclear transientssupernova impostorstransient classification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that the Zwicky Transient Facility archive still contains numerous optical nuclear transients missed by existing classifiers, and that deliberately completeness-oriented searches turn up physically informative outliers. It presents 19 such transients: nine tidal disruption event candidates in previously passive galaxies, eight in active galaxies, and two ambiguous. The sample includes a repeated TDE candidate, a flare repeating after 16 years in an active galaxy, a transient active for over five years, three extreme nuclear transients brighter than absolute magnitude -24, and a seeming repeat that turned out to be two independent supernovae. The authors use these cases to argue that future classifiers should avoid hard duration and amplitude cuts, should not exclude host galaxies with prior nuclear activity, and should anticipate and verify repeated events.

Core claim

The paper claims that a substantial population of optical nuclear transients has been overlooked in existing ZTF data, and that these overlooked events are not mildly unusual examples of known classes but extreme or repeated outbursts that strain current models. It reports 19 events, including two newly identified repeated nuclear transients, one transient still active after more than five years, and three flares in active galaxies with absolute g-band magnitudes brighter than -24. It also demonstrates that a seemingly repeating source is actually two independent supernovae in the same galaxy, exposing a failure mode of position-based transient association. The paper's bottom line is that ar

What carries the argument

The central object is a deliberately high-recall early TDE detection pipeline built for the ZTF alert stream, which fits a physical model to the rising part of each lightcurve and then applies a machine-learning classifier, followed by human inspection of flagged but otherwise unclassified objects. That pipeline supplies the candidate events; the interpretation then rests on three supporting tools: a qualitative host-activity classification, a phenomenological Gaussian-rise/power-law-decay fit, and a Bayesian physical TDE fallback model. The load-bearing comparison is between the fitted physical parameters of these archive candidates and those of previously confirmed TDEs; the authors find t

Load-bearing premise

The classification of a flare as a genuine nuclear transient rather than ordinary AGN variability rests largely on qualitative judgment: flares in active hosts are kept only if they are 'clearly in excess' of past variability, and no quantitative stochastic-process significance test is applied.

What would settle it

Fit a damped random walk to the historical lightcurve of each active-host flare and compute the probability of the observed flare under that model; if most flares are consistent with DRW variability, the ANT/TDE candidacy of those events would weaken considerably. Alternatively, spectroscopic or photometric detection of a predicted third peak in AT2023adr or ZTF23abjvojy at the extrapolated epoch would strengthen the partial-disruption interpretation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Roughly half of the transients occurred in galaxies with previous nuclear activity, so future TDE searches should not exclude AGN hosts.
  • Repeated nuclear transients are a non-negligible population: they constitute about 10% of this sample, and the updated inventory of known optical repeated transients now includes 25 entries.
  • Hard cutoffs on duration or amplitude in classifiers would reject objects like the >5-year transient and the extremely faint TDE candidate, so such cutoffs should be avoided.
  • Extreme nuclear transients brighter than -24 exist in active galaxies, and at least one shows post-flare dimming consistent with a depleted accretion flow.
  • Reported repeated transients should be checked for positional consistency: the two peaks in AT2019agc come from different locations, meaning a single catalog entry can masquerade as a repeating event.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the roughly 10% repetition fraction holds in an unbiased sample, partial-disruption TDE models must accommodate a large survival fraction; the absence of any three-peak optical TDE suggests that predicting a third peak from a two-peak interval is unreliable, a cautionary testable expectation for LSST-era monitoring.
  • The long-lived transient class represented by AT2020ukj hints at a continuum between TDEs and turn-on AGNs; one testable extension is to monitor such objects for the late appearance of broad emission lines or quasi-periodic X-ray eruptions, as seen in the similar source Ansky.
  • The paper's qualitative distinction between an AGN flare and a true nuclear transient in active hosts could be made quantitative by fitting a damped random walk to each historical lightcurve and computing the excursion probability of the flare; this is a natural extension the authors mention but leave to future work.
  • The detection of infrared echoes in many of the candidates suggests that mid-infrared variability could serve as an auxiliary photometric discriminator for nuclear transients with ambiguous optical classification.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 19 optical nuclear transients found during development of the Fink/ZTF early-TDE detection module and in archival ZTF data. The sample is divided into 9 TDE candidates in passive hosts, 8 ANT candidates in active hosts, and 2 in hosts with uncertain activity, plus 4 supernova candidates (including one impostor repeated event that is actually two SNe). For each object the authors provide ZTF forced photometry, WISE/CRTS archival context, a phenomenological light-curve fit, and for most objects a physical fit with the Redback tde_fallback model. They highlight two newly identified repeated nuclear transients, one long-lived (>5 yr) transient in a passive galaxy, and three likely Extreme Nuclear Transients. They use the sample to argue that current classifiers miss a small but non-negligible fraction of nuclear transients and to make recommendations for LSST-era detection systems.

Significance. If the sample is taken at face value, the paper demonstrates that archival searches can recover overlooked nuclear transients, including physically interesting outliers such as repeated partial-TDE candidates and very long-duration events. The quantitative value is as a curated catalog with multi-wavelength context and honest uncertainty reporting. Strengths include the systematic use of CRTS+WISE+ZTF archival data, the public physical modeling code, the up-to-date inventory of repeated optical nuclear transients in Table 2, and the positional analysis of AT2019agc that exposes a limitation of current transient association. The main fragility is that the active/passive host classification—which underpins the headline TDE/ANT split—is partly qualitative, and the ENT claims depend on poorly constrained photometric redshifts. These issues are acknowledged in the text but still affect the central claims as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.3] The classification of the 8 active-host flares as ANTs rests on the qualitative statement that each flare is 'clearly in excess' of prior AGN variability (e.g., Secs. 3.2.1–3.2.8). No statistical test against a stochastic AGN model (e.g., damped random walk) is performed, although the authors note in Sec. 4.3 that the selection is 'mostly qualitative' and suggest DRW modeling as future work. Because the central inventory claim—9 TDEs, 8 ANTs, 2 uncertain—depends directly on this separation, I ask for a quantitative significance measure, such as a DRW-based p-value or predictive posterior for each active-host flare, or alternatively a reclassification of these objects as 'unclassified nuclear transients in active hosts' until such a test is available.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.4 / Table 1] The ENT classification of AT2024nxp (and to a lesser extent AT2022yhf and AT2023rav) is strongly redshift dependent. For AT2024nxp the photometric redshift is z=1.7±0.8, giving an absolute magnitude range of roughly -24 to -27, and the paper itself notes that the redshift estimates span 0.6–2.5. The claim of 'three new ENT candidates' should be accompanied by a full propagation of the photo-z posterior into the absolute-magnitude distribution, and the ENT label should be made conditional on that distribution rather than on single point estimates. At minimum, the abstract and conclusions should state the redshift sensitivity of these candidates.
  3. [Sec. 3.4 / Fig. 7] The statement that the posterior parameter distributions are 'highly consistent' with the Nicholl et al. (2022) TDE sample is used as supporting evidence that the selected objects are TDE-like. However, the sample was selected by a classifier built to find TDE-like rising light curves, so a degree of consistency is expected by construction. The comparison also mixes two fitting codes (Redback vs MOSFiT) and omits AT2020actc and AT2023rav because their fits did not converge. I recommend either adding a null-model comparison (e.g., fitting SLSN or AGN-flare models to the same objects and comparing Bayesian evidence) or explicitly stating the circularity and presenting the parameter comparison only as a descriptive check, not as independent confirmation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5 (Conclusions)] Several bullet points contain typos such as 'A T2020ukj' and 'A T2023adr'; these should be 'AT2020ukj' and 'AT2023adr'.
  2. [Table A.2] The table lists 'AT2020act' twice with slightly different parameter values, and also uses 'AT2020aex' for AT2020aexc. Please correct the naming and verify the duplicated rows.
  3. [Sec. 3.5.4] The positional KS-test is significant in RA but not in Dec for the g band (p=8.3e-10 vs p=0.2). The text says 'safely (>6σ)' based primarily on RA; please state the combined evidence more carefully, e.g., using a 2D test or a joint probability, rather than quoting the strongest 1D p-value alone.
  4. [Sec. 2.4] The late-time plateau or negative host component is described as added 'where needed' to Eq. (1). For reproducibility, state how the need was assessed (e.g., residual significance) and whether the parameters of the added component are reported anywhere. The AT2020pno discussion uses reduced chi-square values; a brief description of the model-selection criterion would be useful.
  5. [Appendix B / Fig. B.4] The caption notes that the CRTS counterpart to AT2023jag is a blend of two central sources, which explains the magnitude offset. This caveat should also appear in the main text for AT2023jag, since it affects the interpretation of the historical light curve.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Supporting TDE-parameter consistency check is partly by construction (priors taken from the same comparison sample); the central discovery inventory remains independent.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.5 (physically-motivated fitting) and Section 3.4 (physical parameters analysis)]
    "The priors for the parameters were chosen following the analysis of Nicholl et al. (2022), that provides a systematic modeling of a sample of TDE lightcurves. ... We find that the two distributions are highly consistent with each other, supporting the conclusion that our classifier has identified a sample of objects hosting similar events."

    The consistency check is not independent: the tde_fallback priors were taken from the same Nicholl et al. (2022) 32-TDE sample that is later used as the comparison distribution, with only the stellar-mass prior changed. Bayesian posteriors fitted on limited photometry are therefore pulled toward that prior space, so the reported 'highly consistent' distributions are partly inherited from the fit setup rather than demonstrated by the new data. This makes the Sec. 3.4 statement 'supporting the conclusion that our classifier has identified a sample of objects hosting similar events' partially circular. The central claim of the paper — the inventory of 19 overlooked nuclear transients — does not depend on this consistency check, so the circularity is partial and confined to a supporting argume

full rationale

Most of this paper is an observational gallery: candidate selection, host-galaxy activity assessment, lightcurve fitting, and the repeated-transient inventory are based on archival ZTF/CRTS/WISE photometry, spectra, and external literature, with no derivation step equivalent to its input by construction. The clearest circularity concern is the parameter-distribution comparison in Sec. 3.4: the Bayesian priors for the physical model were chosen following Nicholl et al. (2022), and then the same Nicholl et al. sample is used as the comparison set to claim that the classifier found objects hosting similar events. This is a partially constructed consistency, not an independent validation, but it is a supporting remark rather than the load-bearing discovery claim. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the qualitative character of the active-host flare selection and suggests DRW modeling as future work (Sec. 4.3), which is a stated limitation rather than a hidden circular step. Because the central inventory and its individual object classifications stand on independent data, score 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central catalog rests on fitted lightcurve parameters and a chain of domain assumptions. The detection/classification loop uses the authors' own TDE-oriented tools, and many host classifications rely on photometric proxies rather than spectra. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-object phenomenological fit parameters (F_host^g, F_peak^g, t_peak, tau_rise, tau_decay) = e.g., AT2020ukj tau_rise=68.5±8.8 d, tau_decay=4984.9±497.2 d; see Table A.1
    Central to derived absolute magnitudes and timescales; p fixed to -5/3 in Eq. (1).
  • tde_fallback physical parameters (M_BH, M_star, t_visc, beta*, eta, R_ph0, L*_photo, t0) = Table A.2 (e.g., log M_BH=5.75 for AT2020ukj)
    MCMC fit to each lightcurve; 9 parameters, priors from Nicholl et al. (2022), M_star prior truncated Gaussian mu=0.01, sigma=0.5 (Section 2.5).
  • Late-time plateau components = constant or linear plateau added per object where needed
    Added ad hoc to phenomenological fit when t^-5/3 gave residuals (AT2020pno, Section 3.1.4, Fig. 4).
  • t_visc prior upper bound for AT2020ukj = increased by 10x from default
    Footnote 2: introduced because the extreme object exceeded the original prior; post hoc tuning can exaggerate outlier parameters.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Gaussian-rise + t^-5/3 power-law decay (Eq. 1) describes the optical TDE lightcurves in this sample.
    Used for all phenomenological fits; plateau exceptions are added by hand (Section 2.4).
  • domain assumption tde_fallback (Mockler et al. 2019) is a valid generative model for these lightcurves, including for partial-disruption candidates despite the model assuming full disruption.
    The authors rely on it for physical parameters and note the full-disruption caveat for AT2023adr (Sections 2.5, 3.1.2).
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy activity can be classified from WISE W1-W2>0.8, Gaia DR3 class, and historical variability when spectroscopy is absent.
    Section 2.3; used to divide TDE vs ANT candidates; the paper itself calls the AGN definition ambiguous.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshifts are accurate enough to place absolute magnitudes and distinguish TDE/SN/ENT classes.
    Several objects use photo-z with large errors (AT2024nxp z=1.7±0.8; AT2022yhf two estimates), which feed directly into claimed absolute magnitudes.
  • domain assumption The Fink early-TDE classifier recall (76%) and visual inspection identify a representative set of missed nuclear transients.
    Sample is built from classifier output plus serendipity; selection biases are acknowledged as unknown (Section 2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper A late-time plateau or negative host component can be added to Eq. (1) without changing the interpretation of the core burst.
    Section 2.4: 'Where needed, a late-time component was added'.
  • ad hoc to paper For AT2020ukj the default tvisc prior is not applicable; expanding it by an order of magnitude yields a valid posterior.
    Footnote 2; motivated by the extreme object itself.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40476 in / 17053 out tokens · 162433 ms · 2026-08-03T20:34:41.077551+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) correspond to the destruction of a star by the tidal forces around a black hole, leading to outbursts which can last from months to years. These transients are rare, and increasing the current sample is paramount to understand them. As part of the Fink alert broker, we have developed an early detection system for TDEs for the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) data. In this paper, we report on the optical transients we found either during the development of this tool, or when applying the classifier to the existing archive. We use this sample to anticipate what improvements to the TDE detection systems will need to be implemented for future surveys. For all the transients, we present optical and infrared archival photometry from ZTF, WISE, and Catalina, and assess the previous nuclear activity of the host. We fit the ZTF lightcurves with both a phenomenological and a physically-motivated model. We report on a total of 19 optical nuclear transients, out of which nine are in passive galaxies, eight in active galaxies, and two for which the activity of the host is uncertain. Two transients are newly discovered repeated TDE candidates, and we compare them to the current sample of repeated optical nuclear transients. One transient is exceptionally long-lived (over 5 years), in an until-now passive galaxy. Three of the TDE-like flares in active galaxies have absolute g-band magnitudes brighter than -24, making them new Extreme Nuclear Transient (ENT) candidates. One seemingly repeated object was revealed to be two independent supernovae in the same galaxy. This sample shows both the potential of our detection system for future discovery, and the relevance of archival searches to reveal overlooked transients. It also raises several points of concern and avenues of improvement for current and future classifiers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19016 by A. Belinski, A. Dodin, A. M\"oller, E. E. O. Ishida, E. Quintin, E. Russeil, G. Miniutti, J. Peloton, M. Giustini, M. Llamas Lanza, M. V. Pruzhinskaya, P. S\'anchez-S\'aez, R.S. Saxton, S. Karpov, S. Zheltoukhov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representation of the timescale and peak absolute magnitude of the various optical transients considered in this paper. The exact borders of each category are generally not well-defined – in particular, there might be a continuum between ANTs and ENTs, the latter being for now crudely defined as brighter than absolute magnitude -24. The orange boxes correspond to supernovae events, and the blue ones to acc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the behaviors of ZTF19acnskyy ("Ansky", top panel) and AT2020ukj (bottom panel), showing their ZTF r and g bands (orange and dark blue), and the Swift/XRT detections and upper limits (light blue circles and downwards triangles). This shows their similari￾ties in terms of long decay timescales, as well as the complex late-time X-ray behavior of Ansky. Such long timescales exclude SNe contamina… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ZTF forced photometry lightcurve of AT2023adr, a candidate repeated TDE. Points with a signal to noise ratio below 3 have been plotted in transparence. The full line corresponds to a double TDE pro￾file (gaussian rise, ∝ t −5/3 decay) fitted to the g-band lightcurve. The dotted vertical line shows the timing of the ePESSTO+ optical spec￾trum, during the second peak. ature being indicative of TDE. Over the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evidence for late-time plateau in AT2020pno, with the data and the fitted models in the top panel, and the corresponding residuals in the bottom three panels. Here three models are compared: a simple ∝ t −5/3 decay (orange, significant negative then positive residuals), a constant plateau (dark blue, slight negative then positive residuals), and a linearly decreasing plateau (light blue, no strong residual… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evidence for two TDE-like flares 16 years apart in ZTF23abjvojy. Its lightcurve (top panel) is shown for both CRTS V￾band (light blue) and ZTF g-band (dark blue) and r-band (orange) data. We also provide comparison with two other known repeated AGN flares: AT2019aalc (middle panel) and AT2021aeuk (botton panel). The transparent points correspond to unbinned data, and the opaque points to data binned in bin… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: They are useful to constrain the physical parameters of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evidence for late-time features in AT2024gzn (left), AT2023szj (centre), and AT2024nxp (right). The line displays the best fit phenomeno￾logical t −5/3 profile to the g-band lightcurve, with the fitting performed on the blue data points (before rebrightening, displayed in orange). Transparent points are unbinned data, opaque points are binned in bins of 15 days. 0.0 0.5 1.0 l o g(M B H) 0 1 2 M s t a r Nic… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the posterior parameters from the tde_fallback Redback model. The values correspond to the median of the posterior distribution. Upper and lower error bars indicate the 84th and 16th per￾centiles. The orange points are events studied in this work, and blue points are TDE from a similar analysis (Nicholl et al. 2022) performed with the same tde_fallback model but using MOSFiT. Exact values a… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the position of the two bursts associated with AT2019agc, with color-codes corresponding to a temporal clustering of the bursts. Top panel: Apparent magnitudes in the g band of the two transients (blue and orange), with black dots for the quiescent emission from the galaxy. Bottom panel: positional offset of the corresponding detections from the center of the host galaxy, with the same color … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA and GEO, arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc] Adrián-Martínez, S., Ageron, M., Aharonian, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA and GEO, arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc] Adrián-Martínez, S., Ageron, M., Aharonian, F., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics, 43, 084001, aDS Bibcode: 2016JPhG...43h4001A

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    1993, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31, 473, aDS Bibcode: 1993ARA&A..31..473A

    Antonucci, R. 1993, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 31, 473, aDS Bibcode: 1993ARA&A..31..473A

    1993

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., Hübner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 27 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, The Astro- physical Journal, 935, 167, aDS Bibcode: 2022ApJ...935..167A Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip ˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 156, 123, aD...

    2019

  4. [4]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific, 93, 5, aDS Bibcode: 1981PASP...93....5B

    1981

  5. [5]

    2025, SNCosmo

    Barbary, K., Bailey, S., Barentsen, G., et al. 2025, SNCosmo

    2025

  6. [6]

    Bellm, E. 2014, in The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Work- shop, eprint: arXiv:1410.8185, 27–33, conference Name: The Third Hot- wiring the Transient Universe Workshop Pages: 27-33 ADS Bibcode: 2014htu..conf...27B

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series, 230, 24, aDS Bibcode: 2017ApJS..230...24B

    Bianchi, L., Shiao, B., & Thilker, D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series, 230, 24, aDS Bibcode: 2017ApJS..230...24B

    2017

  8. [8]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 581, A17

    Campana, S., Mainetti, D., Colpi, M., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 581, A17

    2015

  9. [9]

    H., & Saban, D

    Chan, C.-H., Piran, T., Krolik, J. H., & Saban, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 881, 113, publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2019

  10. [10]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 80

    Chen, J.-H., Dai, L., Liu, S.-F., & Ou, J.-W. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 977, 80

    2024

  11. [11]

    G., et al

    Collaboration, D., Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, Data Release 1 of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    2025

  12. [12]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 115, 1693

    1998

  13. [13]

    V ., Hoof, A

    Dalen, J. V ., Hoof, A. V ., Shlentsova, A., Fraser, M., & Yaron, O. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-1012, 1

    2024

  14. [14]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01434

    Dhawan, S., Mortsell, E., Johansson, J., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01434

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 696, 870

    2009

  16. [16]

    Duncan, K. J. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3662

    2022

  17. [17]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Beardmore, A. P., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 174, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MNRAS.518..174E

    2023

  18. [18]

    J., et al

    Frederick, S., Gezari, S., Graham, M. J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 920, 56

    2021

  19. [19]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16311

    Frohmaier, C., Vincenzi, M., Sullivan, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.16311

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 54 Gaia Collaboration, Bailer-Jones, C

    Fu, Y ., Wu, X.-B., Li, Y ., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 271, 54 Gaia Collaboration, Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., & al. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics Gaia Collaboration, Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Teyssier, D., et al. 2023, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674, A41, aDS Bibcode: 2023A&A...674A..41G

    2024

  21. [21]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 21, aDS Bibcode: 2021ARA&A..59...21G

    Gezari, S. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 21, aDS Bibcode: 2021ARA&A..59...21G

    2021

  22. [22]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Jour- nal, 157, 98, aDS Bibcode: 2019AJ....157...98G Article number, page 16 of 25 E. Quintin et al.: Lost and Found — A gallery of overlooked optical nuclear transients from the ZTF archive

    2019

  23. [23]

    & Gezari, S

    Gomez, S. & Gezari, S. 2023, The Search for Thermonuclear Transients from the Tidal Disruption of a White Dwarf by an Intermediate Mass Black Hole, arXiv:2302.14070 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2025, An Extremely Lumi- nous Flare Recorded from a Supermassive Black Hole, arXiv:2511.02178

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    L., Fremling, C., Perley, D

    Graham, M. L., Fremling, C., Perley, D. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 241

    2022

  26. [26]

    A., et al

    Guillochon, J., Nicholl, M., Villar, V . A., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 236, 6, publisher: American Astronomical Society

    2018

  27. [27]

    2007, A&A, 466, 11

    Guy, J., Astier, P., Baumont, S., et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 11

    2007

  28. [28]

    v., Gezari, S., et al

    Hammerstein, E., Velzen, S. v., Gezari, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 9, publisher: The American Astronomical Society

    2022

  29. [29]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, number: 7825 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Hernández-García, L., Chakraborty, J., Sánchez-Sáez, P., et al. 2025a, Nature Astronomy, 1 Hernández-García, L., Sánchez-Sáez, P., Chakraborty, J., et al. 2025b, NICER observations reveal doubled timescales in Ansky’s quasi-pe...

    arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    T., Holoien, T

    Hinkle, J. T., Holoien, T. W.-S., Auchettl, K., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1673

    2021

  31. [31]

    T., Shappee, B

    Hinkle, J. T., Shappee, B. J., Auchettl, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08855

    arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Ho, A. Y . Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 120

    2023

  33. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, conference Name: Computing in Science & Engineering

    2007

  34. [34]

    Ishida, E. E. O. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 680 Ivezi´c, Z., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, aDS Bibcode: 2019ApJ...873..111I

    2019

  35. [35]

    2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 865

    Kankare, E., Kotak, R., Mattila, S., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 865

    2017

  36. [36]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, L13

    Komossa, S., Zhou, H., Wang, T., et al. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 678, L13

    2008

  37. [37]

    A., Liodakis, I., Koljonen, K

    Langis, D. A., Liodakis, I., Koljonen, K. I. I., et al. 2025, Repeating Flares, X-ray Outbursts and Delayed Infrared Emission: A Comprehensive Compilation of Optical Tidal Disruption Events

    2025

  38. [38]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, L26

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 971, L26

    2024

  39. [39]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 40 Llamas Lanza, M., Karpov, S., Russeil, E., et al

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 979, 40 Llamas Lanza, M., Karpov, S., Russeil, E., et al. 2025, Early Identification of Optical Tidal Disruption Events: A science module for the Fink broker, arXiv:2507.17499 Llamas Lanza, M., Quintin, E., Russeil, E., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 178, 1, aDS Bibcode...

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    R., Sainz de Murieta, A., Collett, T

    Magee, M. R., Sainz de Murieta, A., Collett, T. E., & Enzi, W. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 542

    2023

  41. [41]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 731, 53

    2011

  42. [42]

    Semenikhin, T. A. 2024, Superluminous supernova search with PineForest, arXiv:2410.21077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Standard

    Makrygianni, L., Arcavi, I., Newsome, M., et al. 2025, The Double Tidal Disrup- tion Event AT 2022dbl Implies That at Least Some "Standard" Optical TDEs are Partial Disruptions, arXiv:2505.16867

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    2023, AT 2021loi: A Bowen Fluorescence Flare with a Rebrightening Episode, Occurring in a Previously- Known AGN, arXiv:2305.01694

    Makrygianni, L., Trakhtenbrot, B., Arcavi, I., et al. 2023, AT 2021loi: A Bowen Fluorescence Flare with a Rebrightening Episode, Occurring in a Previously- Known AGN, arXiv:2305.01694

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    V ., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Malanchev, K., Kornilov, M. V ., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., et al. 2023, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135, 024503

    2023

  46. [46]

    V ., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Malanchev, K., Kornilov, M. V ., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 024503

    2023

  47. [47]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 4209, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MN- RAS.520.4209M

    Malyali, A., Liu, Z., Merloni, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520, 4209, publisher: OUP ADS Bibcode: 2023MN- RAS.520.4209M

    2023

  48. [48]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A9

    Malyali, A., Rau, A., Merloni, A., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A9

    2021

  49. [49]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, Publications of the As- tronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018003, publisher: The Astronomical Society of the Pacific

    2018

  51. [51]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, The Zwicky Transient Fa- cility: Data Processing, Products, and Archive, arXiv:1902.01872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    2024, A New Population of Mid- Infrared-Selected Tidal Disruption Events: Implications for Tidal Disruption Event Rates and Host Galaxy Properties, arXiv:2401.01403 [astro-ph]

    Masterson, M., De, K., Panagiotou, C., et al. 2024, A New Population of Mid- Infrared-Selected Tidal Disruption Events: Implications for Tidal Disruption Event Rates and Host Galaxy Properties, arXiv:2401.01403 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Cantiello, M., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 4102

    2022

  54. [54]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 69 Milán Veres, P., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al

    Merloni, A., Dwelly, T., Salvato, M., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 69 Milán Veres, P., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17419

    arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    D., Giustini, M., et al

    Miniutti, G., Saxton, R. D., Giustini, M., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 381, aDS Bibcode: 2019Natur.573..381M

    2019

  56. [56]

    2019, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 872, 151

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 872, 151

    2019

  57. [57]

    2022, arXiv:2202.10143 [astro-ph], arXiv: 2202.10143

    Modiano, D., Wijnands, R., Parikh, A., et al. 2022, arXiv:2202.10143 [astro-ph], arXiv: 2202.10143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    J., Sorokina, E

    Moriya, T. J., Sorokina, E. I., & Chevalier, R. A. 2018, Space Science Reviews, 214, 59, arXiv:1803.01875 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 2452, aDS Bibcode: 2024MN- RAS.527.2452M

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 2452, aDS Bibcode: 2024MN- RAS.527.2452M

    2024

  60. [60]

    L., et al

    Murphy, T., Chatterjee, S., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2013, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Australia, 30, e006 Möller, A., Peloton, J., Ishida, E. E. O., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 501, 3272, arXiv:2009.10185 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  61. [61]

    2022, arXiv:2201.02649 [astro-ph], arXiv: 2201.02649

    Nicholl, M., Lanning, D., Ramsden, P., et al. 2022, arXiv:2201.02649 [astro-ph], arXiv: 2201.02649

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    S., Stalin, C

    Paliya, V . S., Stalin, C. S., Domínguez, A., & Saikia, D. J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 7055

    2024

  63. [63]

    2025, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 696, A153

    Pavez-Herrera, M., Sánchez-Sáez, P., Hernández-García, L., et al. 2025, Astron- omy & Astrophysics, 696, A153

    2025

  64. [64]

    V ., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V ., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 125, publisher: American Astronomical Society

    2021

  65. [65]

    2024, Transient Name Server As- troNote, 250, 1

    Pessi, P., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server As- troNote, 250, 1

    2024

  66. [66]

    J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al

    Pessi, P. J., Lunnan, R., Sollerman, J., et al. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 695, A142

    2025

  67. [67]

    V ., Ishida, E

    Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Ishida, E. E. O., Novinskaya, A. K., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A111

    2023

  68. [68]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 256, 5

    Reichherzer, P., Schüssler, F., Lefranc, V ., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 256, 5

    2021

  69. [69]

    & Trakhtenbrot, B

    Ricci, C. & Trakhtenbrot, B. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1282, number: 11 Pub- lisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2023

  70. [70]

    L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L

    Richardson, D., Jenkins, III, R. L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L. 2014, AJ, 147, 118

    2014

  71. [71]

    M., Vincenzi, M., Hounsell, R., et al

    Rose, B. M., Vincenzi, M., Hounsell, R., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 988, 65

    2025

  72. [72]

    L., Aleo, P

    Russeil, E., Malanchev, K. L., Aleo, P. D., et al. 2023, Rainbow: a colorful ap- proach on multi-passband light curve estimation, arXiv:2310.02916 [astro-ph, physics:physics]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    & Quintin, E

    Russeil, E. & Quintin, E. 2025, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 202, 1

    2025

  74. [74]

    L., et al

    Russeil, E., Quintin, E., Lanza, M. L., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server As- troNote, 379, 1, aDS Bibcode: 2024TNSAN.379....1R

    2024

  75. [75]

    Sarin, N., Hübner, M., Omand, C. M. B., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 531, 1203

    2024

  76. [76]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103

    2011

  77. [77]

    2020, ApJ, 896, L13

    Scolnic, D., Smith, M., Massiah, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 896, L13

    2020

  78. [78]

    2020, in Ground-Based Astronomy in Russia

    Shatsky, N., Belinski, A., Dodin, A., et al. 2020, in Ground-Based Astronomy in Russia. 21st Century, ed. I. I. Romanyuk, I. A. Yakunin, A. F. Valeev, & D. O. Kudryavtsev, 127–132

    2020

  79. [79]

    J., Sundelius, B., & Byrd, G

    Sillanpaa, A., Haarala, S., Valtonen, M. J., Sundelius, B., & Byrd, G. G. 1988, The Astrophysical Journal, 325, 628

    1988

  80. [80]

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

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V ., Yao, Y ., et al. 2023, The first systematically identified repeating partial tidal disruption event, arXiv:2310.03782 null

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.