arxiv: 2603.04573 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-04 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

The Age of the R127 & R128 Clusters: Implications for the LBV

Mojgan Aghakhanloo , Jeremiah W. Murphy , Nathan Smith , Joseph Guzman

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR

keywords R127 clusterR128 clusterluminous blue variablesStromgren photometrystar cluster agesLarge Magellanic Cloudbinary evolutionSalpeter mass function

0 comments

The pith

The brightest stars in the R127 and R128 clusters are peculiar, as excluding them makes observed counts match Salpeter mass function expectations.

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

The paper analyzes Stromgren photometry of the R127 and R128 clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud using the Stellar Ages algorithm to infer cluster age. Single-star evolutionary models show a mismatch: bright blue stars are more numerous than expected from a Salpeter mass function, and the brightest stars yield a younger age than the rest of the population. This inconsistency vanishes when the five brightest stars are removed from the count, showing those stars deviate from standard expectations. The result bears on the luminous blue variable R127 in one of the clusters and raises the possibility that binary evolution or rapid rotation shapes the most luminous members.

Core claim

Analysis using single-star evolutionary models shows a substantial discrepancy between the relative numbers of bright blue stars and lower-mass stars as compared to expectations from a Salpeter mass function, and yields a younger age for the brightest blue stars than for the rest of the cluster. This inconsistency reflects an emerging trend among young clusters in the Local Group. When the five brightest stars are excluded, the observed and expected counts become consistent, demonstrating that the brightest stars are peculiar.

What carries the argument

The Stellar Ages algorithm applied to Stromgren photometry, tested against single-star evolutionary models and a Salpeter initial mass function to predict relative star counts at different luminosities.

If this is right

The brightest stars likely formed through binary interactions or very rapid rotation rather than standard single-star paths.
This pattern appears across young clusters in the Local Group and is not unique to R127 and R128.
LBVs such as R127 may commonly arise from binary evolution instead of isolated single-star evolution.
Current data incompleteness at faint magnitudes may exaggerate the apparent excess of bright stars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Massive-star population synthesis codes will need to include binary fractions explicitly to match observed bright-star counts in young clusters.
If the pattern holds, it would change how we assign ages to the most luminous members of any young cluster.
The same modeling tension may affect interpretations of other LBVs located inside or near young clusters.

Load-bearing premise

Single-star evolutionary models together with a Salpeter mass function give the correct baseline for the expected number of stars at each mass in these young clusters.

What would settle it

Deeper Hubble Space Telescope imaging that reaches a complete sample of lower-mass stars and shows whether the full population, including the brightest stars, matches the expected counts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.04573 by Jeremiah W. Murphy, Joseph Guzman, Mojgan Aghakhanloo, Nathan Smith.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Str¨omgren photometry for 147 stars associated with the R127 & R128 clusters and their surrounding field stars. The data are obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Gaia DR3 data within 1′ of R127. 349 out of 887 stars lack magnitude information. The plot shows only stars brighter than magnitude 18.5, comprising 169 sources. A gap around the 16th magnitude suggests that the Gaia DR3 data are incomplete along the main sequence in this region and therefore unsuitable for age dating the environment of R127. reliance on a complete dataset is provided in the next section. … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Single-star evolutionary isochrones for LMC-like metallicity ([M/H] = −0.40) at different ages. The left panel represents MIST models, the middle panel shows MIST models with a ΩZAMS/Ωcrit = 0.4, and the right panel shows PARSEC isochrones without rotation. The isochrones are very similar during the main-sequence phase, which is why we obtain consistent results when using different sets of isochrones (see … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Normalized weights as a function of log age marginalized over metallicity and rotation. The central points represent the median age, while the width of the violin indicates the distribution of possible weights. Although there are minor peaks, no strong peak emerges. This underscores the value of a method that provides age constraints on individual stars, especially in cases where the population lacks a c… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The most likely ages inferred for individual stars. The two brightest stars, R127 and R128, have estimated ages of log10(t/yr)∼ 6.8-7.0, while the other bright cluster members are around log10(t/yr)∼ 6.4 old. 18 16 14 12 10 b 10 12 14 16 18 y MIST R127 6.40 6.60 6.80 7.00 7.20 7.40 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The posterior probability distribution of stellar ages for the five brightest stars, based on MCMC draws where they are treated as coeval siblings. Unlike the full stellar population shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparison between the observed and expected number of main-sequence stars. White dots indicate stars with inferred ages of log10(t/yr) ∼ 6.5–7.3, while red dots represent stars of other ages. The background color map shows the age-weighted model likelihoods for the 6.5-7.3 age range. Based on the single-star models and the five brightest stars in region A, the expected number of main-sequence stars in reg… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Posterior distribution for the expected number of main-sequence stars in region B given the number of stars in region A. The red, dashed, vertical line marks the observed number of main-sequence stars. Although the posterior distribution is broad because of small number statistics, the observed count lies in the low-probability tail. The corresponding Poisson probability is 0.034, meaning the observed n… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We infer the age of the R127 and R128 clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) using Str\"omgren photometry from the literature and the age-dating algorithm, Stellar Ages. Analysis using single-star evolutionary models shows a substantial discrepancy between the relative numbers of bright blue stars and lower-mass stars as compared to expectations from a Salpeter mass function, and yields a younger age for the brightest blue stars than for the rest of the cluster. This inconsistency reflects an emerging trend among young clusters in the Local Group. In general, the resolution may be binary evolution or very rapid rotation, although in the specific case of the R127 and R128 clusters, unknown incompleteness in the data may also affect the relative numbers of low- and high-mass stars. The discrepancy grows toward fainter magnitudes, suggesting that the dataset is likely incomplete. However, when the five brightest stars are excluded, the observed and expected counts become consistent, demonstrating that the brightest stars are peculiar. These findings have direct implications for the luminous blue variable (LBV) R127, which is the only confirmed LBV in the LMC located within a young stellar cluster. LBVs have traditionally been considered products of single-star evolution, although there is growing recognition that binary interactions may play a critical role in their evolution. A more complete dataset, particularly deeper imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope, is needed to confirm whether the apparent absence of coeval stars arises solely from observational incompleteness or the broader trend of inconsistency in young cluster modeling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives specific ages for the R127 and R128 clusters and shows the bright-star count mismatch with a Salpeter IMF disappears after dropping the five brightest stars, but the cut has no pre-set statistical rule and single-star models go untested against binaries.

read the letter

The main point is straightforward: using Stromgren photometry and the Stellar Ages algorithm, the clusters come out with a younger age for the brightest blue stars than the rest of the population, and the observed numbers of high-mass stars exceed what single-star tracks plus a Salpeter IMF predict. Removing those five brightest stars brings the counts into line, which the authors read as evidence the bright ones are peculiar, with a side note on possible binary effects for the LBV R127 itself. The broader mismatch is already showing up in other young clusters, so this adds two more concrete cases in the LMC. What the paper does cleanly is apply an existing age-dating tool to literature data and flag the incompleteness that grows at fainter magnitudes. That acknowledgment keeps the claim grounded. The soft spots sit in the handling of the discrepancy. The exclusion of exactly five stars restores consistency, yet nothing specifies why five ahead of time or supplies error bars, Poisson statistics, or a chi-squared comparison for the full versus trimmed samples. Normalization to the IMF is not detailed enough to verify the low-mass baseline, and the analysis stays with single-star models without running a binary or rotation variant to see if those change the expected bright-star fraction. Because the brightest stars are the most complete, the cut could be compensating for the very incompleteness the authors already note rather than isolating an evolutionary signal. This is for people who work on massive-star endpoints, LBV formation, and young cluster populations in the Local Group. A reader already tracking the emerging tension would pick up the specific numbers and the call for deeper HST imaging. I would send it to referees. The observation is concrete, the limitations are stated openly, and the authors themselves point to the next data step, so a review could tighten the statistics and model checks without discarding the result.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper infers the age of the R127 and R128 clusters in the LMC from literature Strömgren photometry using the Stellar Ages algorithm. Single-star evolutionary models reveal a discrepancy between the relative numbers of bright blue stars and lower-mass stars versus Salpeter IMF expectations, with the brightest stars appearing younger; this is resolved by excluding the five brightest stars, after which observed and expected counts become consistent, indicating those stars are peculiar. The work discusses possible resolutions via binary evolution or rapid rotation (or incompleteness) and draws implications for the LBV R127, calling for deeper HST imaging.

Significance. If the central demonstration holds, the result strengthens the emerging pattern of inconsistencies between single-star models and young cluster populations in the Local Group, with direct relevance to LBV formation pathways. Credit is due for the explicit use of a named algorithm, the acknowledgment of incompleteness, and the consistency check after the exclusion cut; however, the finding remains conditional on the baseline assumptions about the IMF and evolutionary tracks.

major comments (3)

[analysis of star counts] The demonstration that observed and expected counts become consistent once the five brightest stars are excluded (abstract and analysis section) relies on a post-hoc cut without a pre-specified statistical criterion, completeness correction, or reported magnitude limit/normalization; this does not isolate peculiarity from the noted incompleteness at fainter magnitudes or from model mismatch.
[evolutionary modeling] The paper relies exclusively on single-star evolutionary models plus a Salpeter mass function as the baseline for expected counts without quantitative tests of binary fractions or rotation effects, even though these are listed as possible resolutions; this leaves the interpretation of the discrepancy vulnerable to alternative explanations.
[statistical analysis] No error bars on the star counts, Poisson or chi-squared statistics, or quantitative incompleteness correction are provided for either the full or trimmed samples, making the claim of consistency after exclusion difficult to evaluate rigorously.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important areas for improving the rigor of our analysis. We address each major comment point by point below and outline the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [analysis of star counts] The demonstration that observed and expected counts become consistent once the five brightest stars are excluded (abstract and analysis section) relies on a post-hoc cut without a pre-specified statistical criterion, completeness correction, or reported magnitude limit/normalization; this does not isolate peculiarity from the noted incompleteness at fainter magnitudes or from model mismatch.

Authors: We agree that the exclusion of the five brightest stars was performed after inspecting the data and should be placed on a firmer footing. In the revised manuscript we will pre-specify the cut using a magnitude threshold (stars brighter than the point at which the age discrepancy first exceeds 1 sigma) chosen before comparing counts, apply a quantitative completeness correction derived from the observed growth in discrepancy at fainter magnitudes, and explicitly state the normalization magnitude limit used for the Salpeter comparison. These changes will better separate the peculiarity of the brightest stars from incompleteness and model effects. revision: yes
Referee: [evolutionary modeling] The paper relies exclusively on single-star evolutionary models plus a Salpeter mass function as the baseline for expected counts without quantitative tests of binary fractions or rotation effects, even though these are listed as possible resolutions; this leaves the interpretation of the discrepancy vulnerable to alternative explanations.

Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include quantitative population-synthesis tests of binary or rapid-rotation scenarios. While a full binary-evolution calculation lies outside the scope of the present work, we will expand the discussion to incorporate order-of-magnitude estimates drawn from the recent literature on how binary mass transfer can boost the number of bright blue stars relative to a single-star Salpeter IMF. We will also state more explicitly that the single-star baseline is adopted as the standard null hypothesis and that the discrepancy is therefore conditional on that assumption. revision: partial
Referee: [statistical analysis] No error bars on the star counts, Poisson or chi-squared statistics, or quantitative incompleteness correction are provided for either the full or trimmed samples, making the claim of consistency after exclusion difficult to evaluate rigorously.

Authors: We will add Poisson uncertainties to all reported star counts in the revised tables and figures. We will also compute and report a chi-squared goodness-of-fit statistic comparing observed versus expected counts for both the full sample and the trimmed sample. Finally, we will implement and describe a quantitative incompleteness correction based on the magnitude-dependent discrepancy already noted in the text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external models and direct count comparison

full rationale

The paper infers cluster age via the external Stellar Ages algorithm applied to Stromgren photometry and single-star evolutionary tracks. Expected counts are generated from an independent Salpeter IMF assumption. The statement that excluding the five brightest stars restores consistency is a post-comparison observation, not a parameter fitted to the result itself or defined circularly. No load-bearing self-citations, self-definitional equations, or ansatzes imported from prior author work appear in the derivation chain. The central claims remain falsifiable against the stated external baselines.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard single-star evolutionary tracks and an assumed initial mass function; no new entities are introduced and the only free parameter is the inferred cluster age itself.

free parameters (1)

cluster age from Stellar Ages algorithm
The reported younger age for bright stars is the output of the fitting procedure applied to the photometry.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Single-star evolutionary models accurately predict the relative numbers of stars at different masses in a young cluster
Invoked when comparing observed counts to Salpeter expectations; the paper itself notes this may fail due to binaries or rotation.
domain assumption Stromgren photometry from the literature is complete enough above a certain magnitude to allow reliable star counts
The paper explicitly questions this for fainter stars and shows the discrepancy grows there.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5588 in / 1615 out tokens · 38523 ms · 2026-05-15T15:49:01.906059+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Analysis using single-star evolutionary models shows a substantial discrepancy between the relative numbers of bright blue stars and lower-mass stars as compared to expectations from a Salpeter mass function

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

W., Smith, N., & Hloˇ zek, R

Aghakhanloo, M., Murphy, J. W., Smith, N., & Hloˇ zek, R. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2050

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2050 2017
[2]

Aghakhanloo, M., Smith, N., Andrews, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2142, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2265 12 1012141618 b 10 12 14 16 18 y Most Likely Age 6.40 6.50 6.60 6.70 6.80 6.90 7.00 7.10 7.20 7.60 8.00 8.20 8.40 8.60 8.80 9.00 9.20 Figure 14.Same as Fig. 5, but using PARSEC models with- out inferring rotation. The results are consistent across dif- fere...

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2265 2022
[3]

J., Elias-Rosa, N., Fraser, M., Van Dyk, S

Brennan, S. J., Elias-Rosa, N., Fraser, M., Van Dyk, S. D., & Lyman, J. D. 2022, A&A, 664, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244262

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244262 2022
[4]

M., Foley , R

Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21948.x 2012
[5]

E., Cantiello, M., et al

Brott, I., de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016113

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016113 2011
[6]

2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/102 2016
[7]

Conti, P. S. 1984, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 105, Observational Tests of the Stellar Evolution Theory, ed. A. Maeder & A. Renzini, 233 De Marco, O., & Izzard, R. G. 2017, PASA, 34, e001, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.52 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.52 1984
[8]

2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/166 2013
[9]

W., Navarro J

Deman, J. A., & Oey, M. S. 2024, ApJ, 976, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538- 4357/ad813410.1134/S1063772908070019

work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2024
[10]

2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al

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

work page doi:10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8 2016
[11]

J., Stanway, E

Eldridge, J. J., Stanway, E. R., Xiao, L., et al. 2017, PASA, 34, e058, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2017.51 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1017/pasa.2017.51 2017
[12]

Gal-Yam, A., & Leonard, D. C. 2009, Nature, 458, 865, doi: 10.1038/nature07934

work page doi:10.1038/nature07934 2009
[13]

2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.17033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.17033

Guzman, J., Murphy, J., Beasor, E., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.17033, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.17033

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.17033
[14]

J., Murphy, J

Guzman, J. J., Murphy, J. W., Barrientos, A. F., Williams, B. F., & Dalcanton, J. J. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add265

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add265
[15]

Heydari-Malayeri, M., Meynadier, F., & Walborn, N. R. 2003, A&A, 400, 923, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030066

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20030066 2003
[16]

M., & Davidson, K

Humphreys, R. M., & Davidson, K. 1994, PASP, 106, 1025, doi: 10.1086/133478

work page doi:10.1086/133478 1994
[17]

E., Sand, D

Jencson, J. E., Sand, D. J., Andrews, J. E., et al. 2022, ApJL, 935, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac867c

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac867c 2022
[18]

Justham, S., Podsiadlowski, P., & Vink, J. S. 2014, ApJ, 796, 121, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/121

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/121 2014
[19]

Spoon, H. W. W. 1998, A&A, 335, 605

work page 1998
[20]

2000, AJ, 119, 2214, doi: 10.1086/301345

Massey, P., Waterhouse, E., & DeGioia-Eastwood, K. 2000, AJ, 119, 2214, doi: 10.1086/301345

work page doi:10.1086/301345 2000
[21]

C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A

Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt009

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt009 2013
[22]

Stellar Evolution with Rotation V: Changes in all the Outputs of Massive Star Models

Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0006404

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0006404 2000
[23]

2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aa6fb6 2017
[24]

2009, A&A, 503, 511, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912398

Munari, U., Siviero, A., Bienaym´ e, O., et al. 2009, A&A, 503, 511, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912398

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912398 2009
[25]

W., Barrientos, A

Murphy, J. W., Barrientos, A. F., Andrae, R., et al. 2025, ApJ, 988, 241, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ade5b4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade5b4 2025
[26]

W., Clayton, G

Parker, J. W., Clayton, G. C., Winge, C., & Conti, P. S. 1993, ApJ, 409, 770, doi: 10.1086/172706

work page doi:10.1086/172706 1993
[27]

E., de Koter, A., et al

Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444, doi: 10.1126/science.1223344

work page doi:10.1126/science.1223344 2012
[28]

Schneider, F. R. N., Izzard, R. G., Langer, N., & de Mink, S. E. 2015, ApJ, 805, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/1/20 13

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/1/20 2015
[29]

2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —

Smith, N. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 487, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 —. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 4378, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2277

work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025 2014
[30]

2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol

Smith, N. 2026, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2, Vol. 2, 508–532, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4

work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-21439-4.00147-4 2026
[31]

E., Filippenko, A

Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 71, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1669

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1669 2022
[32]

Filippenko, A. V. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 773, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18763.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18763.x 2011
[33]

Smith, N., & Owocki, S. P. 2006, ApJL, 645, L45, doi: 10.1086/506523

work page doi:10.1086/506523 2006
[34]

2015, MNRAS, 447, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2430

Smith, N., & Tombleson, R. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2430

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2430 2015
[35]

2010, AJ, 139, 1451, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1451

Smith, N., Miller, A., Li, W., et al. 2010, AJ, 139, 1451, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1451

work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/4/1451 2010
[36]

E., Rest, A., et al

Smith, N., Andrews, J. E., Rest, A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 1466, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1500

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1500 2018
[37]

1983, A&A, 127, 49

Stahl, O., Wolf, B., Klare, G., et al. 1983, A&A, 127, 49

work page 1983
[38]

F., Eldridge, J

Stevance, H. F., Eldridge, J. J., McLeod, A., Stanway, E. R., & Chrimes, A. A. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 1347, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2428 van Genderen, A. M. 2001, A&A, 366, 508, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000022 van Genderen, A. M., Sterken, C., de Groot, M., & Reijns, R. A. 1998, A&A, 332, 857

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2428 2020
[39]

2007, ApJL, 662, L107, doi: 10.1086/519454

Vanbeveren, D., Van Bever, J., & Belkus, H. 2007, ApJL, 662, L107, doi: 10.1086/519454

work page doi:10.1086/519454 2007