Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 85 references

A decoder-only variational graph network recovers solid-mechanics parameters from displacements and supplies physics-consistent confidence intervals at lower cost than full Bayesian nets.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 15:40 UTC pith:EBSIDP3F

load-bearing objection We only have the abstract for the VGNN inverse-UQ paper; the cached full text is a different astronomy paper, so the central claims cannot be audited. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.29515 v2 pith:EBSIDP3F submitted 2026-03-31 cs.LG

Variational Graph Neural Networks for Uncertainty Quantification in Inverse Problems

David Gonzalez , Alba Muixi , Beatriz Moya , Elias Cueto This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords variational graph neural networkuncertainty quantificationinverse problemssolid mechanicselastic modulus identificationload localizationdigital twinsepistemic and aleatoric uncertainty
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.

Critical applications such as engineering and medical digital twins need more than fast forward simulations: inverse estimates of material properties or loads must come with a measure of how much the answer can be trusted, especially when solutions are non-unique or data are noisy. Classic deterministic networks give point estimates with no uncertainty; fully Bayesian networks quantify uncertainty but are expensive. This paper proposes a variational graph neural network that places variational layers only in the decoder, so that the network models a distribution over decoder weights rather than a single set of weights. Trained on displacement fields alone, the model recovers a nonlinear elastic modulus field in 2D and both the location and magnitude of loads on a 3D hyperelastic beam, while returning confidence intervals that the authors report as consistent with the physics of each problem. The architectural shortcut is intended to capture both epistemic (model) and aleatoric (data) uncertainty at a fraction of the cost of a full Bayesian treatment, making reliable inverse inference practical for graph-structured solid-mechanics data.

Core claim

A variational graph neural network that introduces variational layers exclusively in the decoder recovers, from displacement fields alone, a nonlinear elastic modulus distribution in a 2D elastic body and the location and magnitude of loads on a 3D hyperelastic beam, while producing confidence intervals that the authors state are consistent with the underlying physics and that estimate both cognitive and statistical uncertainty at lower cost than a fully Bayesian network.

What carries the argument

Variational graph neural network (VGNN) with variational layers confined to the decoder: the decoder weights are treated as random variables whose posterior is approximated variationally, so that sampling yields predictive distributions (and thus confidence intervals) without making the entire encoder-decoder Bayesian.

Load-bearing premise

That putting variational layers only in the decoder is enough to capture the epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty of the inverse map, so the resulting confidence intervals remain physically meaningful without variational treatment of the encoder or a full Bayesian network.

What would settle it

On the same 2D modulus-identification and 3D load-location tasks, compare calibration of the VGNN confidence intervals against a fully Bayesian graph network (or against ground-truth parameter ensembles with controlled noise); if the decoder-only intervals systematically under- or over-cover the true parameters while the full Bayesian intervals do not, the architectural claim fails.

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

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The submitted abstract describes a variational graph neural network (VGNN) that places variational layers only in the decoder to quantify cognitive (epistemic) and statistical (aleatoric) uncertainty for inverse solid-mechanics problems at lower cost than full Bayesian networks. Two validation cases are claimed: recovery of a nonlinear elastic modulus field in 2D elasticity, and location plus magnitude of loads on a 3D hyperelastic beam, both from displacement fields alone, with high-precision parameter recovery and physics-consistent confidence intervals. The body of the manuscript supplied for review is not this work: it is an unrelated astronomy paper on the Fink broker anomaly-detection pipeline for ZTF alerts (Isolation Forest ranking, expert feedback, and follow-up of AM CVn, UX Ori, SNe, and dwarf novae). Consequently the VGNN architecture, training objective, uncertainty decomposition, calibration diagnostics, and solid-mechanics results cannot be assessed from the provided full text.

Significance. If the abstract claims were substantiated—decoder-only variational layers yielding well-calibrated epistemic and aleatoric intervals for non-unique or noisy inverse maps in solid mechanics, with demonstrated recovery of nonlinear moduli and 3D load parameters—the contribution would be practically relevant for Digital Twins and safety-critical computational mechanics, where full Bayesian GNNs remain expensive. That significance cannot be evaluated here because the load-bearing methods, equations, baselines, and quantitative results for the claimed VGNN are absent from the manuscript body that was provided.

major comments (3)
  1. Manuscript identity mismatch: the abstract and title concern a VGNN for inverse-problem UQ in solid mechanics (elastic modulus identification; 3D hyperelastic load localization), but the full text is the Fink ZTF anomaly-detection paper (Isolation Forest, Slack/Telegram alerts, AM CVn Fink J062452.88+020818.3, SN 2023mtp, etc.). No VGNN architecture, variational decoder construction, ELBO/KL objective, graph encoder, or solid-mechanics experiments appear in the body. The central claims are therefore uncheckable.
  2. Abstract premise that variational layers exclusively in the decoder suffice for both cognitive and statistical uncertainty (and for physics-consistent confidence intervals on non-unique/noisy inverse maps) is load-bearing and not independently justified in any available section, equation, or ablation. Without the correct methods and calibration results, this premise cannot be accepted or rejected.
  3. Claimed validation outcomes—high-precision recovery of nonlinear elastic modulus and of load location/magnitude with confidence intervals consistent with the physics—require quantitative tables, error metrics, noise models, baselines (deterministic GNN, full Bayesian GNN, MC dropout, etc.), and calibration plots. None of these are present in the supplied full manuscript.
minor comments (2)
  1. Even the abstract alone leaves key terms underspecified for a methods paper (how cognitive vs statistical uncertainty are separated operationally; what the graph nodes/edges represent for continuum fields; how non-uniqueness is handled in the inverse map).
  2. Editorial process should confirm arXiv ID, title, and PDF correspondence before any scientific review; the current package mixes two unrelated works.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity identifiable: only the VGNN abstract is available; the supplied full text is an unrelated astronomy paper, so no derivation chain can be reduced to its inputs.

full rationale

The claimed paper (2603.29515, Variational Graph Neural Networks for Uncertainty Quantification in Inverse Problems) is represented only by its abstract. That abstract states an architectural modeling choice—variational layers placed exclusively in the decoder to estimate cognitive and statistical uncertainty at lower cost than a full Bayesian network—and reports empirical recovery of elastic modulus and load parameters from displacement fields with physics-consistent confidence intervals. No equations, training objective, decoder construction, calibration procedure, or uniqueness argument appear. Nothing in the abstract defines a quantity in terms of itself, renames a fit as a prediction, or load-bears on a self-citation uniqueness theorem. The CACHEABLE full manuscript is a different work (Fink anomaly detection in ZTF alerts) and cannot be used to audit the VGNN derivation. With no load-bearing derivation steps present to reduce, the circularity score is 0; residual risks (train/test leakage, calibration quality) are ordinary evaluation concerns, not circularity by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only ledger. The central claim rests on standard ML/mechanics background plus the paper-specific design choice that decoder-only variational layers suffice for useful UQ in inverse problems. No free parameters or invented physical entities can be extracted numerically from the abstract; the main ad hoc content is the architectural restriction and the two synthetic validation settings.

free parameters (2)
  • Variational decoder posterior parameters (weight means/variances and any KL weight)
    Any practical VGNN must fit variational parameters and balance reconstruction vs KL terms; values and schedules are not given in the abstract but the central UQ claim depends on them.
  • Training data generation and noise model for the two inverse problems
    How displacement fields and labels are sampled (mesh resolution, load distributions, modulus fields, noise level) is not specified; reported precision and interval quality depend on these choices.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Graph neural networks on mesh connectivity can represent the forward/inverse map between displacement fields and mechanical parameters or loads.
    Implicit in using a GNN with displacement field as input for solid-mechanics inverse problems.
  • ad hoc to paper Variational layers restricted to the decoder are sufficient to estimate both cognitive (epistemic) and statistical (aleatoric) uncertainty for these inverse maps at lower cost than full Bayesian networks.
    Core architectural premise of the abstract; not derived from a theorem in the available text.
  • domain assumption Confidence intervals that look consistent with problem physics indicate useful uncertainty quantification for critical digital-twin use.
    Abstract equates physics-consistent intervals with reliability; formal calibration criteria are not stated.
invented entities (1)
  • VGNN with decoder-only variational layers (as a named architecture for inverse UQ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide cheaper joint recovery of mechanical parameters and uncertainty from displacement graphs.
    Presented as the paper's method contribution; independent evidence outside this work is not established in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17969 in / 2681 out tokens · 27003 ms · 2026-07-13T15:40:19.304479+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The increasingly wide use of deep machine learning techniques in computational mechanics has significantly accelerated simulations of problems that were considered unapproachable just a few years ago. However, in critical applications such as Digital Twins for engineering or medicine, fast responses are not enough; reliable results must also be provided. In certain cases, traditional deterministic methods may not be optimal as they do not provide a measure of confidence in their predictions or results, especially in inverse problems where the solution may not be unique or the initial data may not be entirely reliable due to the presence of noise, for instance. Classic deep neural networks also lack a clear measure to quantify the uncertainty of their predictions. In this work, we present a variational graph neural network (VGNN) architecture that integrates variational layers into its architecture to model the probability distribution of weights. Unlike computationally expensive full Bayesian networks, our approach strategically introduces variational layers exclusively in the decoder, allowing us to estimate cognitive uncertainty and statistical uncertainty at a relatively lower cost. In this work, we validate the proposed methodology in two cases of solid mechanics: the identification of the value of the elastic modulus with nonlinear distribution in a 2D elastic problem and the location and quantification of the loads applied to a 3D hyperelastic beam, in both cases using only the displacement field of each test as input data. The results show that the model not only recovers the physical parameters with high precision, but also provides confidence intervals consistent with the physics of the problem, as well as being able to locate the position of the applied load and estimate its value, giving a confidence interval for that experiment.

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

85 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    D., Engel, A

    Aleo, P. D., Engel, A. W., Narayan, G., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 172

    2024

  2. [2]

    H., et al

    Bag, S., Canameras, R., Suyu, S. H., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.22076

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  4. [4]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  5. [5]

    N., Belinskii, A

    Berdnikov, L. N., Belinskii, A. A., Shatskii, N. I., et al. 2020, Astronomy Re- ports, 64, 310

    2020

  6. [6]

    Beschastnov, I., Kornilov, M., Pruzhinskaya, M., Ishida, E. E. O., & Peloton, J. 2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-212, 1

    2023

  7. [7]

    2014, A&A, 568, A22

    Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A22

    2014

  8. [8]

    1961, Bull

    Blaauw, A. 1961, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 15, 265

    1961

  9. [9]

    I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O

    Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V . A., & Woosley, S. E. 1998, ApJ, 496, 454

    1998

  10. [10]

    I., Röpke, F

    Blinnikov, S. I., Röpke, F. K., Sorokina, E. I., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 229

    2006

  11. [11]

    & Tonry, J

    Blondin, S. & Tonry, J. L. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1024

    2007

  12. [12]

    Buckley, D. A. H., Swart, G. P., & Meiring, J. G. 2006, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 6267, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes, ed. L. M. Stepp, 62670Z

    2006

  13. [13]

    A., Clayton, G

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

    1989

  14. [14]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    A., Modjaz, M., et al

    Crawford, A., Pritchard, T. A., Modjaz, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 989, 192

    2025

  16. [16]

    G., & Amran Siddiqui, M

    Das, S., Wong, W.-K., Fern, A., Dietterich, T. G., & Amran Siddiqui, M. 2017, in Workshop on Interactive Data Exploration and Analytics (IDEA’17), KDD workshop, arXiv:1708.09441 de Soto, K. M., Villar, V . A., Berger, E., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Deeming, T. J. 1975, Ap&SS, 36, 137

    1975

  18. [18]

    J., Lang, D., et al

    Dey, A., Schlegel, D. J., Lang, D., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 168

    2019

  19. [19]

    Dick, S. J. 2013, Discovery and Classification in Astronomy: Controversy and Consensus (Cambridge University Press)

    2013

  20. [20]

    2023, Transient Name Server Clas- sification Report, 2023-2494, 1

    Dodin, A., Belinski, A., & Pruzhinskaya, M. 2023, Transient Name Server Clas- sification Report, 2023-2494, 1

    2023

  21. [21]

    A., Mahabal, A., Masci, F

    Duev, D. A., Mahabal, A., Masci, F. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3582 Dévora-Pajares, M., Pozuelos, F. J., Thuillier, A., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4752

    2019

  22. [22]

    A., et al

    Farah, J., Pellegrino, C., Howell, D. A., et al. 2023, Transient Name Server Clas- sification Report, 2023-2213, 1 Förster, F., Cabrera-Vives, G., Castillo-Navarrete, E., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 242

    2023

  23. [23]

    Fraga, B. M. O., Bom, C. R., Santos, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A208

    2024

  24. [24]

    2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1631, 1

    Fremling, C. 2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023-1631, 1

    2023

  25. [25]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 170 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al

    Gagliano, A., Narayan, G., Engel, A., Carrasco Kind, M., & LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. 2021, ApJ, 908, 170 Gaia Collaboration, Montegriffo, P., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A33

    2021

  26. [26]

    2012, Science, 337, 927

    Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927

    2012

  27. [27]

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

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93

    2019

  28. [28]

    P., The, P

    Grinin, V . P., The, P. S., de Winter, D., et al. 1994, A&A, 292, 165

    1994

  29. [29]

    K., Grossman, E

    Herbst, W., Herbst, D. K., Grossman, E. J., & Weinstein, D. 1994, AJ, 108, 1906

    1994

  30. [30]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687

    1988

  31. [31]

    P., Macri, L

    Huchra, J. P., Macri, L. M., Masters, K. L., et al. 2012, ApJS, 199, 26

    2012

  32. [32]

    Ishida, E. E. O., Kornilov, M. V ., Malanchev, K. L., et al. 2021, A&A, 650, A195

    2021

  33. [33]

    J., Croft, S., Stevance, H., & Weston, J

    Iskandarli, L., Lintott, C. J., Croft, S., Stevance, H., & Weston, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.12955

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 48 Jegou du Laz, T., Coughlin, M

    Isogai, K., Kato, T., Monard, B., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 48 Jegou du Laz, T., Coughlin, M. W., Bachant, P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.00164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    2021, STDPipe: Simple Transient Detection Pipeline, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2112.006

    Karpov, S. 2021, STDPipe: Simple Transient Detection Pipeline, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2112.006

    2021

  36. [36]

    2012, PASJ, 64, 63

    Kato, T., Maehara, H., & Uemura, M. 2012, PASJ, 64, 63

    2012

  37. [37]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    2017

  38. [38]

    2026, PASJ, 78, 199

    Kojiguchi, N., Isogai, K., Tampo, Y ., et al. 2026, PASJ, 78, 199

    2026

  39. [39]

    & Malanchev, K

    Lavrukhina, A. & Malanchev, K. 2023, Memorie della Società Astronomica Ital- iana Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society, 102

    2023

  40. [40]

    D., Demkov, B., Malanchev, K., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Lavrukhina, A. D., Demkov, B., Malanchev, K., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., & Ishida, E. E. O. 2026, MNRAS[arXiv:2510.24655]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    M., Panchenko, I

    Lipunov, V . M., Panchenko, I. E., & Pruzhinskaya, M. V . 2011, New A, 16, 250

    2011

  42. [42]

    T., Ting, K

    Liu, F. T., Ting, K. M., & Zhou, Z.-H. 2008, in 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, IEEE, 413–422 LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0912.0201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15849, 1

    Maehara, H. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 15849, 1

    2023

  44. [44]

    D., Nicholl, M., et al

    Magill, D., Fulton, M. D., Nicholl, M., et al. 2025, Research Notes of the Amer- ican Astronomical Society, 9, 78

    2025

  45. [45]

    & Geller, M

    Mahdavi, A. & Geller, M. J. 2004, ApJ, 607, 202

    2004

  46. [46]

    V ., Ishida, E

    Majumder, T., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Ishida, E. E. O., Malanchev, K. L., & Se- menikhin, T. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.21077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    V ., Pruzhinskaya, M

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

    2023

  48. [48]

    L., Pruzhinskaya, M

    Malanchev, K. L., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Korolev, V . S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5147

    2021

  49. [49]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 796

    Martin, G., Kaviraj, S., Laigle, C., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 796

    2019

  50. [50]

    2021, AJ, 161, 107

    Matheson, T., Stubens, C., Wolf, N., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 107

    2021

  51. [51]

    C., et al

    Mitra, A., Kessler, R., Chen, R. C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.06319 Möller, A., Peloton, J., Ishida, E. E. O., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 3272 Möller, A., Smith, M., Sako, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 5159 Möller, A., Wiseman, P., Smith, M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 2073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    J., Subrayan, B

    Moriya, T. J., Subrayan, B. M., Milisavljevic, D., & Blinnikov, S. I. 2023, PASJ, 75, 634

    2023

  53. [53]

    P., Mannings, V ., & Ungerechts, H

    Natta, A., Grinin, V . P., Mannings, V ., & Ungerechts, H. 1997, ApJ, 491, 885

    1997

  54. [54]

    2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Nelemans, G. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 330, The Astrophysics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. J. M. Hameury & J. P. Lasota, 27

    2005

  55. [55]

    2019, A&A, 631, A147

    Nordin, J., Brinnel, V ., van Santen, J., et al. 2019, A&A, 631, A147

    2019

  56. [56]

    2025, A&A, 698, A13

    Nordin, J., Brinnel, V ., van Santen, J., Reusch, S., & Kowalski, M. 2025, A&A, 698, A13

    2025

  57. [57]

    Norris, R. P. 2017, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 34, e007 O’Neill, D., Warwick, B., Godson, B., et al. 2023, Transient Name Server Clas- sification Report, 2023-2014, 1

    2017

  58. [58]

    T., Bellm, E

    Patterson, M. T., Bellm, E. C., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018001

    2019

  59. [59]

    2023, AJ, 166, 151

    Perez-Carrasco, M., Cabrera-Vives, G., Hernandez-García, L., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 151

    2023

  60. [60]

    J., Durgesh, R., Nakazono, L., et al

    Pessi, P. J., Durgesh, R., Nakazono, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A181

    2024

  61. [61]

    Pickles, A. J. 1998, PASP, 110, 863

    1998

  62. [62]

    A., Belinski, A

    Potanin, S. A., Belinski, A. A., Dodin, A. V ., et al. 2020, Astronomy Letters, 46, 836

    2020

  63. [63]

    1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    Poveda, A., Ruiz, J., & Allen, C. 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86

    1967

  64. [64]

    L., et al

    Pruzhinskaya, M., Ishida, E., Malanchev, K. L., et al. 2025, in Frontier Research in Astrophysics - IV , 6

    2025

  65. [65]

    V ., Gorbovskoy, E

    Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., Gorbovskoy, E. S., & Lipunov, V . M. 2011, Astronomy Letters, 37, 663

    2011

  66. [66]

    V ., Ishida, E

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

    2023

  67. [67]

    2024, A&A, 686, A231

    Reguitti, A., Pignata, G., Pastorello, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A231

    2024

  68. [68]

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

    Richardson, D., Jenkins, III, R. L., Wright, J., & Maddox, L. 2014, AJ, 147, 118 Sánchez-Sáez, P., Reyes, I., Valenzuela, C., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 141

    2014

  69. [69]

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

    2011

  70. [70]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

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

    1998

  71. [71]

    J., Prieto, J

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

    2014

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    W., et al

    Sheng, X., Nicholl, M., Smith, K. W., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2474

    2024

  74. [74]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  75. [75]

    W., Williams, R

    Smith, K. W., Williams, R. D., Young, D. R., et al. 2019, Research Notes of the AAS, 3, 26

    2019

  76. [76]

    Sokolovsky, K. V . & Lebedev, A. A. 2018, Astronomy and Computing, 22, 28

    2018

  77. [77]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3189, 1

    Sollerman, J., Covarrubias, S., Chu, M., & Fremling, C. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-3189, 1

    2024

  78. [78]

    V ., V olnova, A

    Sreejith, S., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., V olnova, A. A., et al. 2026, New A, 122, 102466

    2026

  79. [79]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505

    2018

  80. [80]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99 V oloshina, A. S., Lavrukhina, A. D., Pruzhinskaya, M. V ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 4309

    2012

Showing first 80 references.