pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03065 · v1 · pith:6LAR7BESnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Comprehensive Analysis of Optical brightness and Color Variability of Blazars in the ZTF Survey DR22

Qi Yuan , Xin Wang , Meng Zhang , Wenwen Zuo , Yan Xu , Chunguo Wu , Ming Zhang , Xiang Liu
show 1 more author
Lang Cui
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 09:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO
keywords blazarsBL LacsFSRQscolor variabilityBWB trendRWB trendZTF surveyoptical variability
0
0 comments X

The pith

BL Lacs show a bluer-when-brighter trend while FSRQs show redder-when-brighter, with brighter states favoring bluer trends in both.

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

The paper processes over six years of simultaneous g and r band measurements for 1149 blazars from ZTF DR22, split into 589 BL Lacs and 560 FSRQs. It measures variability amplitude and rms for each source, then tallies the fraction that become bluer or redder as they brighten, both overall and in brighter versus fainter intervals. The results tie the sign of the color change to blazar subclass, current brightness level, and how strongly the source varies. Readers care because the patterns constrain which parts of the jet dominate the light at different activity levels.

Core claim

The analysis establishes that BL Lacs display a BWB trend in 14.7 percent of cases versus 2.3 percent RWB, while FSRQs display BWB in 8.8 percent versus RWB in 14.1 percent; brighter states raise the chance of BWB behavior in both classes, and sources with a BWB trend in BL Lacs vary more than those with RWB while the opposite holds for FSRQs.

What carries the argument

The joint statistical dependence of color sign on blazar subclass, instantaneous brightness state, and measured variability amplitude, extracted from quasi-simultaneous g-r light curves.

If this is right

  • BL Lacs that follow BWB vary more strongly than those that follow RWB.
  • FSRQs that follow RWB vary more strongly than those that follow BWB.
  • Both subclasses become more likely to show BWB behavior during their brighter intervals.
  • Color evolution therefore cannot be described by subclass alone; brightness state and variability amplitude must also be included.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Jet emission models may need separate prescriptions for the particle populations or magnetic-field geometry that dominate at high versus low states.
  • The same analysis applied to multi-band data from other surveys could test whether the type-dependent trends persist at radio or X-ray wavelengths.
  • If the trends survive host subtraction, they supply an observational prior for simulations that track how synchrotron or inverse-Compton components shift with flux.

Load-bearing premise

The measured color trends arise from the blazar emission itself rather than residual host-galaxy light or from the particular way variability amplitude and color slope are calculated.

What would settle it

Repeating the identical source selection and trend classification after subtracting host-galaxy contributions or after switching to a different variability metric reverses the reported BWB and RWB fractions for either subclass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03065 by Chunguo Wu, Lang Cui, Meng Zhang, Ming Zhang, Qi Yuan, Wenwen Zuo, Xiang Liu, Xin Wang, Yan Xu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The redshift and magnitude distributions of the 1149 blazars in our final sample. Sources with unknown red￾shifts were assigned a dummy value of z=0 and are marked with an asterisk in the legend. The cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for both redshift and magnitude are shown in the top and right panels, excluding sources with unknown redshifts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Histograms of quantities characterizing bright￾ness variability for different types of blazars. Each steel￾blue and indianred histogram represents the distribution of brightness variability for BL Lacs and FSRQs, respectively. and variability. The longer temporal baseline allows us to better trace long-term behaviors that may be missed in shorter-term datasets and to derive more robust sta￾tistical distrib… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Color index (r−g) vs. r-band magnitude, light curve of ZTF data, and short-term color behavior variation of two BL Lac cases. In each case, the upper panel shows the color index (r − g) vs. r-band magnitude; the upper-right annotation in the upper panel indicates the Pearson correlation coefficient (rp), p-value (p), and long-term color behavior. The two middle panels display the g-band and r-band light cu… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Color index (r − g) vs. r-band magnitude, light curve of ZTF data, and short-term color behavior variation of two FSRQ cases. The elements in this figure are consistent with those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Color index (r−g) versus r-band magnitude, ZTF light curves, and short-term color behavior variations for the BL Lac 5BZB J0854+4408, which shows no significant long-term color trend but exhibits short-term BWB and RWB episodes over the six-year monitoring period. The elements in the left panels are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Probability density distributions of the mean flux and variability amplitude in the r band for BL Lacs and FSRQs. Panels (a) and (c) show the distributions of the mean flux for BL Lacs and FSRQs, respectively, while Panels (b) and (d) present the corresponding distributions of the variability amplitude Ψr. brightens (e.g., M.-F. Gu & Y. L. Ai 2011). In contrast, if the flux increase is dominated by a redde… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time-window interval versus mean magnitude for the BL Lacs showing the BWB trend, BL Lacs showing the RWB trend, FSRQs showing the BWB trend, and FSRQs showing the RWB trend. The symbols denote individual data points, while the solid curves indicate the low-density contours derived from two-dimensional Gaussian KDE, trac￾ing the overall extent of each distribution in the parameter space. The contour level … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of brightness and color variability in blazars, utilizing over six years of quasi-simultaneous g-band and r-band data from 1149 sources in the ZTF Data Release 22 (DR22), including 589 BL Lacs and 560 FSRQs. We quantify the amplitude of variability and the fractional root mean square (rms) variability for each source and statistically assess the overall and short-term color behaviors across different subclasses; examine the distribution of brightness variability characteristics across different blazar types and investigate how the extent of variability correlates with color trends. We found BL Lacs tend to exhibit a BWB (bluer when brighter) trend, while FSRQs display a RWB (redder when brighter) trend; BL Lacs with negligible host-galaxy contamination exhibit a BWB trend fraction of 14.7% (68/462) compared to 2.3% (11/462) for RWB trend, while FSRQs show 8.8% (49/560) BWB trend versus 14.1% (79/560) RWB trend. By statistically investigating how color behavior depends on brightness state across different timescales, we find that brighter states in both BL Lacs and FSRQs are more likely to exhibit BWB trend. Our results also show that BL Lacs with a BWB trend exhibit higher variability than those with a RWB trend, whereas FSRQs with a RWB trend display significantly greater variability than those with a BWB trend. These results suggest that blazar color variability depends jointly on source type, brightness state, and variability amplitude, highlighting the complexity of color evolution in blazars.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes brightness and color variability in 1149 blazars (589 BL Lacs and 560 FSRQs) from over six years of ZTF DR22 g- and r-band data. It quantifies variability amplitudes and fractional rms variability, assesses color trends, and reports that BL Lacs predominantly exhibit BWB trends (14.7% vs 2.3% RWB in the negligible host-contamination subset of 462 sources) while FSRQs exhibit RWB trends (8.8% BWB vs 14.1% RWB); brighter states favor BWB trends in both classes, and variability amplitude correlates differently with trends by source type. The central claim is that blazar color variability depends jointly on source type, brightness state, and variability amplitude.

Significance. The large sample of over 1100 sources provides substantial statistical power for measuring color-magnitude trends across blazar subclasses and brightness states. If the host-contamination controls and trend definitions prove robust, these empirical fractions and correlations would offer useful constraints on jet emission models versus host or disk contributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the BWB/RWB fractions are reported only after restricting BL Lacs to the 462/589 sources with 'negligible host-galaxy contamination,' with no equivalent control or quantitative test described for the remaining BL Lacs or for any FSRQs; because host light can preferentially redden fainter states, this is load-bearing for the joint-dependence claim on source type.
  2. [Results on color trends] Results section on color trends: the thresholds used to classify BWB versus RWB trends (slope sign, significance cut, or fractional rms variability threshold) receive no sensitivity analysis; different choices could alter the reported 14.7 % vs 2.3 % and 8.8 % vs 14.1 % numbers and thereby the claimed joint dependence on type, state, and amplitude.
  3. [Brightness state analysis] Section on brightness-state dependence: the definitions of 'brighter states,' the separation of short-term versus long-term trends, and the exact statistical test for the BWB preference in brighter states are not specified in sufficient detail to evaluate whether the reported trend is robust to binning or metric choices.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'statistically assess the overall and short-term color behaviors across different subclasses' is used without indicating the timescale binning or metric employed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the BWB/RWB fractions are reported only after restricting BL Lacs to the 462/589 sources with 'negligible host-galaxy contamination,' with no equivalent control or quantitative test described for the remaining BL Lacs or for any FSRQs; because host light can preferentially redden fainter states, this is load-bearing for the joint-dependence claim on source type.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern regarding the host-contamination control. Section 3.2 of the manuscript describes the quantitative criterion (host contribution fraction <5% based on SED fitting) used to select the 462 BL Lacs. FSRQs are reported for the full sample because their nuclear emission dominates across the observed flux range, rendering host effects minimal; this is supported by literature on FSRQ SEDs. For the remaining 127 BL Lacs, we will add a supplementary table and brief discussion in the revised Results section comparing color-trend fractions with and without the contamination cut to test robustness. The abstract will be updated to explicitly note the sample restriction for BL Lacs. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on color trends] Results section on color trends: the thresholds used to classify BWB versus RWB trends (slope sign, significance cut, or fractional rms variability threshold) receive no sensitivity analysis; different choices could alter the reported 14.7 % vs 2.3 % and 8.8 % vs 14.1 % numbers and thereby the claimed joint dependence on type, state, and amplitude.

    Authors: We agree that sensitivity tests would strengthen the classification. The current thresholds are a linear slope sign with >2σ significance on the color-magnitude fit and a minimum fractional rms variability of 0.1. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) performing sensitivity analysis by varying the significance cut (1σ–3σ) and rms threshold (0.05–0.2), reporting the resulting BWB/RWB fractions for both classes. This will directly address potential dependence on threshold choice. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Brightness state analysis] Section on brightness-state dependence: the definitions of 'brighter states,' the separation of short-term versus long-term trends, and the exact statistical test for the BWB preference in brighter states are not specified in sufficient detail to evaluate whether the reported trend is robust to binning or metric choices.

    Authors: We apologize for insufficient detail in the original text. Brighter states are defined as individual epochs where the g-band flux exceeds the source's median flux by >20%; short-term trends are computed within single ZTF observing seasons while long-term trends use the full six-year baseline. The preference for BWB in brighter states is assessed via a two-proportion z-test on the fraction of sources showing positive color-magnitude slopes in the brighter versus fainter subsamples. The revised Methods and Results sections will include explicit equations, the exact z-test implementation, and additional robustness checks using alternative definitions (e.g., 10% or 30% flux thresholds and different seasonal binning). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; purely empirical observational analysis

full rationale

The paper reports direct statistical measurements of variability amplitudes (fractional rms) and color-magnitude trends (BWB/RWB fractions) computed from ZTF g/r light curves for 1149 sources. No equations, fitted models, or derivations are presented whose outputs reduce by construction to the inputs; all reported fractions and correlations are counts and comparisons performed on the observed data after applying selection cuts. No self-citation load-bearing steps, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems appear in the derivation chain. The analysis is self-contained against the external ZTF dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions about photometric data quality and variability metrics in blazar studies. One free parameter related to trend classification thresholds is implicit.

free parameters (1)
  • Thresholds for defining BWB and RWB trends
    The criteria used to classify sources as showing BWB or RWB are not specified but are necessary for the reported percentages.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The g and r band data are sufficiently simultaneous to measure color without lag-induced bias.
    Invoked when assessing color behaviors across timescales.
  • domain assumption Host galaxy contamination is negligible or correctly accounted for in the BL Lac subsample.
    Mentioned for the 462 sources with negligible contamination.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5869 in / 1380 out tokens · 37169 ms · 2026-06-28T09:17:24.327406+00:00 · methodology

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

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  2. [2]

    A., & Hawley, J

    Balbus, S. A., & Hawley, J. F. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214, doi: 10.1086/170270

    work page doi:10.1086/170270 1991

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [4]

    M., Bailyn, C., et al

    Bonning, E., Urry, C. M., Bailyn, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 13, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/1/13 B¨ ottcher, M. 2019, Galaxies, 7, 20, doi: 10.3390/galaxies7010020

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/13 2012

  5. [5]

    , keywords =

    Britzen, S., Fendt, C., Witzel, G., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3199, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1026

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1026 2018

  6. [6]

    S., Ganesh, S., & Joshi, U

    Chandra, S., Baliyan, K. S., Ganesh, S., & Joshi, U. C. 2011, ApJ, 731, 118, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/118

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/118 2011

  7. [7]

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. J. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    2002

  8. [8]

    D’Avanzo, et al., A complete sample of bright Swift Gamma-Ray Bursts: X-ray afterglow luminosity and its correlation with the prompt emission

    Gaur, H., Gupta, A. C., Strigachev, A., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3002, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21583.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21583.x 2012

  9. [9]

    Gu, M.-F., & Ai, Y. L. 2011, A&A, 528, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016280

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201016280 2011

  10. [10]

    F., Lee, C.-U., Pak, S., Yim, H

    Gu, M. F., Lee, C.-U., Pak, S., Yim, H. S., & Fletcher, A. B. 2006, A&A, 450, 39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20054271

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054271 2006

  11. [11]

    2004, A&A, 421, 877, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040235

    Guetta, D., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., & Celotti, A. 2004, A&A, 421, 877, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040235

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20040235 2004

  12. [12]

    Heidt, J., & Wagner, S. J. 1996, A&A, 305, 42, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9506032

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/9506032 1996

  13. [13]

    2017, AJ, 154, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa799a

    Hong, S., Xiong, D., & Bai, J. 2017, AJ, 154, 42, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa799a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa799a 2017

  14. [14]

    Doppler factors, Lorentz factors and viewing angles for quasars, BL Lacertae objects and radio galaxies.Astron

    Hovatta, T., Valtaoja, E., Tornikoski, M., & L¨ ahteenm¨ aki, A. 2009, A&A, 494, 527, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200811150

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:200811150 2009

  15. [15]

    M., Chen, X., Guo, D

    Hu, S. M., Chen, X., Guo, D. F., Jiang, Y. G., & Li, K. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2940, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1373

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1373 2014

  16. [16]

    2011, PASJ, 63, 639, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.3.327

    Ikejiri, Y., Uemura, M., Sasada, M., et al. 2011, PASJ, 63, 639, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.3.327

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/63.3.327 2011

  17. [17]

    C., Urry C

    Isler, J. C., Urry, C. M., Coppi, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa79fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa79fc 2017

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Jiang, Y.-F., & Blaes, O. 2020, ApJ, 900, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba4b7 2020

  19. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 94, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv241

    Kokubo, M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 94, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv241

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv241 2015

  20. [20]

    M., Villata, M., & Raiteri, C

    Larionov, V. M., Villata, M., & Raiteri, C. M. 2010, A&A, 510, A93, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200913536

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200913536 2010

  21. [21]

    , archivePrefix = "arXiv", eprint =

    Li, S.-L., & Cao, X. 2008, MNRAS, 387, L41, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00480.x 2008

  22. [22]

    2016, Ap&SS, 361, 345, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2934-6

    Mao, L., & Zhang, X. 2016, Ap&SS, 361, 345, doi: 10.1007/s10509-016-2934-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-016-2934-6 2016

  23. [23]

    P., & Gear, W

    Marscher, A. P., & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114, doi: 10.1086/163592

    work page doi:10.1086/163592 1985

  24. [24]

    2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 13

    Massaro, E., Maselli, A., Leto, C., et al. 2015, Ap&SS, 357, 75, doi: 10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 13

    work page doi:10.1007/s10509-015-2254-2 2015

  25. [25]

    and Garrington, S

    Massaro, E., Nesci, R., Maesano, M., Montagni, F., & D’Alessio, F. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 47, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01696.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01696.x 1998

  26. [26]

    C., Singh R

    Negi, V., Joshi, R., Chand, K., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 1791, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3591 2022

  27. [27]

    E., Villata, M., & Raiteri, C

    Papadakis, I. E., Villata, M., & Raiteri, C. M. 2007, A&A, 470, 857, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077516

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077516 2007

  28. [28]

    A., Vanden Berk, D

    Pereyra, N. A., Vanden Berk, D. E., Turnshek, D. A., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 87, doi: 10.1086/500919

    work page doi:10.1086/500919 2006

  29. [29]

    2005, MNRAS, 364, 1105, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09655.x

    Pian, E., Falomo, R., & Treves, A. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 919, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09216.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09216.x 2005

  30. [30]

    H., Fu J

    Poon, H., Fan, J. H., & Fu, J. N. 2009, ApJS, 185, 511, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/511

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/185/2/511 2009

  31. [31]

    J., Cotter G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1657 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.453.4070P 453, 4070

    Potter, W. J., & Cotter, G. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 4070, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1657

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1657 2015

  32. [32]

    M., Villata M., Acosta-Pulido J

    Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Acosta-Pulido, J. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 552, 374, doi: 10.1038/nature24623

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24623 2017

  33. [33]

    Z., Stalin, C

    Safna, P. Z., Stalin, C. S., Rakshit, S., & Mathew, B. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 3578, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2622

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2622 2020

  34. [34]

    A., Kirk J

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  35. [35]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    1973

  36. [36]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 247, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04072.x 14E

    Spada, M., Ghisellini, G., Lazzati, D., & Celotti, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1559, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04557.x 2001

  37. [37]

    M., Scarpa, R., O’Dowd, M., et al

    Urry, C. M., Scarpa, R., O’Dowd, M., et al. 2000, ApJ, 532, 816, doi: 10.1086/308616

    work page doi:10.1086/308616 2000

  38. [38]

    2003, ApJ, 590, 123, doi: 10.1086/374889

    Vagnetti, F., Trevese, D., & Nesci, R. 2003, ApJ, 590, 123, doi: 10.1086/374889

    work page doi:10.1086/374889 2003

  39. [39]

    S., Uttley P., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.345.1271V 345, 1271

    Vaughan, S., Edelson, R., Warwick, R. S., & Uttley, P. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1271, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2966.2003.07042.x 2003

  40. [40]

    M., Kurtanidze O

    Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Kurtanidze, O. M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 407, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020662

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020662 2002

  41. [41]

    M., Kurtanidze, O

    Villata, M., Raiteri, C. M., Kurtanidze, O. M., et al. 2004, A&A, 421, 103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035895

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20035895 2004

  42. [42]

    2007, AJ, 133, 1599, doi: 10.1086/511773

    Wu, J., Zhou, X., Ma, J., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1599, doi: 10.1086/511773

    work page doi:10.1086/511773 2007

  43. [43]

    2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 933, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/8/004

    Zhang, B.-K., Zhao, X.-Y., Wang, C.-X., & Dai, B.-Z. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 933, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/14/8/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-4527/14/8/004 2014

  44. [44]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 3699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae765

    Zhang, X., Xiong, D.-r., Gao, Q.-g., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3699, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae765

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae765 2024