Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

AT 2018dyk: tidal disruption event or active galactic nucleus? Follow-up observations of an extreme coronal line emitter with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2018dyk was a tidal disruption event in a gas-rich nucleus, not an AGN turning on.

desk verdict A useful, data-rich reanalysis of AT 2018dyk, but the paper's own WHAN numbers contradict the claim that the LINER is a retired galaxy, so the AGN turn-on interpretation is not fully killed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04080 v2 pith:3FA7YYSX submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.HE

Peter Clark , Joseph Callow , Or Graur , Claire Greenwell , Lei Hu , Jessica Aguilar , Steven Ahlen , Davide Bianchi
show 24 more authors
David Brooks Todd Claybaugh Kyle Dawson Axel de la Macorra Peter Doel Satya Gontcho A Gontcho Gaston Gutierrez Klaus Honscheid Stephanie Juneau Robert Kehoe Theodore Kisner Anthony Kremin Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel John Moustakas Ignasi Pérez-Ràfols Eusebio Sanchez Michael Schubnell David Sprayberry Gregory Tarlé Benjamin A.Weaver Hu Zou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsextremecoronallineemittersactivegalacticnucleichanging-lookLINERsmid-infraredtransientssupermassiveblackholesspectroscopicfollow-upWHANdiagnostic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to settle the classification of AT 2018dyk, a flare in the center of a galaxy that could be either a tidal disruption event (a star shredded by a supermassive black hole) or the sudden turn-on of an active galactic nucleus. Using a new spectrum taken more than five years after the outburst and spatially resolved archival spectroscopy of the host galaxy, the authors argue that the evidence points to a TDE inside a gas-rich nucleus. The surrounding material absorbed the transient's extreme-ultraviolet and X-ray light and re-emitted it as high-ionization iron coronal lines and a mid-infrared outburst, both of which have now faded. The host's pre-existing LINER emission is attributed to an old stellar population rather than a hidden AGN. If correct, the case makes AT 2018dyk another link between tidal disruption events and extreme coronal line emitters, and it sharpens the mid-infrared signatures that identify such events.

What carries the argument

Two analyses carry the argument. The first is a spectral-evolution comparison: a new fiber spectrum obtained five years after outburst is matched against the pre-outburst archival spectra using synthetic apertures of equal size, showing that the only residual differences are the strengthened oxygen lines, not an aperture artefact. The second is the WHAN diagnostic diagram, which separates weak AGN from evolved stellar populations using H-alpha line width and [NII]/H-alpha ratio; applied per-spaxel to the archival integral-field data cube, it classifies the nucleus as a 'retired galaxy', removing the need for an AGN to explain the LINER. The mid-infrared comparison uses infrared light curves and power-law fits to place AT 2018dyk among other coronal-line TDEs and TDE-linked ECLEs.

What would settle it

A deep X-ray or high-resolution radio observation of the host nucleus at quiescence would detect a persistent point source if a weak AGN is hiding there, and a clean non-detection would support the retired-galaxy interpretation. A second, independent test is whether the enhanced [OIII] emission is spatially extended on parsec scales, as a light echo would require; if the [OIII] is unresolved at the nucleus, the reprocessing story would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AT 2018dyk's evolution is fully consistent with a tidal disruption event in a gas-rich circumnuclear environment, and inconsistent with the AGN turn-on interpretation. The new post-outburst optical spectrum closely matches the pre-outburst spectrum, with the broad Balmer and helium lines and Fe coronal lines gone and the continuum restored; the only lasting changes are strengthened [OIII] 5007 Å and [OII] 3728 Å lines, which the paper interprets as a delayed response of distant gas to the transient. Spatially resolved host galaxy maps place the event in a 'retired galaxy' nucleus whose LINER emission comes from evolved stars, not a weak AGN. In the mid-infrared, the object underwent a single roughly 0.4 to 0.8 magnitude outburst, brighter in the longer-wavelength band, and returned to quiescence, matching the behavior of coronal-line TDEs but on a shorter and weaker scale. The paper also presents tentative evidence that among these TDEs, brighter mid-infrared outbursts peak at redder colors.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on the assumption that the host's nuclear LINER emission is produced by an old stellar population, not a weak AGN; if that assumption fails, the AGN turn-on scenario remains viable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AT 2018dyk becomes a clean example of a TDE in a LINER host whose nuclear emission is stellar in origin, so future surveys need not exclude such hosts as AGN contaminants.
  • Within the paper's comparison sample, brighter mid-infrared outbursts have redder peak colors, making the W1-W2 color change a possible proxy for the amount of circumnuclear material that reprocesses TDE flux.
  • The behavior places coronal-line TDEs and TDE-linked extreme coronal line emitters on a common continuum, with the same physical mechanism operating on very different timescales and amplitudes.
  • A spectrum taken years after a TDE should look like the pre-outburst spectrum plus enhanced [OIII] and [OII], giving observers a template for identifying past disruption events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the 'retired galaxy' classification holds, some other changing-look LINER transients in the literature may also be TDEs; re-examining their hosts with integral-field spectroscopy could shrink the CL-LINER class.
  • Editorial inference: The enhanced oxygen lines should behave as a light echo; mapping their spatial extent years after outburst would directly measure the gas distribution around the black hole and test the reprocessing chain.
  • Editorial inference: With the end of the wide-field infrared survey used here, the color-luminosity trend could be tested with new surveys; if confirmed, a single infrared color measurement would estimate the dust covering fraction of a TDE environment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a new DESI spectrum of the nuclear transient AT 2018dyk obtained 1873 d after optical peak, together with archival SDSS, MaNGA, ZTF, ATLAS, and WISE/NEOWISE data, to adjudicate between the TDE and AGN turn-on interpretations. The authors show that the post-outburst optical spectrum has returned to its pre-outburst state, with the exceptions of strengthened [OII] and [OIII] emission, and that no additional flaring has occurred over approximately 2000 days. They report a delayed, single-peaked MIR outburst with a power-law decline and a return to quiescent W1/W2 flux, and they compare these properties with a sample of coronal-line TDEs (CrL-TDEs), TDE-linked extreme coronal line emitters (TDE-ECLEs), AGN-ECLEs, and changing-look LINERs. Using MaNGA IFU data, they interpret the host galaxy's LINER emission as arising from an evolved stellar population on the basis of a WHAN 'retired galaxy' classification of the central spaxel, and they conclude that AT 2018dyk is a TDE occurring in a gas-rich circumnuclear environment. A secondary, explicitly tentative claim is a MIR colour-luminosity trend among CrL-TDEs.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper settles a disputed classification and reinforces the emerging picture in which TDEs occurring in gas-rich environments produce coronal Fe lines and delayed MIR dust echoes; it also adds another object to the small CrL-TDE census. The paper's strengths are its long temporal baseline (the new DESI spectrum 5+ years post-outburst), the careful aperture-matching analysis of the SDSS versus DESI fibre difference (Fig. 4), the use of the final NEOWISE-R data release, the systematic comparison against multiple transient classes, and the honest treatment of degeneracies in the MIR power-law fitting and of the small-number statistics behind the tentative colour-luminosity relation. Data availability via Zenodo is a plus. However, these strengths are weighed against an internal inconsistency in the WHAN classification of the host nucleus that is load-bearing for excluding the AGN turn-on interpretation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 3.5.2, Fig. 10C, Table C3] The WHAN classification reported for the central MaNGA spaxel is contradicted by the emission-line measurements reported in the same paper. Table C3 gives log10([Nii]/Ha) = 0.9 ± 0.2 for the MaNGA spectrum at -560 d, and Section 3.5.2 states that the central region hosting AT 2018dyk has Ha equivalent width 1.95 ± 0.05 Å. Under the WHAN criteria of Cid Fernandes et al. (2011), the wAGN/RG boundary is log([Nii]/Ha) ≈ -0.4: objects with log([Nii]/Ha) > -0.4 and 0.5 < EW(Ha) < 3 Å are classified as weak AGN (wAGN), not retired galaxies. The quoted values (0.9, 1.95 Å) place the central spaxel squarely in the wAGN region, so the claim of a 'clear RG classification' in the text and Fig. 10C cannot be correct under the standard WHAN definitions. Because Section 5's conclusion that 'the previously reported LINER emission signatures are the result of an evolved stellar population rather than underlying AGN activity' is a load-bearing step in excluding the AGN turn-on scenario of Frederick et al. (2019), this inconsistency must be resolved: either the classification map, the line measurements, or the interpretation of the WHAN boundary needs to be corrected. If the nucleus is instead a weak AGN, the AGN turn-on interpretation remains viable and the central claim is not secured by this line of evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables C1 and C2 vs Table 2] The Keck+LRIS spectrum is listed at phase +19 d in Table 2 and in the text of Section 3.1, but the captions of Tables C1 and C2 label the same spectrum as '+23 d', which is the phase of the LCOGT+FLOYDS spectrum; the phase labels should be made consistent.
  2. [Table B3] The object AT 2018gn is referred to as 'SN 2018gn' in the table rows and figure labels of Appendix B2, while it is called 'AT 2018gn' everywhere else in the paper, including Table 4 and Table 5; a single designation should be used throughout.
  3. [References] The reference list contains a duplicated entry: 'DESI Collaboration et al. 2024f' and 'DESI Collaboration et al. 2024g' have identical titles and DOIs (arXiv:2411.12022); one of these entries should be removed or corrected.
  4. [Section 2.1] The citation '(Levi et al. 2013; DESI Collaboration et al. 2016a,b; Collaboration et al. 2022, 2024)' omits 'DESI' before 'Collaboration' in the last two entries, which should read 'DESI Collaboration et al. 2022, 2024'.
  5. [Figure 14 caption] The caption contains typos: 'Not the scale difference' should be 'Note the scale difference', and 'compared the others' should be 'compared to the others'.
  6. [Section 3.1] The statement that Fe coronal line emission 'commenced 19 d following the peak of optical emission' overstates the constraint: the Keck spectrum at +19 d is simply the first observation in which the lines are detected, so they may have appeared earlier; 'were first detected 19 d following the optical peak' would be more accurate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TDE conclusion rests on independent multi-wavelength observations and host-galaxy data; only minor, non-load-bearing methodological self-citations appear.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that AT 2018dyk is a TDE in a gas-rich circumnuclear environment rather than an AGN turn-on—is supported by directly observed, independently measured quantities: broad Balmer and He lines appearing near peak and fading afterward, a t^-5/3 optical decline (from Huang et al. 2023), a single non-repeating photometric outburst in ATLAS/ZTF, delayed X-ray emission, coronal Fe lines whose high ionization potentials demand a previously absent hard continuum, a MIR outburst with delayed peak and return to quiescence, and host-galaxy analysis from archival MaNGA data. None of these inputs is defined in terms of the TDE conclusion, and the reasoning does not reduce to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The power-law decline fits and MIR colour-luminosity relation are presented as empirical characterizations of the comparison sample, not as predictions derived from the assumption that AT 2018dyk is a TDE. Several citations are to prior work with overlapping authorship (Clark et al. 2024; Callow et al. 2024, 2025), but they are used for reduction/analysis conventions and as comparison templates; the TDE identification does not depend on a uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from those papers. The WHAN classification of the central MaNGA spaxel is the weakest evidentiary step, and the skeptic's point that the quoted line ratios may be inconsistent with a 'retired galaxy' label is an internal consistency or classification concern, not a circular one: the conclusion would be weakened if the classification is wrong, but it is not derived from the conclusion. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained against external archival data and independent template objects, with only minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends mainly on standard observational assumptions and prior classifications. The only ad hoc assumption is the WHAN-based attribution of the LINER to evolved stars, which is load-bearing for rejecting the AGN interpretation. The fitted parameters are secondary, used for MIR characterization and comparison rather than for the TDE classification itself.

free parameters (4)
  • MIR peak time offset = 100 days before observed WISE peak
    Assumed for power-law fitting of CrL-TDEs because WISE cadence cannot constrain the true peak; changing it by 50 d shifts derived power-law indices by ~23% (Section 3.4.1).
  • MIR power-law fit parameters (A, B, C) = e.g., AT 2018dyk W1: A=690±125, B=-1.25±0.04, C=4.67±0.01 mJy; W2 free: A=329±38, B=-1.02±0.03, C=2.58±0.02 mJy…
    Fitted to NEOWISE light curves following Dou et al. (2016) and Clark et al. (2024); indices are compared to accretion models but are not essential to the TDE identification.
  • Quadratic fit coefficients for ΔW2 vs ΔW1 = a=-0.18, b=0.70, c=-0.48
    Fitted to four CrL-TDE data points to describe the nonlinear W2 vs W1 relation; not statistically significant (Section 4.2).
  • Linear fit slope/intercept for Δ(W1-W2) vs ΔW2 = m=-0.25, c=0.19
    Fitted to four data points; p=0.13, so the colour-luminosity relation is tentative (Section 4.2).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard flat LCDM cosmology with H0=73 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M=0.27, Omega_L=0.73
    Used to compute luminosities and distances; stated in Section 1.
  • domain assumption Kormendy & Ho (2013) scaling relation between stellar velocity dispersion and SMBH mass
    Used to estimate SMBH mass from MaNGA velocity dispersion (Section 3.5.2).
  • domain assumption Fe coronal lines require an extreme-UV/soft X-ray continuum with photon energies exceeding ~100 eV
    Standard atomic physics; used to argue the X-ray flare powered the coronal lines (Section 1).
  • domain assumption WISE AGN color classification cuts (Stern et al. 2012; Mateos et al. 2012) correctly separate AGN from non-AGN in the mid-infrared
    Used to rule out AGN activity in AT 2018dyk's host (Sections 3.4, 3.5).
  • ad hoc to paper The WHAN diagram classification of the central MaNGA spaxel (retired galaxy) correctly identifies the LINER emission as produced by evolved stars rather than a weak AGN
    This is the load-bearing assumption behind excluding the AGN turn-on scenario (Section 3.5.2).
  • domain assumption Prior classifications of comparison objects (TDE-ECLEs, CrL-TDEs) from the literature are correct
    The comparison sample is drawn from published classifications; if some are misclassified, the MIR trends could change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AT 2018dyk: tidal disruption event or active galactic nucleus? Follow-up observations of an extreme coronal line emitter with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FA7YYSX

@misc{pith2026250204080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AT 2018dyk: tidal disruption event or active galactic nucleus? Follow-up observations of an extreme coronal line emitter with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FA7YYSX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04080}
}
read the original abstract

We present fresh insights into the nature of the tidal disruption event (TDE) candidate AT 2018dyk. AT 2018dyk has sparked a debate in the literature around its classification as either a bona-fide TDE or as an active galactic nucleus (AGN) turn-on state change. A new follow-up spectrum taken with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, in combination with host-galaxy analysis using archival SDSS-MaNGA data, supports the identification of AT 2018dyk as a TDE. Specifically, we classify this object as a TDE that occurred within a gas-rich environment, which was responsible for both its mid-infrared (MIR) outburst and development of Fe coronal emission lines. Comparison with the known sample of TDE-linked extreme coronal line emitters (TDE-ECLEs) and other TDEs displaying coronal emission lines (CrL-TDEs) reveals similar characteristics and shared properties. For example, the MIR properties of both groups appear to form a continuum with links to the content and density of the material in their local environments. This includes evidence for a MIR colour-luminosity relationship in TDEs occurring within such gas-rich environments, with those with larger MIR outbursts also exhibiting redder peaks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A visual summary of the available observations of AT 2018dyk. Additional optical spectra displaying typical TDE-like evolution and broad features exist between the LCOGT+FLOYDS spectrum and the DCT spectrum. All show similar coronal and other emission features. As these have not been made available publicly, we do not utilise them further in this work. Two observations of HST UV spectra were also obtained at phases … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectroscopic evolution of AT 2018dyk with observations from 16 yr before and more than 5 yr following optical peak. Top Panel: Comparison between the normalised fibre and long slit spectra of AT 2018dyk showing the emergence and subsequent fading of broad H and He features along with Fe coronal lines. The MaNGA spectrum shown here is from the local region of AT 2018dyk and consists of one spaxel (31,31). The phase … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Emission line evolution of AT 2018dyk across the full range of spectral observations. Spectral normalisation and scaling is shared along rows with all spectra first normalised and then scaled to the mean of a local region clear of spectral features: A&B scaled to the 3650 – 3700 Å region, C&D scaled to the 4900 – 4950 Å region, and E&F scaled to the 6400 – 6500 Å region. All selected scaling regions are free from sp… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the synthetic aperture spectra generated from the MaNGA observation and configured to match the fibre sizes of the SDSS Legacy survey and DESI observation. The overall extent of the MaNGA data is shown by the outer purple hexagon, with the regions us…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between the Keck+LRIS spectrum (obtained 19 d following optical peak) to a range of comparison objects. The AT 2018dyk spectrum shows similar coronal line features as those seen in the CrL-TDE AT 2017gge and in the ECLE templates (composite spectra obtained …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: ZTF forced photometry difference light curves for AT 2018dyk. Upper limits for non-detections are shown by empty triangles. Late time detections are likely spurious as evidenced by their erratic nature and deeper proximal upper detection limits. Bottom: ATLAS diff…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top left: Relative change in W1 compared to observed W1 peak. Top Right: Relative change in W2 compared to observed W2 peak. Bottom left: W1–W2 colour evolution. The dashed horizontal line shown is the AGN/non-AGN dividing line from Stern et al. (2012). Objects with a …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AllWISE colour-colour plot showing AT 2018dyk (black cross) in comparison to the known sample of TDE-ECLEs (diamonds) and CrL-TDEs (circles). Whilst two epochs of data are included for AT 2018dyk, they overlap due to the lack of variability during this time. Regions ha…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Comparison between the maximum change in W1 and W2 between AT 2018dyk (black circle) and a range of comparison objects. Dashed black line shows a 1-to-1 relation. Dotted line shows the orthogonal distance regression (ODR) best fitting quadratic for the CL-TDEs ex…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A: SDSS gri composite image of SDSS J1533+4432. Hexagonal outline displays the footprint of the MaNGA IFU data. B: Per spaxel combined BPT diagram of SDSS J1533+4432. Colour intensity indicates the SNR of the included emission lines in three bins at SNRs of 1, 3, and …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Compiled mass estimates for the SMBH at the centre of AT 2018dyk’s host galaxy. Data collated from Frederick et al. (2019), Huang et al. (2023), and this work. Note that the error bars reflect measurement uncertainties (where available) only and do not include any sta…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: [O ii] 3726+3728 Å doublet line region in velocity space relative to the expected rest position of [O ii] 3728 Å. The relative intensity of the feature drops during outburst before increasing in strength, exceeding the relative intensity of the feature prior to …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fit to the [O iii] 5007Å emission line in the DESI spectrum of AT 2018dyk. by Newsome et al. (2024), indicating similar complexities in the gas structure close to the SMBH. However, the distances determined here for the line formation in AT 2018dyk are larger than tho…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Virial distance estimates for the formation location of the measured narrow emission lines based on their FWHM velocities. Note the scale difference between the lines observed in the Keck spectrum compared the others. This difference is the result of several of the li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Insights from the "Red devil" AT 2022fpx: A Dust-reddened Family of Tidal Disruption Events Excluded by Their Apparent Red Color?

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A persistently red nuclear transient that resembles a TDE, together with UV-inclusive SED fits of four known TDEs, indicates the blue-color selection test biases the optical TDE census and blackbody-based TDE energies...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    Akaike H., 1974, @doi [IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control] 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 , 19, 716

    arXiv 1974

  3. [3]

    D., Wieringa M

    Alexander K. D., Wieringa M. H., Berger E., Saxton R. D., Komossa S., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192 , 837, 153

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6192 2017

  4. [4]

    Antonucci R., 1993, @doi [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev.aa.31.090193.002353 , 31, 473

    arXiv 1993

  5. [5]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38 , 793, 38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  6. [6]

    Arcavi I., et al., 2018, The Astronomer's Telegram, 11953, 1

    2018

  7. [7]

    J., Stern D., Noirot G., Jun H

    Assef R. J., Stern D., Noirot G., Jun H. D., Cutri R. M., Eisenhardt P. R. M., 2018, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa00a , 234, 23

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa00a 2018

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , 558, A33

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , 156, 123

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , 935, 167

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Auchettl K., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b , 838, 149

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Bade N., Komossa S., Dahlem M., 1996, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 309, L35

    1996

  5. [13]

    A., Phillips M

    Baldwin J. A., Phillips M. M., Terlevich R., 1981, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/130766 , 93, 5

    1981 doi

  6. [14]

    H., White R

    Becker R. H., White R. L., Helfand D. J., 1994, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems III, A.S.P. Conference Series, 61, 165

    1994

  7. [15]

    Belfiore F., et al., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3e4e , 158, 160

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    C., 2014, Proceedings of the Third Hot-Wiring the Transient Universe Workshop

    Bellm E. C., 2014, Proceedings of the Third Hot-Wiring the Transient Universe Workshop

    2014

  9. [17]

    C., et al., 2019, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , 131, 18002

    Bellm E. C., et al., 2019, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe , 131, 18002

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Biswas P., Wadadekar Y., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ee3 , 970, 83

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Bundy K., et al., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7 , 798, 7

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Callow J., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae2384 , 535, 1095

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Callow J., et al., 2025, The Rate of Extreme Coronal Line Emitters in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey LOWZ Sample, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2501.14022

    2025 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    K., Gehrels N., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1047 , 700, 1047

    Cannizzo J. K., Gehrels N., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1047 , 700, 1047

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    K., Lee H

    Cannizzo J. K., Lee H. M., Goodman J., 1990, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/168442 , 351, 38

    1990 doi

  16. [24]

    K., Troja E., Lodato G., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/32 , 742, 32

    Cannizzo J. K., Troja E., Lodato G., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/742/1/32 , 742, 32

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Chakraborty J., et al., 2025, Discovery of Quasi-periodic Eruptions in the Tidal Disruption Event and Extreme Coronal Line Emitter AT2022upj : Implications for the QPE / TDE Fraction and a Connection to ECLEs ( @eprint arXiv 2503.19013 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19013

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Charalampopoulos P., et al., 2022, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142122 , 659, A34

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Cherinka B., et al., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2634 , 158, 74

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., Schoenell W., Sodr \'e L., (the SEAGal collaboration) 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x , 403, 1036

    Cid Fernandes R., Stasi \'n ska G., Schlickmann M. S., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., Schoenell W., Sodr \'e L., (the SEAGal collaboration) 2010, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.16185.x , 403, 1036

    2010

  21. [29]

    Cid Fernandes R., Stasi \'n ska G., Mateus A., Vale Asari N., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18244.x , 413, 1687

    2011

  22. [30]

    Clark P., et al., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae460 , 528, 7076

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Hu L., al e., 2025, Zenodo

    Clark P., Callow J., Graur O., Greenwell C. L., Hu L., al e., 2025, Zenodo

    2025

  24. [32]

    Collaboration DESI ., et al., 2022, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b , 164, 207

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Collaboration DESI ., et al., 2024, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217 , 168, 58

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb2ae , 901, 159

    Comerford J. M., et al., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb2ae , 901, 159

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016a, The DESI Experiment Part I : Science , Targeting , and Survey Design , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016b, The DESI Experiment Part II : Instrument Design , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037

    doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024a, DESI 2024 II : Sample Definitions , Characteristics , and Two-point Clustering Statistics , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12020

    2024 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024b, DESI 2024 III : Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Galaxies and Quasars , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03000

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024c, DESI 2024 IV : Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from the Lyman Alpha Forest , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03001

    2024 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024d, DESI 2024 V : Full-Shape Galaxy Clustering from Galaxies and Quasars , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12021

    2024 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024e, DESI 2024 VI : Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03002

    2024 doi arXiv

  34. [43]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024g, DESI 2024 VII : Cosmological Constraints from the Full-Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12022

    2024 doi arXiv

  35. [44]

    Dom \'i nguez S \'a nchez H., Margalef B., Bernardi M., Huertas-Company M., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stab3089 , 509, 4024

    2022 doi

  36. [45]

    Dou L., Wang T.-g., Jiang N., Yang C., Lyu J., Zhou H., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/188 , 832, 188

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    M., Mainzer A., Peng B., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7130 , 841, L8

    Dou L., Wang T., Yan L., Jiang N., Yang C., Cutri R. M., Mainzer A., Peng B., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7130 , 841, L8

    2017 doi

  38. [47]

    Earl N., et al., 2024, Astropy/Specutils: V1.15.0, Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.11099077

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    R., Kochanek C

    Evans C. R., Kochanek C. S., 1989, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/185567 , 346, L13

    1989 doi

  40. [49]

    L., Stanek K

    Falco E., Calkins M., Prieto J. L., Stanek K. Z., 2018, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2018--81, 1

    2018

  41. [50]

    Faris S., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72 , 969, 104

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    Fischer J.-L., Dom \'i nguez S \'a nchez H., Bernardi M., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/sty3135 , 483, 2057

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    L., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316293 , 111, 63

    Fitzpatrick E. L., 1999, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/316293 , 111, 63

    1999 doi

  44. [53]

    Frederick S., et al., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38 , 883, 31

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    Fremling C., 2023, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2023--1230, 1

    2023

  46. [55]

    D., Arcavi I., Zabludoff A., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/l21 , 818, L21

    French K. D., Arcavi I., Zabludoff A., 2016, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/l21 , 818, L21

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    D., Zahid H

    Graur O., French K. D., Zahid H. J., Guillochon J., Mandel K. S., Auchettl K., Zabludoff A. I., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fd , 853, 39

    2018 doi

  48. [57]

    Guy J., et al., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 , 165, 144

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    Hahn C., et al., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 , 165, 253

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    Hammerstein E., et al., 2023a, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283 , 942, 9

    doi

  51. [60]

    Hammerstein E., et al., 2023b, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb84 , 957, 86

    doi

  52. [61]

    G., 1975, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/254295a0 , 254, 295

    Hills J. G., 1975, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/254295a0 , 254, 295

    1975 doi

  53. [62]

    T., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1229 , 531, 2603

    Hinkle J. T., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1229 , 531, 2603

    2024 doi

  54. [63]

    T., Holoien T

    Hinkle J. T., Holoien T. W.-S., Shappee Benjamin . J., Auchettl K., 2021, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe4d8 , 910, 83

    2021 doi

  55. [64]

    T., Shappee B

    Hinkle J. T., Shappee B. J., Holoien T. W. S., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae022 , 528, 4775

    2024 doi

  56. [65]

    Huang S., Jiang N., Lin Z., Zhu J., Wang T., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2541 , 525, 4057

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    I., Thuan T

    Izotov Y. I., Thuan T. X., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/1560 , 707, 1560

    2009 doi

  58. [67]

    Kelsey L., et al., 2021, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa3924 , 501, 4861

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    Koljonen K. I. I., et al., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stae1466 , 532, 112

    2024 doi

  60. [69]

    Komossa S., et al., 2008, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/588281 , 678, L13

    2008 doi

  61. [70]

    Komossa S., et al., 2009, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/105 , 701, 105

    2009 doi

  62. [71]

    C., 2013, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , 51, 511

    Kormendy J., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [ARA&A] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811 , 51, 511

    2013 doi

  63. [72]

    Krolik J., Piran T., Ryu T., 2025, Follow the Mass -- A Concordance Picture of Tidal Disruption Events ( @eprint arXiv 2409.02894 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02894

    2025 doi arXiv

  64. [73]

    H., Townes C

    Lacy J. H., Townes C. H., Hollenbach D. J., 1982, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/160402 , 262, 120

    1982 doi

  65. [74]

    L., Foley R

    Law-Smith J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., Ellison S. L., Foley R. J., 2017, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94c7 , 850, 22

    2017 doi

  66. [75]

    Levi M., et al., 2013, The DESI Experiment , a Whitepaper for Snowmass 2013 ( @eprint arXiv 1308.0847 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    2013 doi arXiv

  67. [76]

    Li J., Wang Z.-X., Zheng D., Zhang J.-J., Zhu L.-T., Chen Z.-Y., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acae6f , 23, 025012

    2023 doi

  68. [77]

    M., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x , 410, 359

    Lodato G., Rossi E. M., 2011, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17448.x , 410, 359

    2011

  69. [78]

    I., Babul A., Hoekstra H., Mahdavi A., Donahue M., Bildfell C., Voit G

    Loubser S. I., Babul A., Hoekstra H., Mahdavi A., Donahue M., Bildfell C., Voit G. M., 2016, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stv2784 , 456, 1565

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2014, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30 , 792, 30

    2014 doi

  71. [80]

    Malyali A., et al., 2021, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039681 , 647, A9

    2021 doi

  72. [81]

    J., et al., 2023, A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279

    Masci F. J., et al., 2023, A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279

    2023 doi arXiv

  73. [82]

    Masterson M., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb , 961, 211

    2024 doi

  74. [83]

    Mateos S., et al., 2012, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21843.x , 426, 3271

    2012

  75. [84]

    Mummery A., van Velzen S., Nathan E., Ingram A., Hammerstein E., Fraser-Taliente L., Balbus S., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3001 , 527, 2452

    2024 doi

  76. [85]

    Nagao T., Taniguchi Y., Murayama T., 2000, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/301411 , 119, 2605

    2000 doi

  77. [86]

    Netzer H., 2015, @doi [Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122302 , 53, 365

    2015 doi

  78. [87]

    Neustadt J. M. M., et al., 2020, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/staa859 , 494, 2538

    2020 doi

  79. [88]

    Neustadt J. M. M., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad725 , 521, 3810

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    Newsome M., Arcavi I., Dgany Y., Pellegrino C., 2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 236, 1

    2022

  81. [90]

    Newsome M., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a69 , 977, 258

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2019, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stz1837 , 488, 1878

    2019 doi

  83. [92]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2024, Quasi-Periodic X-ray Eruptions Years after a Nearby Tidal Disruption Event, @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02181

    2024 doi arXiv

  84. [93]

    B., et al., 1995, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/133562 , 107, 375

    Oke J. B., et al., 1995, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/133562 , 107, 375

    1995 doi

  85. [94]

    Onori F., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac2673 , 517, 76

    2022 doi

  86. [95]

    S., Stalin C

    Paliya V. S., Stalin C. S., Dom \'i nguez A., Saikia D. J., 2024, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad3650 , 527, 7055

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    Pessi T., et al., 2023, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346512 , 677, A28

    2023 doi

  88. [97]

    S., 1989, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/340595a0 , 340, 595

    Phinney E. S., 1989, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/340595a0 , 340, 595

    1989 doi

  89. [98]

    M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , 806, 164

    Piran T., Svirski G., Krolik J., Cheng R. M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , 806, 164

    2015 doi

  90. [99]

    M., Barbaro G., 1997, @doi [A&A] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703067 , 325, 1025

    Poggianti B. M., Barbaro G., 1997, @doi [A&A] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9703067 , 325, 1025

    1997 doi arXiv

  91. [100]

    J., 1988, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/333523a0 , 333, 523

    Rees M. J., 1988, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/333523a0 , 333, 523

    1988 doi

  92. [101]

    Ryu T., Krolik J., Piran T., 2020, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abbf4d , 904, 73

    2020 doi

  93. [102]

    Salim S., 2014, @doi [Serb Astron J] 10.2298/SAJ1489001S , pp 1--14

    2014 doi

  94. [103]

    Salim S., et al., 2016, @doi [ApJS] 10.3847/0067-0049/227/1/2 , 227, 2

    2016 doi

  95. [104]

    C., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c , 859, 11

    Salim S., Boquien M., Lee J. C., 2018, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c , 859, 11

    2018 doi

  96. [105]

    F., Finkbeiner D

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

    2011 doi

  97. [106]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , 166, 259

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2023, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , 166, 259

    2023 doi

  98. [107]

    Shingles L., et al., 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  99. [108]

    J., Yaron O., 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024--3255, 1

    Shitrit N., Mohsen S., Keinan I., Katz T., Moore T., Bruch R. J., Yaron O., 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024--3255, 1

    2024

  100. [109]

    Short P., et al., 2023, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stad2270 , 525, 1568

    2023 doi

  101. [110]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , 146

    Smee S. A., et al., 2013, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , 146

    2013 doi

  102. [111]

    Smith N., et al., 2009, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1334 , 695, 1334

    2009 doi

  103. [112]

    W., et al., 2020, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e , 132, 85002

    Smith K. W., et al., 2020, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e , 132, 85002

    2020 doi

  104. [113]

    J., Ravi V., Dong D., Graham M., Hallinan G., Law C., Lu W., Myers S

    Somalwar J. J., Ravi V., Dong D., Graham M., Hallinan G., Law C., Lu W., Myers S. T., 2022, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5e29 , 929, 184

    2022 doi

  105. [114]

    Somalwar J. J., et al., 2023, VLASS Tidal Disruption Events with Optical Flares I : The Sample and a Comparison to Optically-Selected TDEs ( @eprint arXiv 2310.03791 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03791

    2023 doi arXiv

  106. [115]

    Stern D., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30 , 753, 30

    2012 doi

  107. [116]

    Stritzinger M., et al., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/173 , 756, 173

    2012 doi

  108. [117]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , 130, 64505

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2018, @doi [PASP] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , 130, 64505

    2018 doi

  109. [118]

    Ulmer A., 1999, @doi [ApJ] 10.1086/306909 , 514, 180

    1999 doi

  110. [119]

    M., 1997, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445 , 35, 445

    Ulrich M.-H., Maraschi L., Urry C. M., 1997, @doi [Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1146/annurev.astro.35.1.445 , 35, 445

    1997 doi

  111. [120]

    A., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac635 , 512, 2222

    V \'a zquez-Mata J. A., et al., 2022, @doi [MNRAS] 10.1093/mnras/stac635 , 512, 2222

    2022 doi

  112. [121]

    M., et al., 2024, Back from the Dead: AT2019aalc as a Candidate Repeating TDE in an AGN ( @eprint arXiv 2408.17419 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    Veres P. M., et al., 2024, Back from the Dead: AT2019aalc as a Candidate Repeating TDE in an AGN ( @eprint arXiv 2408.17419 ), @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    2024 doi

  113. [122]

    Wang T.-G., Zhou H.-Y., Wang L.-F., Lu H.-L., Xu D., 2011, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/85 , 740, 85

    2011 doi

  114. [123]

    Wang T.-G., Zhou H.-Y., Komossa S., Wang H.-Y., Yuan W., Yang C., 2012, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/115 , 749, 115

    2012 doi

  115. [124]

    Wang Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4 , 966, 136

    2024 doi

  116. [125]

    B., et al., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab44a2 , 158, 231

    Westfall K. B., et al., 2019, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ab44a2 , 158, 231

    2019 doi

  117. [126]

    Wiseman P., et al., 2023, Multiwavelength Observations of the Extraordinary Accretion Event AT2021lwx

    2023

  118. [127]

    Wiseman P., et al., 2025, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staf116

    2025 doi

  119. [128]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [AJ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  120. [129]

    Yan R., et al., 2016, @doi [AJ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/197 , 152, 197

    2016 doi

  121. [130]

    Yang C.-W., Wang T.-G., Ferland G., Yuan W., Zhou H.-Y., Jiang P., 2013, @doi [ApJ] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46 , 774, 46

    2013 doi

  122. [131]

    Yao Y., et al., 2023, Tidal Disruption Event Demographics with the Zwicky Transient Facility : Volumetric Rates , Luminosity Function , and Implications for the Local Black Hole Mass Function , @doi 10.48550/arXiv.2303.06523

    2023 doi arXiv

  123. [132]

    Yaron O., Gal-Yam A., 2012, @doi [PASP] 10.1086/666656 , 124, 668

    2012 doi

  124. [133]

    G., et al., 2000, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/301513 , 120, 1579

    York D. G., et al., 2000, @doi [AJ] 10.1086/301513 , 120, 1579

    2000 doi

  125. [134]

    Young D., 2024, Plot\_atlas\_fp.Py, Zenodo, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.10978969

    2024 doi

  126. [135]

    C., Metzger B

    van Velzen S., Stone N. C., Metzger B. D., Gezari S., Brown T. M., Fruchter A. S., 2019, @doi [ApJ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844 , 878, 82

    2019 doi

  127. [136]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.