Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

New Gaia diagram separates cataclysmic variables from ordinary background stars using only Gaia's own spectra and brightness.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:31 UTC pith:3PBXR66I

load-bearing objection Genuinely new Gaia-XP CV selection tool, clearly presented, but its completeness claim is weakened by training-set recall and a numbers mismatch. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28736 v1 pith:3PBXR66I submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Cataclysmic variables from Gaia XP spectra: The Gaia emission-line magnitude (GEM) diagram

Ilkham Galiullin , Vladislav Dodon , Antonio C. Rodriguez , Askar Sibgatullin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords cataclysmic variablesGaia DR3XP spectraH-alpha emissionpseudo-equivalent widthwhite dwarf binariesstellar populationsvolume-limited survey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper introduces the Gaia Emission-line Magnitude (GEM) diagram, which plots extinction-corrected absolute magnitude against a pseudo-Gaussian equivalent width of the H-alpha line derived from low-resolution Gaia XP spectra. The claim is that cataclysmic variables—white dwarfs accreting from a companion star—occupy a distinct region of this plane, separated from white dwarfs, hot subdwarfs, and white-dwarf plus M-dwarf binaries. An empirical broken-line boundary selects CV candidates. Applied to a volume-limited 250 pc sample, it recovers 48 of 50 known CVs and flags three new candidates supported by X-ray and optical variability. If it generalizes, it provides an all-sky, purely Gaia-based census of these binaries before any ground-based follow-up.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the H-alpha line-strength proxy, pgEW_Ha, computed by approximating the line as a Gaussian in the low-resolution Gaia XP spectra and dividing by the local continuum, cleanly separates CVs from background populations when paired with absolute magnitude. Known CVs form two clumps—bright nova-like variables with weak emission and fainter dwarf novae with strong emission—while background populations fall below an empirical boundary. The paper defines this boundary as pgEW_cut = 2.6*M_G0 - 15 for M_G0 >= 5.8 and 0 otherwise; sources above it are CV candidates. As a proof of concept, a blind search within 250 pc yields 62 candidates, of which 48 are known CVs (missing

What carries the argument

The GEM diagram is a two-dimensional diagnostic plotting the extinction-corrected absolute Gaia G-band magnitude (M_G0) against the pseudo-Gaussian equivalent width of H-alpha (pgEW_Ha), a line-strength proxy obtained by fitting a Gaussian profile to the H-alpha feature in the low-resolution XP spectra. The selection line is a broken line with slope 2.6 for M_G0 >= 5.8 and zero below. The diagram works because CV H-alpha emission is strong and their absolute magnitudes place them below the main sequence, whereas white dwarfs and hot subdwarfs show absorption, and WD+MS binaries produce weak pseudo-emission from TiO molecular bands that mostly falls below the line.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical selection line is calibrated on 137 known CVs heavily weighted toward dwarf novae and nova-likes, and the recovery test reuses many of those same systems; if the broader CV population sits elsewhere in the diagram, the line will miss them.

What would settle it

Run the identical selection on a volume-limited sample beyond 250 pc, or on a catalog enriched in polars, intermediate polars, low-accretion-rate polars, and novae, and count how many known CVs fall below the line; a missed fraction substantially larger than the 2-of-50 seen here would show the boundary is tuned to the calibration sample rather than to the CV population as a whole.

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

If this is right

  • Selection of CV candidates from Gaia data alone becomes possible on an all-sky scale, before any ground-based spectroscopy.
  • The same diagram can be applied to the entire Gaia catalog and future data releases to map emission-line star populations across the Milky Way.
  • Combining the GEM diagram with Gaia variability flags concentrates the sample toward secure CV candidates (44 of 62 candidates are variable).
  • The spatial separation of nova-like variables from dwarf novae suggests the diagram carries information about accretion state, not just candidacy.
  • The method provides a statistical framework that can be merged with upcoming photometric surveys for coordinated follow-up.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the boundary is applied beyond 250 pc or to fainter magnitudes, the fixed slope of 2.6 may require recalibration because the background white-dwarf and WD+MS loci shift with distance and extinction.
  • The three new candidates show M-dwarf features, so they could be active binaries rather than genuine CVs; the paper's own caution about TiO pseudo-emission implies a clear spectroscopic test separating accretion from chromospheric activity.
  • The same pseudo-equivalent-width proxy could be applied to other Balmer or helium lines in XP spectra, potentially separating CV subclasses that are underrepresented in the calibration sample, such as magnetic CVs and low-accretion-rate polars.
  • A cleaner test of the boundary's generality would be to re-run it on a volume-limited sample beyond 250 pc, independent of the calibration sample, to see whether the missed fraction remains as low as 2 in 50.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Gaia Emission-line Magnitude (GEM) diagram, plotting extinction-corrected absolute magnitude M_G0 against a pseudo-Gaussian equivalent width of Hα (pgEW_Hα) derived from Gaia XP spectra. Using samples of known CVs and background populations (hot subdwarfs, white dwarfs, WD+MS binaries), the authors define an empirical broken-line selection boundary (Eq. 6) that is intended to separate Hα-emitting CV candidates from contaminants. As a proof of concept, they apply this boundary to a volume-limited 250 pc sample and report recovering 48 known CVs, missing two, and identifying three new CV candidates with supporting X-ray and optical variability evidence. The paper concludes that the GEM diagram provides a useful all-sky framework for CV candidate selection prior to spectroscopic follow-up.

Significance. If the claimed separation is robust, the GEM diagram would be a genuinely useful diagnostic: it exploits Gaia XP spectra on an all-sky scale, is simple to compute, and could significantly improve the efficiency of CV candidate selection compared with color-only methods. The three new candidates with X-ray and ZTF follow-up are a positive proof-of-concept element. However, the current evidence for the selection boundary's generality is weaker than the paper's completeness language suggests. The line is calibrated on the same known CVs later used to measure recovery, the calibration sample is small and subtype-biased, and the reported recovery numbers are internally inconsistent. These issues bear directly on the paper's central claim that the method 'recovers known CVs' and must be addressed before the quantitative completeness statements can be accepted. The qualitative population separation on the GEM diagram itself appears well supported by the figures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1–4.2, Eq. (6)] The selection boundary in Eq. (6) is fitted in Sec. 4.1 to the distribution of 137 known CVs, and the same boundary is then applied in Sec. 4.2 to a 250 pc sample that contains many of those same systems. The reported recovery ('48 known CVs, missed only two') is therefore a training-set recall, not an independent predictive test. This circularity undermines the central completeness claim. Please provide a held-out validation: for example, exclude all CVs inside 250 pc from the calibration sample before defining Eq. (6), or perform cross-validation, and report recovery on the genuinely unseen systems.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 vs. App. B] The recovery counts are internally inconsistent. Sec. 4.2 states that 48 known CVs are recovered and 2 are missed, implying 50 known CVs in the 250 pc sample. Appendix B, however, reports that a SIMBAD cross-match of the full 4207-object 250 pc sample yields 44 known CVs, with 2 below the selection line. These numbers cannot both be correct. Please reconcile the two counts, clarify whether the 44 SIMBAD objects include the 5 additional systems found by manual VizieR inspection, and report a single consistent set of totals for known CVs above and below the line.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 4] The calibration sample is small and heavily dominated by dwarf novae (60) and nova-like variables (50), with only 16 magnetic CVs, 2 LARPs, and 1 nova. The boundary at M_G0 ≥ 5.8 is effectively set by the dwarf-nova locus, while Fig. 4 shows that LARPs and the nova fall near the WD+MS binary region where the boundary is least constrained. It is therefore not established that Eq. (6) generalizes to under-represented CV subtypes or to other magnitude ranges. Please quantify the subtype completeness of the recovered sample and test the boundary on an independent, subtype-balanced set, or explicitly restrict the claims to the subtypes actually represented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The text says the factor 1.25 'derives from' the numerical value of sqrt(2π)/2 ≈ 1.25; sqrt(2π)/2 ≈ 1.2533, so the exact value used should be stated for reproducibility.
  2. [Table 1] The column header 'Gaia Var. Flag' is split across lines, making the table harder to read. Also, the meaning of '–' for variability is given in the footnote, but it would help to state 'NOT AVAILABLE' in the table itself or use a more explicit symbol.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The selection criterion is given as (pgEW_Hα + pgEW_err) ≥ pgEW_cut, but Eq. (6) defines only pgEW_cut. Please state explicitly that the upper error bar is used to avoid missing faint candidates, and discuss how this choice affects the false-positive rate.
  4. [App. B] The footnote about Gaia DR3 1111086122258605952 (a SIMBAD CV reclassified as a WD) should clarify whether this object is included in the 44 or 48 known-CV counts. The current text leaves the reader unsure how the exclusion affects the totals.
  5. [Global] No data or code availability statement is provided. Given that the pgEW pipeline and the 250 pc candidate table are central to the paper, making the GaiaXPy-based code and the candidate table publicly available would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

GEM selection boundary is calibrated on known CVs, then the 250 pc 'recovery' of those same CVs is reported as a prediction; completeness claim is training-set recall.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Eq. 6) and Section 4.2 (Proof of concept)]
    "We empirically define a boundary (a broken line) in the GEM diagram to capture the majority of true CV candidates while filtering out contaminants. This empirical selection line is defined as: pgEW cut Hα = {2.6×M G0 −15, for M G0 ≥5.8; 0, for M G0 <5.8 (6)"

    The boundary is fitted to the 137 known CVs in Section 4.1 that pass the pgEW significance cut; the paper states it is 'empirically define[d]' to 'capture the majority of true CV candidates'. In Section 4.2 the same cut is applied to a 250 pc sample that contains many of those calibrators (same G<17.5 and Gaia quality criteria; Table 1 lists familiar known CVs), and the paper then reports 'our empirical selection line missed only two known CVs'. This is a training-set recall, not a predictive test: the line was placed below the calibrating CVs, so recovering them is forced by construction. The completeness claim is further undermined by the paper's own Appendix B, which finds 44 known CVs in the 4207-object sample, not the 50 implied by 48 recovered + 2 missed.

full rationale

The GEM diagram as a descriptive mapping is not circular: it plots independently cataloged CVs and background populations in a new (M_G0, pgEW_Hα) plane. The circularity is in the subsequent validation. Equation 6 is explicitly an empirical boundary 'to capture the majority of true CV candidates' from the 137 known CVs in Figure 4; the Section 4.2 'proof of concept' then applies this same boundary to a volume-limited sample that contains many of the same calibrating systems and counts how many of them lie above the line. The claim 'missed only two known CVs' is therefore a recall statistic on the training set, not an out-of-sample prediction. The calibration set is dominated by dwarf novae (60) and nova-likes (50), with only 16 magnetic CVs, 2 LARPs and 1 nova, so the boundary's ability to generalize to the full CV population is untested; Figure 4 shows the rare subtypes near the WD+MS region where the line is most uncertain. In addition, the paper's recovery numbers are internally inconsistent: Section 4.2 implies 50 known CVs in the volume (48 recovered + 2 missed), while Appendix B's SIMBAD cross-match of the full 4207-object sample yields 44 known CVs. The three new CV candidates have direct X-ray detections and ZTF variability, which is genuine external support; however, the X-ray main-sequence criteria used to 'independently verify' them come from the authors' own prior papers (Rodriguez 2024; Galiullin et al. 2024), so that wording should be read cautiously. Overall, the central completeness claim reduces by construction to the calibration of Eq. 6; partial circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an empirically fitted selection boundary (Equation 6) and on hand-chosen line-identification thresholds (5 nm window, ≤15 nm width, ≥3σ significance). These are calibrated on the same known-CV/background samples used in the demonstration, which is the main circularity burden. The pgEW proxy assumes a Gaussian line on a constant continuum—an approximation for low-resolution XP spectra, especially where TiO bands blend with Hα. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Selection line slope (for M_G0 ≥ 5.8) = 2.6
    Coefficient in Equation 6 chosen to separate known CVs from WD+MS binaries in Figure 3; not derived from first principles.
  • Selection line intercept = -15
    Intercept in Equation 6 fit to enclose the majority of known CVs in the GEM diagram.
  • Selection line break magnitude = 5.8
    Break point in Equation 6 chosen by hand to include nova-like variables while excluding hot subdwarfs.
  • Hα search window = ±5 nm
    Empirical threshold from Appendix A to isolate true Hα from artifact peaks; tuned on known populations.
  • Line width cutoff = 15 nm
    Empirical threshold from Appendix A to exclude broad pseudo-lines from TiO bands; tuned on known populations.
  • pgEW significance threshold = ≥3
    Quality cut applied to pgEW/pgEWerr; chosen by hand.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Gaussian line profile approximation for Hα in low-resolution XP spectra
    Equations 2–3 assume a Gaussian line to convert depth×width to equivalent width; this is an approximation for real line profiles, especially in WD+MS binaries where TiO bands blend with Hα.
  • domain assumption Constant local continuum across the line
    Equation 4 uses a constant continuum flux (line flux − depth) to normalize pgEW; this fails in noisy or broad-feature spectra.
  • domain assumption find_extrema tool correctly identifies the Hα extremum and provides reliable depth, width, and significance
    The entire pgEW depends on the outputs of GaiaXPy find_extrema (Weiler et al. 2023); systematic errors in this tool propagate to the diagram.
  • domain assumption Known CV catalogs (SDSS, LAMOST, R&K, PolarCat) are representative of the CV population
    The calibration sample of 137 CVs is biased toward dwarf novae and nova-likes; magnetic CVs, LARPs, and novae are underrepresented (Section 4.1), so the selection line may not generalize.
  • domain assumption Dust maps (Combined19, Drimmel et al. 2003, Marshall et al. 2006, Green et al. 2019) give accurate E(B−V) for extinction correction
    M_G0 is extinction-corrected via mwdust; residual extinction errors shift positions on the GEM diagram.
  • domain assumption Most YSOs and emission-line stars reside above the main sequence and thus do not contaminate the below-MS GEM selection zone
    Stated in Section 4.2; the paper acknowledges that some do scatter below MS, and indeed finds 11 contaminants, so this assumption is partially violated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27794 in / 14162 out tokens · 131936 ms · 2026-08-03T00:31:32.673161+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gaia DR3 opens a new window for the census of Galactic stellar populations in all-sky surveys, specifically for identifying cataclysmic variables (CVs). While the majority of CVs are distributed below the main sequence on the Gaia HR diagram, identifying them among dominant background stellar populations remains a significant challenge. Here, we present the Gaia Emission-line Magnitude (GEM) diagram - a tool designed to isolate CV candidates from background stars located below the main sequence. Using Gaia photometric data and low-resolution BP/RP (XP) spectra, we construct the GEM diagram by plotting the extinction-corrected absolute magnitude ($M_{G0}$) against the pseudo-equivalent width of the H$\alpha$ line ($pgEW_{H\alpha}$), which is computed via a Gaussian line-profile approximation. We find that known CVs and major stellar background populations, including white dwarfs, hot subdwarfs, and white dwarf-main sequence binaries, occupy distinct regions on the GEM diagram, reflecting both their physical properties and the low-resolution nature of the Gaia XP spectra. We define an empirical selection line on the GEM diagram to separate true H$\alpha$-emitting CVs from background contaminants. As a proof of concept, we apply the GEM diagram to a Gaia volume-limited sample within 250 pc ($G<17.5$ mag) distributed below the main sequence, recovering known CVs. Additionally, we identify three new CV candidates whose accreting nature is supported by archival X-ray data and optical variability. Compared to traditional optical color-based selection techniques, the GEM diagram uses Gaia's low-resolution spectra for initial target identification in all-sky surveys. This provides a more reliable framework for the statistical selection of CV candidates prior to ground-based spectroscopic follow-up and can be scaled to future Gaia data releases to map Galactic emission-line star populations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28736 by Antonio C. Rodriguez, Askar Sibgatullin, Ilkham Galiullin, Vladislav Dodon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: — Major stellar populations distributed below the main sequence on the Gaia HR diagram. For illustrative purposes, Gaia objects within a 100 pc sample are shown in gray. Symbols cor￾respond to different populations: CVs (red dots); hot subdwarfs (pink stars); WDs (green triangles); and WD+MS binaries (blue right triangles). These stellar populations were compiled from dif￾ferent catalogs (see Section 2). O… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: — GEM diagram for objects distributed below the main sequence on the Gaia HR diagram. The horizontal and vertical axes represent the absolute magnitude (MG0) and the pseudo-Gaussian equivalent width (pgEWHα), respectively. Left: Distribution of different stellar populations on the GEM diagram. The symbols for different populations are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — GEM diagram for known CVs, categorized by their re￾spective classes. Symbols correspond to: dwarf novae (blue dots); LARPs (black downward-pointing triangles); magnetic CVs (red stars); novae (purple upward-pointing triangles); and nova-like variables (orange squares). 16 magnetic CVs, 2 LARPs, 1 nova, and 8 unclassi￾fied CVs. Two distinct CV populations (nova-like vari￾ables and dwarf novae) are visible… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — A proof of concept using Gaia objects within a 250 pc sample distributed below the main sequence. Left: Gaia HR diagram for objects within the 250 pc sample. The dashed line shows the cut used to query Gaia data below the main sequence. For illustrative purposes, the Gaia 100 pc sample is shown in gray. Right: GEM diagram. Known CVs within the Gaia 250 pc sample are shown in red. The majority of these kn… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — GEM diagram for Gaia objects within the 250 pc sample. Orange dots show variable objects identified by Gaia. Objects located above the empirical selection cut correspond to both known CVs and new CV candidates. two known CVs, demonstrating that the vast majority of known CVs within our 250 pc sample are recovered by the GEM diagram. All identified CVs, along with the two missed systems, are highlighted i… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Distribution of the detected extrema wavelengths (λline − 656.3 nm) for each stellar population (left) and the volume-limited Gaia sample within 250 pc located below the main sequence on the Gaia HR diagram (right). The empirical 5 nm search window for the Hα line is marked by the shaded pink area. M. Wenger, F. Ochsenbein, D. Egret, P. Dubois, F. Bonnarel, S. Borde, F. Genova, G. Jasniewicz, S. Lalo¨e, … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Distribution of the detected line widths (in nm) within the 5 nm search window for each stellar population (left) and the volume-limited Gaia sample within 250 pc located below the main sequence on the Gaia HR diagram (right). The empirical selection threshold (width ≤ 15 nm) is marked by the shaded pink area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Same description as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Gaia XP spectra (left) and ZTF light curves (right) of the new CV candidates identified using the GEM diagram. The Hα line is marked by a dashed line on the spectra. The ZTF light-curve panels show the long-term data (top) and the phase-folded data (middle and bottom). New CV candidates We analyzed the X-ray and optical properties of the three new CV candidates identified with our empirical selection cu… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Warner,Cataclysmic Variable Stars(2003)

    B. Warner,Cataclysmic Variable Stars(2003). K. Mukai, PASP129, 062001 (2017), arXiv:1703.06171 [astro-ph.HE]. S. Scaringi, C. Knigge, and D. de Martino, Space Sci. Rev.222, 32 (2026), arXiv:2603.10150 [astro-ph.HE]. C. Motch, F. Haberl, P. Guillout, M. Pakull, K. Reinsch, and J. Krautter, A&A307, 459 (1996). P. Szkody, S. F. Anderson, M. Ag¨ ueros, R. Cov...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    Schneider, S. A. Snedden, and D. G. York, AJ123, 430 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110291 [astro-ph]. B. T. G¨ ansicke, M. Dillon, J. Southworth, J. R. Thorstensen, P. Rodr ´ ıguez-Gil, A. Aungwerojwit, T. R. Marsh, P. Szkody, S. C. C. Barros, J. Casares, D. de Martino, P. J. Groot, P. Hakala, U. Kolb, S. P. Littlefair, I. G. Mart ´ ınez-Pais, G. Nelemans, and ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Kasliwal, A. A. Miller, J. D. Neill, M. T. Patterson, R. Riddle, R. Smith, and M. T. Soumagnac, AJ159, 198 (2020), arXiv:2002.08447 [astro-ph.SR]. A. C. Rodriguez, PASP136, 054201 (2024), arXiv:2401.09537 [astro-ph.HE]. I. Galiullin, A. C. Rodriguez, K. El-Badry, P. Szkody, A. Anand, J. van Roestel, A. Sibgatullin, V. Dodon, N. Tyrin, I. Caiazzo, M. J. Gr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Reiley, and R

    Groom, D. Reiley, and R. Riddle, PASP137, 014201 (2025), arXiv:2408.16053 [astro-ph.HE]. H.-B. Liu, W.-M. Gu, Y. Lu, T. Liu, and J.-Z. Liu, ApJ991, 125 (2025), arXiv:2505.10478 [astro-ph.HE]. 9 Gaia Collaboration, T. Prusti, J. H. J. de Bruijne, A. G. A

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Brouillet, T

    Breddels, N. Brouillet, T. Br¨ usemeister, B. Bucciarelli, F. Budnik, P. Burgess, R. Burgon, A. Burlacu, D. Busonero, R. Buzzi, E. Caffau, J. Cambras, H. Campbell, R. Cancelliere, T. Cantat-Gaudin, T. Carlucci, J. M. Carrasco, M. Castellani, P. Charlot, J. Charnas, P. Charvet, F. Chassat, A. Chiavassa, M. Clotet, G. Cocozza, R. S. Collins, P. Collins, and...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Buzzi, E

    Butkevich, R. Buzzi, E. Caffau, R. Cancelliere, G. Cannizzaro, T. Cantat-Gaudin, R. Carballo, T. Carlucci, J. M. Carrasco, L. Casamiquela, M. Castellani, A. Castro-Ginard, P. Charlot, L. Chemin, A. Chiavassa, G. Cocozza, G. Costigan, S. Cowell, F. Crifo, M. Crosta, C. Crowley, J. Cuypers, C. Dafonte, Y. Damerdji, A. Dapergolas, P. David, M. David, P. de L...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Cornez, S

    Cooper, T. Cornez, S. Cowell, F. Crifo, M. Crosta, C. Crowley, C. Dafonte, A. Dapergolas, M. David, and P. David, A&A 649, A1 (2021), arXiv:2012.01533 [astro-ph.GA]. Gaia Collaboration, A. Vallenari, A. G. A. Brown, T. Prusti, J. H. J. de Bruijne, F. Arenou, C. Babusiaux, M. Biermann, O. L. Creevey, C. Ducourant, D. W. Evans, L. Eyer, R. Guerra, A. Hutton...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Antoja, D

    Varela, T. Antoja, D. Baines, S. G. Baker, L. Balaguer-N´ u˜ nez, E. Balbinot, Z. Balog, C. Barache, D. Barbato, M. Barros, M. A. Barstow, S. Bartolom´ e, J.-L. Bassilana, N. Bauchet, U. Becciani, M. Bellazzini, A. Berihuete, M. Bernet, S. Bertone, L. Bianchi, A. Binnenfeld, S. Blanco-Cuaresma, A. Blazere, T. Boch, A. Bombrun, D. Bossini, S. Bouquillon, A...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Pulone, S

    Piersimoni, L. Pulone, S. Ragaini, M. Rainer, P. J. Richards, G. T. Rixon, D. Ruz-Mieres, N. Sanna, L. M. Sarro, N. Rowell, R. Sordo, N. A. Walton, and A. Yoldas, A&A674, A2 (2023), arXiv:2206.06143 [astro-ph.IM]. R. Andrae, M. Fouesneau, R. Sordo, C. A. L. Bailer-Jones, T. E

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    S¨ uveges, F

    Smart, M. S¨ uveges, F. Th´ evenin, G. Torralba Elipe, A. Ulla, E. Utrilla, A. Vallenari, E. van Dillen, H. Zhao, and J. Zorec, A&A674, A27 (2023a), arXiv:2206.06138 [astro-ph.SR]. R. Andrae, H.-W. Rix, and V. Chandra, ApJS267, 8 (2023b), arXiv:2302.02611 [astro-ph.SR]. 11 X. Zhang, G. M. Green, and H.-W. Rix, MNRAS524, 1855 (2023), arXiv:2303.03420 [astr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    M¨ uller-Horn, and R

    Ren, J. M¨ uller-Horn, and R. Seeburger, ApJS279, 47 (2025a), arXiv:2501.14494 [astro-ph.SR]. J. Li, H.-W. Rix, Y.-S. Ting, J. M¨ uller-Horn, K. El-Badry, C. Liu, R. Seeburger, G. M. Green, and X. Zhang, A&A704, A126 (2025b), arXiv:2507.09622 [astro-ph.SR]. B. R. Roulston, N. Leonhardes-Barboza, P. J. Green, and E. Portnoi, ApJ982, 184 (2025), arXiv:2501....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Thorstensen, MNRAS524, 4867 (2023), arXiv:2304.06749 [astro-ph.SR]. X.-Q. Cui, Y.-H. Zhao, Y.-Q. Chu, G.-P. Li, Q. Li, L.-P. Zhang, H.-J. Su, Z.-Q. Yao, Y.-N. Wang, X.-Z. Xing, X.-N. Li, Y.-T

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    VizieR Online Data Catalog: LAMOST DR11 catalogs (Luo+, 2026),

    Yuan, C. Zhai, J. Zhang, Y.-X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Zhao, F. Zhou, G.-H. Zhou, J. Zhu, and S.-C. Zou, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics12, 1197 (2012). A.-L. Luo, Y.-H. Zhao, G. Zhao, and et al., “VizieR Online Data Catalog: LAMOST DR11 catalogs (Luo+, 2026),” VizieR On-line Data Catalog: V/162. Originally published in: 2026RAA..in.prep..L (2026). H. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Hidalgo, S

    Harrison, S. Hidalgo, S. T. Hodgkin, G. Holland, S. Marinoni, P. J. Osborne, C. Pagani, L. Palaversa, A. M. Piersimoni, L. Pulone, S. Ragaini, M. Rainer, P. J. Richards, N. Rowell, D. Ruz-Mieres, L. M. Sarro, N. A. Walton, and A. Yoldas, A&A674, A3 (2023), arXiv:2206.06205 [astro-ph.IM]. R. Drimmel, A. Cabrera-Lavers, and M. L´ opez-Corredoira, A&A 409, 2...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Gaia Collaboration, P

    Finkbeiner, ApJ818, 130 (2016), arXiv:1509.06751 [astro-ph.GA]. Gaia Collaboration, P. Montegriffo, M. Bellazzini, F. De Angeli, R. Andrae, M. A. Barstow, D. Bossini, A. Bragaglia, P. W

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    The vizier database of astronomical catalogues,

    Baker, L. Balaguer-N´ u˜ nez, E. Balbinot, Z. Balog, C. Barache, D. Barbato, M. Barros, S. Bartolom´ e, J.-L. Bassilana, N. Bauchet, U. Becciani, A. Berihuete, M. Bernet, S. Bertone, L. Bianchi, A. Binnenfeld, S. Blanco-Cuaresma, T. Boch, A. Bombrun, S. Bouquillon, L. Bramante, E. Breedt, A. Bressan, N. Brouillet, E. Brugaletta, B. Bucciarelli, A. Burlacu...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Starck, J

    Schneider, H. Starck, J. Wolf, and J. H. M. M. Schmitt, A&A 684, A121 (2024), arXiv:2401.17282 [astro-ph.SR]. X. Chen, S. Wang, L. Deng, R. de Grijs, M. Yang, and H. Tian, ApJS249, 18 (2020), arXiv:2005.08662 [astro-ph.SR]. K. Inight, B. T. G¨ ansicke, E. Breedt, T. R. Marsh, A. F. Pala, and R. Raddi, MNRAS504, 2420 (2021), arXiv:2103.06892 [astro-ph.SR]....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    V AR” denotesVARIABLE, while “–

    Hermes, K. S. Long, T. Mulvany, G. Adamane Pallathadka, M. Salvato, S. Scaringi, M. R. Schreiber, G. S. Stringfellow, J. R. Thorstensen, G. Tovmassian, and N. L. Zakamska, MNRAS536, 1057 (2025), arXiv:2406.19459 [astro-ph.SR] APPENDIX HαLINE IDENTIFICATION In this Appendix, we discuss the empirical thresholds applied to our Hαline identification pipeline ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025