Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 100 references

Revisiting symbiotic binaries with interferometry. I. The PIONIER archival collection

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Interferometric radii show symbiotic giants sit well inside their Roche lobes, so wind rather than Roche-lobe overflow feeds their white dwarfs.

desk verdict Solid archival interferometry paper whose RW Hya conclusion overstates what its own Gaia binarity simulations allow; deserves review with revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04089 v1 pith:5MG7QC4O submitted 2025-02-06 astro-ph.SR

Jaroslav Merc , Henri M. J. Boffin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords symbioticbinariesRoche-lobeoverflowmasstransferinterferometryPIONIERGaiaDR3asymptoticgiantbranchellipsoidalvariability
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

Using interferometric angular diameters for six symbiotic giants and distances from Gaia, this paper asks whether the red giants fill their Roche lobes and thereby transfer mass by Roche-lobe overflow. The answer it argues for is no: five of the six giants sit well within their canonical Roche lobes, with V399 Pav too uncertain to judge, and this holds even for V1261 Ori and RW Hya, where ellipsoidal variability had been read as evidence of tidal deformation. The consequence is that mass transfer in these systems is likely wind-driven or wind-assisted, not classical Roche-lobe overflow. The paper also argues that the giants are probably on the asymptotic giant branch, that their rotation is not synchronized with their orbits, and that mass ratios based on He II emission lines may be systematically too high.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Roche lobe, the teardrop-shaped volume around the giant within which material remains bound to it; when the star fills that volume, matter spills onto the companion. The paper computes each giant's radius from the angular diameter fitted to VLTI/PIONIER squared visibilities with a power-2 limb-darkened disk model, converts it to a linear radius using Gaia DR3 parallax distance, and divides by the canonical Roche-lobe radius from Eggleton's formula to obtain a filling factor. For V1261 Ori and RW Hya, the Gaia astrometry is suspect, so the paper runs tailored simulations with the Gaia scanning law to test whether unmodeled binary motion could shift the fitted parallax enough to make the giant fill its lobe; it finds the shift plausible for RW Hya but too small for V1261 Ori.

What would settle it

Measure RW Hya's parallax with Gaia DR4 or a dedicated astrometric campaign: a distance near 1900 pc (parallax roughly 0.51 to 0.56 mas) with a 1.3 to 1.6 solar-mass giant would make the giant fill its Roche lobe, falsifying the paper's claim for that system. Alternatively, interferometric imaging of V1261 Ori or RW Hya at orbital quadrature that resolves tidal deformation would show lobe filling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, with the possible exception of V399 Pav, the giant components of AG Peg, FG Ser, ER Del, V1261 Ori, RW Hya, and V399 Pav do not fill their canonical Roche lobes, and therefore symbiotic mass transfer in these systems proceeds by stellar wind or by wind-assisted Roche-lobe overflow rather than by the giant physically filling its lobe. The radii come from uniform- and limb-darkened disk fits to VLTI/PIONIER squared visibilities, which yield angular diameters from 0.5 to 2.4 mas, converted to linear radii with Gaia DR3 parallax distances. For V1261 Ori and RW Hya the resulting filling factors are far below unity (about 0.5 to 0.75 for V1261 Ori depending on distance, and roughly 0.6 to 0.8 for RW Hya under literature masses), which contradicts the usual reading of their ellipsoidal variability. The paper therefore concludes that either the Roche potential is modified in these systems, or the variability has another origin such as a slow, dense wind filling the Roche lobe. It further concludes that the giants are likely luminous AGB stars, that their rotation is not synchronized with the orbit, and that He II-based mass ratios overestimate the true ratios.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats Gaia DR3 single-star parallaxes as usable distances for all six targets, including AG Peg, V1261 Ori, and RW Hya, whose astrometric solutions are flagged as poor; for RW Hya the authors' own simulations show the true distance could be near 1900 pc, at which its giant would fill the Roche lobe, contradicting the paper's central claim for that star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For AG Peg, FG Ser, ER Del, V1261 Ori, and RW Hya, mass transfer is wind-driven or wind-assisted, not classical Roche-lobe overflow.
  • Ellipsoidal variability in V1261 Ori and RW Hya cannot be used as evidence of a lobe-filling giant; alternative mechanisms, such as a dense wind or a modified Roche potential, are required.
  • Radii inferred from assumed synchronous rotation underestimate the true sizes of these giants, so such estimates should be abandoned for symbiotic giants.
  • Because the giants are probably on the AGB rather than normal class III giants, literature distances and radii calibrated on class III giants are likely wrong for these objects.
  • Mass ratios derived from He II emission-line radial velocities appear systematically too high, at least in AG Peg and RW Hya.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: the paper's RW Hya conclusion hinges on the Gaia distance of about 1543 pc; the authors' own simulations allow a true distance near 1900 pc, at which the giant would fill its Roche lobe, so a future high-precision parallax could overturn the claim for this one system.
  • Our inference: the Appendix A.3 population simulation implies that for symbiotic binaries with orbital periods near one year, Gaia parallaxes can be off by up to a factor of about two, so other supposedly well-inside-the-lobe symbiotics could suffer the same distance bias.
  • Our inference: a clean testable extension is to image V1261 Ori or RW Hya at orbital quadrature with long-baseline interferometry; detection of tidal deformation would contradict the paper, while a round symmetric disk would support the wind-RLOF picture.
  • Our inference: if a slow dense wind is what fills the Roche lobe, then high-angular-resolution observations of circumstellar emission or spectropolarimetry near conjunction should reveal wind-enhanced density in the inner Lagrangian region.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes archival VLTI/PIONIER interferometric observations of six symbiotic stars. It fits uniform- and limb-darkened disk models to squared visibilities to obtain angular diameters, combines them with Gaia DR3 distances and literature orbital elements to derive linear radii, luminosities, and Roche-lobe filling factors, and uses evolutionary tracks to constrain donor masses. The central result is that, with the exception of V399 Pav, the giants lie well within their canonical Roche lobes, including V1261 Ori and RW Hya, despite their ellipsoidal variability; the authors therefore favor wind-driven or wind-assisted Roche-lobe-overflow mass transfer. Appendices present tailored Monte Carlo simulations of binarity effects on Gaia astrometry for V1261 Ori and RW Hya and a broader population simulation.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide direct interferometric constraints on the radii and Roche-lobe filling fractions of six symbiotic giants, two of which (RW Hya and V399 Pav) were not previously analyzed interferometrically. The paper's strengths include the homogeneous reanalysis with a realistic limb-darkening model, the use of Gaia DR3 distances with explicit astrometric diagnostics, and the quantitative treatment of binary-motion-induced parallax bias through 100,000-iteration simulations. The conclusion that symbiotic giants transfer mass through winds rather than Roche-lobe overflow is important and falsifiable with future GRAVITY/PIONIER observations. However, the headline claim requires qualification for RW Hya because the Gaia parallax is demonstrably degenerate with a distance at which the Roche lobe would be filled.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.5, Appendix A.2, Abstract, §4] Section 3.5 shows that at the adopted Gaia distance of 1543 pc, RW Hya has RG = 106.5 R_sun and fills its Roche lobe only for MG < 0.86 M_sun, while at 1800 pc (MG = 1.3 M_sun) or 1946 pc (MG = 1.6 M_sun) the giant fills its Roche lobe. Appendix A.2 then simulates the case with a true parallax of 0.526 mas and finds that the DR3 value of 0.648 mas lies comfortably within the distribution of fitted single-star parallaxes. The 1900 pc branch is therefore not excluded by the paper's own analysis, and on that branch the central claim for RW Hya flips. Nevertheless, the abstract and conclusions list RW Hya among the systems with giants well within their canonical Roche lobes without this caveat. This is a load-bearing distance degeneracy; the RW Hya statements should be made conditional on the Gaia distance, or a binary-aware astrometric fit should be performed, before the paper's headline conclusion can be accepted as stated.
  2. [§3.4, Table 3] For V1261 Ori, the sentence that the star would fill only 50–56% or 66–75% of its Roche lobe with either distance estimate is computed at the central distances 382 and 510 pc and does not propagate the asymmetric Hipparcos distance uncertainty. At the 1σ upper distance of 885 pc, the quoted radius RG = 130.6+96.3 R_sun reaches about 227 R_sun, which for MG = 1.3 M_sun already exceeds the Roche-lobe radius of about 175 R_sun that the authors themselves derive for full filling. The subsequent discussion of a full-filling distance of 682–770 pc shows that this branch lies inside the Hipparcos 1σ interval; the conclusion that V1261 Ori is well within its Roche lobe therefore rests on rejecting that branch via the Appendix A.1 simulation rather than on the filling-factor calculation as presented. Please propagate the distance uncertainty into the filling factor and state the conclusion as conditional.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4] The T0 entry is garbled in the printed table ('2 453..') and should be corrected.
  2. [§3.2, Abstract] The FG Ser filling-factor range of 0.65–0.87 is close to unity; the abstract's phrase 'well within' is stronger than this range supports, and the wording should be adjusted.
  3. [§2, §3.4] The manuscript should state explicitly which form of the Eggleton (1983) expression is used for the canonical Roche-lobe radius and how the white-dwarf masses are set when they are not fitted, since the filling factors are the central derived quantities.
  4. [Appendix A.2] Reporting the proportion of simulations that yield a fitted parallax within the DR3 uncertainty, rather than only the range of values, would make the distance-degeneracy statement quantitatively useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: angular diameters are fitted to external PIONIER visibilities, radii combine them with Gaia distances, and Roche-lobe filling factors use independent literature masses and orbital elements.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chains are not circular. Interferometric angular diameters are fitted directly to PIONIER squared visibilities (Section 2, Table 1) using limb-darkened disk models, with the angular diameter as the sole fitted parameter; these are external interferometric data, not quantities defined by the paper's conclusions. Linear radii are then computed as angular diameter times distance (Gaia DR3 parallax), and Roche-lobe filling factors are obtained by combining each radius with orbital elements and literature masses or masses inferred from MESA evolutionary tracks. The inference that the giants are well within their canonical Roche lobes therefore depends on adopted distances and masses, but the output is not equivalent to an input by construction. Self-references to Boffin et al. (2014) and Merc et al. (2019b,c) supply prior orbital elements, comparison values, or database listings rather than the fitted angular diameters; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as the sole justification of the central claim. For RW Hya, the paper's own Appendix A.2 explicitly shows that binary motion could bias the Gaia parallax and that the DR3 value is consistent with a true distance of 1900 pc, at which the giant could fill its Roche lobe; this is an honest, quantified uncertainty that weakens the robustness of the RW Hya conclusion but is not a circular step. Similarly, the distance estimate from Skopal (2005) is noted to reproduce the radius used to derive it, but that estimate is not adopted for the central result. The analysis is self-contained against external data and benchmarks, so the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central distance and radius inference rests on several domain assumptions: negligible H-band contamination by the companion, reliable Gaia single-star parallaxes, canonical Eggleton Roche lobe geometry, and literature inputs for temperatures, gravities, and orbits. No new physical entities are proposed; the alternative explanations for ellipsoidal variability are borrowed from prior literature.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The hot component and any circumstellar material contribute negligibly in the H band, so the interferometric visibility is dominated by the cool giant disk.
    Invoked in Section 2 before fitting angular diameters; if false, the measured limb-darkened disk sizes would be biased. The authors cite Boffin et al. 2014 as support, but no direct test is made in this paper.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 single-star parallax provides a usable distance for each target, including AG Peg, V1261 Ori, and RW Hya, where GOF or RUWE flag the astrometric solution as poor.
    Distances from Table 3 are used to convert angular diameters to linear radii. The authors test binarity effects for V1261 Ori and RW Hya in Appendix A, but still adopt the Gaia distances for the headline filling factors.
  • domain assumption The canonical Roche lobe radius is given by Eggleton's formula.
    Used for all filling factors in Section 3. The authors note that a slow wind or pulsation could reduce the effective Roche radius by up to a factor of about two, following Dermine et al. 2009, which would change the interpretation.
  • domain assumption MESA and MIST evolutionary tracks for the adopted metallicities give the correct giant mass and evolutionary state.
    Used to infer AGB versus RGB status and stellar masses in Section 3 and Figure 3; systematic errors in the tracks or in the assumed metallicities propagate into the inferred masses.
  • domain assumption The power-2 limb-darkening law of Claret and Southworth 2023 describes the stellar disk, with coefficients appropriate to the adopted effective temperature and surface gravity.
    Adopted in Section 2. The average correction between uniform disk and limb-darkened models is about 1.04, so this assumption is a relatively minor source of uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The published orbital elements, masses, and inclinations used for the Roche lobe calculations are sufficiently accurate.
    Used in Table 2 and Section 3 to compute mass functions and filling factors; the paper explores some inclination and mass ranges, but not all possible systematic errors in the cited orbital solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting symbiotic binaries with interferometry. I. The PIONIER archival collection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MG7QC4O

@misc{pith2026250204089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting symbiotic binaries with interferometry. I. The PIONIER archival collection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MG7QC4O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04089}
}
read the original abstract

Symbiotic stars serve as exceptional laboratories for investigating mass transfer processes in binary systems. However, the dominant mechanism of mass transfer from the red giant donor to the compact accretor - typically a white dwarf or, in rare cases, a neutron star - remains unclear. It is uncertain whether it is driven primarily by the stellar wind, Roche-lobe overflow, or a combination of the two. While radii inferred from rotational velocities or spectral types suggest smaller Roche-lobe filling factors, the presence of ellipsoidal variability, presumably caused by tidally deformed giants in many symbiotic systems, indicates the opposite. Interferometric observations of symbiotic giants, combined with distance measurements provided by the Gaia mission, offer a promising avenue to resolve this discrepancy. In this first paper of the series, we (re)analyze VLTI/PIONIER observations of six symbiotic stars: AG Peg, FG Ser, ER Del, V1261 Ori, RW Hya, and V399 Pav. With the exception of the uncertain case of V399 Pav, we find that the giants in these systems remain well within their canonical Roche lobes, even in V1261 Ori and RW Hya, where ellipsoidal variability is observed. All six stars appear to be rather luminous and likely located on the asymptotic giant branch, although the possibility of some of them being at the tip of the first red giant branch cannot be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04089 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the model used for fitting the interferometric ob￾servations. The particular limb-darkening coefficients and angular di￾ameter are those for V1261 Ori. & Southworth (2023), with coefficients corresponding to the Teff and log g values of individual stars, as listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. VLTI/PIONIER squared visibilities as a function of spatial frequency for the target stars. Observed data are represented in black, with the best-fitting model displayed in red. For stars with multiple observations, only one epoch is shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Position of target stars in the H-R diagram. For each star, three selected MESA evolutionary tracks (Paxton et al. 2011; Dotter 2016; Choi et al. 2016) are shown (in green, red, and blue), calculated for the specific metallicity of the star. The evolution before and during the first RGB is represented in darker shades, while the AGB evolution is depicted in lighter shades. The post-AGB evolution is omitted for clari… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Orbit of V1261 Ori. Upper panel: Orbital solution based on archival data (blue data points from CORAVEL and Merca￾tor/HERMES; Boffin et al. 2014) and radial velocities (shown in dark red) published in the Gaia Focused Product Release (Gaia Collabora￾tion et al. 2023a).…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ASAS-SN light curve of V399 Pav. A: Light curves in V and g bands (in green and orange, respectively), with a zoomed-in sec￾tion highlighting the pulsations. B: Results of the period analysis for the combined V- and g-band light curves (dark red) and for the pre￾whiten…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., & Ameen , M

    Ake , Thomas B., I., Johnson , H. R., & Ameen , M. M. 1991, , 383, 842

    1991

  2. [2]

    Ake , T. B. 1979, , 234, 538

    1979

  3. [3]

    Allen , D. A. 1978, , 184, 601

    1978

  4. [4]

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

    2021

  5. [5]

    G., Grossmann , D

    Beck , P. G., Grossmann , D. H., Steinwender , L., et al. 2024, , 682, A7

    2024

  6. [6]

    2024, , 690, A125

    B \'e guin , E., Chiavassa , A., Ahmad , A., Freytag , B., & Uttenthaler , S. 2024, , 690, A125

    2024

  7. [7]

    Blind , N., Boffin , H. M. J., Berger , J. P., et al. 2011, , 536, A55

    2011

  8. [8]

    Boffin , H. M. J., Hillen , M., Berger , J. P., et al. 2014, , 564, A1

    2014

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    M., Schlafly , E

    Bovy , J., Rix , H.-W., Green , G. M., Schlafly , E. F., & Finkbeiner , D. P. 2016, , 818, 130

    2016

  2. [10]

    Boyarchuk , A. A. 1967, , 11, 8

    1967

  3. [11]

    G., & Beltran , N

    Brandi , E., Barba , R., Garcia , L. G., & Beltran , N. 1998, , 132, 281

    1998

  4. [12]

    G., Quiroga , C., & Ferrer , O

    Brandi , E., Garc \' a , L. G., Quiroga , C., & Ferrer , O. E. 2006, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 49, 132

    2006

  5. [13]

    R., et al

    Castro-Ginard , A., Penoyre , Z., Casey , A. R., et al. 2024, , 688, A1

    2024

  6. [14]

    2018, , 617, L1

    Chiavassa , A., Freytag , B., & Schultheis , M. 2018, , 617, L1

    2018

  7. [15]

    2016, , 823, 102

    Choi , J., Dotter , A., Conroy , C., et al. 2016, , 823, 102

    2016

  8. [16]

    & Southworth , J

    Claret , A. & Southworth , J. 2023, , 674, A63

    2023

  9. [17]

    2009, , 507, 891

    Dermine , T., Jorissen , A., Siess , L., & Frankowski , A. 2009, , 507, 891

    2009

  10. [18]

    2016, , 222, 8

    Dotter , A. 2016, , 222, 8

    2016

  11. [19]

    2003, , 409, 205

    Drimmel , R., Cabrera-Lavers , A., & L \'o pez-Corredoira , M. 2003, , 409, 205

    2003

  12. [20]

    Eggleton , P. P. 1983, , 268, 368

    1983

  13. [21]

    C., Hinkle , K

    Fekel , F. C., Hinkle , K. H., & Joyce , R. R. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution, ed. R. L. M. Corradi , J. Mikolajewska , & T. J. Mahoney , 113

    2003

  14. [22]

    C., Hinkle , K

    Fekel , F. C., Hinkle , K. H., Joyce , R. R., & Skrutskie , M. F. 2000 a , , 120, 3255

    2000

  15. [23]

    C., Joyce , R

    Fekel , F. C., Joyce , R. R., Hinkle , K. H., & Skrutskie , M. F. 2000 b , , 119, 1375

    2000

  16. [24]

    1981, , 86, 619

    Ferraz-Mello , S. 1981, , 86, 619

    1981

  17. [25]

    Gaia Collaboration , Prusti , T., de Bruijne , J. H. J., et al. 2016, , 595, A1

    2016

  18. [26]

    2023 a , , 680, A36

    Gaia Collaboration , Trabucchi , M., Mowlavi , N., et al. 2023 a , , 680, A36

    2023

  19. [27]

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari , A., Brown , A. G. A., et al. 2023 b , , 674, A1

    2023

  20. [28]

    H., & Joyce , R

    Ga an , C., Miko ajewska , J., Hinkle , K. H., & Joyce , R. R. 2016, , 455, 1282

    2016

  21. [29]

    H., & Joyce , R

    Ga an , C., Miko ajewska , J., Hinkle , K. H., & Joyce , R. R. 2023, , 526, 918

    2023

  22. [30]

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

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

    2019

  23. [31]

    2013, , 63, 405

    Gromadzki , M., Miko ajewska , J., & Soszy \'n ski , I. 2013, , 63, 405

    2013

  24. [32]

    Guti \'e rrez-Moreno , A., Moreno , H., Costa , E., & Feibelman , W. A. 1997, , 485, 359

    1997

  25. [33]

    Hall , D. S. 1990, , 100, 554

    1990

  26. [34]

    Johnson , H. R. & Ake , T. B. 1989, in IAU Colloq. 106: Evolution of Peculiar Red Giant Stars, ed. H. R. Johnson & B. Zuckerman , 371

    1989

  27. [35]

    Jorissen , A., Boffin , H. M. J., Karinkuzhi , D., et al. 2019, , 626, A127

    2019

  28. [36]

    & Mayor , M

    Jorissen , A. & Mayor , M. 1992, , 260, 115

    1992

  29. [37]

    1992, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 3730, 1

    Jorissen , A., Mayor , M., Manfroid , J., & Sterken , C. 1992, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 3730, 1

    1992

  30. [38]

    Jorissen , A., Schmitt , J. H. M. M., Carquillat , J. M., Ginestet , N., & Bickert , K. F. 1996, , 306, 467

    1996

  31. [39]

    2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 39

    Jorissen , A., Van Eck , S., Dermine , T., Van Winckel , H., & Gorlova , N. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 39

    2012

  32. [40]

    1998, , 332, 877

    Jorissen , A., Van Eck , S., Mayor , M., & Udry , S. 1998, , 332, 877

    1998

  33. [41]

    G., & Hobbs , R

    Kafatos , M., Michalitsianos , A. G., & Hobbs , R. W. 1980, , 240, 114

    1980

  34. [42]

    Keenan , P. C. 1954, , 120, 484

    1954

  35. [43]

    Kenyon , S. J. & Mikolajewska , J. 1995, , 110, 391

    1995

  36. [44]

    J., Mikolajewska , J., Mikolajewski , M., Polidan , R

    Kenyon , S. J., Mikolajewska , J., Mikolajewski , M., Polidan , R. S., & Slovak , M. H. 1993, , 106, 1573

    1993

  37. [45]

    S., Shappee , B

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

    2017

  38. [46]

    B., Berger , J

    Le Bouquin , J. B., Berger , J. P., Lazareff , B., et al. 2011, , 535, A67

    2011

  39. [47]

    Luna , G. J. M., Sokoloski , J. L., Mukai , K., & Nelson , T. 2013, , 559, A6

    2013

  40. [48]

    1921, Astronomische Nachrichten, 213, 93

    Lundmark , K. 1921, Astronomische Nachrichten, 213, 93

    1921

  41. [49]

    J., Robin , A

    Marshall , D. J., Robin , A. C., Reyl \'e , C., Schultheis , M., & Picaud , S. 2006, , 453, 635

    2006

  42. [50]

    Mayall , M. W. 1951, Harvard College Observatory Bulletin, 920, 32

    1951

  43. [51]

    2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    M \'e rand , A. 2022, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 12183, Optical and Infrared Interferometry and Imaging VIII, ed. A. M \'e rand , S. Sallum , & J. Sanchez-Bermudez , 121831N

    2022

  44. [52]

    G., Mathur , S., & Garc \' a , R

    Merc , J., Beck , P. G., Mathur , S., & Garc \' a , R. A. 2024, , 683, A84

    2024

  45. [53]

    & Boffin , H

    Merc , J. & Boffin , H. M. J. 2024, , 692, A218

    2024

  46. [54]

    2019 a , Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 228

    Merc , J., G \'a lis , R., & Teyssier , F. 2019 a , Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 228

    2019

  47. [55]

    2019 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 28

    Merc , J., G \'a lis , R., & Wolf , M. 2019 b , Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 3, 28

    2019

  48. [56]

    2019 c , Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 598

    Merc , J., G \'a lis , R., & Wolf , M. 2019 c , Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 598

    2019

  49. [57]

    Merrill , P. W. & Burwell , C. G. 1933, , 78, 87

    1933

  50. [58]

    Merrill , P. W. & Burwell , C. G. 1950, , 112, 72

    1950

  51. [59]

    Merrill , P. W. & Humason , M. L. 1932, , 44, 56

    1932

  52. [60]

    2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 1

    Miko ajewska , J. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 1

    2007

  53. [61]

    2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1011.5657

    Mikolajewska , J. 2010, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1011.5657

    2010 arXiv

  54. [62]

    2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 5

    Miko ajewska , J. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 5

    2012

  55. [63]

    H., Gromadzki , M., & Schmidt , M

    Miko ajewska , J., Ga an , C., Hinkle , K. H., Gromadzki , M., & Schmidt , M. R. 2014, , 440, 3016

    2014

  56. [64]

    1997, , 319, 201

    Muerset , U., Wolff , B., & Jordan , S. 1997, , 319, 201

    1997

  57. [65]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.01389

    Munari , U. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1909.01389

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    & Iijima , T

    Munari , U. & Iijima , T. 1988, , 4622, 2

    1988

  59. [67]

    & Whitelock , P

    Munari , U. & Whitelock , P. A. 1989, , 239, 273

    1989

  60. [68]

    A., Gilmore , A

    Munari , U., Whitelock , P. A., Gilmore , A. C., et al. 1992, , 104, 262

    1992

  61. [69]

    F., Kolotilov , E

    Munari , U., Yudin , B. F., Kolotilov , E. A., & Gilmore , A. C. 1995, , 109, 1740

    1995

  62. [70]

    2000, , 353, 952

    M \"u rset , U., Dumm , T., Isenegger , S., et al. 2000, , 353, 952

    2000

  63. [71]

    & Schmid , H

    M \"u rset , U. & Schmid , H. M. 1999, , 137, 473

    1999

  64. [72]

    Otulakowska-Hypka , M., Mikolajewska , J., & Whitelock , P. A. 2014, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 490, Stellar Novae: Past and Future Decades, ed. P. A. Woudt & V. A. R. M. Ribeiro , 367

    2014

  65. [73]

    2018, , 553, 310

    Paladini , C., Baron , F., Jorissen , A., et al. 2018, , 553, 310

    2018

  66. [74]

    & Vanmunster , T

    Paunzen , E. & Vanmunster , T. 2016, Astronomische Nachrichten, 337, 239

    2016

  67. [75]

    2011, , 192, 3

    Paxton , B., Bildsten , L., Dotter , A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3

    2011

  68. [76]

    Penoyre , Z., Belokurov , V., & Evans , N. W. 2022, , 513, 2437

    2022

  69. [77]

    Penoyre , Z., Belokurov , V., Wyn Evans , N., Everall , A., & Koposov , S. E. 2020, , 495, 321

    2020

  70. [78]

    B., Baella , N

    Pereira , C. B., Baella , N. O., Drake , N. A., Miranda , L. F., & Roig , F. 2017, , 841, 50

    2017

  71. [79]

    & Jorissen , A

    Pourbaix , D. & Jorissen , A. 2000, , 145, 161

    2000

  72. [80]

    L., Luna , G

    Ramsay , G., Sokoloski , J. L., Luna , G. J. M., & Nu \ n ez , N. E. 2016, , 461, 3599

    2016

  73. [81]

    Rutkowski , A., Miko ajewska , J., & Whitelock , P. A. 2007, Baltic Astronomy, 16, 49

    2007

  74. [82]

    1999, in ESA Special Publication, Vol

    Schild , H., Dumm , T., Folini , D., Nussbaumer , H., & Schmutz , W. 1999, in ESA Special Publication, Vol. 427, The Universe as Seen by ISO, ed. P. Cox & M. Kessler , 397

    1999

  75. [83]

    1996, , 306, 477

    Schild , H., Muerset , U., & Schmutz , W. 1996, , 306, 477

    1996

  76. [84]

    2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 19

    Seker \'a s , M., Skopal , A., Shugarov , S., et al. 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, 49, 19

    2019

  77. [85]

    J., Prieto , J

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

    2014

  78. [86]

    Sharma , K., Prugniel , P., & Singh , H. P. 2016, , 585, A64

    2016

  79. [87]

    M., Godon , P., Mikolajewska , J., & Katynski , M

    Sion , E. M., Godon , P., Mikolajewska , J., & Katynski , M. 2019, , 874, 178

    2019

  80. [88]

    2005, , 440, 995

    Skopal , A. 2005, , 440, 995

    2005

  81. [89]

    Y., Seker \'a s , M., et al

    Skopal , A., Shugarov , S. Y., Seker \'a s , M., et al. 2017, , 604, A48

    2017

  82. [90]

    F., Cutri , R

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

    2006

  83. [91]

    2004, , 54, 347

    Soszy \'n ski , I., Udalski , A., Kubiak , M., et al. 2004, , 54, 347

    2004

  84. [92]

    Taranova , O. G. & Yudin , B. F. 1985, Pisma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 11, 55

    1985

  85. [93]

    Thackeray , A. D. 1954, The Observatory, 74, 258

    1954

  86. [94]

    V., Stoyanov , K

    Tomov , T. V., Stoyanov , K. A., & Zamanov , R. K. 2016, , 462, 4435

    2016

  87. [95]

    & Jorissen , A

    Van Eck , S. & Jorissen , A. 2002, , 396, 599

    2002

  88. [96]

    Wackerling , L. R. 1970, , 73, 153

    1970

  89. [97]

    K., Bode , M

    Zamanov , R. K., Bode , M. F., Melo , C. H. F., et al. 2007, , 380, 1053

    2007

  90. [98]

    Zhekov , S. A. & Tomov , T. V. 2018, , 481, 5156

    2018

  91. [99]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sent...

  92. [100]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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