Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Polarimetric Diversity in Tidal Disruption Events: Comparative Study of Low-Polarised sources with AT2020mot

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AT2020mot shows the highest polarisation ever seen in a jetless tidal disruption event, about 25% after host correction, while 12 other events stay below 6% or undetected.

desk verdict New polarimetric data and a validated host correction make this a useful observational paper, but the claim that AT2020mot is unique among TDEs is not actually testable with ~1% temporal coverage of the comparison events—the authors admit as much, and the 'outlier' headline needs softening. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08895 v1 pith:5XKTPL5S submitted 2025-09-10 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

A. Floris , I. Liodakis , K. I. I. Koljonen , E. Lindfors , B. Agìs-Gonzalez , A. Paggi , D. Blinov , K. Nilsson
show 8 more authors
I. Agudo P. Charalampopoulos M. A. Dìaz Teodori J. Escudero Pedrosa J. Otero-Santos V. Piirola M. Newsome S. Van Velzen
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsopticalpolarimetryAT2020motblackholephysicsshockemissionreprocessingcolumndensitytransients
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

This paper asks why AT2020mot shows the highest optical polarisation ever measured in a tidal disruption event without a jet, about 25% after host correction, when a sample of 12 other TDEs mostly stays below 6% or yields non-detections. The authors compile new polarimetric data, correct for host-galaxy dilution, and compare physical properties derived from multi-wavelength light curves. They find that AT2020mot is otherwise ordinary: blackbody temperature, peak luminosity, rise timescale, and inferred black hole and stellar masses all sit within the sample's spread. Its only other anomaly is a model-dependent higher column density. They conclude that no single shock or reprocessing model explains the combination, so AT2020mot challenges current pictures of TDE emission.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the host-correction formula Π_corr = Π_obs × I/(I − I_host), which removes dilution by unpolarised starlight, and on comparing Stokes q and u parameters across events. Physical parameters come from blackbody SED fits and from two light-curve fitting codes (one assuming shock power, the other assuming a reprocessing layer); the elevated column density emerges specifically from the reprocessing-based fit. The polarisation variability, seen in AT2020mot and a few others, is the main discriminator between models.

What would settle it

Future dense polarimetric monitoring — observations every few days from near peak through decline — of a sample of TDEs: if any other event shows a host-corrected polarisation degree of about 20% or more even once, the claim of uniqueness for AT2020mot fails. Alternatively, an independent measure of column density (e.g., Balmer decrement) in a similar event that matched the reprocessing-fit value would validate the environmental claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that AT2020mot is an outlier in polarisation but not in its global physics. After subtracting the unpolarised host galaxy flux, its polarisation reaches about 25%, far above the other 13 events (median around 4%), yet its blackbody temperature, peak luminosity, rise timescale, and inferred black hole and stellar masses are all typical. The paper also finds an elevated photoelectric column density in its light-curve fits, hinting at a dusty or complex environment. The authors treat the high polarisation as real — late-time observations confirm the host is unpolarised — and argue that such a signal, combined with variability in the polarisation angle, points away from

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that AT2020mot is uniquely polarised assumes that the sparse sampling of the other 12 TDEs, roughly one percent of their flare durations, would have caught any comparable high-polarisation episode; if similar brief peaks happened at unsampled times, the outlier status would evaporate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If AT2020mot is genuinely unique, time-resolved polarimetry beginning near the optical peak becomes essential, because the high-polarisation state may be brief.
  • If high polarisation is typically brief, other TDEs may have had similar episodes at unsampled times, so current low polarisation limits are not conclusive.
  • The combination of high polarisation, high column density, and strong infrared emission implies environments more complex than a smooth spherical reprocessing layer.
  • Polarisation-angle variability in several events suggests evolving geometry, which favours shock-powered scenarios over reprocessing.
  • The elevated column density, if real, would make AT2020mot a candidate for a particularly dusty or clumpy line of sight.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own coverage estimate — each flare sampled for only about 1% of its duration, with the extreme polarisation appearing in a single night — suggests that the claimed uniqueness could be a selection effect; dense monitoring might reveal that ~25% polarisation is not rare, just rarely caught.
  • A direct test of the continuum-versus-outlier question would be daily-cadence polarimetry on a handful of TDEs from near peak through decline; if a comparable peak appears in any other event, AT2020mot would no longer be unique.
  • The Seyfert-2 analogy for high column density coexisting with high polarisation suggests that clumpy scattering media could reconcile the two anomalies without invoking new physics beyond the standard TDE toolbox.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents new optical polarimetric observations of 13 TDEs (14 flares) obtained with RoboPol, ALFOSC, DIPOL-1, and CAFOS, combined with previously published polarimetry. The authors measure host-corrected polarization degrees and find that AT2020mot reaches Pi ~ 25%, far exceeding all other sources, which mostly show Pi < 6% or upper limits. They also fit blackbody SEDs, derive black hole and stellar masses with TDEMass and MOSFiT, fit ZTF/ATLAS light curves for rise times, and compile X-ray limits. Their population comparison indicates that AT2020mot is consistent with the broader TDE sample in temperature, luminosity, rise time, and masses, but is an outlier in polarization and in the MOSFiT-inferred column density, leading the authors to conclude that AT2020mot challenges pure shock or reprocessing models.

Significance. If the comparative claim is robust, the paper delivers a valuable observational benchmark: a homogeneous sample of 13 TDEs with polarimetry, a validated host-galaxy correction for AT2020mot via late-time observations (host Pi < 0.75%), and a confirmation that AT2020mot is the most highly polarized TDE without a jet. The observed low-to-high-to-low polarization evolution of AT2020mot is a useful constraint for models. The main weakness is the sparse temporal sampling of the comparison sample, which the authors acknowledge but do not quantitatively resolve; the conclusions nevertheless rest on the inferred uniqueness of AT2020mot.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1, Section 5, Abstract] The paper's central comparative claim—that AT2020mot is exceptionally polarized compared to all other TDEs—is undermined by the acknowledged ~1% temporal coverage of each flare. The authors state in Section 4.1 that 'similarly strong, brief polarisation peaks have gone undetected' in other TDEs, yet the abstract and conclusions assert that AT2020mot is 'exceptionally high compared to the low or undetected polarisation observed in other events.' This is a claim based on absence of evidence. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the probability of missing a ~25% polarization episode given the cadence of each source, or explicitly weaken the conclusion to 'highest polarization measured to date' with the caveat that the duty cycle of high-polarization states is unconstrained.
  2. [Section 3.2, Table 3, Section 4.2, Abstract] The elevated NH for AT2020mot (log NH = 20.80 cm^-2 vs. sample median 18.29) is a MOSFiT fit output from a 10-parameter model, and the authors themselves caution (Section 4.2) that it is model-dependent and could arise from light-curve features. Yet the abstract and conclusions list it as a second key anomaly that 'challenges current models.' This goes beyond the robust observational result (high polarization). The NH should be explicitly labeled as a tentative, model-dependent inference in the abstract and conclusions, or removed from the list of anomalies that jointly challenge the models, unless an independent check (e.g., Balmer decrement) is provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The statement that AT2022hvp and AT2022upj show Pi > 6% 'exceeding the predictions of electron scattering models' is inconsistent with the earlier statement in the Introduction that such models predict a maximum <14%. Since 6% is below 14%, please clarify which model threshold is meant or correct the text.
  2. [Table 5] The 'Agreement' column uses a 1-sigma criterion against the sample median. With a small sample (N=12-13) and non-Gaussian parameters, a formal outlier test (e.g., generalized extreme studentized deviate) or a clear statement of the statistical criterion would be more appropriate, especially for Pi_max and NH.
  3. [Section 3.3 / Table 4] For AT2023clx, the rise time is given as 2.9 ± 10.1 d, which is essentially unconstrained. This source should either be excluded from the rise-time comparison in Table 5 or the large uncertainty should be explicitly acknowledged in the discussion.
  4. [Section 2.2] 'Π<0.75% at 3σ confidence interval' should be phrased as a '3σ upper limit' for clarity.
  5. [Appendix B] Typo in the AT2023clx entry: 'broad Balmer and Heiilines lines' should read 'broad Balmer and Heii lines'.
  6. [Author affiliations] The affiliation address contains a typo: 'V outes' should be 'Voutes'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarimetric measurements, host-galaxy corrections, and fitted physical parameters are independent of the paper's conclusions, and the sparse-sampling caveat weakens but does not circularize the outlier claim.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The central polarimetric result for AT2020mot is an independent observational measurement (including previously published data by overlapping authors, but that is external observational evidence, not a fitted input), and the host-galaxy correction in Eq. (1) uses separate pre-flare ZTF photometry and late-time host polarimetry, with the unpolarised-host assumption explicitly verified. The physical parameters (T_bb, L_bol, M_BH, M_star, t_rise) are derived from photometric light curves and SED fits using publicly available codes (MOSFiT, TDEMass), not from the polarisation measurements; the elevated N_H is a fit output that the authors explicitly caution is model-dependent, and it is not used as a predicted test of the models. The population comparison in Table 5 is descriptive rather than a prediction reduced to its inputs. The only notable weakness is the acknowledged ~1% temporal sampling, which limits the outlier claim, but this is a data-limitation caveat explicitly stated in Section 4.1, not a circular step. No equation or claim reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing argument rests solely on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central polarimetric result relies on new observations and a host correction, while the physical parameter estimates rest on published fitting codes with their own model assumptions. The most consequential free parameter is the MOSFiT-derived NH for AT2020mot, which is explicitly model dependent.

free parameters (2)
  • MOSFiT 10-parameter fit (MBH, M*, b, NH, viscosity, etc.) = For AT2020mot: MBH = 18.2e6 Msun, M* = 0.63 Msun, log NH = 20.80 cm^-2
    The elevated NH of AT2020mot is a key secondary result and is directly produced by this fit. The authors explicitly warn that it is model dependent (Section 4.2).
  • Blackbody SED parameters (Tbb and normalisation) = For AT2020mot: Tbb = 31706 K, log Lbol = 44.10 erg/s
    Used to compute peak bolometric luminosities and as input to TDEMass. These are standard SED fits, not ad hoc, but they are free parameters of the analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The host galaxy is unpolarised and its flux is represented by the median pre-flare ZTF photometry.
    Equation (1) applies this assumption to all host-corrected measurements. For AT2020mot it is verified by late-time polarimetry, but for other sources it is assumed.
  • domain assumption MOSFiT's fast circularization/reprocessing model describes the optical-UV emission of these TDEs.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 to derive MBH, M*, and NH. The authors note this assumption may not hold for AT2020mot.
  • domain assumption TDEMass's outer shock model is applicable within its calibrated mass range.
    Used in Section 3.2 for MBH and M*; two events outside the calibrated range are omitted.
  • domain assumption Interstellar polarisation is negligible along all sightlines.
    Section 2.3 estimates maximum galactic interstellar polarisation using the Serkowski law and reddening maps, finding it below statistical errors.
  • domain assumption The sparse polarimetric epochs for each TDE are representative of the full flare evolution.
    Underlies the comparison of maximum polarisation degrees in Table 1. The authors themselves calculate ~1% coverage and admit high-Π episodes could be missed (Section 4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarimetric Diversity in Tidal Disruption Events: Comparative Study of Low-Polarised sources with AT2020mot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XKTPL5S

@misc{pith2026250908895,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarimetric Diversity in Tidal Disruption Events: Comparative Study of Low-Polarised sources with AT2020mot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XKTPL5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08895}
}
read the original abstract

Tidal disruption events (TDEs) occur when a star is disrupted by the tidal forces of a supermassive black hole (SMBH), producing bright multi-wavelength flares. Among these events, AT2020mot has so far exhibited the highest recorded optical polarisation, with tidal shocks proposed as the primary source of its polarised emission. We present a comprehensive analysis of 13 TDEs with available polarimetric observations, aiming to determine whether the unusually high polarisation of AT2020mot stems from unique physical processes or arises from mechanisms shared by other TDEs. We present new optical polarisation measurements of TDEs obtained from multiple ground-based telescopes, combining them with optical, UV, and X-ray light curves from the Zwicky Transient Facility and the Swift observatory, respectively. We derive intrinsic TDE properties, such as SMBH and stellar masses, using MOSFiT and TDEMass, and compare them with the ones of the sample population. Our population study reveals that AT2020mot agrees with the broader TDE sample in most physical properties, including blackbody temperature, luminosity, and rise timescales. However, its optical polarisation degree is exceptionally high compared to the low or undetected polarisation observed in other events. Additionally, AT2020mot appears to have an elevated column density from our MOSFiT fits, suggesting a more complex environment than is typically assumed. We conclude that although AT2020mot fits well within the general TDE population in terms of global characteristics, its extraordinarily high polarisation and higher column density challenge current models based purely on shock or reprocessing mechanisms. More extensive, time-resolved polarimetric monitoring of newly discovered TDEs will be critical to determine whether AT2020mot represents an outlier or the extreme end of a continuum of TDE properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08895 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top panel: AB-magnitude light curve of AT2020mot, rescaled for clarity. Middle panel: Intrinsic Π measurements of AT2020mot over time. Non-detections, defined by Π − 3σΠ < 0%, are plotted as upper limits. Bottom panel: Θ measurements of AT2020mot over time. Non-detections are omitted, as Θ is undefined in such cases. 3.1. Blackbody SED fitting We modelled the spectral energy distribution (SED) of each TDE at peak br… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Observed Stokes q and u parameters for the sample used in this work. Measurements associated with AT2020mot are highlighted in red. The dashed grey circle represents a value of Π = 6%. Right panel: Same, but for the host-corrected Stokes q and u parameters for the sample used in this work [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    , " * 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.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    A., & Romero , G

    Andruchow , I., Cellone , S. A., & Romero , G. E. 2008, , 388, 1766

    2008

  4. [4]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-466, 1

    Arcavi , I., Faris , S., Newsome , M., Sniegowska , M., & Trakhtenbrot , B. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-466, 1

    2024

  5. [5]

    2018, , 852, 37

    Auchettl , K., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Guillochon , J. 2018, , 852, 37

    2018

  6. [6]

    B., Kulkarni , S

    Blagorodnova , N., Cenko , S. B., Kulkarni , S. R., et al. 2019, , 873, 92

    2019

  7. [7]

    Blanton , M. R. & Roweis , S. 2007, , 133, 734

    2007

  8. [8]

    2023, , 670, A150

    Charalampopoulos , P., Bulla , M., Bonnerot , C., & Leloudas , G. 2023, , 670, A150

    2023

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2024, , 689, A350

    Charalampopoulos , P., Kotak , R., Wevers , T., et al. 2024, , 689, A350

    2024

  2. [10]

    2014, , 780, 44

    Chornock , R., Berger , E., Gezari , S., et al. 2014, , 780, 44

    2014

  3. [11]

    T., Alexander , K

    Christy , C. T., Alexander , K. D., Franz , N., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 56, 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M

    Dai , L., McKinney , J. C., Roth , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Miller , M. C. 2018, , 859, L20

    2018

  5. [13]

    2024, , 168, 84

    Escudero Pedrosa , J., Agudo , I., Morcuende , D., et al. 2024, , 168, 84

    2024

  6. [14]

    W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg , D. W., Lang , D., & Goodman , J. 2013, , 125, 306

    2013

  7. [15]

    J., et al

    Fulton , M., Srivastav , S., Smartt , S. J., et al. 2022 a , Transient Name Server AstroNote, 106, 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    W., et al

    Fulton , M., Srivastav , S., Smith , K. W., et al. 2022 b , Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3389, 1

    2022

  9. [17]

    C., et al

    Gezari , S., Basa , S., Martin , D. C., et al. 2008, , 676, 944

    2008

  10. [18]

    2012, , 485, 217

    Gezari , S., Chornock , R., Rest , A., et al. 2012, , 485, 217

    2012

  11. [19]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-401, 1

    Godson , B., Warwick , B., Pursiainen , M., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-401, 1

    2024

  12. [20]

    W., Alexander , K

    Golay , W. W., Alexander , K. D., Berger , E., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 70, 1

    2024

  13. [21]

    A., et al

    Guillochon , J., Nicholl , M., Villar , V. A., et al. 2018, , 236, 6

    2018

  14. [22]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 37, 1

    Hammerstein , E., Chornock , R., Gezari , S., & Yao , Y. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 37, 1

    2024

  15. [23]

    2021, , 908, L20

    Hammerstein , E., Gezari , S., van Velzen , S., et al. 2021, , 908, L20

    2021

  16. [24]

    Hills , J. G. 1975, , 254, 295

    1975

  17. [25]

    2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-1521, 1

    Hinkle , J. 2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-1521, 1

    2023

  18. [26]

    T., Holoien , T

    Hinkle , J. T., Holoien , T. W. S., Auchettl , K., et al. 2021, , 500, 1673

    2021

  19. [27]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Auchettl , K., Tucker , M. A., et al. 2020, , 898, 161

    2020

  20. [28]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Kochanek , C. S., Prieto , J. L., et al. 2016, , 455, 2918

    2016

  21. [29]

    2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-2478, 1

    Hosseinzadeh , G., Hiramatsu , D., DeMarchi , L., et al. 2020, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2020-2478, 1

    2020

  22. [30]

    2024, , 964, L22

    Huang , S., Jiang , N., Zhu , J., et al. 2024, , 964, L22

    2024

  23. [31]

    M., Tyson , J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn , S. M., Tyson , J. A., et al. 2019, , 873, 111

    2019

  24. [32]

    Koljonen , K. I. I., Liodakis , I., Lindfors , E., et al. 2024, , 532, 112

    2024

  25. [33]

    Koljonen , K. I. I., Nilsson , K., Liodakis , I., & Lindfors , E. 2025, , 542, 2238

    2025

  26. [34]

    2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148

    Komossa , S. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 148

    2015

  27. [35]

    A., Liodakis , I., Koljonen , K

    Langis , D. A., Liodakis , I., Koljonen , K. I. I., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.05476

    2025

  28. [36]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1193

    Leloudas , G., Bulla , M., Cikota , A., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1193

    2022

  29. [37]

    2019, , 887, 218

    Leloudas , G., Dai , L., Arcavi , I., et al. 2019, , 887, 218

    2019

  30. [38]

    2024, , 971, L26

    Lin , Z., Jiang , N., Wang , T., et al. 2024, , 971, L26

    2024

  31. [39]

    Liodakis , I., Koljonen , K. I. I., Blinov , D., et al. 2023, Science, 380, 656

    2023

  32. [40]

    2024, , 689, A238

    Marin , F., Marinucci , A., Laurenti , M., et al. 2024, , 689, A238

    2024

  33. [41]

    Metzger , B. D. & Stone , N. C. 2016, , 461, 948

    2016

  34. [42]

    2019, , 872, 151

    Mockler , B., Guillochon , J., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2019, , 872, 151

    2019

  35. [43]

    & van Velzen , S

    Mummery , A. & van Velzen , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17087

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A., et al

    Newsome , M., Arcavi , I., Howell , D. A., et al. 2024 a , , 961, 239

    2024

  37. [45]

    A., et al

    Newsome , M., Arcavi , I., Howell , D. A., et al. 2024 b , , 977, 258

    2024

  38. [46]

    2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3231, 1

    Newsome , M., Dgany , Y., Arcavi , I., et al. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-3231, 1

    2022

  39. [47]

    O., et al

    Nilsson , K., Lindfors , E., Takalo , L. O., et al. 2018, , 620, A185

    2018

  40. [48]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21686

    Onori , F., Nicholl , M., Ramsden , P., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.21686

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2024, , 167, 137

    Otero-Santos , J., Piirola , V., Escudero Pedrosa , J., et al. 2024, , 167, 137

    2024

  42. [50]

    C., Lu , W., Brink , T

    Patra , K. C., Lu , W., Brink , T. G., et al. 2022, , 515, 138

    2022

  43. [51]

    M., & Shiokawa , H

    Piran , T., Svirski , G., Krolik , J., Cheng , R. M., & Shiokawa , H. 2015, , 806, 164

    2015

  44. [52]

    2020, , 641, A6

    Planck Collaboration , Aghanim , N., Akrami , Y., et al. 2020, , 641, A6

    2020

  45. [53]

    N., Rajarshi , C

    Ramaprakash , A. N., Rajarshi , C. V., Das , H. K., et al. 2019, , 485, 2355

    2019

  46. [54]

    Rees , M. J. 1988, , 333, 523

    1988

  47. [55]

    Roming , P. W. A., Kennedy , T. E., Mason , K. O., et al. 2005, , 120, 95

    2005

  48. [56]

    2020, , 904, 73

    Ryu , T., Krolik , J., & Piran , T. 2020, , 904, 73

    2020

  49. [57]

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

    2011

  50. [58]

    S., & Ford , V

    Serkowski , K., Mathewson , D. S., & Ford , V. L. 1975, , 196, 261

    1975

  51. [59]

    2023, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 51, 1

    Sfaradi , I., Horesh , A., Bright , J., et al. 2023, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 51, 1

    2023

  52. [60]

    2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 57, 1

    Sfaradi , I., Horesh , A., & Fender , R. 2022, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 57, 1

    2022

  53. [61]

    H., Cheng , R

    Shiokawa , H., Krolik , J. H., Cheng , R. M., Piran , T., & Noble , S. C. 2015, , 804, 85

    2015

  54. [62]

    2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-1840, 1

    Somalwar , J., Chornock , R., Ravi , V., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2024-1840, 1

    2024

  55. [63]

    Stanek , K. Z. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-1433, 1

    2022

  56. [64]

    2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-438, 1

    Taguchi , K., Uno , K., Nagao , T., & Maeda , K. 2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-438, 1

    2023

  57. [65]

    L., Stubbs , C

    Tonry , J. L., Stubbs , C. W., Lykke , K. R., et al. 2012, , 750, 99

    2012

  58. [66]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242

    Trakhtenbrot , B., Arcavi , I., Ricci , C., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 242

    2019

  59. [67]

    2023, , 519, 50

    Ursini , F., Marinucci , A., Matt , G., et al. 2023, , 519, 50

    2023

  60. [68]

    2021, , 908, 4

    van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., Hammerstein , E., et al. 2021, , 908, 4

    2021

  61. [69]

    van Velzen , S., Holoien , T. W. S., Onori , F., Hung , T., & Arcavi , I. 2020, , 216, 124

    2020

  62. [70]

    B., Levan , A

    Wiersema , K., Higgins , A. B., Levan , A. J., et al. 2020, , 491, 1771

    2020

  63. [71]

    J., Levan , A

    Wiersema , K., van der Horst , A. J., Levan , A. J., et al. 2012, , 421, 1942

    2012

  64. [72]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    Yao , Y., Chornock , R., LeBaron , N., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    2024

  65. [73]

    V., Hammerstein , E., & Somalwar , J

    Yao , Y., Gezari , S., Velzen , S. V., Hammerstein , E., & Somalwar , J. 2022, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-1156, 1

    2022

  66. [74]

    & Qin , Y

    Yao , Y. & Qin , Y. 2023, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2023-2663, 1

    2023

  67. [75]

    1966, in Stellar Evolution, ed.\ R

    Baker, N. 1966, in Stellar Evolution, ed.\ R. F. Stein,& A. G. W. Cameron (Plenum, New York) 333

    1966

  68. [76]

    1988, A&A, 200, 58

    Balluch, M. 1988, A&A, 200, 58

    1988

  69. [77]

    Cox, J. P. 1980, Theory of Stellar Pulsation (Princeton University Press, Princeton) 165

    1980

  70. [78]

    N.,& Stewart, J

    Cox, A. N.,& Stewart, J. N. 1969, Academia Nauk, Scientific Information 15, 1

    1969

  71. [79]

    1980, Prog

    Mizuno H. 1980, Prog. Theor. Phys., 64, 544

    1980

  72. [80]

    Tscharnuter W. M. 1987, A&A, 188, 55

    1987

  73. [81]

    1992, in ASP Conf

    Terlevich, R. 1992, in ASP Conf. Ser. 31, Relationships between Active Galactic Nuclei and Starburst Galaxies, ed. A. V. Filippenko, 13

    1992

  74. [82]

    Yorke, H. W. 1980a, A&A, 86, 286

  75. [83]

    F., Tytler, D

    Zheng, W., Davidsen, A. F., Tytler, D. & Kriss, G. A. 1997, preprint

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.