REVIEW 2 cited by
LBVs and Statistical Inference
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Smith and Tombleson (2015) asserted that statistical tests disprove the standard view of LBVs, and proposed a far more complex scenario to replace it. But Humphreys et al. (2016) showed that Smith and Tombleson's Magellanic "LBV" sample was a mixture of physically different classes of stars, and genuine LBVs are in fact statistically consistent with the standard view. Smith (2016) recently objected at great length to this result. Here we note that he misrepresented some of the arguments, altered the test criteria, ignored some long-recognized observational facts, and employed inadequate statistical procedures. This case illustrates the dangers of uncareful statistical sampling, as well as the need to be wary of unstated assumptions.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Effect of Rotation on Triggering S Doradus Instabilities in Luminous Blue Variables
Rotation lowers the effective gravity at the equator of luminous blue variables, so the modified Eddington limit is reached earlier there, producing equator-first instability and predicted disk or bipolar circumstella...
-
Wolf-Rayet stars -- what we know and what we don't
This review summarizes what is known and unknown about Wolf-Rayet stars, from their 1867 discovery to current puzzles in their formation and census.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.