Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Classification of Periodic Variable Stars from TESS

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TESS 2-minute light curves yield 72,505 periodic variables, and a random forest classifies 70,100 of them into 12 subtypes, with 87% newly classified.

desk verdict A large, genuinely useful TESS variable-star catalog whose headline purity numbers are partly circular because validation uses the same catalogs that supplied training labels. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06175 v1 pith:MHEVU3XP submitted 2024-12-09 astro-ph.SR

Xinyi Gao , Xiaodian Chen , Shu Wang , Jifeng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords periodicvariablestarslightcurvescatalogspulsatingCepheidRRLyraeDeltaScutieclipsingbinary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that TESS 2-minute photometry can produce a large, reliably classified census of faint, low-amplitude variable stars: 72,505 periodic variables from the first 67 sectors, of which 70,100 are assigned to 12 astrophysical subtypes by a random forest. The headline deliverable is the catalog itself, because 63,106 of the objects (87%) get a type label they did not have before, including thousands of delta Scuti stars and rotational variables that all-sky ground surveys missed. The authors back the labels with purity checks against Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2, reporting 94.2% to 99.4% agreement for pulsators and eclipsing binaries and 83.3% for rotating stars. If these numbers hold, the catalog widens the sample base for period-luminosity relations, Galactic structure, stellar pulsation, and chromospheric activity studies.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a random forest classifier, an ensemble of decision trees, operating on 19 features per star: the Lomb-Scargle period, Gaia parallax and its uncertainty, dereddened color $(BP-RP)_0$, G-band and WISE Wesenheit magnitudes $M_{W_G}$ and $M_{W1}$, WISE colors, and light-curve shape parameters from an eighth-order Fourier fit (amplitude, amplitude ratios $R_{21}$ and $R_{31}$, phase differences $\phi_{21}$ and $\phi_{31}$, skewness, kurtosis, quartile spread $Q_{31}$, Shapiro-Wilk $W$, Stetson $K$, and standard deviation). The classifier separates the 12 classes by learning which feature combinations matter; the paper reports that the Fourier amplitude ratio $R_{31}$ is the single most powerful feature, ahead of period.

What would settle it

Re-do the purity comparison after removing the 2,405 training objects from the crossmatch with Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2 and recomputing the percentages in Table 7; if weighted purity for pulsators and eclipsing binaries falls below the quoted 94.2% to 99.4% range, label reuse is inflating the accuracy claims. A second check is to take a random sample of the roughly 34,000 newly classified ROT stars and search their light curves for the spot-modulation phase coherence expected of rotating stars; a large clean fraction would support the 83.3% purity, and a low fraction would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 2-minute TESS photometry from the first 67 sectors, reduced through Lomb-Scargle periodograms and eighth-order Fourier fits, yields 72,505 periodic variable stars, and that a random forest trained on 2,405 externally labeled stars classifies 70,100 of them into 12 subtypes with weighted-average precision and recall of 0.96. The catalog reports periods, light-curve parameters, Gaia-based physical parameters, and per-object classification probabilities. The authors state that 63,106 objects (87.0%) are newly classified relative to Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2, and that external crossmatches give purities of 94.2% to 99.4% for pulsating stars and eclipsing binaries but only 83.3% for rotational variables, which they trace to the less distinctive shapes of rotating-star light curves.

Load-bearing premise

The whole classification pipeline assumes the external catalogs used to label the training set (ASAS-SN, Gaia DR3, and the TESS eclipsing-binary catalog) are correct and representative, and that the purity-check catalogs are independent of those labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The catalog brings 13 new Cepheids, 27 RR Lyrae stars, roughly 4,600 delta Scuti stars, roughly 1,600 eclipsing binaries, and roughly 34,000 rotational variables into the classified census.
  • Pulsating stars and eclipsing binaries, with 94.2% to 99.4% purity against Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2, can be used directly for period-luminosity relations and Milky Way structure studies.
  • Restricting to objects with classification probability above 0.5 raises weighted purity for pulsators and eclipsing binaries to 97.5% and for rotational stars to 92.1%, so the catalog supports a high-confidence subset.
  • The 25,734 low-probability objects are dominated by GCAS and ROT, meaning those subtypes carry the most classification uncertainty.
  • TESS 2-minute photometry detects low-amplitude variability that ground surveys largely miss, so the catalog reaches a regime where previous all-sky samples were sparse.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the reported purities are computed on a crossmatch that includes training objects, so an editorial extension is to redo the validation with training sources excluded to get a lower-bound purity.
  • The 'newly classified' count likely overstates new discoveries: many of the 63,106 objects were previously cataloged as variable but untyped, so the genuinely new detections are a subset.
  • Because the classifier outputs per-object probabilities for all 12 types, the catalog can be re-cut at any probability threshold; science with ROT, GCAS, UV, and YSO would probably require the above-0.5 subset.
  • Re-running the same pipeline on later TESS sectors with longer baselines should relax the single-sector period cap and add long-period variables, a testable extension of the method.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a search for periodic variables in TESS 2-minute photometry from sectors 1-67, yielding 72,505 sources, of which 70,100 are classified into 12 types by a random forest trained on 2,405 pre-classified objects from ASAS-SN, Gaia DR3, and TESS-EBs. The authors report 63,106 newly classified objects and purities of 94.2% to 99.4% for pulsating stars and eclipsing binaries when compared with Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2, with a lower purity of 83.3% for rotational variables. The catalog and the accompanying light-curve figures are the main deliverables of the paper.

Significance. If the purity numbers are reliable, the catalog represents a substantial increase in classified TESS variables, especially for DSCT, GCAS, ROT, and YSO. The paper is strong in pipeline detail, in the noise simulations used to estimate false-alarm rates, and in making the catalog and light-curve images publicly available. However, because the validation catalogs overlap with the training labels and training objects remain inside the purity sample, the headline purity range is not established independently; this is the central weakness of the manuscript.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2, Table 7] The purity comparison is not independent for classes whose training labels came from Gaia DR3 and TESS-EBs. Section 4.1 states that RR Lyrae and Cepheids were supplemented from Gaia DR3 and EA/EW from TESS-EBs, yet Table 7 scores the full catalog against Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2 without removing the 2,405 pre-classified objects. For RRab, RRcd, and Cepheids, the training objects constitute roughly 87%, 78%, and 39% of the catalog counts, respectively, so the reported purities partly measure agreement with the label source rather than independent correctness. Please recompute Tables 7 and 8 after excluding all training objects and, ideally, using validation references that did not contribute labels.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 8] The 'correct classification probability greater than 0.5' cut is applied to the same data used to train and evaluate the classifier, so the improvement in purity in Table 8 relative to Table 7 may reflect a selection effect rather than a genuine reliability threshold. Please report purity as a function of the classification probability on a held-out or independent sample, or at least quantify what fraction of each type is retained by the cut and show that the improvement is not simply due to removing low-confidence objects that were already uncertain in the training set.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1] The R2 = 0.13 threshold is selected using the same data that are later used to evaluate the periodic-variable sample: a classifier is trained with non-variable objects and applied to candidates selected by different R2 cuts, and the resulting purity is then measured on those same candidates. This circularity means that the 'purity > 90%' claim in Table 1 is not an unbiased estimate of the final catalog purity. The false-alarm simulation for the FAP threshold is a good step, but the R2 threshold choice needs an independent validation set or a cross-validation scheme that does not use the same objects for both selection and evaluation.
  4. [Section 3, Section 4.2] The additional single-sector cut (periods longer than 10 days require R2 > 0.63) and the visual removal of 2,449 candidates are not quantified in a reproducible way. The number of visually removed objects is large relative to the final sample (2,449 of 77,602), and the text states that most are ROT, which is also the class with the lowest reported purity. Please provide explicit, code-based criteria for these cuts, or a sensitivity analysis showing that the final catalog and the reported purity are robust to reasonable variations in the visual inspection.
  5. [Section 5.1, Table 6] The 63,106 'newly classified' figure includes 25,734 objects with correct classification probability below 0.5, as reported in Section 4.2. Since low-probability assignments are the most likely to be incorrect, the headline new-classification count should be accompanied by a version restricted to objects with classification probability greater than 0.5, and the overlap of 'new' objects with the training set should be explicitly excluded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence 'We excluded objects with R2 larger than 0.13' contradicts the surrounding text and Table 1; the intended criterion appears to be R2 smaller than 0.13, and this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.2] The text contains '7.201' where it should read '7,201' in the sentence describing objects with correct classification probability less than 0.5.
  3. [Figures 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] Several figures contain encoding artifacts in axis labels and legends, such as '/uni0000004f/...' sequences; the figures should be regenerated so that all labels render properly.
  4. [Table 2] The word 'betweeen' is misspelled, and the table would benefit from explicit units for gamma2, gamma1, Q31, and the W statistic.
  5. [Section 5.3] The definition of a 'period match' as agreement within 1% while also allowing periods to differ by factors of two or four is nonstandard and should be stated more prominently, since it directly affects the reported agreement fractions of 88% to 92%.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Purity claims for RRab, RRcd, Cepheids, and EBs are partially circular: validation catalogs overlap the training-label sources and training objects are not excluded, while the catalog itself remains an independent deliverable.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (pre-classified set) and Section 5.2 / Tables 3 and 7]
    "We supplemented RR Lyrae stars and Cepheids from Gaia DR3 (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2023). ... We also cross-matched our periodic variable stars with the TESS eclipsing binary catalog from Prša et al. (2022). ... The final pre-classified set includes 2,405 periodic variable stars to train the classifier and test its accuracy. ... Table 7 shows the classification accuracies for each type derived by comparison with two external variable star catalogs."

    The purity statistics in Table 7 are presented as external validation, but for the classes with the highest quoted purity the scoring catalog is also the label source. The pre-classified set added RRab/RRcd/Cepheids from Gaia DR3 and EA/EW from TESS-EBs, and Table 7 does not exclude these 2,405 training objects from the full-catalog crossmatch. The overlap is large: 291/333 RRab, 108/139 RRcd, 73/184 Cepheids, 111/404 EB, and 542/3938 EA are training objects. On training objects the random forest is fit to reproduce those labels, so high agreement with Gaia DR3 (or with Gaia's broad eclipsing-binaries class, which is counted as correct for EA/EB/EW) is partly a consistency check with the training input, not an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's core deliverable, the 72,505-object TESS periodic variable star catalog with periods, light-curve parameters, and 12-class random forest labels, is not circular: the period search, Fourier fitting, R2 thresholding, and visual screening are self-contained or externally checkable, and the classifier's predictions for the 70,100 non-training objects are not forced by the purity comparison. The main circularity is confined to the validation step. Section 4.1 constructs the 2,405-object pre-classified set using ASAS-SN, with RR Lyrae and Cepheids supplemented from Gaia DR3 and eclipsing binaries supplemented from TESS-EBs. Section 5.2 then measures classification accuracies by crossmatching the full catalog against Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2, leaving the training objects in the evaluated sample. For the rare classes the training objects dominate the evaluated counts, so the reported purity (e.g., 98.7% RRab, 96.6% RRcd, 94.4% Cepheids, 99.4% EB) partly measures how well the classifier reproduces labels from the same catalogs that supplied them. The EB purity is additionally inflated because Gaia DR3's broad eclipsing-binary class is accepted as correct for any of EA/EB/EW, so it does not validate the EB subtype. These issues do not invalidate the catalog or the newly classified objects (63,106), which are defined by crossmatching against external catalogs and counts of previously unknown types; they instead mean the headline purity range should be recomputed with training objects excluded and references not used for labels. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling-via-citation pattern is present, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The key external inputs are the external classification labels, Gaia astrometry and photometry, WISE colors, and the adopted extinction law. The main fitted choices are sample-selection thresholds and an unreported set of random forest hyperparameters.

free parameters (5)
  • R2 threshold = 0.13
    Chosen from Table 1 to balance purity and completeness of the periodic-variable sample; directly controls which objects enter the catalog.
  • FAP threshold = 0.001
    Chosen to limit false periodic detections based on noise simulations; controls the initial candidate sample.
  • Single-sector period cut = P > 10 d requires R2 > 0.63
    Applied after visual inspection to remove boundary-effect periods; a hand-chosen exclusion rule.
  • Correct classification probability threshold = 0.5
    Used in Section 5.2 to define a more reliable subsample with higher purity; the main catalog includes lower-probability objects.
  • Random forest hyperparameters = not reported
    Selected by grid search but exact values are not given, so the model is not exactly reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption External catalog labels (ASAS-SN, Gaia DR3, TESS-EBs) are correct and representative for training the classifier
    The supervised model and reported 0.96 accuracy inherit any errors in these labels; see Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Gaia parallaxes and photometry plus the adopted extinction law yield reliable absolute Wesenheit magnitudes
    Features MWG, MW1, and (BP-RP)0 are derived from Gaia DR3 and Wang & Chen 2019; see Section 4 and Table 2.
  • domain assumption Simulated white noise with the measured flux errors describes the false-positive rate of the Lomb-Scargle FAP
    Noise simulations in Section 3 assume PDCSAP residuals are Gaussian-like and ignore correlated systematics.
  • domain assumption TESS PDCSAP light curves are free of significant systematics after normalization and 5-sigma clipping
    The analysis does not model instrumental systematics beyond PDCSAP; see Section 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classification of Periodic Variable Stars from TESS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHEVU3XP

@misc{pith2026241206175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classification of Periodic Variable Stars from TESS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHEVU3XP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06175}
}
abstract

The number of known periodic variable stars has increased rapidly in recent years. As an all-sky transit survey, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) plays an important role in detecting low-amplitude variable stars. Using 2-minute cadence data from the first 67 sectors of TESS, we find 72,505 periodic variable stars. We used 19 parameters including period, physical parameters, and light curve (LC) parameters to classify periodic variable stars into 12 sub-types using random forest method. Pulsating variable stars and eclipsing binaries are distinguished mainly by period, LC parameters and physical parameters. GCAS, ROT, UV, YSO are distinguished mainly by period and physical parameters. Compared to previously published catalogs, 63,106 periodic variable stars (87.0$\%$) are newly classified, including 13 Cepheids, 27 RR Lyrae stars, $\sim$4,600 $\delta$ Scuti variable stars, $\sim$1,600 eclipsing binaries, $\sim$34,000 rotational variable stars, and about 23,000 other types of variable stars. The purity of eclipsing binaries and pulsation variable stars ranges from 94.2$\%$ to 99.4$\%$ when compared to variable star catalogs of Gaia DR3 and ZTF DR2. The purity of ROT is relatively low at 83.3$\%$. The increasing number of variables stars is helpful to investigate the structure of the Milky Way, stellar physics, and chromospheric activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06175 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution in equatorial coordinates of stars observed at 2 minute cadence by TESS in 67 sectors. Upper: stars that were observed in only one sector of TESS observations (27.4 days). Lower: stars that were observed in multiple sectors of TESS observations (> 54.8 days). The number in the color bars is the normalized number. To search for periodic variable stars quickly, we need to do some pre-processing to make th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feature importance as estimated using the random forest algorithm. Obviously, R31 is the most powerful feature for separating periodic variable stars. The importance of period is also very high, only second to R31. 13 days, a single sector observation of TESS may not capture two full periods, and thus may yield an underestimation of the period. This selection leaves 35,721 periodic variable star candidates observed … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Confusion matrix of the classifier. where N is the total number of measurements, i is an index for each measurement, and δ(i) is the normalized residual for the i-th observation. ‘Std’ is the standard deviation of the LC. γ2 is the kurtosis of the LC and measures the tailedness of the distribution, which is defined by γ2 = 1 n PN i=1(xi − x¯) 4 ( 1 n PN i=1(xi − x¯) 2) 2 − 3. (2) γ1 is the skewness of the LC and mea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the correct classification probability of 12 different variable stars. YSO. The classification performance of the random forest classifier is well and the weighted average of precision and recall in the training set reach 0.96. 4.2. The classifier on t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ϕ21(π) vs. log P diagram for TESS variable stars with amplitudes larger than 0.006 mag. From short to long periods, there are δ Scuti stars (DSCT; yellowgreen), high-amplitude δ Scuti stars (HADS; pink), EW-type eclipsing binaries (EW; cyan), EB-type eclipsing binaries…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: R21 vs. log P diagram for TESS variable stars. Symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a) shows Amp. (mag) vs. log P diagram for high-amplitude TESS variable stars. Panel (b) shows Amp. (mag) vs. (BP − RP )0 (mag) diagram for low-amplitude TESS variable stars. Symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The left panel shows the Kurtosis vs. R21 diagram and the right panel shows the K vs. W diagram. Symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The scattered density map showing (BP − RP )0 (mag) – MWG (mag) distribution. The number in the colorbar is the normalized number. and YSO) and high amplitudes (HADS, eclipsing binaries, RR Lyrae and Cepheids). We find that the amplitudes of high-amplitude variable sta…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The (BP − RP )0 (mag) – MWG (mag) diagram for all TESS variable stars. Symbols in the upper panel are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: log P – MWG (mag) diagram for TESS variable stars. Symbols are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Important parameters for variable star classification in machine learning. The upper panel includes pulsation stars and eclipsing binaries, and the lower panel includes GCAS, ROT, UV, and YSO. 5.2. Classification Accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison between our variability periods and the periods of four other variable star catalogs: ASAS-SN (top left), ZTF DR2 (top right), TSVC (bottom left), and TESS-EBs (bottom right). The solid gray line highlights the matching variability periods. The dashed gray …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example LCs for (a) Type-II Cepheids, (b) fundamental-mode classical Cepheids, and (c) first-overtone classical Cepheids. From top to bottom, phase differences ϕ21 increase. The mean magnitudes are fixed at 0.8i, 0.6i, and 0.3i (i = 1, 2, ..., 10), for Type-II Cepheid…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example LCs for (a) RRab, (b) RRc and (c) RRd. From top to bottom, phase differences ϕ21 decrease. The mean magnitudes are fixed at 0.6i, 0.3i, and 0.4i (i = 1, 2, ..., 10), for RRab, RRc and RRd, respectively. Each LC has been merged into 1000 data points. 6.3. Eclip…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Example LCs for (a) EA-, (b) EB- and (c) EW-type eclipsing binaries. From top to bottom, the amplitude increases. The mean magnitudes are all fixed at 0.6i (i = 1, 2, ..., 10). Each LC has been merged into 1000 data points. LCs of GCAS, UV, and YSO are also shown in …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example LCs for (a) DSCT and (b) HADS. From top to bottom, phase differences ϕ21 increase. The mean magnitudes are fixed at 0.2i and 0.4i (i = 1, 2, ..., 10) for DSCT and HADS, respectively. Each LC has been merged into 1000 data points. Different from ground-based te…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Example LCs for (a) ROT, (b) GCAS, (c) UV, and (d) YSO. From top to bottom, amplitudes increase. The mean magnitudes are fixed at 0.2i, 0.1i 0.2i, and 0.2i (i = 1, 2, ..., 10) for ROT, GCAS, UV, and YSO, respectively. Each LC has been merged into 1000 data points. In …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Balona, L. A. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1476, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1981

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1981 2014

  2. [2]

    S., Sahoo, S

    Baran, A. S., Sahoo, S. K., Sanjayan, S., & Ostrowski, J. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab668

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab668 2021

  3. [3]

    M., Batalha, N., et al

    Basri, G., Walkowicz, L. M., Batalha, N., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 20, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/1/20 2011

  4. [4]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  5. [5]

    Bowman, D. M. 2017, Amplitude Modulation of Pulsation Modes in Delta Scuti Stars, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66649-5

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-66649-5 2017

  6. [6]

    M., Kurtz, D

    Bowman, D. M., Kurtz, D. W., Breger, M., Murphy, S. J., & Holdsworth, D. L. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1970, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1153

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1153 2016

  7. [7]

    2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    Breiman, L. 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324

    doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 2001

  8. [8]

    T., Gillen, E., Queloz, D., et al

    Briegal, J. T., Gillen, E., Queloz, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 420, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac898

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac898 2022

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-9987-8

    Catelan, M. 2009, Ap&SS, 320, 261, doi: 10.1007/s10509-009-9987-8

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, ApJ, 832, 138, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/138

    Chen, X., de Grijs, R., & Deng, L. 2016, ApJ, 832, 138, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/138

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2018a, ApJ, 859, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe83

    Chen, X., Deng, L., de Grijs, R., Wang, S., & Feng, Y. 2018a, ApJ, 859, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabe83

    doi

  4. [12]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 320, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0686-7

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    2018b, ApJS, 237, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad32b

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., de Grijs, R., & Yang, M. 2018b, ApJS, 237, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aad32b

    doi

  6. [14]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab9cae

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1081, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02011-y

    Chen, X., Zhang, J., Wang, S., & Deng, L. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1081, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02011-y

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    T., Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K

    Christy, C. T., Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5271, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3801

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    2019, A&A, 622, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833374 Di Benedetto, G

    Clementini, G., Ripepi, V., Molinaro, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 622, A60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833374 Di Benedetto, G. P. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 546, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts655

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2565

    Ding, X., Ji, K., Li, X., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4596, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2565

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, A&A, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    Eyer, L., Audard, M., Holl, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Vallely, P

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Vallely, P. J., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aceaef

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2023, ApJS, 268, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    Fetherolf, T., Pepper, J., Simpson, E., et al. 2023, ApJS, 268, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee5

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47, doi: 10.1086/320638 Gaia Collaboration, Eyer, L., Rimoldini, L., et al. 2019, A&A, 623, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833304 Gaia Collaboration, Klioner, S. A., Lindegren, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 667, A1...

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Maoz, D., Mazeh, T., et al

    Green, M. J., Maoz, D., Mazeh, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 29, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad915

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Seager, S., Huang, C

    Guerrero, N. M., Seager, S., Huang, C. X., et al. 2021, ApJS, 254, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abefe1 G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    L., Davenport, J

    Howard, E. L., Davenport, J. R. A., & Covey, K. R. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 96, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac6e42

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al

    Howell, S. B., Sobeck, C., Haas, M., et al. 2014, PASP, 126, 398, doi: 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 3145, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty838

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Z., Kochanek, C

    Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K. Z., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2019a, MNRAS, 486, 1907, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz844 —. 2019b, MNRAS, 485, 961, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz444 —. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 13, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2711

    1907 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Stanek, K

    Jayasinghe, T., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 200, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab114

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV, ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 2731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3578

    Jiang, D. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 2731, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3578

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Kim, D.-W., & Bailer-Jones, C. A. L. 2016, A&A, 587, A18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527188

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    Kim, D.-W., Protopapas, P., Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A43, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201323252

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Leavitt, H. S. 1908, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, 60, 87

    1908

  27. [35]

    Lucy, L. B. 1968a, ApJ, 151, 1123, doi: 10.1086/149510 —. 1968b, ApJ, 153, 877, doi: 10.1086/149712 Classification of Periodic V ariable Stars from TESS 29

    doi

  28. [36]

    Madore, B. F. 1982, ApJ, 253, 575, doi: 10.1086/159659

    1982 doi

  29. [37]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/50

    Marconi, M., Coppola, G., Bono, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/50

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, A&A, 674, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244101

    Marton, G., ´Abrah´ am, P., Rimoldini, L., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A21, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244101

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    H., Clementini, G., & Marconi, M

    McNamara, D. H., Clementini, G., & Marconi, M. 2007, AJ, 133, 2752, doi: 10.1086/513717

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, A&A, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330

    Mowlavi, N., Holl, B., Lecoeur-Ta ¨ ıbi, I., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Bedding, T

    Murphy, S. J., Bedding, T. R., White, T. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5718, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac240

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Pigulski, A., Pojma´ nski, G., Pilecki, B., & Szczygie l, D. M. 2009, AcA, 59, 33, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0903.4921

    2009 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    1997, AcA, 47, 467, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712146 —

    Pojmanski, G. 1997, AcA, 47, 467, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712146 —. 2002, AcA, 52, 397, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0210283

    1997 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

    2005, AcA, 55, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0508017 Prˇ sa, A., Batalha, N., Slawson, R

    Pojmanski, G., Pilecki, B., & Szczygiel, D. 2005, AcA, 55, 275, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0508017 Prˇ sa, A., Batalha, N., Slawson, R. W., et al. 2011, AJ, 141, 83, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83 Prˇ sa, A., Kochoska, A., Conroy, K. E., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 16, doi: 10....

    2005 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Quinlan, J. R. 1993, C 4.5: Programs for machine learning

    1993

  38. [46]

    2021, ApJL, 911, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf359

    Ren, F., Chen, X., Zhang, H., et al. 2021, ApJL, 911, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abf359

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. Oschmann, Jacobus M., M. Clampin, G. G....

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

    Scolnic, D. 2019, ApJ, 876, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2023, A&A, 674, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245591

    Rimoldini, L., Holl, B., Gavras, P., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A14, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245591

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Rucinski, S. M. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1319, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10207.x

    2006

  45. [53]

    K., Baran, A

    Sahoo, S. K., Baran, A. S., Sanjayan, S., & Ostrowski, J. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2991

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 2486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3676

    Kilkenny, D. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3676

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 Silva Aguirre, V., Lund, M. N., Antia, H. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/173

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, A&A, 666, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244037

    Skarka, M., ˇZ´ ak, J., Fedurco, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244037

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Skowron, J., Mr´ oz, P., et al

    Skowron, D. M., Skowron, J., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 478, doi: 10.1126/science.aau3181

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    W., Prˇ sa, A., Welsh, W

    Slawson, R. W., Prˇ sa, A., Welsh, W. F., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 160, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/160

    2011 doi

  51. [59]

    Smith, H. A. 2004, RR Lyrae Stars

    2004

  52. [60]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 102, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Paegert, M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 138, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab3467

    2019 doi

  54. [62]

    Stetson, P. B. 1996, PASP, 108, 851, doi: 10.1086/133808

    1996 doi

  55. [63]

    M., Long, J

    Stringer, K. M., Long, J. P., Macri, L. M., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1f46

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    E., Coughlin, J

    Thompson, S. E., Coughlin, J. L., Hoffman, K., et al. 2018, ApJS, 235, 38, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab4f9

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    Torres, G., Andersen, J., & Gim´ enez, A. 2010, A&A Rv, 18, 67, doi: 10.1007/s00159-009-0025-1

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    K., Soszynski, I., & Poleski, R

    Udalski, A., Szymanski, M. K., Soszynski, I., & Poleski, R. 2008, AcA, 58, 69, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0807.3884

    2008 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    K., & Szyma´ nski, G

    Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., & Szyma´ nski, G. 2015, AcA, 65, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1504.05966

    2015 doi arXiv

  60. [68]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    Wang, S., & Chen, X. 2019, ApJ, 877, 116, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  62. [70]

    2023, AJ, 165, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca288

    Xiong, J., Liu, C., Li, J., et al. 2023, AJ, 165, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca288

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    R., Stello, D., et al

    Yu, J., Bedding, T. R., Stello, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 1388, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa300

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd63a Zi´ o lkowska, O., Smolec, R., Thoul, A., et al

    Zgirski, B., Pietrzy´ nski, G., G´ orski, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd63a Zi´ o lkowska, O., Smolec, R., Thoul, A., et al. 2024, ApJS, 274, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad614d

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.