Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

A new way to find symbiotic stars: accretion disc detection with continuum survey photometry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that at least 20% of symbiotic stars show detectable accretion-disc flickering, and most of these are missed by H-alpha surveys, making previous censuses substantially incomplete.

desk verdict Solid method and credible discoveries; the 'at least 20%' population claim is not supported as stated and needs a major rethink. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00855 v2 pith:VOQSGJGR submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

A. B. Lucy , J. L. Sokoloski , G. J. M. Luna , K. Mukai , N. E. Nuñez , D. A. H. Buckley , H. Breytenbach , B. Paul
show 5 more authors
S. B. Potter R. Manick D. A. Howell C. Wolf C. A. Onken
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords symbioticstarsaccretiondiscsopticalflickeringSkyMappersurveyphotometryH-alphasurveyswhitedwarfbinariesvariable
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 aims to prove that a substantial population of symbiotic stars—binaries in which a cool evolved giant accretes onto a white dwarf—has been missed by traditional H-$\alpha$ surveys because the accretion-disc signature is drowned out by the giant's light. It builds a new detection method from two photometric fingerprints in the SkyMapper survey: a blue excess in reconstructed $u-g$ and $u-v$ colours, and rapid variability between the three $u$-band exposures within each 20-minute visit, a quantity the paper calls $\sigma_{\Delta u}$. Testing the method on 366,721 luminous red objects, the authors discovered 12 new symbiotics, 10 candidates, and four new optically flickering symbiotics, two of which also show hard boundary-layer X-rays. Their central inference is that at least 20% of all symbiotics exhibit detectable accretion-disc flickering, and that the majority of these would be missed by narrow-band H$\alpha$ surveys, making previous symbiotic censuses substantially incomplete. If correct, the method offers a less biased route to finding accreting-only symbiotics and a concrete way to quantify how many are hiding.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the SkyMapper Main Survey visit, which cycles through $u,v,g,r,i,z$ filters in about 20 minutes and thus snapshots three 100-second $u$-band exposures separated by roughly 8 minutes. The paper's variability metric, $\sigma_{\Delta u}$, is the maximum, over pairs of exposures within one sequence, of the magnitude difference divided by the quadrature sum of photometric uncertainties (Equation 1); because the noise is systematics-dominated, it is calibrated against flat effective thresholds ($2\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}=9$, $3\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}=18$) that place roughly 95% and 99.7% of the sample below them. The second critical component is the reconstruction of 'nightly snapshot' $u-g$ and $u-v$ colours from the table of individual exposures rather than the clipped master catalogue, without which Mira-like pulsating giants scatter across the colour-colour diagram with unphysical colours. The paper shows that a colour cut at $u-g\lesssim 2.9$ separates genuine flickering from spurious $\sigma_{\Delta u}$ detections, because flickering is only visible in $u$ when the accretion disc contributes enough excess light.

What would settle it

Re-observe the 24 objects in the paper's sample that have $\sigma_{\Delta u}$ measurements but showed no flickering in the LCO light curves, using multi-night, multi-hour continuous photometry (for example with TESS or a dedicated ground-based network). If a large fraction of these turn out to flicker, then the 20% figure is an underestimate set by the duty cycle; if none of them flicker in extended monitoring, the 6/30 rate is a real sub-population fraction and the representativeness of the 30-object denominator becomes the decisive test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optically flickering, accreting-only symbiotic stars are not a rare side effect of the class but a sizeable, systematically undercounted subpopulation. The discovery is carried by two signatures extracted from archival SkyMapper photometry: the position of a source in the reconstructed $u-g$/$u-v$ colour-colour diagram, which isolates the hot component's short-wavelength excess, and $\sigma_{\Delta u}$, the maximum pairwise significance of variability among the two or three $u$-band exposures within a single 20-minute Main Survey filter sequence. Within a curated sample of 366,721 luminous red objects, the authors map a 'mostly-symbiotic zone' in the colour-colour plane where almost every object is a symbiotic, and show that flickering can be recovered from only three data points. They report 12 new symbiotics and 10 candidates; among the seven objects with $\sigma_{\Delta u} > 2\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ that were followed with hours-long $B$-band light curves, five flicker, and the two observed with deep X-ray exposures show hard boundary-layer emission. From the six flickerers among the 30 symbiotics in their sample with a $\sigma_{\Delta u}$ measurement, the paper concludes that at least 20% of true symbiotics have optically detectable flickering, and that most of these have H$\alpha$ pseudo-equivalent widths below the 10–50 Å thresholds used by narrow-band surveys.

Load-bearing premise

The 20% population fraction rests on the assumption that the 30 symbiotics with $\sigma_{\Delta u}$ measurements are a representative sample of the true symbiotic population, and that the unconstrained duty cycle of flickering does not bias the 6-out-of-30 detection rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Narrow-band H$\alpha$ surveys have missed a substantial fraction of symbiotic stars: the paper estimates that 51–88 missing $u<16$ symbiotics (11–17 reported here) are recoverable from the colour-colour diagram alone with near-zero contamination.
  • With future all-sky $uvg$ photometry from later SkyMapper releases and MEPHISTO, the same method is expected to find an estimated 68–117 symbiotics missed by previous surveys, many of them accreting-only.
  • If at least 20% of symbiotics flicker, then true symbiotic populations are dominated by accreting-only systems, which would bias past statistics on the burning versus non-burning ratio and on the evolutionary state of the donors.
  • The $\sigma_{\Delta u}$ plus colour selection can directly supply targets for fast photometry and X-ray follow-up, as demonstrated by the two flickerers that turned out to emit $\delta$-type boundary-layer X-rays.
  • The concordance between the SkyMapper method and IR colour selection (10 of 12 new symbiotics pass the general IR decision tree) indicates the new candidates are genuine symbiotics despite their weak Balmer lines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 20% flickering fraction is probably a lower bound on the underlying population because it is averaged over one or two 20-minute snapshots per object; if the duty cycle of flickering is well below unity, the fraction of symbiotics that ever flicker could be much higher, while the fraction detectable in a single visit could be lower.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's 234-object spectroscopic survey is effectively a labelled training set in SkyMapper colour-variability space; a supervised classifier trained on it could search later data releases more efficiently, and would be a natural next step beyond the hand-tuned thresholds.
  • Editorial inference: the absence of $\sigma_{\Delta u}$ excess in the GALAH accreting-only candidates, combined with the authors' own low-amplitude findings, suggests those systems flicker at lower amplitude or in different bands; testing the SkyMapper method on a larger GALAH intersection after cross-matching colour data could unify the two discovery channels.
  • Editorial inference: if the majority of flickering symbiotics are accreting-only with weak H$\alpha$, the space density of symbiotic stars may be substantially higher than current catalogs imply, with consequences for the rates of Type Ia supernova progenitors and for post-AGB binary evolution; this extrapolation goes beyond the paper's own claims but follows from its completeness argument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new method for discovering symbiotic stars using SkyMapper survey photometry: reconstructed uvg snapshot colours and u-band variability among the three exposures of each 20-minute filter sequence (the sigma_Delta_u metric), applied to a sample of 366,721 luminous red objects. The authors selected 234 objects for optical spectroscopy, discovered 12 new symbiotics and 10 candidates, and reported optical accretion-disc flickering in four new symbiotics and likely in the known symbiotic V1044 Cen, with hard X-ray detections in two of the flickerers. They compare their sample with recent GALAH, IR-colour, and TESS searches and conclude that at least 20% of the true symbiotic population has detectable optical flickering, most of which would be missed by H-alpha-based surveys.

Significance. If the method holds up, it is a valuable new route to finding accreting-only symbiotic stars, a population that is plausibly underrepresented in H-alpha and objective-prism surveys. The core discoveries are supported by independent LCO fast photometry with careful check-star and aperture validation, and by Chandra/Swift X-ray detections in two cases. The paper also makes a useful methodological contribution by showing that SkyMapper catalogue colours of pulsating giants must be reconstructed from nightly snapshot colours, and that flickering can be recognised from only three u-band exposures. The classification tree is explicit and transparent, and the LCO, Chandra, and Swift data are public. The main weakness is that the headline population fraction, 'at least 20% of the true population', is not supported by the presented 6/30 statistic because the denominator is a selection-biased subsample and the numerator is drawn from a different, targeted follow-up set.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.3.3 (and abstract, Section 8 item vii)] The statement that 'at least 20% of the true population of symbiotics exhibit detectable optical flickering' is not supported by the 6/30 statistic as presented. The denominator is the 30 objects with a sigma_Delta_u measurement that survive the luminous-red-object cuts (Sections 2.1 and 2.2: (J-Ks)_0>0.85, M_J<0, isolation, and uvg availability), not a random or representative sample of the symbiotic population. The numerator is drawn from the 11 targets followed with LCO fast photometry (Table 2), which were selected by colour, sigma_Delta_u, and discovery priority (Section 4), so 6/30 is a discovery yield rather than an incidence rate. Four of the six flickerers are new SkySy that were selected partly because they were SkyMapper outliers by the same colour/variability metric being tested, further enriching the numerator. In addition, the paper itself acknowledges in Section 7.3.3 that the duty cycle of flickering is unconstrained, so a single 20-minute sequence or one LCO run cannot certify non-flickering for the other 24 objects. Without a defined selection function, the 'majority missed by H-alpha surveys' corollary inherits the same bias. Please remove the population claim or explicitly recast 6/30 as a discovery yield in a selected sample, with a clear statement that no population lower bound can be inferred from the current data.
  2. [Section 3.2 (Eq. 1), Section 4(v), and Section 7.3.3] The effective 2- and 3-sigma thresholds are calibrated to the sample itself: sigma_eff=2 and 3 correspond to the 95.45% and 99.73% percentiles of sigma_Delta_u in the same luminous-red-object sample, and Section 4(v) states that sigma_Delta_u was intentionally chosen so that the known flickering symbiotic EF Aql would stand out. Consequently, the fraction of objects 'detectable through SkyMapper sigma_Delta_u' is partly a property of the calibration sample, and using these tuned thresholds as a completeness metric is circular. The independent LCO and Chandra confirmations validate the individual detections, but they do not validate the use of the tuned thresholds for population completeness. Please quantify the sensitivity of the claimed fraction to threshold choice, or apply the full selection to an independent sample, or state explicitly that the thresholds are empirical tuning parameters rather than calibrated detection limits.
  3. [Section 7.2, Fig. 14, and Section 8 item (iv)] The u-g<2.9 cutoff is introduced after inspecting the results as the 'abrupt cutoff' redward of which sigma_Delta_u>3sigma_eff is generally spurious. This boundary is not specified in the target-selection criteria of Section 4 and is derived from the same dataset used to define the search. As a result, the prescription in Section 8 item (iv) that future searches use u-g<2.9 is a post hoc selection rule rather than a validated cut. The authors should present this boundary as a retrospective diagnostic, or validate it on an independent sample, before recommending it as a search criterion. This does not affect the reality of the discovered flickerers, but it does affect the generalizability of the proposed method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 2.2] The selection function is described only in prose and a table; a machine-readable list of the 366,721 objects with pass/fail flags for each cut would facilitate completeness corrections and re-use of the method.
  2. [Section 5.2.1, step (v)] The sentence 'clipped up to one (two) manually-determined outlying non-flagged suspicious measurement per source' is unclear: please specify whether the one/two refers to target versus check stars, and how the manual outlier choice was made consistently across light curves.
  3. [Table 4] The H-alpha |pEW| entries such as '11 (7)' and '6 (2)' need a footnote explaining what the parenthetical values represent (for example, a second epoch or an alternative continuum definition).
  4. [Section 6.2 and Table 4] The text describes V1044 Cen's flickering as detected 'with moderate confidence' and 'likely,' but Table 4 lists a plain 'Y' flag for optical flickering; use a 'Y?' or 'likely' flag to match the stated confidence.
  5. [Section 7.2, penultimate paragraph] The statement that '5 out of 7 with SkyMapper sigma_Delta_u>2sigma_eff exhibited LCO B-band flickering' should explicitly note that the denominator is the LCO follow-up subset, not the full set of objects with sigma_Delta_u measurements, to avoid confusion with the 6/30 statistic in Section 7.3.3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the screening metric was tuned to EF Aql and thresholds set from sample percentiles, but all flickering and X-ray claims rest on independent LCO/Chandra/Swift observations; the 20% population claim is a selection-biased extrapolation, not a constructed equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are not circular by construction. The Sigma_Delta_u metric in Eq. (1) was chosen to make the known flickerer EF Aql stand out, and the effective thresholds (2-sigma_eff=9, 3-sigma_eff=18) were set from the sample distribution, but the paper never treats Sigma_Delta_u alone as confirmation of flickering. All five flickering claims (SkySy 1-2, 1-4, 1-6, 1-11, and V1044 Cen) are based on hours-long LCO B-band light curves with 40+ check stars, fixed-aperture and AstroImageJ cross-checks, and RMS comparisons (Section 6.2). The X-ray detections for SkySy 1-2 and SkySy 1-4 come from independent Chandra and Swift observations (Section 6.3). Thus the discoveries do not reduce to the selection inputs. The weakest inference, 'at least around 20% of the true population' (Section 7.3.3), is an empirical ratio 6/30 drawn from a selection-biased denominator, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the paper explicitly concedes that the duty cycle is unconstrained. That is a statistical completeness and representativeness limitation, not a definitional identity. Self-citations (Lucy et al. 2018, 2019; Lucy 2021) provide preliminary tests, procedural details, and the spectral atlas, but they are not load-bearing evidence for the method's validity, and the paper compares against external surveys (Munari et al. 2021; Akras et al. 2019b; Merc et al. 2024). The paper itself flags a risk of circular reasoning in Section 6.1 for classifying Balmer-decrement O-rich M giants as binaries, and mitigates it by requiring higher-ionization lines, flickering, or hard X-rays for full SkySy status. No step reaches the threshold of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or fitted-input-called-prediction; the score of 2 reflects only the mild self-calibration and selection concerns noted above.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central discoveries rest on standard survey assumptions and empirical calibrations. The main free parameters are the variability thresholds and the post-hoc u-g cutoff; none of the physical conclusions are derived from a model with fitted constants, but the population fraction depends on a non-representative denominator.

free parameters (5)
  • sigma_eff thresholds = 2sigma_eff at sigma_delta_u=9; 3sigma_eff at sigma_delta_u=18
    Set at the 95.45% and 99.73% percentiles of the sample's own sigma_delta_u distribution in Section 3.2, not from an independent noise model.
  • u-g flickering cutoff = u-g ~ 2.9
    Chosen post hoc in Section 7.2 and Figure 14 to separate real flickering from spurious high sigma_delta_u in spectroscopically normal giants.
  • KDE bandwidth = 0.1 mag
    Chosen in Section 3.1 to resolve colour-colour features; affects the outlier scores used for target selection.
  • (J-Ks)_0 colour cut = > 0.85
    Hand-chosen compromise between purity and completeness in Section 2.1, validated against LAMOST classifications but arbitrary within a range.
  • M_J luminosity cut = < 0
    Hand-chosen in Section 2.1; the authors note the exact placement between M_J=0 and 3 is arbitrary though unimportant at the cool end.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Stochastic optical variability on minute timescales in cool giant systems is produced by an accretion disc, not by giant pulsations or atmospheric shocks.
    Invoked in Sections 1.2 and 7.1 to interpret LCO light curves and sigma_delta_u as flickering from a compact accretor.
  • domain assumption Hard X-ray photons above 2.4 keV in such systems trace a boundary layer around an accreting white dwarf, and isolated red giants do not produce them at these luminosities.
    Used in Sections 6.3 and 7.1 to classify SkySy 1-2 and 1-4 as accreting-only symbiotics.
  • domain assumption The reconstructed nightly snapshot colours from dr2.photometry, but not the dr2.master catalogue colours, are physically meaningful for large-amplitude pulsating giants.
    Central to Section 3.1 and Appendix A; if wrong, the colour-colour selection is invalid.
  • domain assumption The e_mag_psf errors, without an added systematic floor, are the appropriate uncertainty for sigma_delta_u.
    Section 3.2 explicitly avoids a systematic floor because it made EF Aql stand out less; the thresholds are then calibrated empirically.
  • domain assumption Prior narrow-band surveys' H-alpha thresholds of roughly 10 A and 50 A are representative of their detection limits.
    Used in Section 7.3 to argue that several flickerers would have been missed by classical surveys.
  • ad hoc to paper The 30 symbiotics with sigma_delta_u measurements are representative of the true symbiotic population.
    Load-bearing for the 20% estimate in Section 7.3.3; the paper itself notes the duty cycle is unconstrained and the denominator is not a random population sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new way to find symbiotic stars: accretion disc detection with continuum survey photometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOQSGJGR

@misc{pith2026241200855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new way to find symbiotic stars: accretion disc detection with continuum survey photometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOQSGJGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00855}
}
abstract

Symbiotic stars are binaries in which a cool and evolved star of luminosity class I-III accretes onto a smaller companion. However, direct accretion signatures like disc flickering and boundary layer X-rays are typically outshone or suppressed by the luminous giant, shell burning on the accreting white dwarf, and the illuminated wind nebula. We present a new way to find symbiotics that is less biased against directly-detectable accretion discs than methods based on narrow-band H$\alpha$ photometry or objective prism plate surveys. We identified outliers in SkyMapper survey photometry, using reconstructed uvg snapshot colours and rapid variability among the three exposures of each 20-minute SkyMapper Main Survey filter sequence, from a sample of 366,721 luminous red objects. We found that SkyMapper catalog colours of large-amplitude pulsating giants must be corrected for variability, and that flickering is detectable with only three data points. Our methods probed a different region of parameter space than a recent search for accreting-only symbiotics in the GALAH survey, while being surprisingly concordant with another survey's infrared detection algorithm. We discovered 12 new symbiotics, including four with optical accretion disc flickering. Two of the optical flickerers exhibited boundary-layer hard X-rays. We also identified 10 symbiotic candidates, and discovered likely optical flickering in the known symbiotic V1044 Cen (CD-36 8436). We conclude that at least 20% of the true population of symbiotics exhibit detectable optical flickering from the inner accretion disc, the majority of which do not meet the H$\alpha$ detection thresholds used to find symbiotics in typical narrow-band surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00855 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scatter plot of RAVE stars, with absolute J-band magnitude from 2MASS and Bailer-Jones et al. (2018) Gaia DR2 distances, and calibrated surface gravity and temperature from RAVE DR5. The vertical streaks are artifacts of how surface gravity is binned in RAVE. Without a sufficiently strict J-Ks colour cut from 2MASS, the region of cool giants in this parameter space blends into the region of warm subgiants, the blue … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Density-shaded scatter plot of our 366,721 luminous red objects sample in Galactic coordinates (grey, corresponding to the objects in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scatter plots of our luminous red objects sample in SkyMapper parameter space, from which outlying targets were selected. Left panel: The u<16 bright subsample (97,957 objects) in our reconstructed SkyMapper u-g and u-v colour-colour diagram. Right panel: the same for the full sample (366,721 objects) with any u magnitude. Middle panel: The statistical significance of rapid u-band variability within a filter sequenc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our sample of luminous red objects crossmatched to external catalogs, including objects with “main type” SIMBAD (Wenger et al. 2000) classification as an S star (S symbols), carbon star (C symbols), Mira (open pentagons), or post-AGB (P symbols; including SIMBAD labels…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selection criteria of targets for which we obtained optical spectroscopy, overlaid on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Three pages.) SpUpNIC spectra of SkySy, SkySyC, and V1044 Cen, and their positions in SkyMapper parameter space. Line plots include the target spectrum (medium black line) and our spectral fit (thick pale red line). When no other line plots are included, the thick pal…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Continued (page 2 of 3). MNRAS 000, 1–35 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Continued (page 3 of 3). MNRAS 000, 1–35 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Decision tree summarizing our observational criteria for classifying an object as a fully-validated symbiotic (SkySy), a candidate symbiotic (SkySyC), or a contaminant. Read from left to right. the target and its eclipsing binary neighbor, roughly mimicking what an ins…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Two pages.) B-band LCO light curves show flickering in (from top to bottom rows) SkySy 1-2, SkySy 1-4, SkySy 1-6, and SkySy 1-11. On the left side, the light curve of the target is shown in flux relative to the median flux (black circles with error bars), the seeing i…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Continued (page 2 of 2). B-band LCO light curves show likely flickering in V1044 Cen (top and middle rows), and a dubious hint of flickering in SkySyC 1-5 (bottom row). For SkySyC 1-5 (bottom row), we plot both the original light curve (blue line) and a light curve de-…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top left: single-temperature fit to Chandra spectrum of SkySy 1-2 with kT=9.4 keV, nH=4. Upper right: SkySy 1-2’s single temperature Chan￾dra fit on its combined Swift XRT spectrum. Lower-left: Chandra spectrum of SkySy 1-4; it has a lower count-rate and a fit was not …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The SkyMapper symbiotics (SkySy; star symbols) and symbiotic candidates (SkySyC; triangles), alongside the sample of previously known symbiotics (small crosses), overlaid on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Object type classification based on our optical spectroscopy on the 234 objects targeted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spectra of emblematic examples of non-symbiotic targets, with overplotted Pickles templates of the corresponding spectral type where applicable (thick pale red lines), alongside the distribution of their target category in SkyMapper parameter space. Distributions are …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The intersection of our luminous red objects sample with flickering symbiotics, overlaid on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The distribution in u-g and in u of spectroscopically normal M and K giants that had 𝜎Δ𝑢 > 3𝜎eff in the middle panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Zoomed-in portion of the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Density-shaded scatter plot in galactic coordinates of our luminous red objects sample (grey); an overlay of the sample for which 𝜎Δ𝑢 information was available (light green); and the members of the sample which are SkySy (blue diamonds), SkySyC (light blue diamonds), …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Symbiotic stars in Galactic open clusters

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CQ Dra, a confirmed symbiotic star, appears to belong to the open cluster HSC 1224, giving an age near log t ≈ 9.4, about 2.5 billion years.

  2. New symbiotic stars or candidates in LAMOST low resolution spectra

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Gaia-based HRD preselection plus LAMOST emission-line diagnostics yields five new symbiotic stars and twenty-six new symbiotic star candidates.

  3. Symbiotic star candidates in Gaia Data Release 3

    astro-ph.SR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Gaia DR3 machine-learning search yields 1,674 new symbiotic star candidates, 25 with X-ray emission.

  4. Symbiotic stars in the era of modern ground- and space-based surveys

    astro-ph.SR 2025-04 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of how large-scale photometric and spectroscopic surveys have transformed the discovery, classification, and variability studies of symbiotic stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Akras S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad096 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.6044A 519, 6044

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad096 2023

  3. [3]

    L., Guzman-Ramirez L., Ramos-Larios G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5077A 483, 5077

    Akras S., Leal-Ferreira M. L., Guzman-Ramirez L., Ramos-Larios G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3359 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.5077A 483, 5077

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3359 2019

  4. [4]

    A., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PASA....5..369A 5, 369

    Allen D. A., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984PASA....5..369A 5, 369

    1984

  5. [5]

    E., Masetti N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756L..21A 756, L21

    Angeloni R., Di Mille F., Ferreira Lopes C. E., Masetti N., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJ...756L..21A 756, L21

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/1/l21 2012

  6. [6]

    P., Noskova R

    Arkhipova V. P., Noskova R. I., 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985SvAL...11..297A 11, 297

    1985

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...58B 156, 58

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    Balman S ., 2020, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2020.05.031 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AdSpR..66.1097B 66, 1097

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Barbary K., 2016a, extinction v0.3.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.804967 , extinction.readthedocs.io

    doi

  4. [12]

    Barbary K., 2016b, @doi [SEP: Source Extractor as a library, Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.00058 , 1, 58

    doi

  5. [13]

    J., Friedjung M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000280 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A

    Belczy \'n ski K., Miko ajewska J., Munari U., Ivison R. J., Friedjung M., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000280 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A

    2000 doi

  6. [14]

    Bessell M., Bloxham G., Schmidt B., Keller S., Tisserand P., Francis P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1086/660849 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASP..123..789B 123, 789

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Bianchi L., Shiao B., Thilker D., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa7053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..230...24B 230, 24

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Willman B., West A

    Bochanski J. J., Willman B., West A. A., Strader J., Chomiuk L., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/76 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014AJ....147...76B 147, 76

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    E., 1997, in Livio M., Donahue M., Panagia N., eds, The Extragalactic Distance Scale

    Bond H. E., 1997, in Livio M., Donahue M., Panagia N., eds, The Extragalactic Distance Scale. p. 224 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/9702008 )

    1997 arXiv

  10. [18]

    E., Pier J., Pilachowski C., Slovak M., Szkody P., 1984, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society

    Bond H. E., Pier J., Pilachowski C., Slovak M., Szkody P., 1984, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. p. 516

    1984

  11. [19]

    M., Schlafly E

    Bovy J., Rix H.-W., Green G. M., Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..130B 818, 130

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    Brown T. M., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/673168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125.1031B 125, 1031

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Bruch A., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986A&A...167...91B 167, 91

    1986

  14. [22]

    Bruch A., 1992, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992A&A...266..237B 266, 237

    1992

  15. [23]

    Bruch A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201425393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Buder S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1242 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..150B 506, 150

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Burmeister M., Leedj \"a rv L., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...504..171B 504, 171

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    J., 1911, @doi [ ] 10.1086/141894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911ApJ....34..314C 34, 314

    Cannon A. J., 1911, @doi [ ] 10.1086/141894 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911ApJ....34..314C 34, 314

    1911 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Pickering E

    Cannon A. J., Pickering E. C., 1905, Harvard College Observatory Circular, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1905HarCi..99....1C 99, 1

    1905

  20. [28]

    J., Shapley H., 1923, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1923AnHar..81..179C 81, 179

    Cannon A. J., Shapley H., 1923, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1923AnHar..81..179C 81, 179

    1923

  21. [29]

    J., Fleming W., Pickering E

    Cannon A. J., Fleming W., Pickering E. C., 1911, Harvard College Observatory Circular, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1911HarCi.168....1C 168, 1

    1911

  22. [30]

    D., 1968, PhD thesis, Northwestern University

    Carlson E. D., 1968, PhD thesis, Northwestern University

    1968

  23. [31]

    W., Luttermoser D

    Castelaz M. W., Luttermoser D. G., Caton D. B., Piontek R. A., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....120.2627C 120, 2627

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    Cester B., 1968, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968IBVS..291....1C 291, 1

    1968

  25. [33]

    Chakrabarty D., Roche P., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..254C 489, 254

    1997 doi

  26. [34]

    E., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AS..106..243C 106, 243

    Cieslinski D., Elizalde F., Steiner J. E., 1994, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AS..106..243C 106, 243

    1994

  27. [35]

    A., Kielkopf J

    Collins K. A., Kielkopf J. F., Stassun K. G., Hessman F. V., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...77C 153, 77

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Corradi R. L. M., et al., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20078989 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...480..409C 480, 409

    2008 doi

  29. [37]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.2.024007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JATIS...5b4007C 5, 024007

    Crause L. A., et al., 2019, @doi [Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems] 10.1117/1.JATIS.5.2.024007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019JATIS...5b4007C 5, 024007

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014yCat.2328....0C p

    Cutri R. M., et al., 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014yCat.2328....0C p. II/328

    2021

  31. [39]

    Wilson and Palomar Observatories, p

    Deutsch A., 1964, Annual Report Mt. Wilson and Palomar Observatories, p. 11

    1964

  32. [41]

    A., Gillet D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...420..423F 420, 423

    Fadeyev Y. A., Gillet D., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20040992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...420..423F 420, 423

    2004 doi

  33. [42]

    L., Massa D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518158 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..320F 663, 320

    Fitzpatrick E. L., Massa D., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/518158 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...663..320F 663, 320

    2007 doi

  34. [43]

    Fleming W. P. S., Pickering E. C., 1912, Annals of Harvard College Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1912AnHar..56..165F 56, 165

    1912

  35. [44]

    D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Freeman P., Doe S., Siemiginowska A., 2001, in Starck J.-L., Murtagh F. D., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4477, Astronomical Data Analysis. pp 76--87 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0108426 ), @doi 10.1117/12.447161

    2001 arXiv

  36. [45]

    R., Doxsey R

    Fruscione A., et al., 2006, in Silva D. R., Doxsey R. E., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems. p. 62701V, @doi 10.1117/12.671760

    2006 doi

  37. [46]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  38. [47]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...1G 616, A1

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Giroletti M., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.130G 638, A130

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    G., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952ApJ...115..133H 115, 133

    Henize K. G., 1952, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1952ApJ...115..133H 115, 133

    1952 doi

  41. [50]

    I kiewicz K., Miko ajewska J., Miszalski B., Gromadzki M., Monard B., Amigo P., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834165 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019A&A...624A.133I 624, A133

    2019 doi

  42. [51]

    J., Pereira M

    Jablonski F. J., Pereira M. G., Braga J., Gneiding C. D., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310699 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...482L.171J 482, L171

    1997 doi

  43. [52]

    H., Soker N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..978K 608, 978

    Kastner J. H., Soker N., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/420877 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...608..978K 608, 978

    2004 doi

  44. [53]

    J., 1986, The symbiotic stars

    Kenyon S. J., 1986, The symbiotic stars . Cambridge and New York, Cambridge University Press, 1986, 295 p

    1986

  45. [54]

    Kunder A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/153/2/75 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AJ....153...75K 153, 75

    2017 doi

  46. [55]

    E., Ting Y.-S., Koposov S

    Lancaster L., Greene J. E., Ting Y.-S., Koposov S. E., Pope B. J. S., Beaton R. L., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aba435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..125L 160, 125

    2020 doi

  47. [56]

    Li J., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/59 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...823...59L 823, 59

    2016 doi

  48. [57]

    J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A..86L 689, A86

    Lima I. J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449913 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...689A..86L 689, A86

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    M., Heida M., Jonker P

    L \'o pez K. M., Heida M., Jonker P. G., Torres M. A. P., Roberts T. P., Walton D. J., Moon D. S., Harrison F. A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx857 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469..671L 469, 671

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    B., 2021, PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhDT........17L

    Lucy A. B., 2021, PhD thesis, Columbia University, New York, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhDT........17L

    2021

  51. [60]

    B., Sokoloski J

    Lucy A. B., Sokoloski J. L., Nu \ n ez N. E., Wolf C., Bohlsen T., Luna G. J. M., 2018, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf71c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018RNAAS...2..229L 2, 229

    2018 doi

  52. [61]

    B., et al., 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel13152....1L 13152, 1

    Lucy A. B., et al., 2019, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ATel13152....1L 13152, 1

    2019

  53. [62]

    B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3107L 492, 3107

    Lucy A. B., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.492.3107L 492, 3107

    2020 doi

  54. [63]

    Luna G. J. M., Sokoloski J. L., Mukai K., Nelson T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220792 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    Luna G. J. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833747 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...619A..61L 619, A61

    2018 doi

  56. [65]

    R., Skrutskie M

    Majewski S. R., Skrutskie M. F., Weinberg M. D., Ostheimer J. C., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379504 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599.1082M 599, 1082

    2003 doi

  57. [66]

    X., Tejos N., Monroe T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/960/024201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128b4201M 128, 024201

    Margon B., Prochaska J. X., Tejos N., Monroe T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/128/960/024201 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PASP..128b4201M 128, 024201

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    J., Ubertini P., Walter R., 2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ATel..715....1M 715, 1

    Masetti N., Bassani L., Dean A. J., Ubertini P., Walter R., 2006, The Astronomer's Telegram, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ATel..715....1M 715, 1

    2006

  59. [68]

    McCully C., et al., 2018, LCOGT/banzai: Initial Release, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.1257560 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1257560

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    B., 1941, Popular Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941PA.....49..401M 49, 401

    McLaughlin D. B., 1941, Popular Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1941PA.....49..401M 49, 401

    1941

  61. [70]

    Merc J., G \'a lis R., Wolf M., 2019, @doi [Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society] 10.3847/2515-5172/ab0429 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019RNAAS...3...28M 3, 28

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

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

    Merc J., Beck P. G., Mathur S., Garc \' a R. A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...683A..84M 683, A84

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    W., 1919, @doi [ ] 10.1086/122891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919PASP...31..305M 31, 305

    Merrill P. W., 1919, @doi [ ] 10.1086/122891 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1919PASP...31..305M 31, 305

    1919 doi

  64. [73]

    W., Humason M

    Merrill P. W., Humason M. L., 1932, @doi [ ] 10.1086/124191 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932PASP...44...56M 44, 56

    1932 doi

  65. [74]

    Held 28 January - 4 February

    Middleton M., 2021, in 43rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 28 January - 4 February. p. 1609

    2021

  66. [75]

    Miko ajewska J., 2003, in Corradi R. L. M., Mikolajewska J., Mahoney T. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 303, Symbiotic Stars Probing Stellar Evolution. p. 9 ( @eprint arXiv astro-ph/0210489 )

    2003 arXiv

  67. [76]

    M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444..586M 444, 586

    Miko ajewska J., Caldwell N., Shara M. M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu1480 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.444..586M 444, 586

    2014 doi

  68. [77]

    Miszalski B., Miko ajewska J., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu292 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.440.1410M 440, 1410

    2014 doi

  69. [78]

    R., Prochaska J

    Monroe T. R., Prochaska J. X., Tejos N., Worseck G., Hennawi J. F., Schmidt T., Tumlinson J., Shen Y., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AJ....152...25M 152, 25

    2016 doi

  70. [79]

    Muerset U., Wolff B., Jordan S., 1997, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A

    1997

  71. [80]

    Mukai K., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slw087 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461L...1M 461, L1

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    Munari U., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1620 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.6121M 505, 6121

    2021 doi

  73. [82]

    F., Levesque E

    Neugent K. F., Levesque E. M., Massey P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae4e0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..225N 156, 225

    2018 doi

  74. [83]

    A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2019.27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASA...36...33O 36, e033

    Onken C. A., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2019.27 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019PASA...36...33O 36, e033

    2019 doi

  75. [84]

    C., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163187 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..535P 292, 535

    Patterson J., Raymond J. C., 1985, @doi [ ] 10.1086/163187 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985ApJ...292..535P 292, 535

    1985 doi

  76. [85]

    Pedregosa F., et al., 2011, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825

    2011

  77. [86]

    J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..863P 110, 863

    Pickles A. J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316197 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110..863P 110, 863

    1998 doi

  78. [87]

    H., 1931, Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931PDAO....4..119P 4, 119

    Plaskett H. H., 1931, Publications of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory Victoria, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1931PDAO....4..119P 4, 119

    1931

  79. [88]

    Pujol A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244967 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...670A..32P 670, A32

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    R., Corradi R

    Rodr \' guez-Flores E. R., Corradi R. L. M., Mampaso A., Garc \' a-Alvarez D., Munari U., Greimel R., Rubio-D \' ez M. M., Santander-Garc \' a M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201323182 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...567A..49R 567, A49

    2014 doi

  81. [90]

    Sahai R., Sanz-Forcada J., S \'a nchez Contreras C., Stute M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/77 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...810...77S 810, 77

    2015 doi

  82. [91]

    Santander-Garc \' a M., Corradi R. L. M., Mampaso A., Morisset C., Munari U., Schirmer M., Balick B., Livio M., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20079212 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A&A...485..117S 485, 117

    2008 doi

  83. [92]

    Scaringi S., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt2270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.438.1233S 438, 1233

    2014 doi

  84. [93]

    Scaringi S., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116585 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...530A...6S 530, A6

    2011 doi

  85. [94]

    Scaringi S., et al., 2015, @doi [Science Advances] 10.1126/sciadv.1500686 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SciA....1E0686S 1, e1500686

    2015 doi

  86. [95]

    E., 2023, @doi [Journal for the History of Astronomy] 10.1177/00218286231200492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JHA....54..436S 54, 436

    Schaefer B. E., 2023, @doi [Journal for the History of Astronomy] 10.1177/00218286231200492 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023JHA....54..436S 54, 436

    2023 doi

  87. [96]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  88. [97]

    J., Finkbeiner D

    Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/305772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ApJ...500..525S 500, 525

    1998 doi

  89. [98]

    M., et al., 1998, in Wamsteker W., Gonzalez Riestra R., Harris B., eds, ESA Special Publication Vol

    Schmid H. M., et al., 1998, in Wamsteker W., Gonzalez Riestra R., Harris B., eds, ESA Special Publication Vol. 413, Ultraviolet Astrophysics Beyond the IUE Final Archive. p. 357

    1998

  90. [99]

    Schmitt J. H. M. M., H \"u nsch M., Schneider P. C., Freund S., Czesla S., Robrade J., Schwope A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202449181 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...688A...9S 688, A9

    2024 doi

  91. [100]

    F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/498708 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1163S 131, 1163

    2006 doi

  92. [101]

    A., McDonald I., Barker H., Marsh T

    Snaid S., Zijlstra A. A., McDonald I., Barker H., Marsh T. R., Dhillon V. S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty660 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.4200S 477, 4200

    2018 doi

  93. [102]

    L., Bildsten L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..919S 517, 919

    Sokoloski J. L., Bildsten L., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..919S 517, 919

    1999 doi

  94. [103]

    L., Bildsten L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1188S 723, 1188

    Sokoloski J. L., Bildsten L., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1188 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010ApJ...723.1188S 723, 1188

    2010 doi

  95. [105]

    B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Taylor M. B., 2005, in Shopbell P., Britton M., Ebert R., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV. p. 29

    2005

  96. [106]

    Teyssier F., 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019CoSka..49..217T 49, 217

    2019

  97. [107]

    L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tody D., 1986, in Crawford D. L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI. p. 733, @doi 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  98. [108]

    M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323L..26U 323, L26

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04496.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.323L..26U 323, L26

    2001

  99. [109]

    M., Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08886.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359..345U 359, 345

    Uttley P., McHardy I. M., Vaughan S., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08886.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359..345U 359, 345

    2005

  100. [110]

    A., Nandra K., Strohmayer T

    Vaughan S., Uttley P., Pounds K. A., Nandra K., Strohmayer T. E., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18319.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.413.2489V 413, 2489

    2011

  101. [111]

    F., 1957, in Herbig G

    Walker M. F., 1957, in Herbig G. H., ed., Vol. 3, Non-stable stars. p. 46

    1957

  102. [112]

    Wallerstein G., 1968, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968Obs....88..111W 88, 111

    1968

  103. [113]

    J., 1981, PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

    Weast G. J., 1981, PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

    1981

  104. [114]

    Wenger M., et al., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000332 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&AS..143....9W 143, 9

    2000 doi

  105. [115]

    pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    W es M c K inney 2010, in S t\'efan van der W alt J arrod M illman eds, P roceedings of the 9th P ython in S cience C onference. pp 56 -- 61, @doi 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  106. [116]

    M., Bildsten L., Brooks J., Paxton B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/136 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..136W 777, 136

    Wolf W. M., Bildsten L., Brooks J., Paxton B., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/136 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...777..136W 777, 136

    2013 doi

  107. [117]

    Wolf C., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.5 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...10W 35, e010

    2018 doi

  108. [118]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140.1868W 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  109. [119]

    Yao Y., Liu C., Deng L., de Grijs R., Matsunaga N., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aa88a9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJS..232...16Y 232, 16

    2017 doi

  110. [120]

    Yuan X., et al., 2020, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 114457M, @doi 10.1117/12.2562334

    2020 doi

  111. [121]

    G., Levine S

    Zacharias N., Monet D. G., Levine S. E., Urban S. E., Gaume R., Wycoff G. L., 2005, VizieR Online Data Catalog, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005yCat.1297....0Z p. I/297

    2005

  112. [122]

    K., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201713362 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AN....338..680Z 338, 680

    Zamanov R. K., et al., 2017, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.201713362 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AN....338..680Z 338, 680

    2017 doi

  113. [123]

    Zhong J., et al., 2015, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015RAA....15.1154Z 15, 1154

    2015 doi

  114. [124]

    pandas development team 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.