Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

The rate of extreme coronal line emitters in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey LOWZ sample

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Searching 341,110 BOSS LOWZ galaxies, this paper finds one variable extreme coronal line emitter and measures a rate of 1.6e-6 per galaxy per year at redshift ~0.3.

desk verdict Careful single-event vECLE rate at z~0.3 that is plausibly right but carries a large, partially unquantified calibration systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14022 v2 pith:WCXM5EOC submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Joseph Callow , Or Graur , Peter Clark , Alex G. Kim , Brendan O'Connor , Jessica Aguilar , Steven Ahlen , Davide Bianchi
show 25 more authors
David Brooks Axel de la Macorra Arjun Dey Peter Doel Jaime E. Forero-Romero Enrique Gaztañaga Satya Gontcho A Gontcho Gaston Gutierrez Robert Kehoe Andrew Lambert Martin Landriau Laurent Le Guillou Aaron Meisner Ramon Miquel John Moustakas Francisco Prada Ignasi Pérez-Ràfols Graziano Rossi Eusebio Sanchez Michael Schubnell Hee-Jong Seo David Sprayberry Gregory Tarlé Benjamin A. Weaver Hu Zou
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsextremecoronallineemittersvariablelinesBOSSLOWZgalaxyratesstellarmassfunctionmid-infraredvariabilityspecificstarformationrate
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

Extreme coronal line emitters (ECLEs) are galaxies with unusually strong high-ionization iron lines; a subset, the variable ECLEs (vECLEs), are thought to be tidal disruption events (TDEs) seen through a dusty screen. This paper searches the BOSS LOWZ spectroscopic sample of 341,110 galaxies at redshift ~0.3, finds two ECLE candidates, and confirms one, SDSS J0113, as variable through follow-up DESI and Gemini spectra and WISE mid-infrared light curves. From this single detection it derives the first vECLE rate at z ~0.3: a galaxy-normalized rate of $R_\mathrm{G}=1.6^{+3.8}_{-1.4}\times10^{-6}~\mathrm{galaxy}^{-1}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, a mass-normalized rate of $R_\mathrm{M}=7^{+16}_{-6}\times10^{-18}~M_\odot^{-1}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and a volumetric rate of $R_\mathrm{V}=1.8^{+4.5}_{-1.5}\times10^{-9}~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. These values are formally 2-4 times lower than the SDSS Legacy vECLE rate at z ~0.1, though consistent within 1σ, and one to two orders of magnitude below observed TDE rates. The paper concludes that vECLEs are produced by 5-20% of all tidal disruption events, and that the vECLE rate declines with both galaxy stellar mass and, tentatively, with redshift.

What carries the argument

The machine that converts one detection into a rate is the visibility time: for each LOWZ galaxy, the paper samples a peak luminosity from the Sazonov et al. (2021) TDE X-ray luminosity function, converts it to a peak coronal-line strength by requiring the line-to-X-ray ratio of AT 2017gge (Eq. 2), evolves the strength as a power law over ten years, and integrates the detection efficiency over time (Eq. 4). The sum of these visibility times over all searched galaxies is the denominator of the galaxy- and mass-normalized rates; the volumetric rate is obtained by weighting the mass-normalized rate with the stellar mass function. The rate–mass and rate–sSFR relations are extended by fitting power laws to the LOWZ point together with the SDSS Legacy bins.

What would settle it

A targeted study of ten TDEs with simultaneous X-ray and coronal-line measurements would settle it: if the peak coronal-line strength per unit X-ray luminosity scatters beyond the AT 2017gge uncertainty, the single-object calibration that sets every visibility time in this paper breaks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a measured rate rather than a new phenomenon: after searching 341,110 BOSS LOWZ galaxies and confirming one variable ECLE among two candidates, the authors report a galaxy-normalized rate $R_\mathrm{G}=1.6^{+3.8}_{-1.4}\times10^{-6}~\mathrm{galaxy}^{-1}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, a mass-normalized rate $R_\mathrm{M}=7^{+16}_{-6}\times10^{-18}~M_\odot^{-1}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, and a volumetric rate $R_\mathrm{V}=1.8^{+4.5}_{-1.5}\times10^{-9}~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ at redshift ~0.3. These rates are formally lower than but statistically consistent with the SDSS Legacy vECLE rates at z ~0.1, and are one to two orders of magnitude below literature TDE rates, implying that only 5-20 per cent of TDEs produce detectable variable coronal lines. The paper also finds that the vECLE rate decreases with increasing galaxy stellar mass, following a power law consistent with theoretical TDE rate predictions scaled by factors of 0.05-0.5, and that the mass-normalized rate shows a ~2σ positive correlation with specific star formation rate.

Load-bearing premise

The rate rests on the assumption that a tidal disruption event's peak coronal-line strength is proportional to its peak X-ray luminosity, a ratio calibrated from just one event, AT 2017gge, and applied to every galaxy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At redshift ~0.3, the vECLE rate is $1.6^{+3.8}_{-1.4}\times10^{-6}~\mathrm{galaxy}^{-1}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, formally 2–4 times lower than the z~0.1 SDSS Legacy rate but consistent within 1σ.
  • The vECLE rate decreases with galaxy stellar mass; the combined Legacy+LOWZ power-law fit has slope $-0.7\pm0.3$ in the galaxy-normalized rate, matching theoretical TDE rate–mass relations scaled by 5–50 per cent.
  • Comparing the LOWZ rates with the lowest literature TDE rates implies vECLEs are produced by roughly 5–20 per cent of all TDEs.
  • The mass-normalized rate may increase with specific star formation rate at ~2σ significance, hinting that gas-rich galaxies host vECLEs preferentially.
  • The [Ne V] λ3426 Å emission line, detected here for the first time in an ECLE, is a promising tool for future high-redshift coronal-line searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the redshift decline in vECLE rate is real, large surveys like DESI at z>0.5 should find vECLE yields far below the local rate; a null result at higher z would actually be consistent with the TDE-progenitor picture, turning non-detections into informative upper limits.
  • The single-object calibration of Eq. (2) is the crux: a dedicated program to measure coronal-line strengths and X-ray luminosities across a sample of TDEs would test whether the line-to-X-ray ratio is universal, and would directly rescale all published vECLE rates.
  • The apparent dependence on specific star formation rate, if confirmed, suggests that gas geometry or density, not just black hole mass, gates which TDEs become vECLEs; this could be tested by comparing vECLE host environments to non-emitting TDE hosts in the same mass range.
  • The rate–mass slope measured here, combined with the theoretical TDE rate–mass relation, implies that the fraction of TDEs producing coronal lines may itself be mass-dependent; future, larger vECLE samples could test whether that fraction rises in lower-mass galaxies.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper searches 341,110 BOSS LOWZ galaxy spectra for extreme coronal line emitters (ECLEs), identifies two candidates, and uses follow-up DESI and Gemini spectroscopy plus WISE mid-infrared photometry to determine that one object (SDSS J0113) is a variable ECLE (vECLE). The authors then compute the galaxy-normalized, mass-normalized, and volumetric vECLE rates at redshift ~0.3 using a visibility-time method that converts a single detection into a rate. The quoted rates are R_G = 1.6^{+3.8}_{-1.4} × 10^{-6} galaxy^{-1} yr^{-1}, R_M = 7^{+16}_{-6} × 10^{-18} M_sun^{-1} yr^{-1}, and R_V = 1.8^{+4.5}_{-1.5} × 10^{-9} Mpc^{-3} yr^{-1}. These are formally 2–4 times lower than the SDSS Legacy vECLE rates at z~0.1 but consistent within 1 sigma, and one to two orders of magnitude below literature TDE rates, leading the authors to conclude that vECLEs trace a subset of 5–20% of tidal disruption events.

Significance. The paper presents the first vECLE rate measurement at z~0.3, extending the vECLE rate–mass relation from C24 to higher masses and providing a new constraint on the connection between extreme coronal line emission and tidal disruption events. The search pipeline, detection-efficiency simulations, and Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation are transparent, and the data availability statement plus the use of public surveys (BOSS, DESI, WISE) make the analysis reproducible. The principal significance is the demonstration that vECLE rate measurements can be pushed to higher redshift with current spectroscopic samples, although the measurement rests on a single event and on a single-object calibration of the CL-to-X-ray luminosity scaling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eq. (2); Table 6] The visibility time t_v, and therefore all three quoted rates, relies on the assumption that the peak coronal-line strength scales linearly with the peak X-ray luminosity, calibrated with the single TDE AT 2017gge. The Monte Carlo propagates only the measurement errors on S_gge and L_gge, not the validity of the linear scaling itself. Because the CL strength decays as S(t) ~ t^beta with beta in [-5/3, -5/12], a constant multiplicative error f in the calibration changes t_v as f^{-1/beta}; a factor 10 miscalibration would shift the rates by a factor of roughly 4 to 250, far exceeding the quoted +233%/-84% uncertainty. The paper itself notes in Section 5.4 that ISM properties (density, clumpiness, ionization balance) are not considered, but these are precisely the factors that could make the AT 2017gge calibration non-universal. This is load-bearing: the 5–20% TDE fraction and the comparison with C24 both depend on t_v. The authors should quantify this systematic, for example by adopting a range of plausible scalings (e.g., S_max proportional to L_X^q with q varied, or introducing a log-normal scatter) and reporting the resulting spread in the rates.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.2.1] The detection efficiency used in the visibility-time integral (Eq. 4) is measured by injecting the full Wang et al. (2012) CL set into synthetic spectra, but the sole confirmed vECLE, SDSS J0113, was selected through the [Fe VII]-only flag (two moderately strong [Fe VII] lines with no other detected CLs). The efficiency curve epsilon(S) may not describe the survey sensitivity to a galaxy that is detectable only via [Fe VII]. If the single-line detection path has different sensitivity as a function of CL strength, the inferred visibility time and hence all derived rates would shift. Please either compute a [Fe VII]-specific efficiency curve or argue quantitatively that the full-CL-set efficiency is representative for the [Fe VII]-only selection.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (1); Table 6] The Monte Carlo uncertainty budget does not include the uncertainties on the Sazonov et al. (2021) X-ray luminosity function parameters,  N0 = (1.4 ± 0.8) × 10^{-7} Mpc^{-3} yr^{-1} and a = -0.6 ± 0.2. The slope a directly changes the probability distribution of peak luminosities from which L_max is sampled, and hence the distribution of S_max and the resulting t_v. Since Table 6 presents a complete error budget, omitting a known input-parameter uncertainty leaves the quoted rate uncertainties underestimated. Please sample the XLF parameters in the Monte Carlo and report the additional contribution to the rate uncertainties.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Figure 7] The power-law fit to the rate–mass relation reports a reduced chi2 of 0.02, which the paper attributes to a biased estimator for small Poisson counts. It would be helpful to state explicitly that the small chi2 does not indicate an over-fit, and to show the data points with their asymmetric error bars in the figure so readers can judge the quality of the fit.
  2. [Section 4.2.1] The discussion of [Ne V] emission, while scientifically interesting, is somewhat lengthy for a single-object paper; consider moving some of the comparison with TDE spectra (AT 2018dyk, AT 2019aalc, TDE 2019qiz) to a footnote or a short paragraph to improve readability.
  3. [Table 6] The note that the total uncertainty percentages are the 'linear sum' of statistical and systematic uncertainties is unclear; if the contributions are added in quadrature, state so, and if they are added linearly, justify why that is the appropriate combination for asymmetric errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LOWZ vECLE rate is a new measurement (one detection divided by an independent visibility-time model), with C24 self-citations supplying methodology and calibration inputs rather than the derived result.

full rationale

The rate derivation is not circular. The measured vECLE rate is N = 1 divided by the summed visibility time t_v (Eqs. 4-5). The detection count and visibility time are computed from independent inputs: the LOWZ spectroscopic search (Section 3), the detection efficiency from fake spectra (Section 3.2), the Sazonov et al. (2021) X-ray luminosity function, and the AT 2017gge-based CL-strength calibration (Eq. 2). Equation 2 is a stated single-object assumption, not a fit to the LOWZ vECLE, so it carries external-validation risk but does not make the derivation circular. The paper's use of C24 supplies the detection algorithm and the AT 2017gge line-strength measurement; these are inputs, and the LOWZ rate is a new quantity not contained in those inputs. The comparison to TDE rates is an external benchmark, and the 5-20% fraction is a ratio to literature rates, not a self-referential construction. The caveat in Section 5.4 that ISM properties were not considered is an acknowledged limitation, not evidence of circularity. No step was found in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The rate calculation introduces no new physical entities and no new fitted constants beyond the model inputs. The main burden is the single-object CL-to-X-ray calibration and the assumed luminosity function shape; both are external inputs with unquantified systematic reach.

free parameters (3)
  • CL decay power-law index beta = sampled uniformly from -5/3 to -5/12
    Controls how long coronal lines stay detectable and directly sets the visibility time in Eqs. 3-4. The paper samples a flat distribution over the theoretical range and propagates the spread, but the range itself is an input assumption.
  • CL-to-X-ray luminosity scaling constant = from AT 2017gge via C24
    Equation 2 sets S_max/S_gge = L_max/L_gge. The proportionality is assumed linear and calibrated on one TDE; it sets the peak CL strength for every simulated event and therefore affects all visibility times.
  • Sazonov XLF slope a = -0.6 +/- 0.2
    Used for the shape of the peak luminosity distribution in visibility-time simulations. Adopted from Sazonov et al. (2021); its uncertainty is not propagated in the Table 6 error budget.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All vECLEs are produced by TDEs and CL strength scales linearly with X-ray luminosity.
    Eq. 2 in Section 5.1; the rate interpretation and the TDE fraction estimate both rely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The Sazonov et al. (2021) TDE X-ray luminosity function, normalized to a probability distribution, describes the luminosity distribution of CL-producing TDEs.
    Section 5.1; used to draw peak luminosities for the visibility-time simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper Detection efficiency measured by injecting the full Wang et al. (2012) CL set applies to a galaxy selected via [Fe VII] only.
    Section 3.2 vs. Section 4.1; SDSS J0113 was selected by moderately strong [Fe VII] lines without other CLs, while the fake spectra contain the complete CL set.
  • domain assumption The Baldry et al. (2012) galactic stellar mass function, measured at z<0.06, is valid at z~0.3.
    Section 5.4; needed to convert the mass-normalized rate to a volumetric rate. The paper cites McLeod et al. (2021) and Hahn et al. (2024) for weak evolution out to z~0.5.
  • domain assumption AGN and supernova progenitors are excluded for vECLEs because their coronal lines are too weak or fade too fast.
    Section 1; used to justify the TDE progenitor assumption that underpins the rate interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The rate of extreme coronal line emitters in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey LOWZ sample." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCXM5EOC

@misc{pith2026250114022,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The rate of extreme coronal line emitters in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey LOWZ sample},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCXM5EOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14022}
}
abstract

Extreme coronal line emitters (ECLEs) are a rare class of galaxy that exhibit strong, high-ionization iron coronal emission lines in their spectra. In some cases, these lines are transient and may be the result of tidal disruption event (TDEs). To test this connection, we calculate the rate of variable ECLEs (vECLEs) at redshift $\sim0.3$. We search for ECLEs in the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) LOWZ sample and discover two candidate ECLEs. Using follow-up spectra from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument and Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph, and mid-infrared observations from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, we determine that one of these galaxies is a vECLE. Using this galaxy, we calculate the galaxy-normalized vECLE rate at redshift $\sim0.3$ to be $R_\mathrm{G}=1.6~^{+3.8}_{-1.4}\times10^{-6}~\mathrm{galaxy}^{-1}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ and the mass-normalized rate to be $R_\mathrm{M}=7~^{+16}_{-6}\times10^{-18}~\mathrm{M_\odot^{-1}}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. This is then converted to a volumetric rate of $R_\mathrm{V}=1.8~^{+4.5}_{-1.5}\times10^{-9}~\mathrm{Mpc}^{-3}~\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. Formally, the LOWZ vECLE rates are $2-4$ times lower than the rates calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Legacy sample at redshift $\sim0.1$. However, given the large uncertainties on both measurements, they are consistent with each other at $1\sigma$. Both the galaxy-normalized and volumetric rates are one to two orders of magnitude lower than TDE rates from the literature, consistent with vECLEs being caused by $5-20$ per cent of all TDEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14022 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Redshift distributions of the LOWZ (solid black curve) and LOWZ CL (dashed red curve) galaxy samples, in comparison to the SDSS Legacy (dotted blue curve) and SDSS Legacy CL (dot dashed magenta curve) samples used by C24. The overall LOWZ and CL galaxy distributions are broadly consistent with each other. as CLs redshifted to the same wavelengths. In order to minimize this source of contamination, we construct redsh… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ECLE detection efficiency as a function of the average EW of the CLs. Points denote the fraction of fakes classified as ECLEs in 1 Å bins. The black curve is a generalized sigmoid fit to the data. Error bars indicate 1σ binomial uncertainties. The red dashed curve is the efficiency of the detection algorithm when used on SDSS Legacy galaxies, as calculated by C24. one CL to be at least 20 per cent the strength of th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparisons of the ECLE spectra from BOSS LOWZ (black), GMOS (blue) and DESI (red). Emission lines of interest are marked by vertical solid lines with labels at the top of the plots. The dotted lines in the upper plots indicate the region used to rescale the spectra with respect to each other to allow for easy comparison. For the line-specific plots, this rescaling was done on continuum sections of the spectra near … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the MIR evolutions of SDSS J0113 (orange) and SDSS J2218 (blue) with the Wang et al. (2012) ECLE sample (grey). The shaded region for each object is the 1σ uncertainty on the best fit, determined using a Gaussian process. The left and centre panels show t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the power law indices fit to the declining sections of the MIR light curves of the literature vECLE sample and SDSS J0113, and power law indices of X-ray selected TDE light curves from Auchettl et al. (2017). Left: Power law indices for the W1 and W2 band…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mass-normalized vECLE rates as a function of galaxy stellar mass for SDSS Legacy (blue squares) and BOSS LOWZ (black circle). Vertical error bars show the statistical errors on the rates derived using the Monte Carlo simulations detailed above; and the horizontal error…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Galaxy-normalized vECLE rates as a function of galaxy stellar mass for SDSS Legacy (blue squares) and BOSS LOWZ (black circle). Vertical error bars show the statistical errors on the rates derived using the Monte Carlo simulations detailed above; and the horizontal err…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: Mass-normalized vECLE rates as a function of galaxy SFR (left) and sSFR (right) for SDSS Legacy (blue squares) and BOSS LOWZ (black circle). Vertical error bars show the statistical errors on the rates, while the horizontal error bars denote the SFR and sSFR range…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparisons of our galaxy-normalized (left) and volumetric (right) vECLE rates with TDE and ECLE rates from the literature. TDE rates derived from X-ray surveys are shown as crosses (Donley et al. 2002; Esquej et al. 2008; Maksym et al. 2010; Khabibullin & Sazonov 201…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AT 2018dyk: tidal disruption event or active galactic nucleus? Follow-up observations of an extreme coronal line emitter with the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument

    astro-ph.HE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AT 2018dyk is a tidal disruption event in a gas-rich galaxy, where reprocessed emission produced both its infrared flare and iron coronal lines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    N., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , 182, 543

    Abazajian K. N., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 , 182, 543

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/182/2/543 2009

  2. [3]

    Abdurro'uf et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 , 259, 35

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  3. [4]

    P., Satyapal S., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/529013 , 678, 686

    Abel N. P., Satyapal S., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/529013 , 678, 686

    doi:10.1086/529013 2008

  4. [5]

    D., Velzen van van Velzen S., Horesh A., Zauderer B

    Alexander K. D., Velzen van van Velzen S., Horesh A., Zauderer B. A., 2020, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w , 216, 81

    doi:10.1007/s11214-020-00702-w 2020

  5. [6]

    Andreoni I., et al., 2023, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-023-05699-0 , 613, E6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05699-0 2023

  6. [7]

    Auchettl K., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2017, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b , 838, 149

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b 2017

  7. [9]

    Brinchmann J., Charlot S., White S. D. M., Tremonti C., Kauffmann G., Heckman T., Brinkmann J., 2004, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07881.x , 351, 1151

    arXiv 2004

  8. [10]

    Callow J., et al., 2024a, @doi [zenodo.14222028] 10.5281/zenodo.14222028

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14222028

Show all 113 references
  1. [11]

    Callow J., et al., 2024b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae2384 , 535, 1095

    doi

  2. [12]

    C., Rodríguez-Ardila A., Riffel R., Marinello M., Prieto A., Dahmer-Hahn L

    Cerqueira-Campos F. C., Rodríguez-Ardila A., Riffel R., Marinello M., Prieto A., Dahmer-Hahn L. G., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa3320 , 500, 2666

    2020 doi

  3. [13]

    Clark P., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae460 , 528, 7076

    2024 doi

  4. [14]

    Clark P., et al., 2025, @doi [arXiv.2502.04080] 10.48550/arXiv.2502.04080

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [15]

    J., et al., 2023a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e6 , 948, 112

    Cleri N. J., et al., 2023a, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc1e6 , 948, 112

    doi

  6. [16]

    J., et al., 2023b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acde55 , 953, 10

    Cleri N. J., et al., 2023b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acde55 , 953, 10

    doi

  7. [17]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [arXiv.1611.00036] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00036

    doi arXiv

  8. [18]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [arXiv.1611.00037] 10.48550/arXiv.1611.00037

    doi arXiv

  9. [19]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac882b , 164, 207

    2022 doi

  10. [20]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024a, @doi [arXiv.2411.12020] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12020

    doi arXiv

  11. [21]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024b, @doi [arXiv.2404.03000] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03000

    doi arXiv

  12. [22]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024c, @doi [arXiv.2404.03001] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03001

    doi arXiv

  13. [23]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024d, @doi [arXiv.2411.12021] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12021

    doi arXiv

  14. [24]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024e, @doi [arXiv.2404.03002] 10.48550/arXiv.2404.03002

    doi arXiv

  15. [25]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024f, @doi [arXiv.2411.12022] 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12022

    doi arXiv

  16. [26]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024g, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0b08 , 167, 62

    doi

  17. [27]

    DESI Collaboration et al., 2024h, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad3217 , 168, 58

    doi

  18. [28]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , 145, 10

    Dawson K. S., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , 145, 10

    2013 doi

  19. [29]

    L., Brandt W

    Donley J. L., Brandt W. N., Eracleous M., Boller T., 2002, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/342280 , 124, 1308

    2002 doi

  20. [30]

    Dou L., gui Wang T., Jiang N., Yang C., Lyu J., Zhou H., 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 188

    2016

  21. [31]

    Esquej P., et al., 2008, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:200810110 , 489, 543

    2008 doi

  22. [32]

    P., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/374411 , 146, 407

    Finkbeiner D. P., 2003, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.1086/374411 , 146, 407

    2003 doi

  23. [33]

    Fransson C., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/118 , 797, 118

    2014 doi

  24. [34]

    Frederick S., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3a38 , 883, 31

    2019 doi

  25. [35]

    M., Mullaney J

    Gelbord J. M., Mullaney J. R., Ward M. J., 2009, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14961.x , 397, 172

    2009

  26. [36]

    D., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x , 416, 2102

    Giannios D., Metzger B. D., 2011, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19188.x , 416, 2102

    2011

  27. [37]

    Gilli R., Vignali C., Mignoli M., Iwasawa K., Comastri A., Zamorani G., 2010, @doi [Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201014039 , 519, A92

    2010 doi

  28. [38]

    Graur O., Maoz D., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/sts718 , 430, 1746

    2013 doi

  29. [39]

    B., Modjaz M., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv713 , 450, 905

    Graur O., Bianco F. B., Modjaz M., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv713 , 450, 905

    2015 doi

  30. [40]

    Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/25 , 767, 25

    2013 doi

  31. [41]

    Gullikson K., Dodson-Robinson S., Kraus A., 2014, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/53 , 148, 53

    2014 doi

  32. [42]

    Guy J., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/acb212 , 165, 144

    2023 doi

  33. [43]

    Springer, pp 183--191, @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-69398-7_23

    Habing H., 1997, AGB and POST-AGB STARS: an Overview. Springer, pp 183--191, @doi 10.1007/978-3-540-69398-7_23

    1997 doi

  34. [44]

    Hahn C., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/accff8 , 165, 253

    2023 doi

  35. [45]

    Hahn C., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad19c8 , 963, 56

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    Hawkins M., 2002, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.04939.x , 329, 76

    2002

  37. [47]

    G., 1975, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/254295a0 , 254, 295

    Hills J. G., 1975, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/254295a0 , 254, 295

    1975 doi

  38. [48]

    T., Shappee B

    Hinkle J. T., Shappee B. J., Holoien T. W. S., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae022 , 528, 4775

    2024 doi

  39. [49]

    W.-S., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2486 , 455, 2918

    Holoien T. W.-S., et al., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2486 , 455, 2918

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

    M., Jørgensen I., AllingtonSmith J

    Hook I. M., Jørgensen I., AllingtonSmith J. R., Davies R. L., Metcalfe N., Murowinski R. G., Crampton D., 2004, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/383624 , 116, 425

    2004 doi

  41. [51]

    Hung T., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aad8b1 , 238, 15

    2018 doi

  42. [52]

    I., Thuan T

    Izotov Y. I., Thuan T. X., Privon G., 2012, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22051.x , 427, 1229

    2012

  43. [53]

    Kauffmann G., et al., 2003, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06291.x , 341, 33

    2003

  44. [54]

    Khabibullin I., Sazonov S., 2014, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stu1491 , 444, 1041

    2014 doi

  45. [55]

    S., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1290 , 461, 371

    Kochanek C. S., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw1290 , 461, 371

    2016 doi

  46. [56]

    Koljonen K. I. I., et al., 2024, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stae1466 , 532, 112

    2024 doi

  47. [57]

    Komossa S., et al., 2008, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/588281 , 678, L13

    2008 doi

  48. [58]

    Komossa S., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/105 , 701, 105

    2009 doi

  49. [59]

    Labrie K., Anderson K., C \'a rdenes R., Simpson C., Turner J. E. H., 2019, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXVII. p. 321

    2019

  50. [60]

    Levi M., et al., 2013, @doi [arXiv.1308.0847] 10.48550/arXiv.1308.0847

    2013 doi arXiv

  51. [61]

    Li J., Wang Z.-X., Zheng D., Zhang J.-J., Zhu L.-T., Chen Z.-Y., 2023, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/acae6f , 23, 025012

    2023 doi

  52. [62]

    Lin Z., Jiang N., Kong X., Huang S., Lin Z., Zhu J., Wang Y., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9c63 , 939, L33

    2022 doi

  53. [63]

    J., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw307 , 458, 575

    Lu W., Kumar P., Evans N. J., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stw307 , 458, 575

    2016 doi

  54. [64]

    Magorrian J., Tremaine S., 1999, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc, 309, 447

    1999

  55. [65]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/156 , 743, 156

    2011 doi

  56. [66]

    Mainzer A., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30 , 792, 30

    2014 doi

  57. [67]

    P., Ulmer M

    Maksym W. P., Ulmer M. P., Eracleous M., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1035 , 722, 1035

    2010 doi

  58. [68]

    P., Ulmer M

    Maksym W. P., Ulmer M. P., Eracleous M. C., Guennou L., Ho L. C., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1379 , 435, 1904

    2013 doi

  59. [69]

    Malyali A., et al., 2021, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039681 , 647, A9

    2021 doi

  60. [70]

    Maraston C., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt1424 , 435, 2764

    2013 doi

  61. [71]

    Masterson M., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad18bb , 961, 211

    2024 doi

  62. [72]

    J., McLure R

    McLeod D. J., McLure R. J., Dunlop J. S., Cullen F., Carnall A. C., Duncan K., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab731 , 503, 4413

    2021 doi

  63. [73]

    Mignoli M., et al., 2013, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220846 , 556, A29

    2013 doi

  64. [74]

    N., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe , 168, 95

    Miller T. N., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad45fe , 168, 95

    2024 doi

  65. [75]

    E., Latimer L., Baldassare V., Salehirad S., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffa , 922, 155

    Molina M., Reines A. E., Latimer L., Baldassare V., Salehirad S., 2021, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1ffa , 922, 155

    2021 doi

  66. [76]

    Nagao T., Taniguchi Y., Murayama T., 2000, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1086/301411 , 119, 2605

    2000 doi

  67. [77]

    Neustadt J. M. M., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa859 , 494, 2538

    2020 doi

  68. [78]

    Newsome M., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8a69 , 977, 258

    2024 doi

  69. [79]

    Nicholl M., et al., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2824 , 499, 482

    2020 doi

  70. [80]

    M., Berg D

    Olivier G. M., Berg D. A., Chisholm J., Erb D. K., Pogge R. W., Skillman E. D., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f2c , 938, 16

    2022 doi

  71. [81]

    Onori F., et al., 2022, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stac2673 , 517, 76

    2022 doi

  72. [82]

    S., Wozniak P., Holl B., Željko Ivezić 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/151 , 819, 151

    Palaversa L., Gezari S., Sesar B., Stuart J. S., Wozniak P., Holl B., Željko Ivezić 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/151 , 819, 151

    2016 doi

  73. [83]

    M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , 806, 164

    Piran T., Svirski G., Krolik J., Cheng R. M., Shiokawa H., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/806/2/164 , 806, 164

    2015 doi

  74. [84]

    Poppett C., et al., 2024, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad76a4 , 168, 245

    2024 doi

  75. [85]

    O., Doan S

    Reefe M., Satyapal S., Sexton R. O., Doan S. M., Secrest N. J., Cann J. M., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8981 , 936, 140

    2022 doi

  76. [86]

    J., 1988, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/333523a0 , 333, 523

    Rees M. J., 1988, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/333523a0 , 333, 523

    1988 doi

  77. [87]

    E., Volonteri M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82 , 813, 82

    Reines A. E., Volonteri M., 2015, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82 , 813, 82

    2015 doi

  78. [88]

    N., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv113 , 448, 2900

    Rose M., Elvis M., Tadhunter C. N., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv113 , 448, 2900

    2015 doi

  79. [89]

    Roth N., Kasen D., Guillochon J., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3 , 827, 3

    2016 doi

  80. [90]

    G., 2021, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7 , 217, 18

    Saxton R., Komossa S., Auchettl K., Jonker P. G., 2021, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-020-00759-7 , 217, 18

    2021 doi

  81. [91]

    Sazonov S., et al., 2021, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stab2843 , 508, 3820

    2021 doi

  82. [92]

    F., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , 166, 259

    Schlafly E. F., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ad0832 , 166, 259

    2023 doi

  83. [93]

    Short P., et al., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad2270 , 525, 1568

    2023 doi

  84. [94]

    H., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 , 165, 9

    Silber J. H., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac9ab1 , 165, 9

    2023 doi

  85. [95]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , 146, 32

    Smee S. A., et al., 2013, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , 146, 32

    2013 doi

  86. [96]

    Smith N., et al., 2009, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1334 , 695, 1334

    2009 doi

  87. [97]

    J., Ravi V., Lu W., 2023, @doi [arXiv.2310.03795] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03795

    Somalwar J. J., Ravi V., Lu W., 2023, @doi [arXiv.2310.03795] 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03795

    2023 doi arXiv

  88. [98]

    Stern D., et al., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30 , 753, 30

    2012 doi

  89. [99]

    C., Metzger B

    Stone N. C., Metzger B. D., 2016, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2281 , 455, 859

    2016 doi

  90. [100]

    C., Ostriker J

    Teboul O., Stone N. C., Ostriker J. P., 2023, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stad3301 , 527, 3094

    2023 doi

  91. [101]

    A., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423264 , 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/423264 , 613, 898

    2004 doi

  92. [102]

    Velzen van van Velzen S., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa998e , 852, 72

    2018 doi

  93. [103]

    R., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/53 , 792, 53

    Velzen van van Velzen S., Farrar G. R., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/53 , 792, 53

    2014 doi

  94. [104]

    W., Onori F., Hung T., Arcavi I., 2020, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z , 216

    Velzen van van Velzen S., Holoien T. W., Onori F., Hung T., Arcavi I., 2020, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z , 216

    2020 doi

  95. [105]

    R., Komossa S., Yan L., Kara E

    Velzen van van Velzen S., Pasham D. R., Komossa S., Yan L., Kara E. A., 2021, @doi [Space Science Reviews] 10.1007/s11214-021-00835-6 , 217, 63

    2021 doi

  96. [106]

    M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv.2408.17419] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    Veres P. M., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv.2408.17419] 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    2024 doi

  97. [107]

    Wang J., Merritt D., 2004, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/379767 , 600, 149

    2004 doi

  98. [108]

    Wang T.-G., Zhou H.-Y., Wang L.-F., Lu H.-L., Xu D., 2011, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/85 , 740, 85

    2011 doi

  99. [109]

    Wang T.-G., Zhou H.-Y., Komossa S., Wang H.-Y., Yuan W., Yang C., 2012, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/749/2/115 , 749, 115

    2012 doi

  100. [110]

    Wang Y., et al., 2022, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670 , 930, L4

    2022 doi

  101. [111]

    L., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    Wright E. L., et al., 2010, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868 , 140, 1868

    2010 doi

  102. [112]

    W., Wang T

    Yang C. W., Wang T. G., Ferland G., Yuan W., Zhou H. Y., Jiang P., 2013, @doi [Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46 , 774

    2013 doi

  103. [113]

    Yao Y., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216 , 955, L6

    2023 doi

  104. [114]

    R., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/29 , 798, 29

    Zeimann G. R., et al., 2014, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/29 , 798, 29

    2014 doi

  105. [115]

    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.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.