Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 81 references

The Isaac Newton Telescope Monitoring Survey of Local Group Dwarf Galaxies. VII. Long-Period Variable Stars in the Nearest Starburst Dwarf Galaxy, IC 10

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nine epochs of optical monitoring identify 536 long-period variable star candidates in IC 10, the nearest starburst dwarf galaxy, and recover every long-period variable that Gaia DR3 confirmed there.

desk verdict Useful new LPV catalog for IC10, but the recovery statistics that back the headline claims are internally inconsistent and need to be fixed before the completeness numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03972 v1 pith:2CAGEDSN submitted 2025-05-06 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Mahtab Gholami , Atefeh Javadi , Hamidreza Mahani , Jacco van Loon , Habib Khosroshahi , Elham Saremi , Iain McDonald , Samaneh Eftekhari
show 2 more authors
Yi Ren Hamed Altafi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords long-periodvariablestarsasymptoticgiantbranchredsupergiantsIC10dwarfirregulargalaxiesstarburststellarvariabilityopticalmonitoringsurvey
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

IC 10, the nearest starburst dwarf galaxy in the Local Group, is a compact laboratory where recent bursts of star formation sit beside an old stellar population, and its cool evolved stars both record that history and supply the galaxy's dust. The paper claims to have produced the most extensive optical catalog of long-period variable (LPV) candidates in IC 10: 53,579 stars measured from nine epochs of Isaac Newton Telescope imaging, of which 536 qualify as LPV candidates and 380 lie within two half-light radii of the galaxy's center. The claim matters because these pulsating giants, asymptotic giant branch stars and red supergiants, are the brightest tracers of star formation over timescales from about 10 million to 10 billion years, and because they are the main producers of the dust that enriches the interstellar medium. The paper's validation is its core argument: roughly 73% of the Spitzer sources in the field are recovered, along with about 43% of the Spitzer-identified variables, about 40% of the extremely dusty AGB variables, about 70% of the Hubble variables, about 75% of the CFHT carbon stars, and every LPV that Gaia DR3 confirmed in IC 10.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Stetson variability index $L$, defined by $L = J \times (K/0.798) \times (\sum_i w_i / w_{\mathrm{all}})$, where the Welch-Stetson index $J$ accumulates weight-signed products of normalized magnitude residuals from paired $i$-band/$V$-band epochs, $K$ is a kurtosis-type shape statistic ($K=0.9$ for a sinusoid), and the weight ratio scales each star by how many epochs actually detected it. The decision threshold is set empirically: for each $i$-band magnitude bin the negative wing of the $L$ histogram is mirrored onto the positive side, a Gaussian is fitted to represent the non-variable population, and the threshold $L=1.05$ is chosen so that at least 90% of the real distribution lies above that Gaussian, implying roughly 10% contamination. Candidates must additionally pass an amplitude cut of 0.2 mag in $i$, a minimum of six measurements spaced at least 30 days apart (following Javadi et al. 2011a), and a non-negative extinction-corrected color $(V-i)_0 > 0$. This chain, index computation, mirrored-Gaussian threshold, amplitude and epoch cuts, and Gaia-based foreground removal, is what takes the 53,579 measured stars down to the 536 claimed LPV candidates.

What would settle it

Rerun the exact same pipeline on the same photometry but with each star's measurement epochs randomly permuted in time: this preserves every noise property of the data while destroying any true variability signal, and the fraction of stars that still pass $L>1.05$, the 0.2-mag amplitude cut, and the epoch cut is a direct measurement of the false-positive rate, which should come out near the claimed 10%. If it comes out much higher, the 536-star catalog and the recovery fractions against Spitzer, HST, and Gaia are inflated. A complementary check is to take a sample of the 536 candidates and measure their periods with an independent, longer-baseline monitoring program: genuine LPVs should show coherent long-period pulsation in phase with the $i$-band amplitudes reported here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that targeted optical monitoring of IC 10, nine epochs between June 2015 and October 2017 in the Sloan $i$-band and Harris $V$-band reduced with PSF-fitting photometry and the Stetson variability indices $J$, $K$, and $L$, yields 536 LPV candidates, the most extensive optical catalog of evolved, pulsating, dust-producing stars in the nearest starburst galaxy. The sample is selected by the threshold $L > 1.05$ set through a mirrored-Gaussian fit to the $L$-index histogram, an $i$-band amplitude above 0.2 mag, at least six usable epochs, and removal of foreground stars identified from Gaia parallaxes and proper motions. The authors present completeness as the test of the method: the catalog recovers roughly 73% of the DUSTiNGS/Spitzer sources in the field, about 43% of the Spitzer variables, about 70% of the Hubble Catalog of Variables sources, about 75% of the CFHT carbon stars, and all of the LPVs that Gaia DR3 confirmed in IC 10. The paper also argues that the standard SFD98 reddening map fails for this galaxy, overestimating extinction and smearing the color-magnitude diagram, and that a constant reddening of $E(B-V)=0.78$ mag with a distance modulus of $\mu=24.51$ mag from Sanna et al. (2008) is the correct extinction prescription, so the catalog magnitudes are corrected that way.

Load-bearing premise

The whole candidate list rests on one statistical assumption: that mirroring the negative part of the $L$-index histogram and fitting a Gaussian to it correctly represents the non-variable population, so that the cut $L>1.05$ really isolates variables with about 10% contamination; if the photometric noise is non-Gaussian, or the mirroring distorts the shape of the non-variable distribution, then the numbers 536 and 380, and all the recovery fractions built on them, change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 536-star catalog becomes the population baseline for deriving IC 10's star formation history from the luminosity distribution of asymptotic giant branch stars and red supergiants, the stated next step of the survey series.
  • The recovery statistics quantify the optical blind spot in dusty starbursts: roughly 60% of the extremely dusty AGB variables seen by Spitzer are missed in the optical, most of them in the crowded, dust-rich center of the galaxy.
  • Because every Gaia-confirmed LPV in the galaxy appears in the candidate list, the catalog can be treated as magnitude-complete at the bright end, and the public data release lets other groups test variability and star-formation claims without new observing campaigns.
  • The demonstration that the SFD98 dust map overestimates extinction toward IC 10 shifts the recommended extinction treatment for this galaxy to a constant $E(B-V)=0.78$ mag, which affects any distance or luminosity estimate derived from its stars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference, not the paper's: the true LPV population of IC 10 is probably larger than 536, because the survey itself misses roughly 60% of the extremely dusty AGB variables that Spitzer sees; a completeness-corrected count, rather than the raw number, should be used in any star-formation or dust-budget calculation built on this catalog.
  • My inference: the mirrored-Gaussian threshold procedure is a portable recipe for sparse-epoch surveys; applying it to fields with independently known variability content, or to Monte Carlo noise realizations, would calibrate the 10% contamination figure and test whether $L=1.05$ remains the right cut for other galaxies in the same monitoring program.
  • My inference: a period-luminosity follow-up on a longer time baseline would turn these candidates into distance anchors; because published distance moduli for IC 10 spread from roughly 22 to 25 mag, a PL-calibrated distance using these LPVs could help settle the galaxy's distance controversy.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents an optical monitoring survey of the starburst dwarf galaxy IC10 using the Isaac Newton Telescope Wide Field Camera, producing a photometric catalog of 53,579 stars in CCD4 (0.07 deg^2) and identifying 536 long-period variable (LPV) candidates, of which 380 lie within two half-light radii. The authors describe their PSF photometry, variability selection based on Stetson J/K/L indices, extinction corrections, and foreground decontamination using Gaia DR3 and TRILEGAL. They validate the catalog by cross-matching with Pan-STARRS, Spitzer/DUSTiNGS, HST/HCV, CFHT carbon stars, and Gaia DR3 LPVs, and they claim recovery fractions such as ~73% of Spitzer sources, 43% of Spitzer variables, 40% of extremely dusty AGB stars, and ~70% of HST variables. The catalog is to be released at CDS. The central claim is that this is the most comprehensive optical LPV candidate catalog of IC10 with a validated detection method.

Significance. If the claimed recovery statistics are correct, this is a valuable contribution: it is the deepest optical LPV census of IC10 to date, it reuses and documents a mature photometric pipeline, it provides a public catalog that will enable star-formation history and dust-production studies, and it demonstrates cross-survey consistency against Spitzer, HST, Gaia, and CFHT data. The paper includes careful completeness simulations and foreground modeling, and the data release is a concrete public asset. However, the significance is currently undermined by internal numerical inconsistencies in the very statistics that are used to validate the detection method, so the headline claims cannot be accepted as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.2.1] The recovery statistics against Spitzer are internally inconsistent. Section 5.2.1 states that among the 257 variables identified with Spitzer, the authors recovered 110 stars in their catalog, and that Boyer et al. found 235 x-AGB and 22 less dusty AGB variable candidates, of which 11 x-AGB and 7 less dusty AGB candidates were recovered among the INT variables in CCD4. These two statements imply 18 recovered Spitzer variables, not 110. The abstract's claims that the survey 'identified 43% of the variable stars found with Spitzer' (110/257) and 'retrieved 40% of the extremely dusty AGB stars' are not supported by the per-class counts as written: 11/235 is 4.7%, and 7/22 is 32%, not the ~68% stated in the text. The authors must recompute these numbers, state the exact denominators for each percentage, and clarify whether the 110 count refers to Spitzer sources recovered as catalog objects (not necessarily as variables) or to variables. Because these percentages are the primary evidence for the validated detection method, this discrepancy must be resolved before the paper can be accepted.
  2. [Section 5.2.3 and Figure 21 caption] The HST/HCV cross-match results differ between the text and the figure caption. The text says the authors recovered 669 SFVCs and 'identified 22 of our variables among the HCV variables, of which 13 are LPV candidates,' while the Figure 21 caption says '34 of our variables were recovered from the HCV, of which 17 are considered LPV candidates.' These are different numbers for the same quantity, and the discrepancy is not explained. Since the abstract's ~70% HST recovery claim depends on the correct count, the authors must reconcile the text and caption and report a single consistent set of HST recovery statistics.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 7] The derivation of the L-index threshold rests on the assumption that the mirrored negative side of the L histogram represents the non-variable population and that a Gaussian fit to it isolates variables. The text states that a threshold of L = 1.05 is chosen 'at which at least 90% of the stellar distribution is above the Gaussian fit' and that '~10% of these might be non-variable.' This wording is ambiguous: if 90% of the distribution is above the fit, the contamination fraction is not obviously 10%. The authors should state explicitly how the 10% contamination estimate is obtained from the Gaussian fit and whether the threshold was validated with the artificial-star injections. This point is central because the 536 LPV candidates and all derived completeness fractions depend on this threshold.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4.3] The abstract states that the authors 'found all the confirmed LPVs that Gaia DR3 detected in IC10 among our identified LPVs,' but Section 4.3 says that Rimoldini et al. identified 20 LPV candidates and the authors found all of them except one that lies outside the CCD4 area. The abstract should be qualified to state that all Gaia LPVs inside the survey footprint were recovered, or that the four spectroscopically/otherwise confirmed LPVs (Lebzelter et al.) were recovered.
  2. [Section 5.2.1] The sentence 'Our results are consistent with the study by Boyer et al. (2015a,b)' is not supported by the preceding numbers, which show an order-of-magnitude discrepancy between recovered and total x-AGB variables. Please rephrase or provide a quantitative comparison.
  3. [Section 5.2.1] The phrase 'recovering approximately 73% of DUSTiNGS sources within the 2rh area in our catalog' is unclear about the denominator: it should state whether the 73% refers to all DUSTiNGS sources in 2rh, all in CCD4, or all in the full DUSTiNGS footprint, and it should give the matching radius used for cross-identification.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Table 3] The catalog description mentions that stars with an asterisk are marked due to quality of astrometric solution, but the text does not explain how the astrometric solution quality was assessed or how many stars are affected. A brief explanation would help users of the public catalog.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: variability selection is threshold-based and the catalog is validated against independent external catalogs; the inconsistent recovery statistics are a correctness concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain—PSF photometry, Stetson J/K/L variability indices, the L=1.05 threshold from a mirror-Gaussian fit to the survey's own L histogram, the amplitude rule A=2*sigma/0.707, the six-measurement minimum, foreground rejection via trilegal and Gaia DR3, and cross-matching to Pan-STARRS, Spitzer, HST, CFHT, and Gaia DR3—does not reduce to its own inputs. The L threshold is a selection criterion calibrated on the survey's noise distribution, not a quantity the paper then claims to predict; the catalog's success is measured against external, independently published catalogs. The cited prior methods (Stetson 1996; Welch and Stetson 1993; Javadi et al. 2011a) supply standard variability statistics and a sampling rule; they do not encode the target result (the 536 LPV candidates or the recovery fractions). Self-citations to the authors' earlier LG survey papers are programmatic rather than load-bearing. I therefore find no circular step. Separately, as a correctness-not-circularity flag: Section 5.2.1's recovery statistics are internally inconsistent (257 Spitzer variables; 110 recovered versus 7+11 recovered; the claimed 40% x-AGB recovery versus 11/235; the roughly 68% less dusty AGB figure versus 7/22; and HST counts differing between the text and Fig. 21), so the abstract's validation percentages should be recomputed before they are relied upon.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its results rest on literature values for distance, reddening, and metallicity, plus internally chosen selection thresholds for variability and amplitude. The threshold choices are free parameters of the classification, not fitted physical quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • L variability index threshold = 1.05
    Chosen from mirror-Gaussian fits to L-index histograms in magnitude bins so that about 90% of the stellar distribution lies above the Gaussian fit; this defines candidate variables (Section 4, Figure 7).
  • Minimum i-band amplitude for LPV candidacy = 0.20 mag
    Manually selected cutoff to remove low-amplitude variables that are treated as unreliable; applied in Section 4.
  • Minimum number of measurements for amplitude reliability = 6
    Adopted from Javadi et al. (2011a) to ensure amplitude estimates are not biased by sparse sampling (Section 4.1).
  • Gaussian fit confidence level for L threshold = 90%
    Criterion for setting the L threshold: at least 90% of the stellar distribution must lie above the fitted Gaussian, implying about 10% contamination (Section 4).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Distance modulus of IC10 is mu = 24.51 +/- 0.08 mag (distance 0.81 Mpc) from Sanna et al. (2008).
    Adopted for dereddened magnitudes, TAGB/TRGB placement, and isochrone alignment (Sections 4.2.2 and 5.1).
  • domain assumption Constant reddening E(B-V) = 0.78 +/- 0.06 mag applies to all stars in IC10.
    Chosen over the SFD98 map after a CMD comparison; used for all dereddened magnitudes and colors (Section 4.2.2).
  • domain assumption IC10 metallicity is [Fe/H] = -1.28 dex (Z = 0.0008).
    Used to select Padova isochrones for CMD interpretation and TAGB determination (Section 4.2.2, Figure 14).
  • standard math The extinction law follows Cardelli et al. (1989) with R_V = 3.1.
    Standard conversion from E(B-V) to A_V and A_i (Section 4.2.1).
  • domain assumption Variable sources with dereddened color (V-i)_0 < 0 are not LPVs.
    Used as an exclusion criterion in the LPV classification (Section 4).
  • standard math Stetson variability indices J, K, L, as implemented in the newtrial routine, reliably separate variable from non-variable sources given the sampling.
    The classification method relies on the statistical behavior of these indices under Gaussian noise (Section 4, Equations 2-5).
  • domain assumption The TRILEGAL model and Gaia astrometry adequately describe foreground contamination toward IC10.
    Foreground subtraction relies on TRILEGAL simulations and Gaia parallax/proper-motion cuts (Section 4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Isaac Newton Telescope Monitoring Survey of Local Group Dwarf Galaxies. VII. Long-Period Variable Stars in the Nearest Starburst Dwarf Galaxy, IC 10." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CAGEDSN

@misc{pith2026250503972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Isaac Newton Telescope Monitoring Survey of Local Group Dwarf Galaxies. VII. Long-Period Variable Stars in the Nearest Starburst Dwarf Galaxy, IC 10},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CAGEDSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03972}
}
abstract

To identify long-period variable (LPV) stars in IC10 - the nearest starburst galaxy of the Local Group (LG) - we conducted an optical monitoring survey using the 2.5-m Isaac Newton Telescope (INT) with the wide-field camera (WFC) in the i-band and V-band from 2015 to 2017. We created a photometric catalog for 53,579 stars within the area of CCD4 of WFC ($\sim$ 0.07 deg$^2$ corresponding to 13.5 kpc$^2$ at the distance of IC10), of which we classified 536 and 380 stars as long-period variable candidates (LPVs), mostly asymptotic giant branch stars (AGBs) and red supergiants (RSGs), within CCD4 and two half-light radii of IC10, respectively. By comparing our output catalog to the catalogs from Pan-STARRS, Spitzer Space Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and carbon stars from the Canada-France-Hawai'i Telescope (CFHT) survey, we determined the success of our detection method. We recovered $\sim$ 73% of Spitzer's sources in our catalog and demonstrated that our survey successfully identified 43% of the variable stars found with Spitzer, and also retrieved 40% of the extremely dusty AGB stars among the Spitzer variables. In addition, we successfully identified $\sim$ 70% of HST variables in our catalog. Furthermore, we found all the confirmed LPVs that Gaia DR3 detected in IC10 among our identified LPVs. This paper is the first in a series on IC10, presenting the variable star survey methodology and the photometric catalog, available to the public through the Centre de Donn\'ees Astronomiques de Strasbourg.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Median image of IC 10. The red, blue, and magenta ellipses in the middle of the image indicate the half-light radius (rh), two half-light radii (2rh), and three half-light radii (3rh) from the center of IC 10, respectively. The LPV candidates are displayed in green. The Gaia DR3 LPVs are represented by red open squares (Sec. 4.3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Magnitude differences in the i–band between INT and Pan-STARRS catalogs for IC 10 sources within 2rh from the galaxy’s center. band, starting at i = 17 mag and ending at i = 26 mag. All photometry steps (Sec. 3) were then applied to the reconstructed frame to estimate star-finding efficiency by comparing the results to the input catalog. Our catalog is 100 % complete for stars brighter than i = 21 mag, drops to 80 %… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. The magnitude difference between artificial input stars and their recovered counterparts in the i–band for the night of June 15, 2016. number of common variable stars detected between the two datasets dropped from 80 % for stars brighter than ∼ 21 mag to less than 50 % for fainter stars. Since most of our LPVs are concentrated in the magnitude range of 20–22 mag (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnitude differences between artificial input stars and their recovered counterparts in the i–band. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relationship between the artificial magnitude and recovered magnitude versus the distance from the center of IC 10 for six input magnitudes. To calculate the variability indices, observations are paired based on the timespan between them, ensuring that the timespan for…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the variability index L for sev￾eral magnitude bins in the i–band. The negative part of each histogram is mirrored (green bins). The fitted Gaus￾sian function for each histogram is shown with a blue solid line, representing the expected distribution of no…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For all sources in IC 10, the variability index L is plotted against the mean i–band magnitude. The red horizontal dashed line represents the index L threshold (L = 1.05) for identifying variable candidates (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of light–curves within the CCD4 area: a non–variable star, and three LPV–candidates. The hori￾zontal dashed line represents the weighted mean magnitude of each star across all epochs. The light–curves of all LPV candidates are provided in the Appendix A1. A = …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (left panel) illustrates the estimated amplitude for LPV candidates as a function of i0–band magnitude. The i0 and V0 magnitudes are corrected for extinction (see Sec. 4.2.2). The amplitudes are generally less than 3.3 mag and are predominantly concentrated around Ai …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histogram of the amplitude of variability for LPV candidates detected in the i–band within the 2rh. The vertical green dashed line marks an amplitude of 0.75 mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The E(B–V) values of the sources are mainly concentrated at 0.8 mag, 1 mag, 1.47 mag, and 1.5 mag, corresponding to AV values of 2.48 mag, 3.1 mag, 4.56 mag, and 4.65 mag, respectively. Additionally, the E(B– V) values of the LPV candidates are primarily concen￾trated…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: illustrates the variation in visual extinction (AV ) over the field of view towards IC 10. Reddening is seen to increase significantly toward the center of the galaxy (star-forming regions, Sakai et al. (1999)). 4.2.2. A constant reddening We also corrected the extinc…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Original CMD; (b) CMD corrected for extinction using the SFD98 dust map for each star; (c) CMD corrected for a constant extinction from Sanna et al. (2008). The LPV candidates are shown in green. Overplotted are isochrones from Marigo et al. (2017) for a distance …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The trilegal simulation (Girardi et al. 2005) of the foreground stars within CCD4 area (left panel) and 2rh (right panel) centered on IC 10. The foreground stars and LPV candidates are shown in magenta and green, re￾spectively. on the comparison of the number of foreg…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Identification of foreground stars based on DR3 data in our catalog within the CCD4 area. Besides the variables shown in green, the foreground stars characterized based on their PA measurements are highlighted in magenta. Blue indicates the foreground stars as determi…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: and red open squares in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Logarithmic distribution of brightness (top and middle panels) and color (bottom panel) for IC 10 sources (black) and LPV candidates within 2rh. The vertical dashed lines in the top panel indicate the TAGB and TRGB. ity distribution for faint stellar populations stati…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: CMD for the sources common to our photometric catalog and the DUSTiNGS survey within CCD4 area, shown in [3.6] vs. [3.6]–[4.5] (left panel) and i0–band vs. i0–[3.6] (right panel). In both panels, INT variables recovered by Spitzer are depicted in green, while the less…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: CMD of the i0-band versus color (V–i)0 for IC 10 sources. The carbon stars identified by Demers et al. (2004) and recovered in our catalog are shown as red squares. Green squares represent the LPV candidates within CCD4 area classified as carbon stars. Isochrones from…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: CMD of the i0–band versus color (V–i)0 for IC 10 sources within the area of CCD4. The red squares represent the RSGs from Ren’s catalog detected by us, with LPV candidates labeled with green squares. Blue squares indicate the RSGs from Britavskiy et al. (2019). Isochr…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: RSGs from Ren et al. (2021) recovered in our catalog are shown with red circles, across the entire area of CCD4 and the median WFC image of IC 10. The RSGs recovered among our LPV candidates are labeled with green open boxes, while blue open boxes represent RSGs from …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T., et al., 2023, ApJ, 948, 63

    Abdollahi, H., Javadi, A., Mirtorabi, M. T., et al., 2023, ApJ, 948, 63

    2023

  2. [2]

    Z., Yang, M., Sokolovsky, K

    Bonanos, A. Z., Yang, M., Sokolovsky, K. V., et al., 2019, A&A, 630, A92

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Borissova, J., Georgiev, L., Rosado, M., et al., 2000, A&A, 363, 130

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    E., Bonanos, A

    Britavskiy, N. E., Bonanos, A. Z., Herrero, A., et al., 2019, A&A, 631, A95

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    L., Srinivasan, S., Riebel, D., et al., 2012, ApJ, 748, 40

    Boyer, M. L., Srinivasan, S., Riebel, D., et al., 2012, ApJ, 748, 40

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    L., Skillman, E

    Boyer, M. L., Skillman, E. D., van Loon, J. Th., et al., 2009, ApJ, 697, 1993

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    & Wasserburg, G

    Busso, M., Gallino, R. & Wasserburg, G. J., 1999, ARA&A, 37, 239

    work page 1999

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    K., Karakas, A

    Fishlock, C. K., Karakas, A. I., Lugaro, M., Yong, D., 2014, ApJ, 797, 44

    2014

  2. [10]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C., 2014, PASA, 31, e030

    2014

  3. [11]

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Piersanti, L., & Gobrecht, D., 2015, ApJS, 219, 40

    2015

  4. [12]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  5. [13]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al., 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chen, Y., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    2015

  7. [15]

    A., Murray, N., et al., 2022, ApJ, 929, 74

    Cosens, M., Wright, S. A., Murray, N., et al., 2022, ApJ, 929, 74

    2022

  8. [16]

    J., 2003, A&A, 404, 483 Dell’Agli, F., Di Criscienzo, M., Ventura, P., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5035 20 Gholami et al

    Smartt, S. J., 2003, A&A, 404, 483 Dell’Agli, F., Di Criscienzo, M., Ventura, P., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 479, 5035 20 Gholami et al

    2003

  9. [17]

    & Ables, H., 1965, PASP, 77, 272 de Vaucouleurs, G., 1978, ApJ, 224, 710

    Demers, S., Battinelli, P., & Letarte, B., 2004, A&A, 424, 125 de Vaucouleurs, G. & Ables, H., 1965, PASP, 77, 272 de Vaucouleurs, G., 1978, ApJ, 224, 710

    2004

  10. [18]

    P., et al., 2005, AN, 326, 432 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A

    Erben, T., Schirmer, M., Dietrich, J. P., et al., 2005, AN, 326, 432 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al., 2021, A&A, 649, A1 García-Gil, A., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., & Varela, A. M., 2010, PASP, 122, 1109

    2005

  11. [19]

    Irwin, Mike, 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1000

    2015

  12. [20]

    Th., et al., 2019, IAUS, 344–70

    Gholami, M., Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th., et al., 2019, IAUS, 344–70

    2019

  13. [21]

    Th., et al., 2023, Proceedings IAU Symposium No

    Gholami, M., Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th., et al., 2023, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 373

    2023

  14. [22]

    Costa, L., 2005, A&A, 436, 895

    2005

  15. [23]

    R., Boyer, M

    Goldman, S. R., Boyer, M. L., McQuinn, K. B. W., et al., 2019, ApJ, 877, 49

    2019

  16. [24]

    R., van Loon, J

    Goldman, S. R., van Loon, J. Th., Zijlstra, Albert A., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 403 Gonçalves, D. R., Magrini, L., Martins, L. P., Teodorescu, A. M., Quireza, C., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 854

    2017

  17. [25]

    Habing, H. J. & Olofsson, H., 2003, Asymptotic Giant Branch stars (New York: Springer) Hamedani Golshan, R., Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th.,

    2003

  18. [26]

    Khosroshahi, H., Saremi, E., 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1764

    2017

  19. [27]

    A., Javadi, A., van Loon, J

    Hashemi, S. A., Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th., 2018, MNRAS, 483, 4751

    2018

  20. [28]

    & Olofsson H., 2018, A&ARv, 26, 1

    Herwig, I., 2005, ARA&A, 43, 435 Höfner, S. & Olofsson H., 2018, A&ARv, 26, 1

    2005

  21. [29]

    A., 2001, ApJ, 559, 225

    Hunter, D. A., 2001, ApJ, 559, 225

    2001

  22. [30]

    Th., Khosroshahi, H

    Javadi, A., van Loon J. Th., Khosroshahi, H. G., Mirtorabi, M. T., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2824

    2013

  23. [31]

    Th., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3973

    Javadi, A., Saberi, M., van Loon, J. Th., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3973

    2015

  24. [32]

    Th., Khosroshahi, H

    Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th., Khosroshahi, H. G., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2103

    2017

  25. [33]

    P., 2003, AJ, 125, 525

    Huchra, J. P., 2003, AJ, 125, 525

    2003

  26. [34]

    K., Ammon, K., 2006, A&A, 460, 339

    Jordi, K., Grebel, E. K., Ammon, K., 2006, A&A, 460, 339

    2006

  27. [35]

    Kim, M., Kim, E., Hwang, N., et al., 2009, ApJ, 703, 816

    2009

  28. [36]

    McQuinn, K. B. W., Boyer, M. L., Mitchell, M. B., et al., 2017, ApJ, 834, 78

    2017

  29. [37]

    Lebzelter, T., Mowlavi, N., Lecoeur-Taibi, I., et al., 2023, A&A, 674, A15

    2023

  30. [38]

    Leroy, A., Bolatto, A., Walter, F., & Blitz, L., 2006, ApJ, 643, 825

    2006

  31. [39]

    M., 2010, ASPC, 425, 103 Levesque E

    Levesque, E. M., 2010, ASPC, 425, 103 Levesque E. M., Massey, P., Olsen, K. A. G., et al., 2005, ApJ, 628, 973

    2010

  32. [40]

    & Lee, M

    Lim, S. & Lee, M. G., 2015, ApJ, 804, 123 McDonald I., Zijlstra A. A., 2016, ApJ Letters, 823, 5

    2015

  33. [41]

    Madore, B. F. & Freedman, W. L., 1995, AJ, 109, 1645 Maíz Apellániz, J., Evans, C. J., Barbá, R. H., et al., 2014, A&A, 564, A63

    1995

  34. [42]

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al., 2008, A&A, 482, 883

    2008

  35. [43]

    2017, ApJ, 835

    Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835

    2017

  36. [44]

    L., 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488

    Marigo, P., Bressan, A., Nanni, A., Girardi, L., Pumo, M. L., 2013, MNRAS, 434, 488

    2013

  37. [45]

    & Armandroff, T

    Massey, P. & Armandroff, T. E., 1995, AJ, 109, 2470

    1995

  38. [46]

    L., 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435

    Mateo, M. L., 1998, ARA&A, 36, 435

    1998

  39. [47]

    W., 2012, AJ, 144, 36

    McConnachie, A. W., 2012, AJ, 144, 36

    2012

  40. [48]

    E., 1994, ApJ, 422, 1580

    Navabi, M., Saremi, E., Javadi, A., et al., 2021, ApJ, 910, 127 O’Donnell, J. E., 1994, ApJ, 422, 1580

    2021

  41. [49]

    Parto, T., Dehghani, S., Javadi, A., et al., 2023, ApJ, 942, 33

    2023

  42. [50]

    J., Jurcevicí, J

    Pierce, M. J., Jurcevicí, J. S., & Crabtree, D., 2000, MNRAS, 313, 271

    2000

  43. [51]

    Ren, Y., Jiang, B., Yang, M., et al., 2021, ApJ, 923, 232

    2021

  44. [52]

    G., van Loon, J

    Rezaeikhah, S., Javadi, A., Khosroshahi, H. G., van Loon, J. Th., 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2214

    2014

  45. [53]

    G., Bullejos, A., Borissova, J., et al., 2001, A&A, 370, 34

    Richer, M. G., Bullejos, A., Borissova, J., et al., 2001, A&A, 370, 34

    2001

  46. [54]

    Riebel, D., Srinivasan, S., Sargent, B., Meixner, M., 2012, ApJ, 753, 71 Lorenzo Rimoldini, Berry Holl, Panagiotis Gavras, et al., 2023, A&A, 674, A14

    2012

  47. [55]

    G., Krist, J., Danielson, G

    Saha, A., Hessel, J. G., Krist, J., Danielson, G. E., 1996, AJ, 111, 197

    1996

  48. [56]

    F., Freedman, W

    Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., Freedman, W. L., 1999, ApJ, 511, 671

    1999

  49. [57]

    B., et al., 2008, ApJ, 688, L69

    Sanna, N., Bono, G., Stetson, P. B., et al., 2008, ApJ, 688, L69

    2008

  50. [58]

    Th., et al., 2017, in J

    Saremi, E., Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th., et al., 2017, in J. Phys. Conf. Ser, Vol. 869, 01206

    2017

  51. [59]

    Th., et al

    Saremi, E., Javadi, A., van Loon, J. Th., et al. 2020, ApJ, 894, 135 LONG-PERIOD V ARIABLE STARS IN IC 10 21

    2020

  52. [60]

    Saremi, E., Javadi, A., Navabi, M., et al., 2021, ApJ, 923, 164

    2021

  53. [61]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

    1998

  54. [62]

    B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191

    Stetson, P. B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191

    1987

  55. [63]

    B., 1990, ASPC, 102, 932

    Stetson, P. B., 1990, ASPC, 102, 932

    1990

  56. [64]

    B., 1993, IAU Colloq

    Stetson, P. B., 1993, IAU Colloq. 136, Stellar Photometry–Current Techniques and Future Developments, ed. C. J. Butler & I. Elliot (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 291

    1993

  57. [65]

    B., 1994, PASP, 106, 250 Stetson P

    Stetson, P. B., 1994, PASP, 106, 250 Stetson P. B., 1996, PASP, 108, 851

    1994

  58. [66]

    A., Archer, I., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4618

    Tehrani, K., Crowther, P. A., Archer, I., 2017, MNRAS, 472, 4618

    2017

  59. [67]

    Tikhonov, N. A. & Galazutdinova, O. A., 2010, Astron. Letters, 35, 11, 748

    2010

  60. [68]

    M., Sanyal, D., et al., 2015, A&A, 581, A110

    Tramper, F., Straal, S. M., Sanyal, D., et al., 2015, A&A, 581, A110

    2015

  61. [69]

    D., Sheehy, C

    Vacca, W. D., Sheehy, C. D., Graham, J. R., 2007, ApJ, 662, 272

    2007

  62. [70]

    L., Richer, M

    Vaduvescu, O., McCall, M. L., Richer, M. G., 2007, AJ, 134, 604 van der Marel, R. P., Fardal, M. A., Sohn, S. T., et al., 2019, AJ, 872, 24 van Loon, J. Th., Cohen, M., Oliveira, J. M., et al., 2008, A&A, 487, 1055

    2007

  63. [71]

    & Chen, X., 2019, ApJ, 877, 116

    Wang, S. & Chen, X., 2019, ApJ, 877, 116

    2019

  64. [72]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al., 2014, ApJ, 789, 23

    2014

  65. [73]

    Welch, D. L. & Stetson, P. B., 1993, AJ, 105, 1813

    1993

  66. [74]

    A., Feast, M

    Whitelock, P. A., Feast, M. W., van Loon, J. Th., Zijlstra, A. A., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 86

    2003

  67. [75]

    D., Welch, D

    Wilson, C. D., Welch, D. L., Reid, I. N., Saha, A., Hoessel, J., 1996, AJ, 111, 1106

    1996

  68. [76]

    R., Whiteoak, J

    Wood, P. R., Whiteoak, J. B., Hughes, S. M. G.,et al., 1992, ApJ, 397, 552

    1992

  69. [77]

    R., 1998, A&A, 338, 592

    Wood, P. R., 1998, A&A, 338, 592

    1998

  70. [78]

    & Skillman, E

    Yang, H. & Skillman, E. D., 1993, AJ, 106, 1448

    1993

  71. [79]

    & Jiang, B

    Yang, M. & Jiang, B. W., 2012, ApJ, 754, 22

    2012

  72. [80]

    Yin, J., Magrini, L., Matteucci, F., et al., 2010, A&A, 520, A55

    2010

  73. [81]

    A., Loup, C., Waters, L

    Zijlstra, A. A., Loup, C., Waters, L. B. F. M., et al., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 32 22 Gholami et al. APPENDIX A. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL As mentioned in Sec. 4.1, we identified 536 LPV candidates within the area of CCD4 of the WFC on the INT telescope. Here, we present the light–curv...

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.