pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17129 · v1 · pith:WTIJ53HFnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Constraints on Late-Time Flaring from Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients using the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and the Zwicky Transient Facility

Rahul Jayaraman , Anna Y. Q. Ho , Michael M. Fausnaugh , Eran Ofek , Daniel A. Perley , Ruslan Konno , Martti Kristiansen , Tracy X. Chen
show 9 more authors
Michael W. Coughlin Steven L. Groom George Helou K.-Ryan Hinds Mansi M. Kasliwal Zo\"e McGrath Josiah N. Purdum Argyro Sasli Jesper Sollerman
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Luminous Fast Blue Optical TransientsLFBOToptical flaresTESSZTFcentral engineAT2022tsdsolar system objects
0
0 comments X

The pith

Attributing seven TESS signals to solar system objects rules out repeated flares like those in AT2022tsd for other LFBOTs and at later epochs in AT2022tsd itself.

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

The paper examines TESS coverage of twelve LFBOTs spanning tens to thousands of days after outburst to search for flares matching the minutes-long events seen in AT2022tsd. Seven flare-like signals appear at four LFBOT locations, yet all are consistent with solar system objects crossing the TESS aperture. With that assignment the data exclude flares of comparable 40-65 day timing and 10^43 erg s^-1 luminosity in AT2024qfm, and exclude equally luminous flares 380-430 days after the initial event in AT2022tsd. The same data show no activity thousands of days after the prototype AT2018cow. The authors translate the non-detections into limits on flaring duty cycle and forecast yields for future high-cadence surveys.

Core claim

Assuming all seven detected flare-like signals arise from solar system objects, the TESS observations rule out flaring with a similar timescale (40-65 d) and luminosity (νLν∼10^43 erg s^−1) as in AT2022tsd for the LFBOT AT2024qfm, while for AT2022tsd itself they rule out flares between 380-430 d after the initial transient that were as luminous as the earlier flares; this indicates the engine power in AT2022tsd declined or shut off on a timescale of hundreds of days, and no late-time activity is detectable thousands of days after AT2018cow.

What carries the argument

Attribution of all seven TESS flare-like signals to solar system objects crossing the aperture, which supplies the upper limits on intrinsic LFBOT flaring.

If this is right

  • Flares matching the 40-65 d timescale and 10^43 erg s^-1 luminosity of AT2022tsd are excluded for AT2024qfm.
  • Equally luminous flares are excluded for AT2022tsd in the 380-430 d window after its initial outburst.
  • No detectable activity exists thousands of days after AT2018cow.
  • The non-detections translate into quantitative limits on the duty cycle of such short flares.
  • Ongoing and upcoming high-cadence wide-field surveys should be able to detect a calculable number of minutes-duration flares if any remain.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the solar-system-object assignment is correct, the central engines of most LFBOTs do not repeat the early flaring behavior of AT2022tsd on the probed timescales.
  • The apparent shut-off within hundreds of days favors engine models that naturally lose power rather than remain constant.
  • High-cadence surveys will provide a direct test of whether any residual flaring duty cycle survives at later times.

Load-bearing premise

All seven detected flare-like signals are produced by solar system objects rather than by the LFBOTs themselves.

What would settle it

A minutes-duration flare at an LFBOT sky position whose motion and brightness cannot be matched to any solar system object would invalidate the upper limits on engine activity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17129 by Anna Y. Q. Ho, Argyro Sasli, Daniel A. Perley, Eran Ofek, George Helou, Jesper Sollerman, Josiah N. Purdum, K.-Ryan Hinds, Mansi M. Kasliwal, Martti Kristiansen, Michael M. Fausnaugh, Michael W. Coughlin, Rahul Jayaraman, Ruslan Konno, Steven L. Groom, Tracy X. Chen, Zo\"e McGrath.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: TESS observations of the 14 known LFBOTs compared to their discovery epochs (black dotted line). The different observational cadences (1800s, 600s, 200s) are shown in different colors (light green, purple, pink, respectively). We highlight the limits on flaring in AT2024qfm obtained through TESS observations that occurred on the same timescale as the flaring in AT2022tsd. Two of the 14 LFBOTs (CSS161010 an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Light curve for AT2018lug from TESS Sectors 70 and 71 showing the differential flux (orange), the filtered data points used in our analysis (turquoise), and the backgrounds from scattered light (purple). The background is offset for clarity. The scattered light backgrounds peak toward the end of a given orbit (each Sector is two TESS orbits). A solar system object passing through the aperture is indicated;… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Flare-like features in TESS light curves. These all likely arise from SSOs (see Figures 4–5), which represent the largest source of false positives in the search for LFBOT flaring. These photometric features are best fit with Gaussians in order to distinguish them from stellar flares and rule this out as a possibility (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Screenshots of the vetting tool used to identify the passage of SSOs through a photometric aperture (shown as a white cross-hatched box) centered on the LFBOT location (indicated with a red star, roughly in the center of the field), for four of the seven LFBOTs with clear SSO signals. The dotted line on the left panel moves across the light curve, corresponding to the cadence of the FFI in the middle panel… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A simulated light curve of AT2022tsd-like flares in the TESS passband, situated at z = 0.08. TESS has the necessary temporal resolution to individually resolve several distinct flaring episodes, as shown in all three panels. The red dotted line in all panels represents the theoretical lower limit for TESS detections at the native cadence of 200 s (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The theoretical TESS limiting magnitude as a function of exposure time (as calculated from the CCD equa￾tion) is shown in green, with the various observational ca￾dences throughout the mission duration indicated. As inputs to the CCD equation, we assumed a dark current of 0, a fidu￾cial quantum efficiency of 0.95a , a read noise of 10 e− px−1b , an aperture size of 4 px, an effective exposure timec of 160 … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Flux distributions for three sample light curves from the ones we analyzed in our sample, with fits to Gaussians in two cases. Left: AT2023fhn shows a featureless light curve whose flux distribution can be well approximated by a Gaussian. Center: AT2020xnd had two SSOs pass through the aperture in Sector 42, which leads to outliers in the distribution from the excess flux; the rest of the distribution is w… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transient (LFBOT) AT2022tsd exhibited minutes-timescale optical flares in the tens of days following the initial transient event, likely due to a central engine -- either an accreting black hole or a magnetar. In this paper, we use data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) and the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) to constrain the occurrence of similar flares in the 12 (of 14) known LFBOTs that had observational coverage with TESS from tens of days to thousands of days after the transient's initial emission. We find seven flare-like signals at the locations of four unique LFBOTs; all seven can likely be attributed to a solar system object (SSO) moving through the TESS aperture. Assuming all seven flares arise from SSOs, for the LFBOT AT2024qfm we rule out flaring with a similar timescale (40--65 d) and luminosity ($\nu L_\nu\sim10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$) as in AT2022tsd, while for AT2022tsd itself we rule out flares between 380--430 d after the initial transient that were as luminous as the earlier flares. This observation suggests that the engine power in AT2022tsd declined or shut off on a timescale of hundreds of days. We also find that there is no late-time activity detectable in TESS thousands of days after the prototype LFBOT, AT2018cow. We discuss our constraints on the duty cycle of such flaring and then present estimates for the number of minutes-duration flares detectable with ongoing and upcoming high-cadence ($\ll1$ d) wide-field surveys.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes TESS and ZTF observations of 12 LFBOTs to search for late-time optical flares similar to those seen in AT2022tsd (minutes-duration, ~10^43 erg/s). Seven flare-like signals are detected at the positions of four LFBOTs but attributed to solar system objects (SSOs) passing through the TESS aperture. After this attribution, the authors derive upper limits ruling out similar flares at 40-65 days post-transient for AT2024qfm and at 380-430 days for AT2022tsd itself, implying a decline or shutdown of the central engine on hundreds-of-days timescales. Additional non-detections at thousands of days for AT2018cow are reported, along with duty-cycle constraints and forecasts for future high-cadence surveys.

Significance. If the SSO attribution holds, the work supplies the first quantitative late-time constraints on LFBOT central-engine activity beyond the initial weeks, directly testing whether the flaring engine in AT2022tsd persists or decays. The TESS high-cadence coverage is well-suited to the minutes-timescale phenomenon, and the survey predictions are a useful forward-looking contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [flare detection and attribution section] The section describing flare detection and attribution (near the discussion of the seven signals): The claim that all seven flare-like signals 'can likely be attributed' to SSOs is load-bearing for the headline non-detection limits and the inference of engine decline in AT2022tsd. The manuscript must supply the concrete, quantitative criteria (proper-motion measurements, expected SSO surface density within the aperture, multi-epoch astrometry, or likelihood ratios) used to reject an LFBOT origin for each signal; without these, the upper limits on flares at 40-65 d (AT2024qfm) and 380-430 d (AT2022tsd) cannot be evaluated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and for recognizing the significance of the late-time constraints on LFBOT central engines. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [flare detection and attribution section] The section describing flare detection and attribution (near the discussion of the seven signals): The claim that all seven flare-like signals 'can likely be attributed' to SSOs is load-bearing for the headline non-detection limits and the inference of engine decline in AT2022tsd. The manuscript must supply the concrete, quantitative criteria (proper-motion measurements, expected SSO surface density within the aperture, multi-epoch astrometry, or likelihood ratios) used to reject an LFBOT origin for each signal; without these, the upper limits on flares at 40-65 d (AT2024qfm) and 380-430 d (AT2022tsd) cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the attribution of the seven signals is central to the non-detection limits and that the current description is insufficiently quantitative. In the revised manuscript we will expand the relevant section to list, for each of the seven signals, the specific criteria applied: (i) measured proper motion from the TESS 2-minute cadence time series, (ii) comparison of the observed rate to the expected SSO surface density within the TESS aperture at the relevant ecliptic latitude, and (iii) consistency (or lack thereof) with multi-epoch astrometric positions when available. These additions will be presented in a new table or enumerated list so that the rejection of an LFBOT origin can be evaluated directly. The underlying data products and analysis code will also be made available. This revision does not change the reported upper limits but makes their foundation transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; upper limits follow directly from non-detections after contaminant attribution

full rationale

The paper performs a standard observational analysis: it identifies seven flare-like signals in TESS data at LFBOT locations, attributes them to SSOs based on motion and context, and then computes upper limits on intrinsic flaring under that assumption. No equations, parameters, or predictions reduce to fitted inputs by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The attribution step is an explicit assumption enabling the limits, but it does not create a self-definitional or self-referential loop within the derivation. The result is self-contained against external data and does not rename known results or smuggle ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions about survey data quality and SSO contamination rates; no free parameters are fitted to the target result and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption TESS and ZTF photometry and astrometry reliably distinguish transient locations from solar system object crossings at the reported cadences
    Invoked when attributing all seven signals to SSOs and deriving non-detection limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5953 in / 1398 out tokens · 71665 ms · 2026-06-27T02:47:35.188853+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Alard, C., & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325, doi: 10.1086/305984

    work page doi:10.1086/305984 1998

  2. [2]

    M., Howell, D

    Arcavi, I., Wolf, W. M., Howell, D. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 35, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/35 LFBOT Late-time Flare Limits21 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3...

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/35 2016

  3. [3]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  4. [4]

    O., Polishook, D., et al

    Ben-Ami, S., Ofek, E. O., Polishook, D., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aceb30

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aceb30 2023

  5. [5]

    2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Berthier, J., Vachier, F., Thuillot, W., et al. 2006, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 351, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XV, ed. C. Gabriel, C. Arviset, D. Ponz, & S. Enrique, 367–+

    2006

  6. [6]

    Bohlin, R. C. 2014, AJ, 147, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/6/127 2014

  7. [7]

    E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S

    Brasseur, C. E., Phillip, C., Fleming, S. W., Mullally, S. E., & White, R. L. 2019, Astrocut: Tools for creating cutouts of TESS images,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1905.007 http://ascl.net/1905.007

    2019

  8. [8]

    , keywords =

    Bright, J. S., Margutti, R., Matthews, D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 926, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4506

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4506 2022

  9. [9]

    J., Levine, A., Fausnaugh, M., et al

    Burke, C. J., Levine, A., Fausnaugh, M., et al. 2020, TESS-Point: High precision TESS pointing tool,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2003.001 http://ascl.net/2003.001

    2020

  10. [10]

    The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.05560 2016

  11. [11]

    R., Piro, A

    Chen, Y., Drout, M. R., Piro, A. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 43, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace964

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ace964 2023

  12. [12]

    A., Jonker, P

    Chrimes, A. A., Jonker, P. G., Levan, A. J., & Mummery, A. 2026, A&A, 706, A327, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202557545

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557545 2026

  13. [13]

    , keywords =

    Coppejans, D. L., Margutti, R., Terreran, G., et al. 2020, ApJL, 895, L23, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cc7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab8cc7 2020

  14. [14]

    W., Bloom, J

    Coughlin, M. W., Bloom, J. S., Nir, G., et al. 2023, ApJS, 267, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdee1 2023

  15. [15]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2 2020

  16. [16]

    R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A

    Drout, M. R., Chornock, R., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 23, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/1/23

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/1/23 2014

  17. [17]

    2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 251, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abd63a

    Vanderspek, R. 2020, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 4, 251, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/abd63a

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abd63a 2020

  18. [18]

    M., Vallely, P

    Fausnaugh, M. M., Vallely, P. J., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 51, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcd42

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcd42 2021

  19. [19]

    M., Vallely, P

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aceaef 2023

  20. [20]

    D., & Smith, N

    Fox, O. D., & Smith, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 3772, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1925

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1925 2019

  21. [21]

    2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Gal-Yam, A. 2021, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 237, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #237, 423.05

    2021

  22. [22]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079

    work page doi:10.1086/164079 1986

  23. [23]

    The Astronomical Journal , author =

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33 2019

  24. [24]

    S., & Burns, E

    Goldstein, A., Connaughton, V., Briggs, M. S., & Burns, E. 2016, ApJ, 818, 18, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/1/18

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/1/18 2016

  25. [25]

    M., & Quataert, E

    Govreen-Segal, T., Nakar, E., Hotokezaka, K., Irwin, C. M., & Quataert, E. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18887. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18887

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab5d3a Guti´ errez, C. P., Mattila, S., Lundqvist, P., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad89a5

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c 2019

  27. [27]

    Harris and K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  28. [28]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Phinney, E. S., Ravi, V., et al. 2019, ApJ, 871, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf473 2019

  29. [29]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 49, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8bcf 2020

  30. [30]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2023a, ApJ, 949, 120, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc533

  31. [31]

    Ho, A. Y. Q., Perley, D. A., Chen, P., et al. 2023b, Nature, 623, 927, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06673-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06673-6

  32. [32]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  33. [33]

    J., Mummery, A., & Jonker, P

    Inkenhaag, A., Levan, A. J., Mummery, A., & Jonker, P. G. 2025, MNRAS, 544, L108, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaf107

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaf107 2025

  34. [34]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S

    Inserra, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0854-4 2019

  35. [35]

    R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G

    Jayaraman, R., Fausnaugh, M., Ricker, G. R., Vanderspek, R., & Mo, G. 2024, ApJ, 972, 162, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5e7b 2024

  36. [36]

    O., Krassilchtchikov, A., et al

    Konno, R., Ofek, E. O., Krassilchtchikov, A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.27921. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.27921

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    2019, Acta Astronautica, 160, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.016

    Vanderspek, R. 2019, Acta Astronautica, 160, 46, doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.04.016 2019

  38. [38]

    M., Corbett, H., Galliher, N

    Law, N. M., Corbett, H., Galliher, N. W., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 035003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac4811 22Jayaraman et al

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac4811 2022

  39. [39]

    2026, ApJL, 997, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2910 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J

    LeBaron, N., Margutti, R., Chornock, R., et al. 2026, ApJL, 997, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2910 Lightkurve Collaboration, Cardoso, J. V. d. M., Hedges, C., et al. 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python,, Astrophysics Source Code Library http://ascl.net/1812.013

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2910 2026

  40. [40]

    D., Chornock, R., et al

    Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., Chornock, R., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aafa01 2019

  41. [41]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac 2019

  42. [42]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.16279, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.16279

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16279 2023

  43. [43]

    Matsumoto, T., & Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 936, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac892c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac892c 2022

  44. [44]

    D., et al

    Matthews, D., Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 126, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acdde1

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acdde1 2023

  45. [45]

    , keywords =

    Maund, J. R., H¨ oflich, P. A., Steele, I. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 3323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad539

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad539 2023

  46. [46]

    Metzger, B. D. 2022, ApJ, 932, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6d59 2022

  47. [47]

    D., et al

    Migliori, G., Margutti, R., Metzger, B. D., et al. 2024, ApJL, 963, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad2764

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad2764 2024

  48. [48]

    2023, ApJL, 948, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca70 Mr´ oz, P., Otarola, A., Prince, T

    Mo, G., Jayaraman, R., Fausnaugh, M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 948, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca70 Mr´ oz, P., Otarola, A., Prince, T. A., et al. 2022, ApJL, 924, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac470a

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acca70 2023

  49. [49]

    , keywords =

    Nayana, A. J., & Chandra, P. 2021, ApJL, 912, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abed55

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abed55 2021

  50. [50]

    J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al

    Nayana, A. J., Margutti, R., Wiston, E., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.00952, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.00952

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00952 2025

  51. [51]

    O., Rabinak, I., Neill, J

    Ofek, E. O., Rabinak, I., Neill, J. D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1396, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/1396

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/724/2/1396 2010

  52. [52]

    O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N

    Ofek, E. O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N. J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 104, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/104

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/104 2014

  53. [53]

    O., Ben-Ami, S., Polishook, D., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Ben-Ami, S., Polishook, D., et al. 2023a, PASP, 135, 065001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/acd8f0

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/acd8f0

  54. [54]

    O., Shvartzvald, Y., Sharon, A., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Shvartzvald, Y., Sharon, A., et al. 2023b, PASP, 135, 124502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad0977

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ad0977

  55. [55]

    O., Ozer, L., Konno, R., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Ozer, L., Konno, R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18359, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18359

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18359 2025

  56. [56]

    B., Zaguri, Y., Perdelwitz, V., et al

    Ogunwale, B. B., Zaguri, Y., Perdelwitz, V., et al. 2025, A&A, 704, A317, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555521

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555521 2025

  57. [57]

    Nature Astronomy , keywords =

    Pasham, D. R., Ho, W. C. G., Alston, W., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 6, 249, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01524-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01524-8 2021

  58. [58]

    A., Mazzali, P

    Perley, D. A., Mazzali, P. A., Yan, L., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3420

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3420 2019

  59. [59]

    , keywords =

    Perley, D. A., Ho, A. Y. Q., Yao, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 5138, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2785

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2785 2021

  60. [60]

    AT2024wpp: An Extremely Luminous Fast Ultraviolet Transient Powered by Accretion onto a Black Hole

    Perley, D. A., Ho, A. Y. Q., McGrath, Z., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03337, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03337 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03337 2026

  61. [61]

    J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S

    Prentice, S. J., Maguire, K., Smartt, S. J., et al. 2018, ApJL, 865, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadd90

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aadd90 2018

  62. [62]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2309

    Pursiainen, M., Childress, M., Smith, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2309 2018

  63. [63]

    L., Kuncarayakti, H., et al

    Pursiainen, M., Killestein, T. L., Kuncarayakti, H., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 537, 3298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf232

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf232 2025

  64. [64]

    2011 , Bdsk-Url-1 =

    Quataert, E., & Kasen, D. 2012, MNRAS, 419, L1, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01151.x10.1086/141928

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01151.x10.1086/141928 2012

  65. [65]

    Quataert, E., Lecoanet, D., & Coughlin, E. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L83, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz031 2019

  66. [66]

    M., Khatami, D., et al

    Rest, A., Garnavich, P. M., Khatami, D., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 307, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0423-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0423-2 2018

  67. [67]

    R., Winn, J

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1117/1.jatis.1.1.014003 2015

  68. [68]

    2025, AJ, 170, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf21b

    Roxburgh, H., Ridden-Harper, R., Moore, A., et al. 2025, AJ, 170, 186, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/adf21b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/adf21b 2025

  69. [69]

    O., et al

    Sagiv, I., Gal-Yam, A., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, AJ, 147, 79, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/79

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/147/4/79 2014

  70. [70]

    Measuring Reddening with SDSS Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD

    Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, ApJ, 737, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/103 2011

  71. [71]

    Sevilla, C., Ho, A. Y. Q., J., N. A., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.18926. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.18926

    arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    W., Young, D

    Shingles, L., Smith, K. W., Young, D. R., et al. 2021, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 7, 1

    2021

  73. [73]

    2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    Shvartzvald, Y., Waxman, E., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2704 2024

  74. [74]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e 2020

  75. [75]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 117, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/811/2/117

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/811/2/117 2015

  76. [76]

    L., Ofek, E

    Strotjohann, N. L., Ofek, E. O., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd032 STScI Development Team. 2018, synphot: Synthetic photometry using Astropy,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1811.001 http://ascl.net/1811.001

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd032 2021

  77. [77]

    , keywords =

    Sun, N.-C., Maund, J. R., Crowther, P. A., & Liu, L.-D. 2022, MNRAS, 512, L66, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac023

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slac023 2022

  78. [78]

    2016, ApJ, 819, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/5 LFBOT Late-time Flare Limits23

    Tanaka, M., Tominaga, N., Morokuma, T., et al. 2016, ApJ, 819, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/1/5 LFBOT Late-time Flare Limits23

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/1/5 2016

  79. [79]

    2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Thayer, C., Villasenor, J., Kissel, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9904, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2016: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. H. A. MacEwen, G. G. Fazio, M. Lystrup, N. Batalha, N. Siegler, & E. C. Tong, 99042X, doi: 10.1117/12.2232886

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2232886 2016

  80. [80]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf 2018

Showing first 80 references.