Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 115 references

Discovery and Detailed Study of the M31 Classical Nova AT 2023tkw: Evidence for Internal Shocks

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

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

Pith's one-line read AT 2023tkw's repeated peaks are caused by internal shocks that inflate and cool the photosphere, with spacing that grows as a power law.

desk verdict Useful single-object M31 nova study with a first peak-interval correlation that is suggestive but not robust; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18215 v2 pith:B6B553AN submitted 2024-11-27 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Judhajeet Basu , Ravi Kumar , G. C. Anupama , Sudhanshu Barway , Peter H. Hauschildt , Shatakshi Chamoli , Vishwajeet Swain , Varun Bhalerao
show 6 more authors
Viraj R. Karambelkar Mansi M. Kasliwal Kaustav K. Das Igor Andreoni Avinash Singh Rishabh S. Teja
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords classicalnovaeM31internalshockslight-curverebrighteningswhitedwarfbinariesphotosphericexpansionspectralmodelingshockheating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper follows a single slow classical nova in the Andromeda galaxy that brightened, dipped, and rebrightened four times over roughly five months. The authors argue that the repeated peaks are produced by internal shocks: each shock heats the ejected envelope, inflates and cools the photosphere, and the photosphere then contracts until the next shock arrives. They find that the time between successive maxima grows with time from the first maximum according to $\log(t_i - t_{i-1}) = b \log(t_i - t_0)$ with $b = 0.89 \pm 0.12$, the first time this pattern has been reported for an M31 nova. If the interpretation is right, optical rebrightenings in extragalactic novae can be read as direct tracers of shock activity, and the system is a low-mass white dwarf slowly accreting from a cool giant companion.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the internal-shock mechanism together with a timing relation. Alternating slow and fast outflows from the eruption collide near or below the photosphere; each collision heats the envelope, inflates the photosphere, and shows up as an optical peak, after which the photosphere cools and contracts. The paper demonstrates the expansion-and-contraction cycle with full spectral fits: PHOENIX, an expanding-photosphere radiation-transfer code, reproduces the continuum, emission lines, and P Cygni profiles at all epochs except the primary peak, and Cloudy, a photoionization code, fits the optically thin infrared spectrum. The timing relation $\log(t_i - t_{i-1}) = b \log(t_i - t_0)$ with $b = 0.89 \pm 0.12$ connects the growing gaps between successive maxima to the time since the first maximum, tying the peak spacing to the shock sequence.

What would settle it

Take spectra at high cadence across all four maxima and the following minima: the internal-shock picture requires the photosphere to be cooler and more extended at each optical maximum, so a spectrum showing the hottest photospheric temperature at a maximum would contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that AT 2023tkw is a slow classical nova whose four light-curve maxima are caused by a series of internal shocks generated near or within the photosphere, rather than by dust formation, orbital modulation, or a one-time transition between expansion states. Spectral modeling with the stellar-atmosphere code PHOENIX shows that the photosphere is cooler and more extended at each optical maximum and hotter during the declines, matching the expansion-and-contraction cycle expected when shock fronts reach and stretch the photosphere. The spectrum taken at the primary peak deviates from pure photospheric models, which the paper reads as evidence of an additional shock-heated or free-free component contributing at maximum. The intervals between successive maxima satisfy $\log(t_i - t_{i-1}) = b \log(t_i - t_0)$ with $b = 0.89 \pm 0.12$, consistent with earlier Galactic results and reported here for the first time for an M31 nova. From archival space-telescope photometry and comparison with nova evolution models, the authors identify the underlying binary as a $0.65\,M_\odot$ white dwarf accreting at roughly $5\times 10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ from a K III giant, with an ejected mass near $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$.

Load-bearing premise

The single faint source found in archival space-telescope images inside the telescope's error circle is assumed to be the nova's quiescent binary system, even though the paper itself estimates an 11.89% probability that it is an unrelated field star.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the shocks are real, the optical light curve of an extragalactic nova can serve as a timing record of energy-injection events near the photosphere, without requiring gamma-ray or X-ray detections.
  • The power-law spacing with $b \approx 0.89$ implies that rebrightenings should keep arriving at ever longer intervals, so continued monitoring of AT 2023tkw's decline would test whether a further peak appears near the extrapolated time.
  • The binary parameters imply an extremely slow accretion rate and a recurrence timescale of hundreds of millions of years, meaning this is a genuine one-shot classical nova rather than a recurrent system.
  • The measured ejected mass of roughly $10^{-4}\,M_\odot$ is typical for slow novae, so the multi-peaked shock behavior is not tied to unusually heavy ejecta.
  • Because the peak spectrum cannot be fitted by a single photospheric model, any model that treats the optical peak of a nova as purely photospheric is incomplete.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the source detected in archival space-telescope images is eventually shown to be unrelated to the nova, the binary parameters would need revision, but the photometric and spectroscopic case for internal shocks would stand on its own.
  • The same $b \approx 0.89$ timing law found in Galactic novae and now in M31 suggests a common mechanism; a systematic search of existing M31 nova light curves could show whether the correlation is universal or a chance occurrence.
  • A purely photometric test is possible: if the color and temperature oscillations predicted by photospheric expansion and contraction repeat at every peak, high-cadence multi-band monitoring of future M31 novae could confirm the shock scenario without spectra.
  • If confirmed, the result implies that M31, with its known distance and high nova rate, can serve as a laboratory for studying nova shock physics in the optical alone, complementing the gamma-ray-emitting Galactic sample.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a detailed photometric and spectroscopic study of the M31 classical nova AT 2023tkw, discovered by the GROWTH-India Telescope. It reports a multi-peaked light curve with four maxima, and argues that the increasing intervals between successive peaks follow the relation log(t_i - t_{i-1}) = b log(t_i - t_0) with b = 0.89 ± 0.12, which the authors interpret as evidence for internal shocks following the models of Steinberg & Metzger (2020). The paper also uses PHOENIX and Cloudy spectral modeling to derive photospheric temperatures, an ejecta mass of about 10^-4 Msun, and, by combining HST astrometry with archival and eruption properties, a binary consisting of a 0.65 Msun white dwarf and a K III giant secondary.

Significance. If the peak-spacing correlation is robust, this would be the first such measurement for an M31 nova and would add an extragalactic data point to the discussion of multi-peaked nova light curves and their possible origin in internal shocks. The dataset itself is valuable: dense GIT photometry, ZTF forced photometry over a long pre-discovery baseline, multi-epoch optical and NIR spectroscopy, and HST imaging of the quiescent field. The data reduction follows standard, reproducible procedures, and the authors are generally explicit about their caveats, including the uncertainty in the quiescent host identification and the speculative nature of the shock interpretation. However, the central quantitative claim on peak spacing currently rests on a fragile fit to very few points, and the printed equation does not match the relation that was actually fitted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.3, Eq. (1)] As printed, Eq. (1) is singular at i = 1: it reduces to log(t1 - t0) = b log(t1 - t0), which forces b = 1 unless t1 - t0 = 1 in the chosen units. The reported b = 0.89 therefore cannot come from the displayed equation if i = 1 is included. If the fit instead excludes i = 1, then with only four maxima the slope b is constrained by just two independent intervals, and the stated uncertainty of 0.12 is not credible. Please state the actual fitted form (including any additive normalization constant), the numerical peak times used, and explicitly which maxima entered the fit.
  2. [§6.3, Figure 5] The four peaks used for the power-law fit are picked by eye from a noisy light curve with daily GIT and roughly three-day ZTF cadence, and the last feature is described as a rise before coverage ended, making its peak time especially uncertain. No objective peak-finding algorithm, peak-time uncertainties, or robustness tests are provided. A shift of a few days in any single peak time can change b significantly. The authors should demonstrate that the reported b and its error are stable under alternative peak selections and should propagate peak-time uncertainties into the fit.
  3. [§5.2, §6.1] The identification of the single HST/ACS source within the GIT 1σ error circle as the quiescent host has a 11.89% probability of being a random field star, which is not 'rather low' as stated in §5.2. Because the derived binary parameters (0.65 Msun WD, K III secondary, accretion rate 5e-13 Msun/yr) depend entirely on that association, the binary solution should be presented as tentative, or the analysis should be repeated using a more stringent localization than the 1σ circle (for example, the final image-subtraction position of the transient).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.2, Table 2] The word 'ejcta' in the text describing the Cloudy model is a typo for 'ejecta'.
  2. [§6.3] The text refers to 'V4250 Oph' in the discussion of Ak et al. (2005); this appears to be a typo for 'V2540 Oph', which is the object discussed earlier in the paper and in the cited reference.
  3. [§3, Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 states that the temperature evolution is shown in the last panel, but the panel does not show any error bars or uncertainties; please add them or explicitly note that they are omitted for clarity.
  4. [§6.3, Eq. (1)] The units of t_i and t_0 should be stated explicitly (days since first detection), and the definition of t0 as the first maximum rather than the eruption date should be made unambiguous in the text around Eq. (1).
  5. [§4.2.1, §4.2.2] The density parameter N is defined as ρ ∝ r^-N for PHOENIX in §4.2.1, but the Cloudy model in Table 2 lists N = -3; please clarify whether the same sign convention is used and explicitly state the radial density profile adopted in the Cloudy model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the peak-interval law is a descriptive fit and the shock interpretation is anchored to external models and literature, not to the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

AT 2023tkw is an observational study; its central quantitative claims are fits or external-model comparisons, not derivations from the claims themselves. The peak-interval power law (Eq. 1, Section 6.3) is a least-squares description of the observed maxima, compared with Pejcha (2009) and Tanaka et al. (2011a); the internal-shock interpretation is supported by the independent Steinberg & Metzger (2020) hydrodynamical models and by the literature on gamma-ray/optical correlations (Sections 6.2.4, 6.3, 6.4). PHOENIX and Cloudy model parameters are grid-fitted to spectra (Section 4.2) using standard external codes; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The binary parameters derive from archival HST photometry and comparison with Yaron et al. (2005) models, with the paper itself flagging the 11.89% chance that the HST source is unrelated (Sections 5.2, 6.1). Self-citations are to the authors' discovery telegram, telescope pipeline papers, or extinction-correction calibration, none of which carries the central argument. The algebraic issue in Eq. 1 at i=1 (which would force b=1) and the small number of peaks are robustness/correctness concerns, not circularity; they do not make any result equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative conclusions rest on a chain of external models and assumptions: the PHOENIX and Cloudy codes, a fixed central luminosity (50000 Lsun), a density law N=3 / N=-3, an assumed eruption date, a dust map extinction correction, the distance to M31, and the identification of the HST source as the quiescent host. None of these are introduced to produce a pre-specified answer, but each carries uncertainty that is not fully propagated into the final mass and binary parameters.

free parameters (10)
  • PHOENIX model temperature T = 9,500-15,500 K across epochs
    Fitted to the optical continuum and line ratios for each spectral epoch (Table 2).
  • PHOENIX expansion velocity v0 = 1000-1500 km/s
    Constrained by emission-line widths and PHOENIX fits; varies by epoch.
  • PHOENIX metallicity z = 0.0-0.4
    Grid-searched for each optical spectrum; values at or near solar.
  • Cloudy blackbody temperature = 21,380 K
    Best fit to the NIR spectrum during the optically thin phase.
  • Cloudy hydrogen density = 7.94e8 cm^-3
    Chosen to match Paschen and Brackett line strengths.
  • Cloudy density parameter N = -3
    Set to represent ballistic expansion of the ejecta.
  • Cloudy carbon abundance ratio = 37.17 x solar
    Required to match the observed carbon lines in the NIR spectrum.
  • Cloudy filling factor = 0.1
    Standard assumption for clumpy ejecta; not varied.
  • Ejecta mass from Cloudy = 8.92e-5 Msun
    Output of the best-fit Cloudy model; no uncertainty quoted.
  • Peak-interval power-law index b = 0.89 ± 0.12
    Least-squares fit to the four observed maxima in the light curve.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Distance to M31 is 778 kpc (Stanek & Garnavich 1998)
    Used to convert photometry to absolute magnitudes and to scale ejecta properties.
  • domain assumption Extinction toward the nova is AV=0.621 with R_V=3.1 from the M31 dust map (Draine et al. 2014) and the Basu et al. (2024a) correction
    Derived from a 1' region; uncertainty not propagated.
  • domain assumption PHOENIX spherical, NLTE, relativistic expanding-atmosphere models with density law N=3 represent the optically thick nova ejecta
    Adopted from Schwarz et al. (1997, 1998, 2001); the grid search varies T, v0, z but not the density law or the fixed luminosity of 50000 Lsun.
  • domain assumption Cloudy 1D, single-cloud, blackbody-irradiated model represents the optically thin ejecta
    Used for the 2023-10-29 NIR spectrum; parameters like filling factor and density law are set by hand.
  • ad hoc to paper The eruption date is taken as the first detection on 2023-09-19
    Section 4.2.2: inner and outer radii are calculated from emission-line velocities assuming this date; the true eruption start is uncertain due to solar conjunction (Section 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The HST/ACS source within the GIT error circle is the quiescent host of the nova
    Section 5.2: 11.89% chance of a field star in the error circle; if the source is unrelated, the K III companion and binary parameter estimates fail.
  • domain assumption Yaron et al. (2005) nova evolution models map (Mej, v_exp) to (MWD, Mdot, TWD)
    Used in Section 6.1 to infer MWD=0.65 Msun, Mdot=5e-13 Msun/yr, TWD=30 MK.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discovery and Detailed Study of the M31 Classical Nova AT 2023tkw: Evidence for Internal Shocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6B553AN

@misc{pith2026241118215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discovery and Detailed Study of the M31 Classical Nova AT 2023tkw: Evidence for Internal Shocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6B553AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18215}
}
abstract

We present a detailed analysis of an extragalactic slow classical nova in M31 exhibiting multiple peaks in its light curve. Spectroscopic and photometric observations were used to investigate the underlying physical processes. Shock-induced heating events resulting in the expansion and contraction of the photosphere are likely responsible for the observed multiple peaks. Deviation of the observed spectrum at the peak from the models also suggests the presence of shocks. The successive peaks occurring at increasing intervals could be due to the series of internal shocks generated near or within the photosphere. Spectral modeling suggests a low-mass white dwarf accreting slowly from a companion star. The ejecta mass, estimated from spectral analysis, is $\sim 10^{-4}\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, which is typical for a slow nova. We estimate the binary, by comparing the archival HST data and eruption properties with stellar and novae models, to comprise a 0.65 $\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ primary white dwarf and a K III cool evolved secondary star.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optical light curve and extinction corrected color curves. The temperature evolution. obtained from spectral modeling, is shown in the last panel. The data associated with this figure will be available online. absorption component of the Balmer, Fe II, and O I lines are suggestive of a dense shell moving outwards at a velocity of 600-800 km s−1 . The IR spectrum displays prominent Paschen and Brackett lines, as well… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Spectroscopic evolution of AT 2023tkw. The spectral epochs are overplotted on the light curve in the right-hand panel. Bottom: Line identification in the Keck LRIS and NIRES spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top: PHOENIX models overplotted on the optical spectra. Bottom: Cloudy model of the IR spectrum over￾plotted on the observed spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: HST ACS/WFC image of the likely host system, marked in the green circle in the F814W filter. The coordinate of AT2023tkw obtained by relative alignment with the HST image is marked by a yellow dot. The GIT localization and its uncertainty is marked by a cyan circl…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: Light curve of AT 2023tkw with rebrighten￾ing epochs marked with vertical dashed lines, and the errors are shaded. Bottom: Time interval between successive max￾ima plotted against the time from the first maxima. The best fit log − log curve is overplotted along wi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2005, PASA, 22, 298, doi: 10.1071/AS05017 9 https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use

    Ak, T., Retter, A., & Liu, A. 2005, PASA, 22, 298, doi: 10.1071/AS05017 9 https://archive.stsci.edu/publishing/data-use

    work page doi:10.1071/as05017 2005

  2. [2]

    C., Kamath, U

    Anupama, G. C., Kamath, U. S., Ramaprakash, A. N., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, A121, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321262 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 14 Basu et al. Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321262 2013

  3. [3]

    V., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Aydi, E., Sokolovsky, K. V., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 776, doi: 10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y 2020

  4. [4]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1914

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Mikołajewska, J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 1946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1914

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1914 2023

  5. [5]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 9303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3342

    Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., Strader, J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 9303, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3342

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3342 2024

  6. [6]

    Banerjee, D. P. K., & Ashok, N. M. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 40, 243, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1306.0343

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1306.0343 2012

  7. [7]

    Banerjee, D. P. K., Das, R. K., Ashok, N. M., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 408, L71, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2010.00932.x

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    2021, extinction: Dust extinction laws, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2102.026

    Barbary, K. 2021, extinction: Dust extinction laws, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2102.026

    2021

Show all 115 references
  1. [9]

    Anupama, G. C. 2024a, ApJ, 971, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad596b

    doi

  2. [10]

    C., et al

    Basu, J., Kumar, R., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2023, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16311, 1

    2023

  3. [11]

    C., et al

    Basu, J., Pavana, M., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2024b, ApJ, 966, 44, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2c8e

    doi

  4. [12]

    P., Osborne, J

    Beardmore, A. P., Osborne, J. P., Page, K. L., et al. 2012, A&A, 545, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219681

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    Bertin, E. 2010, SWarp: Resampling and Co-adding FITS Images Together, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1010.068

    2010

  7. [15]

    1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393, doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164

    1996 doi

  8. [16]

    1992, A&A, 257, 599

    Bianchini, A., Friedjung, M., & Brinkmann, W. 1992, A&A, 257, 599

    1992

  9. [17]

    F., & Evans, A

    Bode, M. F., & Evans, A. 2008, Classical Novae, Vol. 43, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511536168

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    Bradley, L., Sipőcz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, 1.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    C., & Jean, P

    Buson, S., Cheung, C. C., & Jean, P. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14658, 1

    2021

  12. [20]

    M., Neill, J

    Cao, Y., Kasliwal, M. M., Neill, J. D., et al. 2012, ApJ, 752, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/133

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  14. [22]

    C., Magnier, E

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

    2016 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    Chatzikos, M., Bianchi, S., Camilloni, F., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 327, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.12

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Cheung, C. C. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16439, 1

    2024

  17. [25]

    C., & Jean, P

    Cheung, C. C., & Jean, P. 2024, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 16441, 1

    2024

  18. [26]

    C., Jean, P., Shore, S

    Cheung, C. C., Jean, P., Shore, S. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 142, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/142

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    D., & Shen, K

    Chomiuk, L., Metzger, B. D., & Shen, K. J. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 391, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    G., Hornoch, K., Shafter, A

    Clark, J. G., Hornoch, K., Shafter, A. W., et al. 2024, ApJS, 272, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3c39 Csák, B., Kiss, L. L., Retter, A., Jacob, A., & Kaspi, S. 2005, A&A, 429, 599, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035751

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    C., Vacca, W

    Cushing, M. C., Vacca, W. D., & Rayner, J. T. 2004, PASP, 116, 362, doi: 10.1086/382907

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    J., & Henze, M

    Darnley, M. J., & Henze, M. 2020, Advances in Space Research, 66, 1147, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2019.09.044

    2020 doi

  23. [32]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 038001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab4ca2

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    2006, MNRAS, 371, 459, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10683.x

    Dobrotka, A., Retter, A., & Liu, A. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 459, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10683.x

    2006

  25. [34]

    2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    Dolphin, A. 2016, DOLPHOT: Stellar photometry, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1608.013

    2016

  26. [35]

    Dolphin, A. E. 2000, PASP, 112, 1383, doi: 10.1086/316630

    2000 doi

  27. [36]

    T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al

    Draine, B. T., Aniano, G., Krause, O., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 172, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/780/2/172

    2014 doi

  28. [37]

    D., Geballe, T

    Evans, A., Gehrz, R. D., Geballe, T. R., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1981, doi: 10.1086/377618

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    A., Page, K

    Evans, P. A., Page, K. L., Osborne, J. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7db9

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, RMxAA, 53, 385, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.10877

    2017 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 6083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3482

    Fuentes-Morales, I., Tappert, C., Zorotovic, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 6083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3482

    2021 doi

  32. [41]

    D., Truran, J

    Gehrz, R. D., Truran, J. W., Williams, R. E., & Starrfield, S. 1998, PASP, 110, 3, doi: 10.1086/316107

    1998 doi

  33. [42]

    C., Aydi, E., Page, K

    Gordon, A. C., Aydi, E., Page, K. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe547

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    J., & Scott, P

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 179, doi: 10.1007/s10509-010-0288-z

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    2006, ApJS, 167, 59, doi: 10.1086/508063 M31 Nov a: AT 2023tkw 15 —

    Hachisu, I., & Kato, M. 2006, ApJS, 167, 59, doi: 10.1086/508063 M31 Nov a: AT 2023tkw 15 —. 2015, ApJ, 798, 76, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/2/76

    2006 doi

  37. [46]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Harris, W. E. 2018, AJ, 156, 296, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaedb8

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Hathi, N. P. 2024, in ACS Data Handbook v. 13.0, Vol. 13, 13

    2024

  40. [49]

    H., & Baron, E

    Hauschildt, P. H., & Baron, E. 1995, JQSRT, 54, 987, doi: 10.1016/0022-4073(95)00118-5

    1995 doi

  41. [50]

    H., Shore, S

    Hauschildt, P. H., Shore, S. N., Schwarz, G. J., et al. 1997, ApJ, 490, 803, doi: 10.1086/304904

    1997 doi

  42. [51]

    Hillman, Y., Prialnik, D., Kovetz, A., & Shara, M. M. 2016, ApJ, 819, 168, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/168

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

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

    2007 doi

  44. [53]

    O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al

    Husser, T. O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219058

    2013 doi

  45. [54]

    A., & Mandel, E

    Joye, W. A., & Mandel, E. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 295, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ed. H. E

    2003

  46. [55]

    O., & Bhatia, A

    Kastner, S. O., & Bhatia, A. K. 1995, ApJ, 439, 346, doi: 10.1086/175178

    1995 doi

  47. [56]

    2009, ApJ, 699, 1293, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1293 —

    Kato, M., & Hachisu, I. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1293, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1293 —. 2011, ApJ, 743, 157, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/157

    2009 doi

  48. [57]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 1005, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac051 —

    Kato, M., Saio, H., & Hachisu, I. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1005, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac051 —. 2024, PASJ, 76, 666, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psae038

    2022 doi

  49. [58]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/136

    Kato, M., Saio, H., Hachisu, I., & Nomoto, K. 2014, ApJ, 793, 136, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/2/136

    2014 doi

  50. [59]

    2004, PASJ, 56, S193, doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.sp1.S193

    Kiyota, S., Kato, T., & Yamaoka, H. 2004, PASJ, 56, S193, doi: 10.1093/pasj/56.sp1.S193

    2004 doi

  51. [60]

    C., et al

    Kumar, H., Bhalerao, V., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022a, AJ, 164, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac7bea

    doi

  52. [61]

    C., et al

    Kumar, H., Bhalerao, V., Anupama, G. C., et al. 2022b, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 4517, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2516

    doi

  53. [62]

    2023, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 255, 1

    Kumar, R., Swain, V., Basu, J., et al. 2023, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 255, 1

    2023

  54. [63]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3be

    Li, K.-L., Hambsch, F.-J., Munari, U., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3be

    2020 doi

  55. [64]

    D., Chomiuk, L., et al

    Li, K.-L., Metzger, B. D., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 697, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1

    2017 doi

  56. [65]

    1926, MNRAS, 86, 498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/86.7.498

    Lunt, J. 1926, MNRAS, 86, 498, doi: 10.1093/mnras/86.7.498

    1926 doi

  57. [66]

    Lyman, J. D. 2021, spalipy: Detection-based astronomical image registration, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2103.003

    2021

  58. [67]

    S., Fremling, C., & Kasliwal, M

    Mandigo-Stoba, M. S., Fremling, C., & Kasliwal, M. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3612, doi: 10.21105/joss.03612

    2022 doi

  59. [68]

    2018, A&A, 612, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731692

    Martin, P., Dubus, G., Jean, P., Tatischeff, V., & Dosne, C. 2018, A&A, 612, A38, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731692

    2018 doi

  60. [69]

    J., Laher, R

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

    2019 doi

  61. [70]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, A New Forced Photometry Service for the Zwicky Transient Facility. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16279

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    N., Kuin, P., & Bohlsen, T

    Mason, E., Shore, S. N., Kuin, P., & Bohlsen, T. 2020, A&A, 635, A115, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201937025

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol

    McKinney, W., et al. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Vol. 445, Austin, TX, 51–56

    2010

  64. [73]

    D., Hascoët, R., Vurm, I., et al

    Metzger, B. D., Hascoët, R., Vurm, I., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 713, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu844

    2014 doi

  65. [74]

    2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14410, 1 Mróz, P., Udalski, A., Poleski, R., et al

    Mroz, P., & Udalski, A. 2021, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14410, 1 Mróz, P., Udalski, A., Poleski, R., et al. 2015, ApJS, 219, 26, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/219/2/26

    2021 doi

  66. [75]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, PASP, 94, 586, doi: 10.1086/131027

    1982 doi

  67. [76]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562

    1995 doi

  68. [77]

    R., Bandyopadhyay, R., et al

    Pandey, R., Habtie, G. R., Bandyopadhyay, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 4655, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2079

    2022 doi

  69. [78]

    2020, PhD thesis, Indian Institute of

    Pavana, M. 2020, PhD thesis, Indian Institute of

    2020

  70. [79]

    M., Anupama, G

    Pavana, M., Anche, R. M., Anupama, G. C., Ramaprakash, A. N., & Selvakumar, G. 2019, A&A, 622, A126, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833728

    2019 doi

  71. [80]

    2009, ApJL, 701, L119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L119

    Pejcha, O. 2009, ApJL, 701, L119, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/L119

    2009 doi

  72. [81]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 187, doi: 10.1002/asna.200911324

    Pietsch, W. 2010, Astronomische Nachrichten, 331, 187, doi: 10.1002/asna.200911324

    2010 doi

  74. [83]

    2008a, Ap&SS, 315, 79, doi: 10.1007/s10509-008-9796-5 —

    Poggiani, R. 2008a, Ap&SS, 315, 79, doi: 10.1007/s10509-008-9796-5 —. 2008b, NewA, 13, 557, doi: 10.1016/j.newast.2008.03.001

    2008 doi

  75. [84]

    A., Shafter, A

    Rector, T. A., Shafter, A. W., Burris, W. A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac87ad

    2022 doi

  76. [85]

    2002a, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Retter, A. 2002a, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 637, Classical Nova Explosions, ed. M. Hernanz & J. José (AIP), 279–283, doi: 10.1063/1.1518214 16 Basu et al

    doi

  77. [86]

    2002b, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Retter, A. 2002b, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 261, The Physics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. B. T. Gänsicke, K. Beuermann, & K. Reinsch, 655, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0110102

    doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    E., & Stark, D

    Ryon, J. E., & Stark, D. V. 2023, in ACS Instrument Handbook for Cycle 32 v. 23.0, Vol. 23, 23

    2023

  79. [88]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2021, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 5, 150, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ac0d5b

    2021 doi

  80. [89]

    J., Hauschildt, P

    Schwarz, G. J., Hauschildt, P. H., Starrfield, S., et al. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 669, doi: 10.1093/mnras/284.3.669 —. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 931, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01964.x

    1997

  81. [90]

    J., Shore, S

    Schwarz, G. J., Shore, S. N., Starrfield, S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 103, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03960.x

    2001

  82. [91]

    J., Woodward, C

    Schwarz, G. J., Woodward, C. E., Bode, M. F., et al. 2007, AJ, 134, 516, doi: 10.1086/519240

    2007 doi

  83. [92]

    W., Bode, M

    Shafter, A. W., Bode, M. F., Darnley, M. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 727, 50, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/50

    2011 doi

  84. [93]

    W., Rau, A., Quimby, R

    Shafter, A. W., Rau, A., Quimby, R. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 690, 1148, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/2/1148

    2009 doi

  85. [94]

    W., Henze, M., Rector, T

    Shafter, A. W., Henze, M., Rector, T. A., et al. 2015, ApJS, 216, 34, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/34

    2015 doi

  86. [95]

    W., Hornoch, K., Kučáková, H., et al

    Shafter, A. W., Hornoch, K., Kučáková, H., et al. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 5, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad19de

    2024 doi

  87. [96]

    M., Prialnik, D., Hillman, Y., & Kovetz, A

    Shara, M. M., Prialnik, D., Hillman, Y., & Kovetz, A. 2018, ApJ, 860, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfbd

    2018 doi

  88. [97]

    P., Tandon, S

    Singh, K. P., Tandon, S. N., Agrawal, P. C., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9144, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray, ed. T. Takahashi, J.-W. A. den Herder, & M. Bautz, 91441S, ...

    2014 doi

  89. [98]

    J., Benítez, N., et al

    Sirianni, M., Jee, M. J., Benítez, N., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 1049, doi: 10.1086/444553

    2005 doi

  90. [99]

    2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14078, 1

    Sokolovsky, K., Aydi, E., Chomiuk, L., et al. 2020, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 14078, 1

    2020

  91. [100]

    Z., & Garnavich, P

    Stanek, K. Z., & Garnavich, P. M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 503, L131, doi: 10.1086/311539

    1998 doi

  92. [101]

    1999, Physics Reports, 311, 371, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00116-1

    Starrfield, S. 1999, Physics Reports, 311, 371, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00116-1

    1999 doi

  93. [102]

    Starrfield, S., Iliadis, C., & Hix, W. R. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 051001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/128/963/051001

    2016 doi

  94. [103]

    X., Iliadis, C., et al

    Starrfield, S., Timmes, F. X., Iliadis, C., et al. 2012, Baltic Astronomy, 21, 76, doi: 10.1515/astro-2017-0361

    2012 doi

  95. [104]

    Steinberg, E., & Metzger, B. D. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 4232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3300

    2020 doi

  96. [105]

    J., Schaefer, B

    Strope, R. J., Schaefer, B. E., & Henden, A. A. 2010, AJ, 140, 34, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/34

    2010 doi

  97. [106]

    2011a, PASJ, 63, 159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.159

    Tanaka, J., Nogami, D., Fujii, M., Ayani, K., & Kato, T. 2011a, PASJ, 63, 159, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.1.159

    doi

  98. [107]

    2011b, PASJ, 63, 911, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.4.911

    Tanaka, J., Nogami, D., Fujii, M., et al. 2011b, PASJ, 63, 911, doi: 10.1093/pasj/63.4.911

    doi

  99. [108]

    N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al

    Tandon, S. N., Postma, J., Joseph, P., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab72a3

    2020 doi

  100. [109]

    1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Tody, D. 1993, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II, ed. R. J. Hanisch, R. J. V. Brissenden, & J. Barnes, 173

    1993

  101. [110]

    D., Cushing, M

    Vacca, W. D., Cushing, M. C., & Rayner, J. T. 2003, PASP, 115, 389, doi: 10.1086/346193 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace)

    2003 doi

  102. [111]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  103. [112]

    2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586491 —

    Warner, B. 2003, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511586491 —. 2008, in Classical Novae, ed. M. F. Bode & A. Evans, Vol. 43, 16–33, doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511536168.004

    2003 doi

  104. [113]

    2012, AJ, 144, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/98

    Williams, R. 2012, AJ, 144, 98, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/4/98

    2012 doi

  105. [114]

    C., Bode, M

    Williams, S. C., Bode, M. F., Darnley, M. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L32, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/777/2/L32

    2013 doi

  106. [115]

    C., Henderson, C

    Wilson, J. C., Henderson, C. P., Herter, T. L., et al. 2004, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 5492, Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, ed. A. F. M. Moorwood & M. Iye, 1295–1305, doi: 10.1117/12.550925

    2004 doi

  107. [116]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398, doi: 10.1086/428435

    2005 doi

Pith tools

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