Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Observational properties of 155 O- and B-type massive pulsating stars

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TESS, LAMOST, and Gaia data yield 155 mostly new massive OB pulsating stars, with SPB and BCEP classes cleanly separated by period-luminosity relations.

desk verdict A genuinely useful catalog of mostly new OB pulsators, but the SPB/BCEP split leans on an unquantified combination-frequency criterion that the P-L relations inherit. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03821 v1 pith:WHM3RTT4 submitted 2024-12-05 astro-ph.SR

Xiang-dong Shi , Sheng-bang Qian , Li-ying Zhu , Liang Liu , Lin-jia Li , Lei Zang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords OB-typepulsatingstarsSPBBCEPperiod-luminosityrelationperiod-temperaturediagramTESSlightcurvesasteroseismologyFourierspectralanalysis
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

The paper claims to have identified 155 OB-type pulsating stars or candidates from TESS light curves, LAMOST spectra, and Gaia astrometry, almost all of them new; among them are 38 Oe/Be stars or candidates, 87 slowly pulsating B (SPB) stars, and 14 $\beta$ Cephei (BCEP) stars. It argues that the SPB and BCEP classes, which overlap in the classical luminosity-temperature diagram, separate cleanly when dominant pulsation period is plotted against temperature or against luminosity. The resulting least-squares fits give preliminary period-luminosity relations for SPB and BCEP stars. If the identification and classification hold, the sample becomes a large, mostly homogeneous resource for asteroseismology of massive stars and a step toward using these pulsators as distance indicators.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a Fourier-spectrum classification scheme applied to the TESS light curves. A frequency of 3 cycles per day is taken as the boundary between low-frequency g-mode pulsation and high-frequency p-mode pulsation; a star is called SPB if its high-frequency peaks are combination frequencies of low-frequency peaks, and BCEP if several high-frequency peaks appear independent. Consistency checks are then provided by the H-R diagram with theoretical instability strips, and by least-squares fits of the dominant pulsation period against luminosity for each class. The assignment of combination frequencies is what carries the SPB/BCEP split, so the period-luminosity relations and the claimed separability rest on that visual classification.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the same light curves and test each high-frequency peak assigned to an SPB star against sums and differences of the low-frequency peaks; if a large fraction of those peaks do not match any low-frequency combination within the quoted frequency errors, those stars should be reclassified as BCEP and the fits in Eqs. (3)-(5) would need to be redone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 2-minute-cadence TESS photometry cross-matched with LAMOST spectra and Gaia parallaxes, the authors classify 155 OB-type pulsating stars or candidates by visual inspection of Fourier spectra. Of these, 87 are SPB stars (37 with pure low-frequency pulsation and 50 with both low- and high-frequency pulsation, the high frequencies being judged combination frequencies of the low ones) and 14 are BCEP stars with both low- and high-frequency pulsation, where the high frequencies appear as independent modes; 52 remain candidates. The H-R diagram places the SPB and BCEP stars mainly inside their theoretical instability regions on the main sequence, with mass ranges of roughly 2.5-20 $M_\odot$ and 7-20 $M_\odot$, respectively. Least-squares fits yield $\log P = -0.55 \pm 0.20 + (0.19 \pm 0.07)\log L$ for all SPB stars, $\log P = -0.34 \pm 0.21 + (0.19 \pm 0.07)\log L$ for pure-low-frequency SPB stars, and $\log P = -2.01 \pm 0.27 + (0.32 \pm 0.07)\log L$ for BCEP stars, with the same slope for both SPB groups and a different slope for BCEP stars. Two objects with BCEP-like Fourier spectra fall with the SPB stars in the period-temperature and period-luminosity diagrams and are flagged BCEP/SPB. The authors conclude that SPB and BCEP stars can be separated in these diagrams.

Load-bearing premise

The entire SPB/BCEP classification rests on the visual judgment that high-frequency peaks are either independent modes or combination frequencies of low-frequency modes, and that judgment is not checked by computing combination frequencies; if it is wrong for many stars, the class counts and both period-luminosity relations would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the sample enlarges the known population of massive pulsators by 87 SPB and 14 BCEP stars, almost all previously uncatalogued, giving new targets for asteroseismic modeling.
  • Equations (3)-(5) provide preliminary period-luminosity relations that could, with more targets and closer scrutiny, turn OB pulsators into distance indicators.
  • Because pure-low-frequency SPB stars and SPB stars with combination high frequencies share the same period-luminosity slope while BCEP stars differ, the paper treats this as independent evidence that the two high-frequency populations are physically distinct.
  • The paper's result that no star in the sample pulsates only at high frequency suggests that high-frequency pulsation in these OB stars accompanies low-frequency g-mode pulsation rather than occurring alone.
  • The period-temperature and period-luminosity diagrams are proposed as practical classification tools alongside the H-R diagram.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative version of the classification would compute all low-frequency combination frequencies and check whether the 'combination' high-frequency peaks coincide with them within the frequency errors; the paper does not report such a test.
  • If the period-luminosity relations are confirmed with larger samples, OB pulsators could complement classical Cepheids as distance tracers, provided selection effects and intrinsic scatter are characterized.
  • The two BCEP/SPB outliers may be a sign that some objects in the sample are not main-sequence B stars but evolved A-type or $\delta$ Scuti pulsators; higher-resolution spectroscopy or longer photometric baselines would settle that.
  • Longer TESS baselines and additional space photometry will reveal whether some 'independent' high-frequency peaks are aliases, which would shift class assignments and the fitted relations.
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. The paper presents a catalog of 155 O- and B-type pulsating stars or candidates drawn from TESS, LAMOST, and Gaia data, of which 87 are classified as SPB stars (37 pure low-frequency, 50 with both low- and high-frequency pulsation) and 14 as BCEP stars, with the remaining 52 as candidates. The authors compute luminosities from Gaia parallaxes and effective temperatures, place the stars in H-R, P-T, and P-L diagrams, and derive preliminary period-luminosity relations for SPB and BCEP stars (Eqs. 3-5). The central claims are that most objects are new, that SPB and BCEP stars occupy their theoretical instability regions, and that the two classes can be separated in the P-T and P-L diagrams.

Significance. If the classification is reliable, the catalog would be a substantial addition of mostly new SPB and BCEP candidates, valuable for asteroseismic follow-up and for testing pulsation-driving theory in massive main-sequence stars. The derivation of preliminary P-L relations for SPB and BCEP stars is a useful step toward a potential distance indicator. The paper is honest in calling these relations preliminary and in flagging unreliable temperatures for some targets. Its main value lies in the sample itself, not in the fitted relations, whose statistical basis is currently thin. The credibility of the catalog hinges on the quantitative support for the combination-frequency classification, which is not yet provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 3-5]
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (3)-(5)]
  3. [Section 2 and Section 4, Table 1]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3]
  2. [Table 1]
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (2)]
  4. [Section 3]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the catalog, classifications, and P-L relations are built from independent TESS, LAMOST, and Gaia data, with the fits explicitly preliminary.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not a prediction from a fitted model; it is an observational catalog. Luminosities come from Gaia parallaxes and standard temperature/extinction calibrations (Eqs. 1-2), and are independent of the period classifications. The SPB/BCEP labels use Fourier-spectrum morphology with a stated 3 cycles/day LF/HF boundary and an external combination-frequency attribution (Kurtz et al. 2015); no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The P-L relations (Eqs. 3-5) are least-squares fits to the independently measured dominant periods and luminosities and are explicitly called 'preliminary results' in Section 5. The P-T separation likewise is presented as an empirical diagram, not as a derivation from the classification rule. The paper's self-citations (Shi et al. 2021a,b,c; 2022) are used for data-processing steps and reliability checks, not to force the new catalog's central results. The main weakness is that the claimed combination-frequency identifications are asserted rather than tabulated and quantitatively tested; that is a verification/correctness concern, not a circularity of the paper's equations or definitions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its results rest on survey data, standard calibrations, and two hand-set classification thresholds (the 3 cycles/d boundary and the visual combination-frequency assignment). The main free parameters are the fitted slopes and intercepts of the period-luminosity relations, which are clearly labeled as preliminary fits.

free parameters (3)
  • P-L relation for all SPB stars (Eq. 3) = slope 0.19 ± 0.07, intercept -0.55 ± 0.20
    Least-squares fit to logP versus logL for the 87 SPB stars; used to claim a P-L relation and class separation.
  • P-L relation for pure low-frequency SPB stars (Eq. 4) = slope 0.19 ± 0.07, intercept -0.34 ± 0.21
    Least-squares fit to the 37 pure-LF SPB stars; supports the claim that pure-LF and mixed SPB stars share the same slope.
  • P-L relation for BCEP stars (Eq. 5) = slope 0.32 ± 0.07, intercept -2.01 ± 0.27
    Least-squares fit to the 14 BCEP stars; used to argue BCEP stars follow a different P-L relation than SPB stars.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The frequency boundary of 3 cycles per day separates low-frequency and high-frequency pulsation for all targets.
    Section 3 states this is a rough boundary chosen according to p-mode and g-mode properties; it is a hand-set threshold, not derived from the data.
  • domain assumption High-frequency peaks in SPB stars are combination frequencies of low-frequencies, while those in BCEP stars are independent modes.
    Section 3 uses this distinction to classify stars, but no combination-frequency calculations are shown; the assignment is made by visual inspection of Fourier spectra.
  • domain assumption Effective temperatures from Gaia ESP-HS or LAMOST Guo (2021) are reliable for most targets.
    Section 2 notes that only effective temperature is quoted because other atmospheric parameters are inconsistent, and Section 4 rechecks only a few deviant targets; temperatures with third or fourth priority may carry larger errors.
  • standard math The bolometric correction calibration of Pecaut & Mamajek (2013) and the extinction maps of Schlafly & Finkbeiner (2011) apply to these stars.
    Used in Equations 1 and 2 to compute luminosities; these are standard external calibrations.
  • standard math MESA evolutionary tracks at Z=0.02 and the Miglio et al. (2007) instability strips are appropriate for interpreting the H-R diagram.
    Section 4 uses these to compare the observed positions of stars; the tracks and instability strips are taken from the literature.
  • domain assumption Gaia parallaxes are accurate enough to compute luminosities with an average uncertainty of about 0.1 dex.
    Section 4 estimates the luminosity uncertainty from parallax errors and other terms, but individual stars with small parallaxes may have larger errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observational properties of 155 O- and B-type massive pulsating stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHM3RTT4

@misc{pith2026241203821,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observational properties of 155 O- and B-type massive pulsating stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHM3RTT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03821}
}
abstract

The O- and B-type (OB-type) pulsating stars are important objects to study the structure and evolution of massive stars through asteroseismology. A large amount of data from various sky surveys provide an unprecedented opportunity to search for and study this kind of variable star. We identify 155 OB-type pulsating stars or candidates, including 38 Oe/Be stars or candidates, from the data observed by TESS, LAMOST, and GAIA, which are almost new. Among the 155 objects, 87 samples are identified as SPB stars including 37 objects with pure low-frequency and 50 objects with both low- and high-frequency pulsation, and 14 samples are identified as BCEP stars with both low- and high-frequency pulsation. The H-R diagram shows that these SPB and BCEP stars are mainly located in their instability regions and in the evolutionary stage of the main-sequence with a mass range of 2.5-20 $M_{\odot}$ and 7-20 $M_{\odot}$. Two special objects show fourier spectra similar to BCEP stars but with different positions in H-R, Period-Temperature (P-T), and Period-Luminosity (P-L) diagrams. Meanwhile, 52 other targets are identified as candidates of OB-type pulsating stars. We also derive the preliminary results of the P-L relation for SPB and BCEP stars, respectively. This work also indicates that in addition to the H-R diagram, P-T and P-L diagrams are also very useful for the classification of SPB and BCEP. Further detailed analysis of these objects can dramatically increase our understanding of theories of evolution and structure for massive OB-type pulsating stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03821 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The comparison between the temperature of Gaia ESP-HS and that of LAMOST derived by Guo et al. (2021) (LAMOST Guo). Most of these targets give consistent results. research variables (e.g., Murphy et al. (2019)) or to test the reliability of research results (e.g., Shi et al. (2021a,c)). Gaia DR3 also derived the stellar atmospheric parameters from the BP/RP and RVS spectrum by different methods, such as the General … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example low-resolution spectra of Be star TIC53327951 from LAMOST. 30000 K give consistent results. This means that their temperature should be reliable except for individual targets. However, the consistency of other atmospheric parameters is very poor, so only the effective temperature is quoted in this paper. The effective temperatures T eff of these samples are listed in Column 4 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fourier spectra of the OB-type pulsating stars with pure low-frequency (LF) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fourier spectra of the OB-type pulsating stars with high-frequency (HF), part 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fourier spectra of the OB-type pulsating stars with high-frequency (HF), part 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The H-R diagram of these OB-type pulsating stars. The red solid circles, the black open circles, and the black open circles with dots refer to these SPB, BCEP, and BCEP/SPB stars, respectively. The orange crosses represent those SPB stars with pure low-frequency. Meanw…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The dominant pulsating period and the effective temperature relation diagram of these OB-type pulsating stars. The horizontal dashed lines represent a frequency = 3 cycles d −1 . Symbols are similar to those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The P-L diagram of these OB-type pulsating stars. The horizontal dashed lines represent a frequency = 3 cycles d −1 . Symbols are the same as those in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Selected Results on Variable Stars Observed by TESS

    astro-ph.SR 2025-09 unverdicted

    A curated review of TESS-era results across the major classes of variable stars, with illustrative light curves, but with no new observational or theoretical result.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2017

  2. [2]

    W.\ 2010, Asteroseismology, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library

    Aerts, C., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., & Kurtz, D. W.\ 2010, Asteroseismology, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library. ISBN 978-1-4020-5178-4. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2010, p

    2010

  3. [3]

    Aerts, C., De Cat, P., Peeters, E., et al.\ 1999, , 343, 872

    1999

  4. [4]

    Balona, L. A. & Ozuyar, D.\ 2020, , 493, 5871. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa670

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa670 2020

  5. [5]

    A., Pigulski, A., De Cat, P., et al.\ 2011, , 413, 2403

    Balona, L. A., Pigulski, A., De Cat, P., et al.\ 2011, , 413, 2403. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18311.x

    arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    Baran, A. S. & Koen, C.\ 2021, , 71, 113. doi:10.32023/0001-5237/71.2.3

    doi:10.32023/0001-5237/71.2.3 2021

  7. [7]

    J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al.\ 2010, Science, 327, 977

    Borucki, W. J., Koch, D., Basri, G., et al.\ 2010, Science, 327, 977. doi:10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts517

    Bouabid, M.-P., Dupret, M.-A., Salmon, S., et al.\ 2013, , 429, 2500. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts517

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sts517 2013

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    M., Aerts, C., et al.\ 2019, , 489, 1304

    Burssens, S., Bowman, D. M., Aerts, C., et al.\ 2019, , 489, 1304. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2165

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    M., et al.\ 2020, , 639, A81

    Burssens, S., Sim \'o n-D \' az, S., Bowman, D. M., et al.\ 2020, , 639, A81. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037700

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al.\ 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    & Aerts, C.\ 2002, , 393, 965

    De Cat, P. & Aerts, C.\ 2002, , 393, 965. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20021068

    2002 doi

  5. [13]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066202

    De Cat, P., Briquet, M., Aerts, C., et al.\ 2007, , 463, 243. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066202

    2007 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911884

    Degroote, P., Aerts, C., Ollivier, M., et al.\ 2009, , 506, 471. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911884

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Moskalik, P., & Pamyatnykh, A

    Dziembowski, W. A., Moskalik, P., & Pamyatnykh, A. A.\ 1993, , 265, 588. doi:10.1093/mnras/265.3.588

    1993 doi

  8. [16]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al.\ 2018, , 616, A1

    2018

  9. [17]

    Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al.\ 2021, , 649, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039657

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al.\ 2016, , 595, A1. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac2ded

    Guo, Y., Zhang, B., Liu, C., et al.\ 2021, , 257, 54. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac2ded

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    Han, Z.-W., Ge, H.-W., Chen, X.-F., et al.\ 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 161. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/161

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Caldwell, D

    Jenkins, J. M., Caldwell, D. A., Chandrasekaran, H., et al.\ 2010, , 713, L87. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L87

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    W., Shibahashi, H., Murphy, S

    Kurtz, D. W., Shibahashi, H., Murphy, S. J., et al.\ 2015, , 450, 3015. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv868

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab952c

    Labadie-Bartz, J., Handler, G., Pepper, J., et al.\ 2020, , 160, 32. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab952c

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937375

    Langer, N., Sch \"u rmann, C., Stoll, K., et al.\ 2020, , 638, A39. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201937375

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    & Breger, M.\ 2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53

    Lenz, P. & Breger, M.\ 2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53. doi:10.1553/cia146s53

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    Luo, A.-L., Zhao, Y.-H., Zhao, G., et al.\ 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1095. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/15/8/002

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011406

    Mathias, P., Aerts, C., Briquet, M., et al.\ 2001, , 379, 905. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20011406

    2001 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.1553/cia151s48

    Miglio, A., Montalb \'a n, J., & Dupret, M.-A.\ 2007, Communications in Asteroseismology, 151, 48. doi:10.1553/cia151s48

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    Montgomery, M. H. & Odonoghue, D.\ 1999, Delta Scuti Star Newsletter, vol. 13, p.28, 13

    1999

  22. [30]

    Morton, D. C. & Adams, T. F.\ 1968, , 151, 611. doi:10.1086/149461

    1968 doi

  23. [31]

    Morgan, W. W. & Keenan, P. C.\ 1973, , 11, 29. doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.11.090173.000333

    1973

  24. [32]

    J., Hey, D., Van Reeth, T., et al.\ 2019, , 485, 2380

    Murphy, S. J., Hey, D., Van Reeth, T., et al.\ 2019, , 485, 2380. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz590

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    doi:10.1086/111498

    Panagia, N.\ 1973, , 78, 929. doi:10.1086/111498

    1973 doi

  26. [34]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526413

    Paunzen, E.\ 2015, , 580, A23. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526413

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al.\ 2011, , 192, 3. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/192/1/3

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al.\ 2013, , 208, 4. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4

    2013 doi

  29. [37]

    doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2015, , 220, 15. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/220/1/15

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 34

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al.\ 2018, , 234, 34. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa5a8

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al.\ 2019, , 243, 10. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab2241

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Pecaut, M. J. & Mamajek, E. E.\ 2013, , 208, 9. doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/9

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Pigulski, A.\ 2005, , 55, 219

    2005

  34. [42]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/8/87

    Qian, S.-B., He, J.-J., Zhang, J., et al.\ 2017, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 17, 087. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/8/87

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3185

    Qian, S.-B., Li, L.-J., He, J.-J., et al.\ 2018, , 475, 478. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3185

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/1/1

    Qian, S.-B., Li, L.-J., He, J.-J., et al.\ 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 001. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/1/1

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/64

    Qian, S.-B., Shi, X.-D., Zhu, L.-Y., et al.\ 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 064. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/19/5/64

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa601

    Qian, S.-B., Zhang, J., He, J.-J., et al.\ 2018, , 235, 5. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa601

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/163

    Qian, S.-B., Zhu, L.-Y., Liu, L., et al.\ 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 163. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/163

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    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

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    doi:10.1086/528932

    Sadowski, A., Belczynski, K., Bulik, T., et al.\ 2008, , 676, 1162. doi:10.1086/528932

    2008 doi

  42. [50]

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

    2011 doi

  43. [51]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., et al.\ 2016, , 457, 2355. doi:10.1093/mnras/stw148

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abccd7

    Shi, X.-D., Qian, S.-B., Li, L.-J., et al.\ 2021, , 161, 46. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abccd7

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1657

    Shi, X.-D., Qian, S.-B., Li, L.-J., et al.\ 2021, , 505, 6166. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1657

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    dong ., Qian, S.-

    Shi, X.-. dong ., Qian, S.-. bang ., Li, L.-. jia ., et al.\ 2021, , 133, 054201. doi:10.1088/1538-3873/abf32a

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac59b9

    Shi, X.-D., Qian, S.-B., & Li, L.-J.\ 2022, , 259, 50. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac59b9

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    & Handler, G.\ 2005, , 158, 193

    Stankov, A. & Handler, G.\ 2005, , 158, 193. doi:10.1086/429408

    2005 doi

  49. [57]

    G., Oelkers, R

    Stassun, K. G., Oelkers, R. J., Pepper, J., et al.\ 2018, , 156, 102. doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aad050

    2018 doi

  50. [58]

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5

    Wang, C., Langer, N., Schootemeijer, A., et al.\ 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 480. doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01597-5

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    doi:10.1364/AO.35.005155

    Wang, S.-G., Su, D.-Q., Chu, Y.-Q., et al.\ 1996, , 35, 5155. doi:10.1364/AO.35.005155

    1996 doi

  52. [60]

    doi:10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al.\ 2000, , 143, 9. doi:10.1051/aas:2000332

    2000 doi

  53. [61]

    R., Pope, B

    White, T. R., Pope, B. J. S., Antoci, V., et al.\ 2017, , 471, 2882. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1050

    2017 doi

  54. [62]

    E., & Langer, N.\ 2010, , 725, 940

    Yoon, S.-C., Woosley, S. E., & Langer, N.\ 2010, , 725, 940. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/725/1/940

    2010 doi

  55. [63]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    Zhang, B., Li, J., Yang, F., et al.\ 2021, , 256, 14. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac0834

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab442b

    Zhang, J., Qian, S.-B., Wu, Y., et al.\ 2019, , 244, 43. doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab442b

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    Zhao, G., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al.\ 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/12/7/002

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.