Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Minute-cadence observations on Galactic plane with Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST): Overview, methodology and early results

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Minute-cadence stares with the Wide Field Survey Telescope reveal fast, faint variable stars slower surveys miss.

desk verdict A useful, honest early-results paper for WFST minute-cadence work; the two faintest new variables rest on self-calibrated thresholds and need a permutation test, but the pipeline and validation are solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12601 v2 pith:ZQE64NK3 submitted 2024-12-17 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM

Jie Lin , Tinggui Wang , Minxuan Cai , Zhen Wan , Xuzhi Li , Lulu Fan , Qingfeng Zhu , Ji-an Jiang
show 21 more authors
Ning Jiang Xu Kong Zheyu Lin Jiazheng Zhu Zhengyan Liu Jie Gao Bin Li Feng Li Ming Liang Hao Liu Wei Liu Wentao Luo Jinlong Tang Hairen Wang Jian Wang Yongquan Xue Dazhi Yao Hongfei Zhang Xiaoling Zhang Wen Zhao Xianzhong Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.IM
keywords surveysstellarflaresclosebinariesoscillationswhitedwarfsZZCetivariablesminute-cadencephotometryGalacticplane
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 reports that the Wide Field Survey Telescope, normally a survey instrument, can be pointed at a single Galactic-plane field and exposed roughly once per minute for three to four hours, and that this mode finds rare, fast variable stars and flares that slower-cadence surveys miss. Across about 13 hours on three fields, the authors extract 650,696 light curves for half a million sources and present methods for variability, flare, and periodicity detection. They claim a 6.7-minute signal identifies J0530+5945 as a new, very faint ZZ Ceti pulsating white dwarf, and that a hot white dwarf candidate shows a possible 25.3-minute period. The wider claim is that WFST's combination of depth (to about 22–23 mag) and minute sampling opens an unexplored parameter space for short-period variables and fast flaring stars in the northern sky.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a small set of time-series statistics and a self-calibration identity. Variability is screened with the inverse von Neumann ratio $1/\eta$; flares are found with Osten's method using the maximum product of two consecutive normalized detrended magnitudes ($\phi_{VV,\max}$); periodicity is found with variance-scaled Lomb–Scargle periodograms. The load-bearing identity is the linear fit $\log(CDF) = k \log(FDR)$ (and the analogue with false alarm probability $FAP$), applied to the observed cumulative distributions of the test statistics and then used as the calibrated null to set thresholds such as $FDR_{\rm cal}\le10^{-6}$ and $FAP\le0.1\%$. Short periods are selected with a $Pwr_{\max}$–$f_{\max}$ diagram divided into 100 frequency bins, each with its own 10$\sigma$ excess threshold, because window functions inflate low-frequency power.

What would settle it

Re-run both selection pipelines on simulated light curves that have the same window functions and Gaussian noise but no injected signals, and check whether the calibrated thresholds ($FDR_{\rm cal}\le10^{-6}$, $FAP\le0.1\%$) actually yield the promised false-positive rates; alternatively, follow up J0530+5945 and J0446+7227 with high-speed photometry or spectroscopy and see whether the 6.7-minute and 25.3-minute signals repeat at the claimed amplitudes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that WFST can efficiently detect and reveal short-period variable stars and fast flaring stars in unexplored parameter spaces. Concretely, the paper argues that with a roughly one-minute cadence and 20–30-second exposures it recovers real astrophysical variability in about 0.1% of its observed sources, reproduces the 10.3-minute half-orbit modulation of the known ultracompact binary J0526+5934 well enough to see asymmetric minima, discovers a new faint ZZ Ceti variable (J0530+5945) with a 6.7-minute period, and marginally detects a 25.3-minute signal from a hot white dwarf candidate. It also presents flares from stars spanning 14 to 22.3 mag, including a minute-timescale flare from a 22nd-magnitude WD-binary candidate that other surveys would likely misclassify as a fast optical transient.

Load-bearing premise

The selections treat the fitted straight lines $\log(CDF) = k\cdot\log(FDR)$ and $\log(CDF) = k\cdot\log(FAP)$, derived from the same observed cumulative distributions they are meant to calibrate, as the true null distributions of the test statistics; if those self-calibrated nulls are biased, the reported significance levels and the candidate lists built on them lose their statistical grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the self-calibrated null distributions are correct, the candidate lists are statistically grounded, and WFST's regular survey can be expected to add many faint ZZ Ceti variables beyond the bright ($V<16$) TESS-discovered sample.
  • The discovery of a flare from a 22-magnitude WD-binary candidate implies that deep minute-cadence observations can catch fast transients that otherwise would be attributed to unknown fast optical transients, contaminating transient surveys.
  • The successful reproduction of J0526+5934's asymmetric minima shows the mode can recover sub-hour orbital modulation at 17.6 mag, supporting searches for ultracompact binaries in the northern sky.
  • Splicing two or three nights of minute-cadence data extends the period search to 3–12 d$^{-1}$, recovering EW eclipsing binaries and RR Lyrae stars alongside the short-period search.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The self-calibration approach — fitting observed CDFs to define nulls — is transferable to other single-night, irregularly sampled surveys, and could be tested by injecting synthetic signals into real light curves; the authors do not report such injection tests.
  • If the ~0.1% astrophysical variability fraction scales to WFST's full northern survey, millions of variable sources could result, but that extrapolation assumes the null calibration holds in more crowded, lower-latitude fields.
  • The 25.3-minute hot WD candidate is the most fragile result in the paper: with a peak-to-peak amplitude of only 0.03 mag near the photometric noise, independent confirmation would be decisive, and the paper itself labels it 'candidate' and 'possible'.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports WFST minute-cadence 'staring' observations of three Galactic-plane fields (about 13 hours on-source, 500,460 sources, 650,696 light curves) and lays out the pipeline for variability, flare, and periodicity detection. It presents early results: 146 visually confirmed general periodic variables (mostly EW binaries and RR Lyrae, with 118 already in VSX), 10 short-period candidates selected from Pwr_max-fmax diagrams, 33 Osten-method flares plus 4 additional high-variability flares, and a few highlighted objects including the recovery of the known ultracompact binary J0526+5934, an ellipsoidal WD+MS binary candidate J0446+7219 confirmed with ZTF, a claimed new ZZ Ceti variable J0530+5945 with a 6.7-min period, and a claimed variable hot WD J0446+7227 with a possible 25.3-min period.

Significance. If the statistical calibrations hold up, the paper demonstrates a genuine new capability: deep (g~22) minute-cadence photometry over ~20 deg^2 that can detect fast variables and flares missed by other surveys. The authors deserve credit for including several explicit validation checks: the known 20.5-min ultracompact binary J0526+5934 is recovered with its asymmetric minima visible, the ellipsoidal-binary candidate J0446+7219 is independently phase-folded with ZTF data, 9/10 short-period candidates survive visual inspection, and all presented flares pass visual inspection with finding charts. The central weakness is that the two flagship new WD detections rest on self-calibrated thresholds and marginal amplitudes, and one of the text passages appears to attribute an object to the wrong pointing. The paper is suitable for publication after the statistical validation is strengthened and the internal inconsistencies are fixed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.1, Fig. 4] The text states that 'we highlighted an interesting periodic variable star (i.e. J0530+5945) below the 10 sigma excesses from the observation GP-20240209 (see the panel d of Fig. 4).' This cannot be correct: GP-20240209 points at Platais 3 (04:39:54, +71:16:48), while J0530+5945 has coordinates RA=82.5401, Dec=+59.7661 and is in the J0526+5934 field. The object actually discussed for GP-20240209 is J0446+7227. This conflation matters because it obscures which observation supports J0530+5945 and because J0446+7227 is explicitly described as being below the 10-sigma threshold yet is still presented as a detected variable hot WD. Please correct the text/caption and clarify, for each of the two objects, the pointing, the significance, and whether the detection passes or falls below the formal selection threshold.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4); Section 3.3.2, Eq. (5)] The false-discovery-rate and false-alarm-probability calibrations are performed by fitting log(CDF) = k*log(FDR) and log(CDF) = k*log(FAP) to the very same observed cumulative distributions that are then used to define the selection thresholds. The fitted slopes are extreme (e.g., k = 0.065 and 0.067 for the FAP calibration in Fig. 5), so FAP_cal = FAP^k is orders of magnitude more permissive than the nominal FAP and is highly sensitive to the fitted value of k. The manuscript provides no uncertainties on k, no goodness-of-fit measure, and no independent validation (e.g., time-shuffled or phase-randomized light curves) that the fitted power laws actually represent the null distributions. Without such validation, the reported thresholds (FDR_cal <= 1e-6 and FAP_cal <= 0.1%) are not calibrated false-alarm probabilities. I request a permutation or bootstrap test, or at minimum a clear statement of the systematic uncertainty in k and its effect on the candidate counts.
  3. [Section 4.2, J0446+7227] The claimed 25.3-min periodicity for J0446+7227 has a peak-to-peak amplitude of only 0.03 mag at 18.3 mag, which is comparable to the per-epoch photometric uncertainty listed in Table 2 (0.0147 mag at 18 mag for GP-20240209). The periodicity is described as 'marginally revealed' in a single night and only visually consistent in a second night. No LSP power, no local threshold value, and no false-alarm probability are reported for this object. Given that the summary and Section 5 present J0446+7227 as a variable hot WD, this is a load-bearing claim and needs a quantitative significance statement. Please report the periodogram power, the empirical threshold at that frequency, and a permutation-based false-alarm probability, or explicitly downgrade the object to 'candidate awaiting confirmation.'
  4. [Section 3.3.1, Fig. 4] The '10-sigma excess' thresholds are computed per frequency bin from the same candidate pool and are not false-alarm probabilities. Under a skewed maximum-power distribution, a 10-sigma excess can correspond to a much larger false-alarm rate than the Gaussian-sigma label suggests. This is particularly relevant for the two faint WD candidates, since the paper itself reports variability-candidate false-positive rates of 53-76% before visual inspection. I recommend reporting, for J0530+5945 and J0446+7227, the actual Pwr_max value, the threshold at the relevant frequency, and a false-alarm probability estimated from simulations or light-curve permutations, rather than relying only on the empirical sigma threshold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Please correct the object name in Fig. 10's caption and in the Section 4.2 text where J0530+5945 is written in place of J0446+7227 for the 25.3-min variable hot WD; the phase-folded panel labeled (h) belongs to J0446+7227.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'identified this object as a new member of ZZ Ceti variables' is stronger than the evidence presented (period + CMD location). Unless a spectroscopic or multi-color confirmation is available, I suggest using 'candidate ZZ Ceti variable' in both the text and the summary.
  3. [Abstract] There is a typographical error in the title in the full text ('T elescope' with a space), and the abstract uses 'Benefit from' where 'Benefiting from' is intended.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 5] The total on-source time is quoted as about 13 hours in the abstract and Section 5, but Section 3.2 refers to 'the total 15-hour WFST observations.' Please reconcile these numbers and clarify whether the difference is due to the 73.3-minute interruption or to overheads.
  5. [Section 3.2] The number of light curves used for flare detection is given as 531,732 (epochs >= 50), while Section 5 reports 650,696 uninterrupted light curves with >=20 epochs. The distinction is clear but should be stated explicitly in Section 5 to avoid apparent inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the self-calibrated FDR/FAP nulls are empirical calibrations rather than derived predictions, and the paper's central detections are visually inspected and externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The manuscript derives its flare and periodicity selections from empirical calibrations: Eq. 4's theoretical FDR is recalibrated by fitting log(CDF)=k*log(FDR) to the bulk of the observed CDF, and Eq. 5's FAP is recalibrated in the same way. These are explicitly presented as calibration steps ('By regarding the best-fit models as the null distributions'), not as first-principles predictions. The calibrated FDR/FAP are monotone ranking statistics; the actual existence of the reported astrophysical signals is established by visual inspection of light curves and by external benchmarks (118/146 general periodic variables matched to VSX; the known UCB J0526+5934 is recovered; J0446+7219's periodicity is double-checked with ZTF). The paper's self-citations (Lin et al. 2022a for the phi_VV PDF and Pwr_max-fmax methodology, Lin et al. 2024 for J0526+5934) provide methodological background and benchmark data, but the new-object claims do not reduce to those citations. The data-driven 10-sigma and FAP thresholds are a statistical-validation weakness rather than a circularity: the paper does not claim these thresholds are independent external significance tests, and the flagships are not asserted solely on the calibrated numbers (J0446+7227 is explicitly called 'marginally revealed'). No equation is defined in terms of its target output, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central catalog claims rest on empirically calibrated thresholds (FDR, FAP, variability) rather than on derived physical constants, so the ledger is dominated by data-fitted calibration parameters and standard astronomical calibration assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • FDR calibration slope k = 0.439 to 0.649 per observation (Fig. 3)
    Fitted linear slope to the observed log CDF versus log FDR in each of the five observations; used to define FDRcal = FDR^k and set the 1e-6 flare selection threshold.
  • FAP calibration slope k = 0.065 and 0.067 for SO1 and SO2 (Fig. 5)
    Fitted slope to the observed log CDF versus log FAP for the two spliced light-curve sets; used to define FAPcal = FAP^k and set the 0.1% periodicity threshold.
  • Variability threshold polynomials = not tabulated in paper
    5th-order (robust StD) and 3rd-order (1/eta) polynomial fits to the 10-sigma excess envelopes in the magnitude-index planes; used to select candidate variables in Section 3.1.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The best-fit linear model to the observed cumulative FDR/FAP distribution represents the true null distribution.
    Invoked in Section 3.2 and 3.3.2 to calibrate false detection rates; if wrong, the reported significances are miscalibrated.
  • domain assumption Photometric noise is approximately Gaussian and successive measurements are independent in the von Neumann ratio and Osten flare statistic.
    Underlies Eq. 1 and the theoretical FDR from Eq. 4; the paper itself notes deviations and corrects them with the fitted slope.
  • domain assumption The effective number of independent frequencies Neff equals the frequency range divided by 1/T in the Lomb-Scargle false alarm probability.
    Used in Eq. 5 to derive FAP; a standard but simplifying assumption for unevenly sampled light curves.
  • domain assumption The Green et al. (2019) 3D dust map and Gaia DR3 parallaxes give accurate extinction-corrected CMD positions.
    Relied on in Section 3.4 for placing variable stars in the color-magnitude diagram and supporting their classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minute-cadence observations on Galactic plane with Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST): Overview, methodology and early results." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQE64NK3

@misc{pith2026241212601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minute-cadence observations on Galactic plane with Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST): Overview, methodology and early results},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQE64NK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12601}
}
abstract

As the time-domain survey telescope of the highest survey power in the northern hemisphere currently, Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST) is scheduled to hourly/daily/semi-weekly scan northern sky up to ~23 mag in four optical (ugri) bands. Unlike the observation cadences in the forthcoming regular survey missions, WFST performed "staring" observations toward Galactic plane in a cadence of $\approx$1 minute for a total on-source time of about 13 hours, during the commissioning and pilot observation phases. Such an observation cadence is well applied in producing densely sampling light curves and hunting for stars exhibiting fast stellar variabilities. Here we introduce the primary methodologies in detecting variability, periodicity, and stellar flares among a half million sources from the minute-cadence observations, and present the WFST g-/r-band light curves generated from periodic variable stars and flaring stars. Benefit from high photometric precisions and deep detection limits of WFST, the observations have captured several rare variable stars, such as a variable hot white dwarf (WD) and an ellipsoidal WD binary candidate. By surveying the almost unexplored parameter spaces for variables, WFST will lead to new opportunities in discovering unique variable stars in the northern sky.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12601 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Accumulated fractions for the position deviations given from the minute-cadence observations on February 9th, 2024. Left: Position deviations anchored at average coordinates of position measurements. Right: Position deviations anchored at the coordinates from the first detections of sources. The bin width is 0.02 arcsec, and the red lines represent best-fit linear models for the bins with an accumulated fraction > 1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions for number (upper), robust standard deviation (middle) and inverse von Neumann ratio (lower) against the median AB magnitude, derived from the light curves extracted from g-band observations GP-20240209 (left) and r-band observations GP-20240509 (right). Upper panels: The grey lines represent the number of light curves (with ≥ 20 epochs) per bin, while the blue lines represent the number of candidate v… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of false discovery rates (FDRs) for flare detection from WFST minute-cadence observations. The FDR histograms (blue solid lines) in panel a–e are given by ϕVV sequences derived from five WFST minute-cadence observations, respectively. And the red solid lines are the best-fit linear models for the histogram bins at log(CDF) ≥ −1. The bin size is 0.2 . The shaded area indicate … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of maximum power Pwrmax versus their corresponding frequency fmax. Data points in panel a–e are given by LSPs derived from five WFST minute-cadence observations, respectively. The red solid line represents 10-σ excesses, and the total numbers (N) of sourc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of false alarm probabilities (FAPs) for periodicity detection from the splicing observations. The data sets were ob￾tained from GP-20230918+GP-20231116 (upper) and GP￾20240206+GP-20240209 (lower), respectively. The blue lines re…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Density distribution of the Gaia DR3-WFST sources across the color-magnitude diagram. Only the Gaia DR3 sources having a reliable parallax measurement are in￾cluded in the distribution. Both magnitudes and colors are calibrated for interstellar dust extinction and redd…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of periodic variable stars and flaring stars across the CMD. The general periodic variable stars, short￾period variable stars and flaring stars are selected by three different methods introduced in Section 3. The additional flaring stars were discovered b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A gallery of phase-folded light curves for nine general periodic variable stars revealed by the splicing observations. All light curves are obtained from the g-band observations of WFST, and the exposure is 20 seconds. For the objects identified by VSX, their light cur…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Phase-folded light curves of J0446+7219 pro￾vided from ZTF DR22 (upper panel) and WFST minute￾cadence observations (lower panel). Both light curves are folded by the photometric period (P = 2.95126 hours) de￾rived from the 6-year ZTF g-band observations. For an el￾lips…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Uninterrupted light curves (panel a-d) and phase-folded light curves (panel e-h) for four short-period variable stars selected from WFST minute-cadence observations. These objects are 1.3-hour δ Scuti star J1743+0134 (panel a & e), 20.5-min ultracompact binary J0526+5…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Uninterrupted light curve and finding charts for flaring star J0427+7034. The purple dotted-dashed lines overlapped on the light curve (panel a) indicate the epochs corresponding to the finding charts (panel b,c,d) in sequence. The red bars point the positions of J042…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Investigating the Period-Luminosity Relations of delta Scuti Stars: A Pathway to Distance and 3-D Dust Map Inference

    astro-ph.SR 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Simultaneous 11-band Bayesian fits of period-luminosity relations for 1,864 delta Scuti stars reproduce prior calibrations and infer dust reddening on held-out stars.

  2. Period-luminosity and period-luminosity-metallicity relation for $\delta$ Scuti Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using about 141 high-precision parallax stars, the authors derive period-luminosity relations for delta Scuti stars in nine bands and five Wesenheit bands and find the metallicity term is weak.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abramowitz, M., & Stegun, I. A. 1972, Handbook of Mathematical Functions (New York: Dover)

    1972

  2. [2]

    2022, PASJ, 74, 1069, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac056

    Aizawa, M., Kawana, K., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2022, PASJ, 74, 1069, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psac056

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psac056 2022

  3. [3]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  4. [4]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Argiroffi, C., Reale, F., Drake, J. J., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 742, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0781-4 2019

  6. [6]

    C., Kulkarni, S

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

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  7. [7]

    2023a, AcA, 73, 265, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/73.4.2

    Borowicz, J., Pietrukowicz, P., Skowron, J., et al. 2023a, AcA, 73, 265, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/73.4.2

    work page doi:10.32023/0001-5237/73.4.2

  8. [8]

    2023b, AcA, 73, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/73.1.1

    Borowicz, J., Pietrukowicz, P., Mr´ oz, P., et al. 2023b, AcA, 73, 1, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237/73.1.1

    doi:10.32023/0001-5237/73.1.1

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    B., Coughlin, M

    Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 571, 528, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1403-0

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    B., Prince, T

    Burdge, K. B., Prince, T. A., Fuller, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 905, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc261

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    B., El-Badry, K., Marsh, T

    Burdge, K. B., El-Badry, K., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2022a, Nature, 610, 467, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05195-x

    doi

  4. [12]

    B., Marsh, T

    Burdge, K. B., Marsh, T. R., Fuller, J., et al. 2022b, Nature, 605, 41, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04551-1

    doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Jeffery, C

    Byrne, C. M., & Jeffery, C. S. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 3810, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2545 —. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 232, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3486 18

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Stanway, E

    Byrne, C. M., Stanway, E. R., & Eldridge, J. J. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 621, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2115

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15018

    Cai, M., Xu, Z., Fan, L., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.15018, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.15018

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    B., Fuller, J., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 39, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03615-y

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    A., & Bessell, M

    Chang, S.-W., Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., & Bessell, M. S. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1414, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae637

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 C´ orsico, A

    Choi, J., Dotter, A., Conroy, C., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 102, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/102 C´ orsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., Miller Bertolami, M. M., &

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Kepler, S. O. 2019, A&A Rv, 27, 7, doi: 10.1007/s00159-019-0118-4

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    W., Burdge, K., Duev, D

    Coughlin, M. W., Burdge, K., Duev, D. A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.14071. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14071

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Davenport, J. R. A., Hawley, S. L., Hebb, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 122, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/797/2/122

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    2021, Nature, 596, 353, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z

    Deng, L., Yang, F., Chen, X., et al. 2021, Nature, 596, 353, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03711-z

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    Dotter, A. 2016, ApJS, 222, 8, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/222/1/8

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    B., Rui, Y

    Feng, F. B., Rui, Y. C., Du, Z. M., et al. 2024a, Acta Astronomica Sinica, 65, 34, doi: 10.15940/j.cnki.0001-5245.2024.04.001

    2024

  18. [26]

    Motohara, & J

    Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D. Vernet, 130963V, doi: 10.1117/12.3018237

    doi

  19. [27]

    T., Bailey, J

    Ferrario, L., Vennes, S., Wickramasinghe, D. T., Bailey, J. A., & Christian, D. J. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 205, doi: 10.1093/mnras/292.2.205

    1997 doi

  20. [28]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 5358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1288

    Finch, E., Bartolucci, G., Chucherko, D., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5358, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1288

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    A., Magnier, E

    Flewelling, H. A., Magnier, E. A., Chambers, K. C., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82d

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    E., et al

    Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 1748, doi: 10.1086/117915 Gaia Collaboration, Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-p...

    1996 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    R., Wang, B., et al

    Geier, S., Marsh, T. R., Wang, B., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321395

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Geng, Z., Wang, Z.-y., Zheng, Z.-h., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13101, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VIII, ed. J. Ibsen & G. Chiozzi, 131010K, doi: 10.1117/12.3016395 Gentile Fusillo, N. P....

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Green, G. M. 2018, The Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 695, doi: 10.21105/joss.00695

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    Finkbeiner, D. 2019, ApJ, 887, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    J., G¨ ansicke, B

    Greiss, S., Hermes, J. J., G¨ ansicke, B. T., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2855, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw053 G¨ udel, M., Audard, M., Skinner, S. L., & Horvath, M. I. 2002, ApJL, 580, L73, doi: 10.1086/345404 G¨ unther, M. N., Zhan, Z., Seager, S., et al. 2020, AJ, 159, 60, doi: 10....

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 6997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae404

    Guo, F., Lin, J., Wang, X., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 6997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae404

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    L., & Webbink, R

    Hils, D., Bender, P. L., & Webbink, R. F. 1990, ApJ, 360, 75, doi: 10.1086/169098

    1990 doi

  30. [38]

    S., & MacGregor, M

    Howard, W. S., & MacGregor, M. A. 2022, ApJ, 926, 204, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac426e

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2024, ApJL, 964, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f

    Huang, S., Jiang, N., Zhu, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 964, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2020, PhRvD, 102, 063021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021 Juri´ c, M., Kantor, J., Lim, K

    Huang, S.-J., Hu, Y.-M., Korol, V., et al. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 063021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063021 Juri´ c, M., Kantor, J., Lim, K. T., et al. 2017, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 512, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXV, ed. ...

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac415

    Korol, V., Hallakoun, N., Toonen, S., & Karnesis, N. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac415

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Kosakowski, A., Kupfer, T., Bergeron, P., & Littenberg, T. B. 2023, ApJ, 959, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce9

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1545

    Kupfer, T., Korol, V., Shah, S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1545

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    B., Burdge, K

    Kupfer, T., Bauer, E. B., Burdge, K. B., et al. 2019, ApJL, 878, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab263c

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    B., Marsh, T

    Kupfer, T., Bauer, E. B., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2020a, ApJ, 891, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab72ff

    doi

  38. [46]

    B., Burdge, K

    Kupfer, T., Bauer, E. B., Burdge, K. B., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 898, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba3c2

    doi

  39. [47]

    A., van Roestel, J., et al

    Kupfer, T., Prince, T. A., van Roestel, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1254, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1344 19

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    B., et al

    Kupfer, T., Korol, V., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2068

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2834

    2019 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    Lei, L., Zhu, Q.-F., Kong, X., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 035013, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acb877

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2018, MNRAS, 474, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2818

    Lin, J., & Yu, W. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1922, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2818

    2018 doi

  44. [52]

    2022a, MNRAS, 509, 2362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2812

    Lin, J., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2022a, MNRAS, 509, 2362, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2812

    doi

  45. [53]

    2023a, Nature Astronomy, 7, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01783-z

    Lin, J., Wu, C., Wang, X., et al. 2023a, Nature Astronomy, 7, 223, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01783-z

    doi

  46. [54]

    2023b, MNRAS, 523, 2172, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad994

    Lin, J., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 523, 2172, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad994

    doi

  47. [55]

    2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02188-2

    Lin, J., Wu, C., Xiong, H., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 491, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02188-2

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    2022b, MNRAS, 513, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac946

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., & Kong, X. 2022b, MNRAS, 513, 2422, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac946

    doi

  49. [57]

    2023a, MNRAS, 523, 2193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad365 —

    Liu, Q., Lin, J., Wang, X., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 523, 2193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad365 —. 2024, Universe, 10, 337, doi: 10.3390/universe10090337

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    2023b, ApJ, 947, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    Liu, Z.-Y., Lin, Z.-Y., Yu, J.-M., et al. 2023b, ApJ, 947, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc73b

    doi

  51. [59]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  52. [60]

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

    Lou, Z., Liang, M., Yao, D., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10154, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 101542A, doi: 10.1117/12.2248371

    2016 doi

  53. [61]

    2025, PASP, 137, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adac8f

    Lu, J.-Q., Fan, L.-L., Cai, M.-X., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 024401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adac8f

    2025 doi

  54. [62]

    A., Toma, R., Ramsay, G., et al

    Macfarlane, S. A., Toma, R., Ramsay, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 507, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1989

    2015 doi

  55. [63]

    A., Schlafly, E

    Magnier, E. A., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2020, ApJS, 251, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abb82a

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    R., & Lam, M

    McWhirter, P. R., & Lam, M. C. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 4971, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac291

    2022 doi

  58. [66]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb8e

    Meng, X.-C., Han, Z.-W., Podsiadlowski, P., & Li, J. 2020, ApJ, 903, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbb8e

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    J., Hey, D., Van Reeth, T., & Bedding, T

    Murphy, S. J., Hey, D., Van Reeth, T., & Bedding, T. R. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2380, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz590

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    L., et al

    Murphy, T., Chatterjee, S., Kaplan, D. L., et al. 2013, PASA, 30, e006, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2012.006

    2013 doi

  61. [69]

    L., Stewart, A

    Murphy, T., Kaplan, D. L., Stewart, A. J., et al. 2021, PASA, 38, e054, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2021.44

    2021 doi

  62. [70]

    R., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2001, A&A, 375, 890, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010683

    2001 doi

  63. [71]

    O., Soumagnac, M., Nir, G., et al

    Ofek, E. O., Soumagnac, M., Nir, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 5782, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2814

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    A., Kowalski, A., Sahu, K., & Hawley, S

    Osten, R. A., Kowalski, A., Sahu, K., & Hawley, S. L. 2012, ApJ, 754, 4, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/754/1/4

    2012 doi

  65. [73]

    R., Buckley, D

    Pelisoli, I., Marsh, T. R., Buckley, D. A. H., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 931, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01995-x

    2023 doi

  66. [74]

    A., Latour, M., et al

    Pietrukowicz, P., Dziembowski, W. A., Latour, M., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 0166, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0166

    2017 doi

  67. [75]

    Pigulski, A., Kotysz, K., & Ko laczek-Szyma´ nski, P. A. 2022, A&A, 663, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243293

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    C., & Webbink, R

    Rappaport, S., Joss, P. C., & Webbink, R. F. 1982, ApJ, 254, 616, doi: 10.1086/159772

    1982 doi

  69. [77]

    M., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Solano, E., Jim´ enez-Esteban, F. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 5201, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2039

    2021 doi

  70. [78]

    G., et al

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Hollands, M., Parsons, S. G., et al. 2024, A&A, 686, A221, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202449519

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    Reid, H. A. S., Vilmer, N., & Kontar, E. P. 2014, A&A, 567, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321973

    2014 doi

  72. [80]

    2023, ApJS, 264, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca09e

    Ren, L., Li, C., Ma, B., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aca09e

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    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

  74. [82]

    Hermes, J. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.07260, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.07260

    2024 doi arXiv

  75. [83]

    D., Kepler, S

    Romero, A. D., Kepler, S. O., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1574, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac093

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S. L., & Williams, G. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1006, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/717/2/1006

    2010 doi

  77. [85]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835, doi: 10.1086/160554

    1982 doi

  78. [86]

    V., Gavras, P., Karampelas, A., et al

    Sokolovsky, K. V., Gavras, P., Karampelas, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 274, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2262

    2017 doi

  79. [87]

    2016, MNRAS, 463, 1099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2079

    Toma, R., Ramsay, G., Macfarlane, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 1099, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2079

    2016 doi

  80. [88]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aab766

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    2025, A pilot survey on globular clusters with the Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST)

    Wan, Z., Fan, L., Li, X., et al. 2025, A pilot survey on globular clusters with the Wide Field Survey Telescope (WFST). https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05160

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    2021, MNRAS, 506, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2032 20

    Wang, B., Chen, W.-C., Liu, D.-D., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 4654, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2032 20

    2021 doi

  83. [91]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17472, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17472

    Wang, S.-H., Fu, B.-X., Lu, J.-Q., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.17472, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.17472

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    doi

  85. [93]

    2023b, MNRAS, 523, 5661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1727

    Wang, Y., Murphy, T., Lenc, E., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 523, 5661, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1727

    doi

  86. [94]

    L., Henden, A

    Watson, C. L., Henden, A. A., & Price, A. 2006, Society for Astronomical Sciences Annual Symposium, 25, 47

    2006

  87. [95]

    A., Hermes, J

    Williams, K. A., Hermes, J. J., & Vanderbosch, Z. P. 2022, AJ, 164, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac8543

    2022 doi

  88. [96]

    2018, MNRAS, 478, 3871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1347

    Wu, T., & Li, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3871, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1347

    2018 doi

  89. [97]

    2022, A&A, 668, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244571

    Xiong, H., Casagrande, L., Chen, X., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244571

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    2018, ApJ, 859, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd31

    Yang, H., Liu, J., Qiao, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabd31

    2018 doi

  91. [99]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al

    York, D. G., Adelman, J., Anderson, John E., J., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 1579, doi: 10.1086/301513

    2000 doi

  92. [100]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Zhang, H.-f., Feng, Q., Wang, J., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13103, X-Ray, Optical, and Infrared Detectors for Astronomy XI, ed. A. D. Holland & K. Minoglou, 131030V, doi: 10.1117/12.3012637

    2024 doi

  93. [101]

    2020, PASP, 132, 125001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/abbea2

    Zhang, J.-C., Wang, X.-F., Mo, J., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 125001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/abbea2

    2020 doi

  94. [102]

    2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Zhu, Z.-y., Cao, Z.-h., Sun, Y.-c., et al. 2024, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 13098, Observatory Operations:

    2024

  95. [103]

    Strategies, Processes, and Systems X, ed. C. R. Benn, A. Chrysostomou, & L. J. Storrie-Lombardi, 1309810, doi: 10.1117/12.3017283

    doi

Pith tools

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