Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

On the Double: Two Luminous Flares from the Nearby Tidal Disruption Event ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) and Connections to Repeating TDE Candidates

T0 review · 3 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 ASASSN-22ci is a star being partially disrupted on a 720-day cycle, with the next flare predicted for 2026 February 4.

desk verdict Solid, well-observed case for a repeating partial TDE with a testable 2026 prediction; the main caveat is that the 720-day peak separation is assumed to be the orbital period. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15326 v2 pith:J36K2FSY submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.HE

Jason T. Hinkle , Katie Auchettl , Willem B. Hoogendam , Anna V. Payne , Thomas W.-S. Holoien , Benjamin J. Shappee , Michael A. Tucker , Christopher S. Kochanek
show 11 more authors
K. Z. Stanek Patrick J. Vallely Charlotte R. Angus Chris Ashall Thomas de Jaeger Dhvanil D. Desai Aaron Do Michael M. Fausnaugh Mark E. Huber Ryan J. Rickards Vaught Jennifer Shi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords AccretionActivegalacticnucleiBlackholephysicsSupermassiveholesTidaldisruptionRepeatingpartialHillsmechanismASASSN-22ci
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

ASASSN-22ci, a tidal disruption event 125 Mpc away, produced two nearly identical ultraviolet/optical flares about two years apart, and the authors argue this is the same star being partially disrupted twice by the same supermassive black hole. If that reading is correct, the 720-day gap between the flare peaks is the orbital period of the surviving stellar core, and the next flare should peak near MJD 61075 (2026 February 04). The paper also shows that the small sample of known repeating TDE candidates, including this one, fits the Hills-capture picture: a binary star is torn apart by the black hole, leaving one star on a tight, highly eccentric orbit that grazes the tidal radius on each return. A scheduled repeating flare matters because it turns a one-off cosmic accident into a predictable experiment on how gas falls onto a previously quiescent black hole.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the repeated partial disruption itself: a star on a highly eccentric orbit whose pericenter sits near the tidal radius of the black hole, so each passage strips a small amount of mass and produces a UV/optical flare. The key observable that carries the timing argument is the peak-to-peak separation of $720 \pm 4.7$ days (700 days in the rest frame), which the paper interprets as the orbital period of the surviving star. The formation channel is the Hills mechanism, in which a binary is disrupted by the black hole so that one star is captured onto the flare-producing orbit and the other is ejected; this connects the inferred orbital period and black-hole mass to the initial binary mass and separation. These pieces combine into the prediction that future flares should occur at regular intervals matching the observed spacing.

What would settle it

Keep monitoring ASASSN-22ci around MJD 61075 (2026 February 04). If no third flare peaks within a few months of that date, the repeating-partial-TDE interpretation is falsified; a flare at an obviously different date would require a different mechanism, such as two independent TDEs or AGN-like variability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that ASASSN-22ci is a repeating partial tidal disruption, meaning that a star survives close passages to a supermassive black hole and is stripped a little more at each return. The two flares have essentially the same rise time of about 30 days, the same color temperature near 30,000 K, similar peak bolometric luminosities ($\log L \approx 43.6$–$43.9$ erg s$^{-1}$), nearly identical blue spectra with broad H, He, and N lines, and no detected X-rays during the flares themselves; X-ray emission appears only in the quiet gap between them. Archival light curves from the past about 6000 days show no earlier flares, so the first observed flare is likely the first disruption. Interpreting the 720-day peak separation as the orbital period places the star on an extremely eccentric orbit around a black hole of mass $10^{6.4}\,M_\odot$, and a comparison of all repeating TDE candidates with Hills-capture expectations favors an initial binary with total mass of about 1–4 $M_\odot$ and separation 0.01–0.1 AU. The paper therefore predicts that monitoring ASASSN-22ci around 2026 February 4 will either catch the third flare or falsify the repeating-star interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the assumption that the 720-day gap between the two flare peaks really is the orbital period of the surviving star; if that interval is not the period, the predicted 2026 flare and the inferred binary parameters do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is right, the next flare of ASASSN-22ci will peak near MJD 61075 (2026 February 04), allowing observers to plan early-rise observations in advance.
  • The 720-day separation becomes the orbital period of the surviving star, which places the star on an extremely eccentric orbit around the black hole and sets the physical scale of the repeated encounters.
  • The near-identical spectra and blackbody evolution of the two flares support the conclusion that a single surviving star powers both flares, rather than two independent and unrelated disruptions.
  • The existing sample of repeating TDE candidates all fits Hills capture from binaries with total masses of roughly 1–4 $M_\odot$ and separations of 0.01–0.1 AU, giving a concrete constraint on the binary population around supermassive black holes.
  • Pre-discovery data spanning about 6000 days show no earlier flares, so the first observed flare is likely the first disruption of this star.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted 2026 flare appears on schedule, its peak brightness relative to the first two flares will test whether the star is losing mass progressively, as some partial-TDE models predict.
  • The same archival search strategy, projecting an apparent recurrence time backward through years of survey light curves, could be applied to other single-flare TDEs in post-starburst galaxies to uncover hidden earlier flares.
  • The Hills-capture interpretation would be directly testable by searching for the ejected hyper-velocity companion star, whose flight direction and travel time should point back to the host galaxy.
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 multi-wavelength observations of the tidal disruption event (TDE) ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) at z = 0.0284 and reports two luminous flares separated by 720 ± 4.7 days. The authors argue that the two flares are remarkably similar in light-curve shape, blackbody temperature (~30,000 K), peak luminosity, and optical spectra with broad H, He, and N lines, suggesting that they result from repeated partial disruptions of the same star. The paper also reports the absence of X-ray emission during both flares, the presence of soft X-ray emission between the flares, the absence of prior flares in roughly 6000 days of archival data, and a comparison of the repeating TDE sample with predictions from Hills capture of binaries. Based on the assumption that the rest-frame peak separation of 700 days equals the orbital period, the paper predicts the next flare near MJD 61075 (2026 February 04).

Significance. If the repeating interpretation holds, ASASSN-22ci becomes one of only a handful of repeating TDE candidates and, crucially, one with two well-observed flares, including high-cadence TESS coverage and optical spectroscopy. The paper provides a clean, falsifiable prediction for a future flare and a reproducible observational dataset, which are important strengths. It also makes a useful population-level comparison by mapping the candidate repeating TDEs onto Hills-capture binary parameters. However, the central repeating-TDE claim and the predicted 2026 flare rest on the untested assumption that the observed peak-to-peak separation equals the orbital period of a surviving star, and the manuscript itself concedes in Section 5.1 that two independent TDEs cannot be ruled out. These caveats are explicitly acknowledged but not quantified, which limits the strength of the central claim until either a third flare is observed or additional modeling is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.3 and Section 6.2] The translation of the observed 720 ± 4.7 day peak-to-peak separation into an orbital period is load-bearing for both the 2026 February 04 prediction and the semi-major axes plotted in Figure 15, but it is only an assumption. A UV/optical flare peak occurs after the pericenter passage by a fallback and circularization delay, and that delay can differ between flares: the paper itself reports that the second flare rises more slowly (Section 5.1) and has a much larger peak-time uncertainty (MJD 60354.9 ± 4.6 versus 59635.1 ± 0.9). With only two flares there is no internal check that the peak separation equals the orbital period. I request a quantitative estimate of the peak-delay difference (or at least a conservative upper bound) from the rise times and from standard fallback/circularization timescales, along with a statement of how the predicted MJD 61075 and the derived semi-major axes shift under plausible delay differences. Without this, the period and the Hills-capture parameters in Figure 15 rest on an unverified assumption.
  2. [Section 5.1] The manuscript states that 'we cannot rule out that we are simply viewing two distinct TDEs,' but it never computes the probability of that alternative. The host is a post-starburst galaxy with a claimed TDE-rate enhancement of 20–30 times (Section 5.1), and Section 2.2 shows no strong AGN, so the relevant null hypothesis is two independent TDEs in the same nucleus within a few years. Please estimate the chance-coincidence rate using published TDE rates for such hosts (e.g., Yao et al. 2024, cited for the second flare discovery) and the roughly 6000-day archival baseline, and compare this rate with the a priori probability of a repeating partial TDE. This calculation is needed to convert the 'striking similarity' argument into a quantitative statement about which interpretation the data favor. As written, the alternative of two independent TDEs is mentioned but not weighed against the repeating hypothesis.
  3. [Section 6.1] The conclusion that prior flares are 'strongly rule[d] out' at the expected epochs (Figure 14) depends on the assumed luminosity evolution (e^(N/4) versus e^N) and on detection thresholds that are not explicitly stated. The text reports how many prior flares would have been detectable for each survey but does not give the limiting flux or signal-to-noise threshold used to define detectability. In addition, Section 2.2 notes two moderately bright ASAS-SN V-band points near one projected prior-flare epoch; the dismissal of those points relies on contemporaneous Gaia and ATLAS non-detections. Please specify the limiting magnitudes used in the sensitivity estimates and verify explicitly that the two V-band points are inconsistent with a real flare at that epoch. Without these details, the claim that ASASSN-22ci was observed on its first flare is not fully supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports an X-ray temperature of kT = 0.042 eV, whereas Section 4.5 gives 0.042 keV; please correct the units.
  2. [Table 4] The first two entries list dates as 2024-02-21 and 2024-02-24, but the corresponding MJDs (59631.6 and 59634.6) are in 2022 February; please fix the year in the table.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text refers to 'DR W-like variability' and 'DR W parameters'; this should be 'DRW' (damped random walk), the standard abbreviation used in the cited literature.
  4. [Section 4.1] The TESS data are described as affected by scattered-light systematics, but the text does not state how the early-rise fit parameters (t1 and alpha1) are robust to those systematics or to the calibration to ATLAS o-band data; a brief statement quantifying the systematic uncertainty would be helpful.
  5. [Section 6.2] The eccentricity estimates assume a pericenter of twice the tidal radius (beta = 0.5); the paper states this, but it would be useful to show how the inferred eccentricities and the Hills-capture comparison change for beta values in the range 0.3–1.0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: flare properties and the 720-day peak separation are independently measured, and the 2026 flare prediction is explicitly conditional on the stated assumption that the peak separation equals the orbital period.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step where a result is equivalent to its own input by construction. The two flare peak times (MJD 59635.1 and 60354.9) and their 720 ± 4.7 day separation come from independent spline fits to UV/optical photometry, not from the repeating-TDE model. The repeated-disruption interpretation rests on similarity of the light curves, blackbody parameters, and spectra, with a DRW null test ruling out AGN-like variability; this is an empirical comparison, not a definitional identity. The predicted third flare is introduced with an explicit conditional: 'If the observed flare separation of 720 ± 4.7 days is the orbital period, the next flare... should occur near MJD 61075,' and Section 6.3 repeats the assumption in the same conditional form. That is a testable hypothesis, not a disguised fit. The Hills-capture consistency check in Section 6.2 takes the assumed orbital periods and literature SMBH masses as inputs and compares the resulting semi-major axes to theoretical tracks; the conclusion of consistency is not forced by construction because the tracks are derived from independent binary parameters. Self-citations to earlier work by the same authors (Payne et al. for ASASSN-14ko, Hinkle et al. for comparison samples) provide data and methodology but are not load-bearing for the new object's measured flare properties or its period. The paper even states in Section 5.1 that it 'cannot rule out that we are simply viewing two distinct TDEs,' showing that the interpretation is not presented as a logical tautology. The remaining assumption that peak-to-peak separation equals the orbital period is a physical modeling assumption, subject to future falsification, and is not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions in TDE astronomy: blackbody SED fitting, the M_BH-M_* relation, and the Hills capture scenario. The most fragile assumption is that the flare separation equals the orbital period, which is explicitly conditional. No new physics is postulated.

free parameters (6)
  • TESS early-rise power-law index alpha1 = 3.5 (+0.2, -0.8)
    Fitted to Sector 48 TESS data to characterize the flare rise; used for comparison but not central to the repeating claim.
  • Time of first light t1 = MJD 59607.7 (+3.7, -0.4)
    Fitted in the same TESS rise model; defines the rise time of the first flare.
  • Blackbody temperature at peak (Flare 1 and 2) = ~30,000 K (log T ~ 4.5)
    Derived from Swift UVOT SED fits; near-identical values are used as evidence that both flares arise from the same star.
  • Blackbody radius = log R ~ 14-15 cm
    Derived from SED fits; also used for flare comparison and population context.
  • X-ray blackbody temperature = 0.042 ± 0.01 keV
    Fitted to the low-count X-ray spectrum observed between the flares.
  • Bolometric correction factor = constant factor applied to ATLAS o-band
    Used to construct the bolometric light curve outside Swift epochs; assumes a fixed temperature.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Cosmological parameters H0 = 69.6 km/s/Mpc, Omega_M = 0.29, Omega_L = 0.71.
    Assumed throughout to convert redshift to luminosity distance (Section 1 and 2.1).
  • domain assumption The UV/optical emission of the TDE is well described by a single-temperature blackbody.
    Used in Section 4.3 to derive luminosity, temperature, and radius; the fits have reduced chi-square > 3, indicating the model is imperfect.
  • domain assumption The M_BH - M_* scaling relation of Reines & Volonteri (2015) gives the central SMBH mass.
    Used in Section 2.2 to estimate the SMBH mass from the host stellar mass; this mass is used in Eddington ratio and Hills-capture calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper The flare recurrence time equals the orbital period of the bound star.
    Used in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 to compute semi-major axes and predict the next flare; the authors explicitly condition on this.
  • ad hoc to paper The pericenter of the bound star is twice the tidal radius (beta = 0.5) for eccentricity estimates.
    Used in Section 6.2 to derive eccentricities of the repeating TDE candidates.
  • domain assumption Hills capture of a binary is the mechanism that produces repeating TDEs.
    Adopted in the Introduction and Section 6.2 to interpret the observed periods.
  • domain assumption The DRW model with the stated parameter ranges is an adequate representation of AGN optical variability.
    Used in Section 5.1 to argue that the observed flares are unlikely to be AGN variability; the rejection thresholds are post hoc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Double: Two Luminous Flares from the Nearby Tidal Disruption Event ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) and Connections to Repeating TDE Candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J36K2FSY

@misc{pith2026241215326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Double: Two Luminous Flares from the Nearby Tidal Disruption Event ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) and Connections to Repeating TDE Candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J36K2FSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15326}
}
abstract

We present observations of ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl), a nearby tidal disruption event (TDE) discovered by the All-Sky Automated Survey for Supernovae (ASAS-SN) at a distance of d$_L \simeq 125$ Mpc. Roughly two years after the initial ASAS-SN discovery, a second flare was detected coincident with ASASSN-22ci. UV/optical photometry and optical spectroscopy indicate that both flares are likely powered by TDEs. The striking similarity in flare properties suggests that these flares result from subsequent disruptions of the same star. Each flare rises on a timescale of $\sim$30 days, has a temperature of $\approx$30,000 K, a peak bolometric luminosity of $L_{UV/Opt} = 10^{43.6 - 43.9} \textrm{ erg} \textrm{ s}^{-1}$, and exhibits a blue optical spectrum with broad H, He, and N lines. No X-ray emission is detected during either flare, but X-ray emission with an unabsorbed luminosity of $L_{X} = 3\times10^{41} \textrm{ erg} \textrm{ s}^{-1}$ and $kT = 0.042$ eV is observed between the flares. Pre-discovery survey observations rule out the existence of earlier flares within the past $\approx$6000 days, indicating that the discovery of ASASSN-22ci likely coincides with the first flare. If the observed flare separation of $720 \pm 4.7$ days is the orbital period, the next flare of ASASSN-22ci should occur near MJD 61075 (2026 February 04). Finally, we find that the existing sample of repeating TDE candidates is consistent with Hills capture of a star initially in a binary with a total mass between $\sim$$1 - 4$ M$_{\odot}$ and a separation of $\sim$$0.01 - 0.1$ AU.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15326 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left Panel: The Hα emission equivalent width (EW), tracing current star formation, as compared to the Lick HδA absorption index, tracing star formation within the past Gyr. The host galaxy of ASASSN-22ci is shown as a red symbol, a comparison sample of TDE hosts from Graur et al. (2018) is shown as blue circles, and the host galaxies of multiple/repeating TDEs are shown in gold. Right Panel: The Hα emission equivale… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Long-term host-subtracted and foreground extinction-corrected light curve for the host galaxy of ASASSN-22ci. Shown are data from CRTS (V , yellow circles), ASAS-SN (gV , green and yellow squares), Gaia (G, khaki diamonds), ATLAS (co, yellow-green and red pentagons), ZTF (gri, green, orange, and dark red pluses), and TESS (brown octagons). The horizontal black dashed line represents zero flux. The vertical gray band… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Host-subtracted and Galactic foreground extinction-corrected UV/optical light curves of ASASSN-22ci. We show data from Swift (UV+UBV ; circles), ASAS-SN (g; squares), ATLAS (co; pentagons), ZTF (gri; pluses), and TESS (octagons). Generally, the survey photometry is stacked in 1-d bins during the two flares, and in 10-d bins (for ATLAS and ZTF) or 30-d bins (for ASAS-SN) outside of the flares. The TESS photometry is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Broad-band (0.3-10.0 keV) merged Swift XRT observations of (top) the first flare, (middle) between the two flares, and (bottom) during the second flare. The green circle marks the location of ASASSN-22ci. The exposure time of the merged dataset associated with Flare 1 …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical spectroscopic evolution of ASASSN-22ci with the phases during the first flare colored in navy and those during the second flare marked in red. The spectra are calibrated using the optical photometry presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Near-infrared spectra of ASASSN-22ci taken with IRTF/SpeX in Prism mode. The rest-frame phases of the spectra from the peak of the first (second) flare are given at the right in navy (red). The vertical gray bands mark strong atmospheric telluric features and the ⊗ mar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top panel: The 2-h binned (red) and 1-d binned (silver) TESS data and best-fitting two-component power￾law model in black. The power-law fit yields a time of first light of t1(MJD) = 59607.7 +3.7 −0.4 and an initial power-law in￾dex of α1 = 3.5 +0.2 −0.8 . The vertical…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: TESS light curves of ASASSN-22ci (red circles), ASASSN-14ko (orange pentagons), and ASASSN-19bt (navy diamonds) each binned at 2 hours. The left panel shows the rest-frame TESS light curves of each TDE. The right panel shows the ASASSN-22ci light curve, the ASASSN-14ko…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hα (red points) and N III λ4100 (blue points) emission line luminosity as compared to the FWHM of the line. Spectra taken during the first (second) flare are plotted with circles (squares). Each line shows a positive correlation between luminosity and FWHM. Additionall…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Temporal evolution of the bolometric UV/optical luminosity (top panel), effective radius (middle panel), and effective temperature (bottom panel) for ASASSN-22ci (black squares). Also shown are the comparison multiple/repeating TDE candidates ASASSN-14ko (orange penta…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The peak luminosity of a TDE as compared to its decline rate. The decline rate ∆L40 is defined as the difference between the log of the peak luminosity and the log of the luminosity 40 days after peak. The two flares of ASASSN-22ci are shown as stars. The blue squares…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left Panel: Comparison of the bolometric UV/optical luminosity (top), effective radius (middle), and effective temperature (bottom) of ASASSN-22ci from blackbody fits to the UV/optical SEDs of the flares. The first flare (blue) and second flare (red) are each shown re…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the optical spectrum of ASASSN-22ci (black) to the multiple/repeating TDE candidates ASASSN￾14ko (orange), ASASSN-18ul (gray), ASASSN-19dj (teal) and AT2020vdq (magenta). Each spectrum is scaled by the amount shown and plotted with an arbitrary offset to…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Long-term host-subtracted and foreground extinction-corrected light curve for ASASSN-22ci, with data from CRTS (V , yellow circles), ASAS-SN (gV , green and yellow squares), Gaia (G, khaki diamonds), ATLAS (c, yellow-green pentagons), and ZTF (g, green pluses). The ho…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Semi-major axis of the bound star as compared to the central SMBH mass for our sample of multiple/repeating TDE candidates, assuming Hills capture. Shown are ASASSN-22ci (black square), AT2020vdq (magenta diamond), ASASSN￾19dj (teal circle), ASASSN-18ul (gray cross), …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Dynamics in Nuclear Stellar Clusters: The Impact of Collisions and Disrupted Binaries

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Nuclear star clusters around supermassive black holes develop a collision-regulated density profile n(r) ∝ r^-5/4, independent of whether scattering or gravitational waves drive the orbits.

  2. The Role of Stellar Spin in Repeating Partial Tidal Disruption Events

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Rapidly spinning, prograde stars produce progressively dimmer repeated tidal disruption flares in hydrodynamical simulations, matching the trend seen in several observed candidates.

  3. IGR J12580+0134: A Possible Repeated Partial Tidal Disruption Event Inferred from Late-Time Radio Re-brightenin

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IGR J12580+0134 is proposed as a repeating partial tidal disruption event candidate, with two radio flares separated by ~1513 days and a possible third rebrightening.

  4. University of Hawaii 88-inch Telescope Observations of the Interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS: Spectrophotometric Blue-Sensitive Spectral Time Series Spanning Two Months from Discovery

    astro-ph.EP 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-month SNIFS spectral time series shows 3I/ATLAS had stable red colors while CN, Ni, and possible Fe emission developed during its pre-perihelion approach.

  5. The Double Tidal Disruption Event AT 2022dbl Implies That at Least Some "Standard" Optical TDEs are Partial Disruptions

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The repeating optical-UV tidal disruption event AT 2022dbl is the first robust case of a 'normal' TDE being a partial disruption of the same star.

  6. Fitting the light curves of tidal disruption events with non-parabolic model

    astro-ph.HE 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Allowing non-parabolic orbits in TDE light-curve fitting changes inferred black-hole masses and yields first eccentricity measurements for 30 ZTF tidal disruption events.

  7. The Hawaii Infrared Supernova Study (HISS): Spectroscopic Data Release 1

    astro-ph.HE 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    HISS DR1 releases 90 NIR spectra of 48 transients and demonstrates spectral analyses including unburnt carbon, nebular lines, CO, and He I diagnostics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

163 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K., Ag¨ ueros, M

    Abazajian, K., Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., Ag¨ ueros, M. A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 502, doi: 10.1086/421365

    doi:10.1086/421365 2004

  2. [2]

    S., Ahumada, R., Almeida, A., et al

    Aguado, D. S., Ahumada, R., Almeida, A., et al. 2019, ApJS, 240, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaf651 2019

  3. [3]

    2000, AAPS, 144, 363, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000214

    Alard, C. 2000, AAPS, 144, 363, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000214

    doi:10.1051/aas:2000214 2000

  4. [4]

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

    doi:10.1086/305984 1998

  5. [5]

    R., Baldassare, V

    Angus, C. R., Baldassare, V. F., Mockler, B., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 1452, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y Two Flares of the TDE ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) 27

    doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01811-y 2022

  6. [6]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/128

    Antonini, F., Lombardi, James C., J., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 731, 128, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/2/128

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/731/2/128 2011

  7. [7]

    2014, ApJ, 793, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    Arcavi, I., Gal-Yam, A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 793, 38, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/793/1/38 2014

  8. [8]

    2022b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-504, 1

    Arcavi, I., Dgany, Y., Pellegrino, C., et al. 2022b, Transient Name Server Classification Report, 2022-504, 1

    2022

Show all 163 references
  1. [9]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  2. [10]

    J., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Kochanek, C. S., Brodwin, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 970, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/713/2/970

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/26

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b

    Auchettl, K., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJ, 838, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa633b

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    2018, ApJ, 852, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b7c

    Auchettl, K., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Guillochon, J. 2018, ApJ, 852, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9b7c

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Pasham, D. R. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.03675, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.03675

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    L., Larson, D., Weiland, J

    Bennett, C. L., Larson, D., Weiland, J. L., & Hinshaw, G. 2014, ApJ, 794, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/135

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Blagorodnova, N., Kulkarni, S. B. C. S. R., Arcavi, I., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.07446

    2018 arXiv

  10. [19]

    S., Holoien, T

    Brown, J. S., Holoien, T. W.-S., Auchettl, K., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 4904, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx033

    2017 doi

  11. [20]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x

    2003

  12. [21]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    Buchner, J. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3001, doi: 10.21105/joss.03001

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, SSR, 120, 165, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5097-2

    2005 doi

  15. [24]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245, doi: 10.1086/167900 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´ nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18244.x

    1989

  16. [25]

    Collier, S., & Peterson, B. M. 2001, ApJ, 555, 775, doi: 10.1086/321517

    2001 doi

  17. [26]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2019, ApJL, 883, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab412d

    2019 doi

  18. [27]

    R., & Nixon, C

    Cufari, M., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2022, ApJL, 929, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6021

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    C., Vacca, W

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

    2004 doi

  20. [29]

    Miller, M. C. 2018, ApJL, 859, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aab429 de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., Langer, N., et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 243, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200811439 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/166

    2013 doi

  22. [31]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    2009 doi

  23. [32]

    J., Weinberg, D

    Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., Agol, E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/3/72

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    R., & Kochanek, C

    Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJL, 346, L13, doi: 10.1086/185567

    1989 doi

  25. [34]

    M., Vallely, P

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

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    D., Arcavi, I., & Zabludoff, A

    French, K. D., Arcavi, I., & Zabludoff, A. 2016, ApJL, 818, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/1/L21

    2016 doi

  27. [36]

    D., Earl, N., Novack, A

    French, K. D., Earl, N., Novack, A. B., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd249

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Zabludoff, A. I. 2020, SSRv, 216, 32, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00657-y

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A

    French, K. D., Yang, Y., Zabludoff, A. I., & Tremonti, C. A. 2018, ApJ, 862, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb2d

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    Gafton, E., & Rosswog, S. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 4790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1530

    2019 doi

  31. [40]

    2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005, doi: 10.1086/422091

    2004 doi

  32. [41]

    2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari, S. 2021, ARA&A, 59, 21, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    B., & Arcavi, I

    Gezari, S., Cenko, S. B., & Arcavi, I. 2017, ApJL, 851, L47, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa0c2

    2017 doi

  34. [43]

    Giveon, U., Maoz, D., Kaspi, S., Netzer, H., & Smith, P. S. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 637, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02556.x

    1999

  35. [44]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2099

    Gomez, S., Nicholl, M., Short, P., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1925, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2099

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Graham, M. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Drake, A. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 4112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1456

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    D., Zahid, H

    Graur, O., French, K. D., Zahid, H. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa3fd G¨ ultekin, K., Richstone, D. O., Gebhardt, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/198 28 Hinkle et al

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    Guolo, M., Gezari, S., Yao, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 160, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2f9f

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    D., Margutti, R., et al

    Hajela, A., Alexander, K. D., Margutti, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.19019, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.19019

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [49]

    2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    Hammerstein, E., van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    J., Hey, D., et al

    Hart, K., Shappee, B. J., Hey, D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.03791, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.03791

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [51]

    Hayasaki, K., & Jonker, P. G. 2021, ApJ, 921, 20, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac18c2

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D

    Henden, A. A., Levine, S., Terrell, D., & Welch, D. L. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #225, 336.16 HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Fl¨ oer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0...

    2015 doi

  44. [53]

    M., Green, R

    Hill, J. M., Green, R. F., & Slagle, J. H. 2006, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6267, The Large Binocular Telescope, 62670Y, doi: 10.1117/12.669832

    2006 doi

  45. [54]

    Hills, J. G. 1988, Nature, 331, 687, doi: 10.1038/331687a0

    1988 doi

  46. [55]

    Hinkle, J. T. 2024, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1229

    2024 doi

  47. [56]

    2021a, ApJ, 910, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe4d8

    Auchettl, K. 2021a, ApJ, 910, 83, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe4d8

    doi

  48. [57]

    T., Holoien, T

    Hinkle, J. T., Holoien, T. W. S., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2020, ApJL, 894, L10, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab89a2

    2020 doi

  49. [58]

    T., Shappee, B

    Hinkle, J. T., Shappee, B. J., & Holoien, T. W. S. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 4775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae022

    2024 doi

  50. [59]

    T., Holoien, T

    Hinkle, J. T., Holoien, T. W. S., Auchettl, K., et al. 2021b, MNRAS, 500, 1673, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3170

    doi

  51. [60]

    2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 371, 20120239, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0239

    Koposov, S. 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, 371, 20120239, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0239

    2013

  52. [61]

    W.-S., Brown, J

    Holoien, T. W.-S., Brown, J. S., Auchettl, K., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5689, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2273

    2018 doi

  53. [62]

    W.-S., Prieto, J

    Holoien, T. W.-S., Prieto, J. L., Bersier, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 3263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1922

    2014 doi

  54. [63]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Vallely, P. J., Auchettl, K., et al. 2019, ApJ, 883, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3c66

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    Holoien, T. W. S., Auchettl, K., Tucker, M. A., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.13693. https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13693

    2020 arXiv

  56. [65]

    B., Hinkle, J

    Hoogendam, W. B., Hinkle, J. T., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 4501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1121

    2024 doi

  57. [66]

    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

  58. [67]

    2017, ApJ, 842, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337

    Hung, T., Gezari, S., Blagorodnova, N., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7337

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    Ivanova, N., Justham, S., Chen, X., et al. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 59, doi: 10.1007/s00159-013-0059-2

    2013 doi

  60. [69]

    A., Acosta, E., & 105 others, for the LSST Collaboration

    Ivezic, Z., Tyson, J. A., Acosta, E., & 105 others, for the LSST Collaboration. 2008, ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2366

    2008 arXiv

  61. [70]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    Jiang, N., Wang, T., Hu, X., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe772

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    G., Stone, N

    Jonker, P. G., Stone, N. C., Generozov, A., van Velzen, S., & Metzger, B. 2020, ApJ, 889, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab659c

    2020 doi

  63. [72]

    Kajava, J. J. E., Giustini, M., Saxton, R. D., & Miniutti, G. 2020, A&A, 639, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038165

    2020 doi

  64. [73]

    C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A

    Kelly, B. C., Bechtold, J., & Siemiginowska, A. 2009, ApJ, 698, 895, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/895

    2009 doi

  65. [74]

    Kochanek, C. S. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 127, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw267

    2016 doi

  66. [75]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa80d9

    2017 doi

  67. [76]

    2009, ApJ, 701, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/105

    Komossa, S., Zhou, H., Rau, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 701, 105, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/105

    2009 doi

  68. [77]

    G., Labb´ e, I., et al

    Kriek, M., van Dokkum, P. G., Labb´ e, I., et al. 2009, ApJ, 700, 221, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/700/1/221

    2009 doi

  69. [78]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02894, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02894

    Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Ryu, T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.02894, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02894

    2024 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    2004, in Proc

    Lantz, B., Aldering, G., Antilogus, P., et al. 2004, in Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5249, Optical Design and Engineering, ed. L. Mazuray, P. J. Rogers, & R. Wartmann, 146–155, doi: 10.1117/12.512493

    2004 doi

  71. [80]

    L., & Foley, R

    Law-Smith, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Ellison, S. L., & Foley, R. J. 2017, ApJ, 850, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa94c7

    2017 doi

  72. [81]

    2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    Mockler, B., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2020, ApJ, 905, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc489

    2020 doi

  73. [82]

    2019, arXiv e-prints

    Leloudas, G., Dai, L., Arcavi, I., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.03120

    2019 arXiv

  74. [83]

    C., & Filippenko, A

    Leonard, D. C., & Filippenko, A. V. 2001, PASP, 113, 920, doi: 10.1086/322151

    2001 doi

  75. [84]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10895

    Lin, Z., Jiang, N., Wang, T., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.10895, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10895

    2024 doi arXiv

  76. [85]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    Linial, I., & Quataert, E. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 4317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

    2024 doi

  77. [86]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01670

    Liu, C., Yarza, R., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01670, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01670

    doi arXiv

  78. [87]

    2022, ApJ, 925, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33a9 Two Flares of the TDE ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) 29

    Liu, X.-L., Dou, L.-M., Chen, J.-H., & Shen, R.-F. 2022, ApJ, 925, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac33a9 Two Flares of the TDE ASASSN-22ci (AT2022dbl) 29

    2022 doi

  79. [88]

    2023, A&A, 669, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

    Liu, Z., Malyali, A., Krumpe, M., et al. 2023, A&A, 669, A75, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

    2023 doi

  80. [89]

    J., et al

    Liu, Z., Ryu, T., Goodwin, A. J., et al. 2024b, A&A, 683, L13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348682

    doi

  81. [90]

    2020, MNRAS, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

    Lu, W., & Bonnerot, C. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 686, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz3405

    2020 doi

  82. [91]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    Lu, W., & Quataert, E. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6247, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2203

    2023 doi

  83. [92]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Sesar, B., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/106

    2012 doi

  84. [93]

    2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Grav, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 53, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/731/1/53

    2011 doi

  85. [94]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad022

    Malyali, A., Liu, Z., Rau, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 3549, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad022

    2023 doi

  86. [95]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 169, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07765.x

    2004

  87. [96]

    C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

    Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJL, 619, L1, doi: 10.1086/426387

    2005 doi

  88. [97]

    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

  89. [98]

    R., Coughlin, E

    Miles, P. R., Coughlin, E. R., & Nixon, C. J. 2020, ApJ, 899, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9c9f

    2020 doi

  90. [99]

    W., Shiao, B., et al

    Million, C., Fleming, S. W., Shiao, B., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 292, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/292

    2016 doi

  91. [100]

    2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    Mockler, B., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 872, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab010f

    2019 doi

  92. [101]

    A., Auchettl, K., et al

    Mockler, B., Twum, A. A., Auchettl, K., et al. 2022, ApJ, 924, 70, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac35d5

    2022 doi

  93. [102]

    C., et al

    Morrissey, P., Matuszewski, M., Martin, D. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 864, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad597

    2018 doi

  94. [103]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 6233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3636

    Mummery, A. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3636

    2024 doi

  95. [104]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    Mummery, A., van Velzen, S., Nathan, E., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 2452, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3001

    2024 doi

  96. [105]

    2023, MNRAS, 519, 5828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3798 NEOWISE

    Mummery, A., Wevers, T., Saxton, R., & Pasham, D. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5828, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3798 NEOWISE. 2020, NEOWISE-R Single Exposure (L1b) Source Table, IPAC, doi: 10.26131/IRSA144

    2023 doi

  97. [106]

    R., et al

    Nicholl, M., Wevers, T., Oates, S. R., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2006.02454. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02454

    2020 arXiv

  98. [107]

    R., Mummery, A., et al

    Nicholl, M., Pasham, D. R., Mummery, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 634, 804, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08023-6

    2024 doi

  99. [108]

    B., Cohen, J

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

    1995 doi

  100. [109]

    R., Guolo, M., et al

    Pasham, D., Coughlin, E. R., Guolo, M., et al. 2024, ApJL, 971, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad57b3

    2024 doi

  101. [110]

    V., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d —. 2022, ApJ, 926, 142, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac480c

    2021 doi

  102. [111]

    V., Auchettl, K., Shappee, B

    Payne, A. V., Auchettl, K., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 134, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd455

    2023 doi

  103. [112]

    Phinney, E. S. 1989, Nature, 340, 595, doi: 10.1038/340595a0

    1989 doi

  104. [113]

    W., Atwood, B., Brewer, D

    Pogge, R. W., Atwood, B., Brewer, D. F., et al. 2010, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7735, The multi-object double spectrographs for the Large Binocular Telescope, 77350A, doi: 10.1117/12.857215

    2010 doi

  105. [114]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  106. [115]

    A., Guillot, S., et al

    Quintin, E., Webb, N. A., Guillot, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 675, A152, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346440

    2023 doi

  107. [116]

    T., Toomey, D

    Rayner, J. T., Toomey, D. W., Onaka, P. M., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 362, doi: 10.1086/367745

    2003 doi

  108. [117]

    Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523, doi: 10.1038/333523a0

    1988 doi

  109. [118]

    E., & Volonteri, M

    Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82

    2015 doi

  110. [119]

    2022, PhRvL, 128, 221101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.221101

    Reusch, S., Stein, R., Kowalski, M., et al. 2022, PhRvL, 128, 221101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.221101

    2022 doi

  111. [120]

    J., et al

    Ricci, C., Trakhtenbrot, B., Koss, M. J., et al. 2017, ApJS, 233, 17, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa96ad

    2017 doi

  112. [121]

    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

  113. [122]

    2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0, IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    Rodrigo, C., Solano, E., & Bayo, A. 2012, SVO Filter Profile Service Version 1.0, IVOA Working Draft 15 October 2012, doi: 10.5479/ADS/bib/2012ivoa.rept.1015R

    2012 doi

  114. [123]

    Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T. E., Mason, K. O., et al. 2005, SSR, 120, 95, doi: 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4

    2005 doi

  115. [124]

    2016, ApJ, 827, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    Roth, N., Kasen, D., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2016, ApJ, 827, 3, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/827/1/3

    2016 doi

  116. [125]

    Ryu, T., Krolik, J., Piran, T., & Noble, S. C. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2001.03501. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.03501

    2020 arXiv

  117. [126]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161, doi: 10.1086/145971

    1955 doi

  118. [127]

    Saxton, R., Komossa, S., Auchettl, K., & Jonker, P. G. 2020, SSRv, 216, 85, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00708-4

    2020 doi

  119. [128]

    F., & Finkbeiner, D

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

    2011 doi

  120. [129]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48

    2014 doi

  121. [130]

    W., Young, D

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

    2021

  122. [131]

    2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z 30 Hinkle et al

    Shu, X., Zhang, W., Li, S., et al. 2020, Nature Communications, 11, 5876, doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19675-z 30 Hinkle et al

    2020 doi

  123. [132]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163, doi: 10.1086/498708

    2006 doi

  124. [133]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.09052. https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.09052

    2020 arXiv

  125. [134]

    J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al

    Somalwar, J. J., Ravi, V., Yao, Y., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.03782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.03782

    2023 doi arXiv

  126. [135]

    Stanek, K. Z. 2022, Transient Name Server Discovery Report, 2022-1433, 1

    2022

  127. [136]

    Steinberg, E., & Stone, N. C. 2024, Nature, 625, 463, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06875-y

    2024 doi

  128. [137]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    2012 doi

  129. [138]

    C., Vasiliev, E., Kesden, M., et al

    Stone, N. C., Vasiliev, E., Kesden, M., et al. 2020, SSRv, 216, 35, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00651-4

    2020 doi

  130. [139]

    2025, ApJ, 982, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb724

    Sun, J., Guo, H., Gu, M., et al. 2025, ApJ, 982, 150, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb724

    2025 doi

  131. [140]

    2024, A&A, 692, A262, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452380

    Sun, L., Jiang, N., Dou, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A262, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452380

    2024 doi

  132. [141]

    L., Kwan, T

    Thomsen, L. L., Kwan, T. M., Dai, L., et al. 2022, ApJL, 937, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac911f

    2022 doi

  133. [142]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

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

    2018 doi

  134. [143]

    A., Shappee, B

    Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., Hinkle, J. T., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 6014, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2085

    2021 doi

  135. [144]

    A., Shappee, B

    Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., Huber, M. E., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 124502, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aca719

    2022 doi

  136. [145]

    J., Kochanek, C

    Vallely, P. J., Kochanek, C. S., Stanek, K. Z., Fausnaugh, M., & Shappee, B. J. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 5639, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3675

    2021 doi

  137. [146]

    J., Fausnaugh, M., Jha, S

    Vallely, P. J., Fausnaugh, M., Jha, S. W., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2372, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1445 van den Hoek, L. B., & Groenewegen, M. A. T. 1997, A&AS, 123, 305, doi: 10.1051/aas:1997162 van Velzen, S., Holoien, T. W. S., Onori, F., Hung, T., &

    2019 doi

  138. [147]

    2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z van Velzen, S., Mendez, A

    Arcavi, I. 2020, SSRv, 216, 124, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z van Velzen, S., Mendez, A. J., Krolik, J. H., & Gorjian, V. 2016, ApJ, 829, 19, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/19 van Velzen, S., Gezari, S., Hammerstein, E., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 4, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    2020 doi

  139. [148]

    2018, TESS Instrument Handbook, Tech

    Vanderspek, R., Doty, J., Fausnaugh, M., et al. 2018, TESS Instrument Handbook, Tech. rep., Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    2018

  140. [149]

    M., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al

    Veres, P. M., Franckowiak, A., van Velzen, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.17419, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.17419

    2024 doi

  141. [150]

    2012, NewAR, 56, 122, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2012.04.001

    Wang, B., & Han, Z. 2012, NewAR, 56, 122, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2012.04.001

    2012 doi

  142. [151]

    2011, ApJ, 740, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/85

    Wang, T.-G., Zhou, H.-Y., Wang, L.-F., Lu, H.-L., & Xu, D. 2011, ApJ, 740, 85, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/740/2/85

    2011 doi

  143. [152]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

    Wang, Y., Wang, T., Jiang, N., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 136, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

    2024 doi

  144. [153]

    Wevers, T., & French, K. D. 2024, ApJL, 969, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5725

    2024 doi

  145. [154]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16879, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16879

    Wevers, T., & Ryu, T. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16879, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2310.16879

    2023 doi arXiv

  146. [155]

    R., van Velzen, S., et al

    Wevers, T., Pasham, D. R., van Velzen, S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 4816, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1976 —. 2021, ApJ, 912, 151, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf5e2

    2019 doi

  147. [156]

    R., Pasham, D

    Wevers, T., Coughlin, E. R., Pasham, D. R., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942, L33, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac9f36

    2023 doi

  148. [157]

    Wright, E. L. 2006, PASP, 118, 1711, doi: 10.1086/510102

    2006 doi

  149. [158]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/140/6/1868

    2010 doi

  150. [159]

    2013, ApJ, 774, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46

    Yang, C.-W., Wang, T.-G., Ferland, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/46

    2013 doi

  151. [160]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    Yao, Y., Chornock, R., LeBaron, N., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 43, 1

    2024

  152. [161]

    G., Adelman, J., Anderson, Jr., J

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

    2000 doi

  153. [162]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac71ad

    Zhong, S., Li, S., Berczik, P., & Spurzem, R. 2022, ApJ, 933, 96, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac71ad

    2022 doi

  154. [163]

    S., Koz lowski, S., & Udalski, A

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., Koz lowski, S., & Udalski, A. 2013, ApJ, 765, 106, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/106

    2013 doi

  155. [164]

    S., & Peterson, B

    Zu, Y., Kochanek, C. S., & Peterson, B. M. 2011, ApJ, 735, 80, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/80

    2011 doi

Pith tools

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