Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 93 references

A Comprehensive Study of the Dust Declines in R Coronae Borealis Stars

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

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

Pith's one-line read The erratic dust declines of R Coronae Borealis stars are not one phenomenon: most follow a stochastic Poisson process, while RY Sgr's are locked to its pulsation period.

desk verdict A genuinely useful reference catalog, but the two-mechanism dust-production claim is under-analyzed and should be treated as a suggestion, not a result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16393 v2 pith:2ZD32BB3 submitted 2024-12-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Courtney L. Crawford , Jamie Soon , Geoffrey C. Clayton , Patrick Tisserand , Timothy R. Bedding , Caleb J. Clark , Chung-Uk Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords RCoronaeBorealisstarsdustformationdeclineactivitywaitingtimedistributionpulsation-drivenhydrogen-deficientcarbonvariablephotometricmonitoring
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

RCB stars are rare supergiants that suddenly dim by several magnitudes when carbon dust condenses in their line of sight. This paper assembles the longest possible light curves for all 162 known RCB stars and measures 1536 declines, asking what triggers the dust. Its central claim is that there is no single trigger: the decline onsets of R CrB and SU Tau follow the exponential waiting-time distribution of a Poisson process, implying stochastic dust production such as surface convection, while RY Sgr's declines cluster at integer multiples of its 38.46-day pulsation period, implying pulsation-driven shocks. The paper also confirms that cool RCB stars decline more often and spend more time in decline than warm ones, linking dust formation to condensation temperature, and shows that the related DY Per variables behave differently, suggesting a different evolutionary origin. If right, this reframes RCB dust formation as a spectrum of mechanisms rather than one unexplained erratic process.

What carries the argument

The central object is the waiting-time distribution: the cumulative distribution of time intervals between successive decline onsets, which for independent events occurring at a constant rate is exponential, $P(\Delta t)=\lambda e^{-\lambda\Delta t}$, with $\lambda$ the average decline frequency. The paper compares observed waiting-time distributions to this Poisson form for R CrB, SU Tau, and RY Sgr, fixing $\lambda$ to the measured decline frequency rather than fitting it, so the comparison is a direct test of stochasticity. For RY Sgr, integer multiples of the 38.46-day pulsation period are overlaid on the distribution to reveal periodic clustering. The complementary machinery is the spectral-class temperature proxy that sorts stars from warm class 0 to cool class 7 plus the DY Per stars as class 8, which exposes the cool/warm activity gradient.

What would settle it

Take the same light curves, inject synthetic declines of known onset times, and run the visual detection protocol: if detected waiting-time distributions no longer match exponential for R CrB and SU Tau and no longer show peaks at integer multiples of 38.46 days for RY Sgr once detection completeness and seasonal gaps are corrected, the two-mechanism claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that RCB dust declines are not produced by a single mechanism. When decline onsets are treated as events and the intervals between them are accumulated into waiting-time distributions, R CrB and SU Tau match the exponential form expected from a constant-rate Poisson process, with the rate taken equal to the measured average decline frequency. That agreement points to stochastic dust puffs, plausibly linked to surface convection. RY Sgr, by contrast, shows an excess of waiting times at 3, 14, and 32 times its 38.46-day pulsation period, the signature of shocks from high-amplitude pulsations periodically creating the conditions for carbon dust nucleation. The same analysis finds that cooler RCB stars have higher decline frequencies and spend a larger fraction of time in decline, while the cooler-but-slow DY Per stars deviate from this trend.

Load-bearing premise

The central conclusion assumes that every real decline was spotted and that gaps in the data did not hide or add false decline intervals, so the pattern of time gaps between declines is a true property of the stars and not of the observations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If R CrB and SU Tau declines are truly Poisson, then no ephemeris can predict their next decline; the best forecast is a constant rate, and the trigger is likely stochastic convection rather than pulsation phase.
  • If RY Sgr's pulsation-driven component is real, then high-amplitude RCB pulsators are the place to look for shock-triggered dust, and physical dust-formation models tied to shock passage gain a concrete observational counterpart.
  • The cool/warm activity gradient means dust production is sensitive to stellar condensation temperature; any viable dust-formation model must explain why cooler RCBs produce more frequent and longer-lasting declines.
  • DY Per variables, despite spectroscopic similarity, decline less often than their temperature would predict and recover more slowly, so they likely represent a distinct dust-production or evolutionary regime rather than simply cool RCBs.
  • Typical RCB declines last about one year, follow a log-normal distribution, and obscure more than 95% of the star's flux, so dust clouds must be large, optically thick, and roughly similar in geometry across the class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's Poisson check uses a constant rate fixed to the average decline frequency, but its own Figure 5 shows activity varying on multi-year timescales; a time-dependent-rate Poisson model would test whether R CrB's agreement survives when bursts and quiet epochs are modeled separately.
  • If pulsation-triggered dust is the rule for large-amplitude pulsators, then other RCBs with measured large pulsation amplitudes should show RY Sgr-like peaks in their waiting-time distributions; this is a testable prediction for future continuous photometry.
  • The manual visual detection means the waiting-time comparison could be biased by seasonal gaps and faint limits; injecting synthetic declines into the real cadences and re-running the detection would reveal whether the Poisson and integer-multiple signals are artifacts of sampling.
  • The DY Per result suggests that comparing decline shapes and time-resolved colors during minima could discriminate between different dust nucleation chemistries without waiting for new spectroscopy.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript assembles multi-survey light curves for 162 RCB stars and visually identifies 1536 declines with onset/end times, associated uncertainties, and quality flags. It derives per-star decline frequencies and percentages of time in decline, correlates these with spectral class, studies decline depths, onset slopes, and recoveries, and compares waiting-time distributions of decline onsets for R CrB, SU Tau, and RY Sgr. The headline results are: (i) cool RCB stars are more active than warm RCB stars; (ii) R CrB and SU Tau decline onsets are consistent with a Poisson process, while RY Sgr shows evidence of decline onsets at integer multiples of its 38.46-day pulsation period; and (iii) DY Per variables have different dust-production properties. The data products, including decline tables and activity metrics, are intended to be public.

Significance. If the two-mechanism claim holds, this paper would be a major step in RCB dust-formation studies, connecting stochastic convection-driven dust puffs in most stars to pulsation-shock-driven dust in high-amplitude pulsators. The catalog is the largest systematic RCB decline study to date, and the explicit error estimates and quality flags are a clear strength. The cool/warm activity trend is a useful confirmation of earlier Gaia-based suggestions with much longer baselines, and the log-normal decline-length distribution, the recovery model using published dust velocities, and the DY Per comparison are valuable contributions. However, the Poisson/pulsation dichotomy is currently supported only by a visual comparison in Figure 10, without goodness-of-fit tests, and it is in tension with the paper's own evidence for non-stationary activity (Section 4, Figure 5) and its negative Fourier result for RY Sgr (Section 6). The claim is plausible but not yet statistically secured.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Figure 10] The claim that R CrB and SU Tau onsets are 'consistent with a Poisson process' rests on a visual comparison: the exponential curve P(dt)=lambda*exp(-lambda*dt) is fixed to the sample mean decline frequency from Section 4 rather than fitted, and no goodness-of-fit statistic, confidence interval, or bootstrap is reported. This matters because Section 4 and Figure 5 show R CrB's activity varies strongly on roughly 5-year timescales, from near zero to more than 50% of time in decline; a time-dependent-rate point process can produce an approximately exponential-looking waiting-time distribution even when no stationary Poisson mechanism exists. Please add a formal test of the Poisson null (for example, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or Anderson-Darling test against the exponential with the estimated rate) and investigate the effect of rate variability, either by fitting a time-dependent-rate model or by restricting the analysis to approximately stationary windows.
  2. [Section 6, waiting-time definition] The text defines a waiting time as 'the time interval between subsequent decline events' but then says it is 'calculated as the pairwise difference in onset times.' These are different statistics: pairwise differences among all onset times include non-successive intervals and are correlated, whereas the standard waiting-time distribution for a Poisson process uses successive inter-event times. Please state exactly which statistic is plotted in Figure 10, and if pairwise differences are used, explain why the exponential comparison is still valid or replace the plot with successive intervals. In addition, the text says the result is presented as a cumulative distribution, while the equation P(dt)=lambda*exp(-lambda*dt) is a density; please clarify which quantity is plotted. Please also state whether nested declines are included in the waiting times, since they are counted as separate events but occur within an ongoing decline.
  3. [Section 6, RY Sgr periodicity] The three 'build-up' times at 3T, 14T, and 32T in Figure 10 are selected after inspection of the data, and no null-hypothesis test or trials correction is provided, so chance alignments under a Poisson null are not excluded. This is especially problematic because the same section reports that Fourier spectra of RY Sgr's decline onsets show no significant periodic signal, even over the epoch used by Crause et al. (2007). Please test for periodicity directly on the onset times (for example, a Rayleigh test or epoch-folding with a bootstrap null and a trials correction for the number of multiples examined) and report the significance of the claimed build-ups.
  4. [Sections 3 and 4] The Poisson rate is taken from the same visually identified decline catalog (Section 4), whose completeness is not quantified. Section 3.1 acknowledges the subjective nature of visual detection, and Section 3 provides quality flags for detections during large gaps. Missing or spuriously split declines would bias both the rate and the waiting-time distribution in ways that could create false agreement or disagreement with the exponential model. Please assess robustness by, for example, excluding declines flagged as occurring in large gaps, varying the 1-magnitude threshold, or running a completeness simulation on synthetic decline light curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] The sentence 'We note that defining the end of a decline end is much more ambiguous' appears to contain a typo; it should read 'decline end is much more ambiguous.'
  2. [Section 6] The phrase 'declineonsetperiodicity' is missing a space; it should be 'decline onset periodicity.'
  3. [Section 5.3, Equation 1] The subscripts in A_va and A_vb should be formatted as A_{v,a} and A_{v,b}, and the quantity t = t_b - t_a should be defined before it is used in the equation.
  4. [Section 7 vs Section 5.2] The conclusion that DY Persei's declines take 'roughly twice as long' to reach their minima as RCB star declines is inconsistent with Section 5.2, where DY Per slopes are quoted as less than 0.01% of flux blocked per day versus roughly 1-6% for RCB stars; please reconcile the two statements or clarify what 'twice as long' refers to.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Poisson and pulsation comparisons use plug-in or externally anchored rates, and the paper's self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central Poisson claim is not circular: the paper explicitly sets the Poisson rate to the independently measured mean decline frequency and then tests the exponential shape of the waiting-time distribution, rather than fitting the rate to that distribution (Section 6 and Fig. 10 caption: 'the Poisson rates are adopted as the decline frequency calculated in Section 4, rather than fitted to the data'). Exponentiality is not implied by the rate alone, so the agreement is a falsifiable prediction, even though it is assessed visually and without a formal goodness-of-fit test. RY Sgr's pulsational interpretation uses an externally measured period (38.46 d from Clayton et al. 1994b; Lawson & Cottrell 1997), and the paper even reports that a Fourier spectrum of the decline onsets shows no significant periodicity, so this claim is not manufactured from its own inputs. The cool/warm confirmation and DY Per comparison rest on independent photometric and spectroscopic data, despite some overlap in authorship with Tisserand et al. (2024a) and Crawford et al. (2023); these are confirmations with new data, not self-referential reductions. The main weaknesses identified by the reader—visual comparison without goodness-of-fit, ambiguous 'pairwise difference' wording, post hoc selection of the 3T/14T/32T build-ups, and possible incompleteness of the manual decline catalog—are statistical validity concerns rather than circularity. No equation or fitted parameter in the paper is equivalent to a claimed result by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central physical claims rest on a small set of background results and empirical assumptions: Poisson statistics, dust extinction, radial dust geometry, spectral-class-as-temperature, plus the paper-specific assumptions of complete manual decline detection and constant-rate onsets. The free parameters are observational thresholds and the same-data Poisson rate. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • decline depth threshold = 1 mag
    Defines a decline as a dip greater than 1 mag from maximum (Section 3). All 1536 counted declines and all activity statistics depend on this hand-chosen cutoff.
  • gap threshold subtracted from baseline = 1 year
    Baseline for frequency and percent-time-in-decline is reduced by the summed length of gaps longer than one year (Section 4). Choosing 1 year changes the activity metrics.
  • minimum AAVSO observations per observer = 5
    AAVSO preprocessing drops observers with fewer than 5 observations (Section 2). This changes which points remain in the light curve and can affect decline end times.
  • Poisson rate lambda = average decline frequency per star
    For the WTD comparison, lambda is set to the star's measured decline frequency from the same data (Section 6, Figure 10) rather than fitted independently. This makes the Poisson prediction dependent on the same catalog it is testing.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Poisson processes have exponential waiting time distributions.
    Used in Section 6 to compare WTDs; standard result, cited to Wheatland 2000.
  • domain assumption RCB declines are caused by carbon dust extinction.
    Background from Section 1 and prior literature; not tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption Dust grains move radially and extinction scales as inverse distance squared.
    Equation 1 in Section 5.3, taken from Whitney et al. 1993; used for the recovery light-curve fits.
  • domain assumption The HdC spectral class from Crawford et al. 2023 is a usable proxy for Teff.
    Figure 3 compares decline activity to classes 0-8; if the classification is biased, the cool/warm trend is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The decline onset process is stationary with constant rate equal to the average decline frequency.
    Section 6 assumes this for the Poisson WTD, but Section 4 and Figure 5 show activity varies on multi-year timescales.
  • ad hoc to paper Manually identified decline onsets and ends are complete and unbiased across heterogeneous surveys.
    Sections 2-3 state detection is by visual inspection with no automated or simulated completeness check; all statistics depend on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Comprehensive Study of the Dust Declines in R Coronae Borealis Stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ZD32BB3

@misc{pith2026241216393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Comprehensive Study of the Dust Declines in R Coronae Borealis Stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ZD32BB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16393}
}
abstract

The R Coronae Borealis (RCB) variables are rare, hydrogen-deficient, carbon-rich supergiants known for large, erratic declines in brightness due to dust formation. Recently, the number of known RCB stars in the Milky Way and Magellanic Clouds has increased from $\sim$30 to 162. We use all-sky and targeted photometric surveys to create the longest possible light curves for all known RCB stars and systematically study their declines. Our study, the largest of its kind, includes measurements of decline activity levels, morphologies, and periodicities for nearly all RCB stars. We confirm previous predictions that cool RCB stars exhibit more declines than warm RCBs, supporting a relationship between dust formation and condensation temperatures. We also find evidence for two distinct dust production mechanisms. R CrB and SU Tau show decline onsets consistent with a Poisson process, suggesting their dust production is driven by stochastic processes, such as convection. In contrast, RY Sgr's declines correlate with its pulsation period, suggesting that its dust production is driven by pulsationally-induced shocks. Finally, we show that the dust properties of the related class of DY~Per variables differ from those of the RCB stars, suggesting differences in their evolutionary status.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Twenty year AAVSO visual light curve of R CrB ending on 14 November, 2023. The upper panel shows the light curve in units of magnitudes, whereas the lower panel shows the light curve as a percentage of total stellar flux at maximum light. The blue dashed lines indicate our detected decline onsets, and the pink dotted lines denote the adopted end time for each decline. The shaded regions indicate the timespan of indi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of the decline activity statistics for all 162 measured RCB stars. The upper panel shows the frequency of declines per year and the lower panel shows the percentage of time spent in decline. into 5-year segments and calculated the percentage of time spent in decline for each of the segments, which we present as a function of time in the lower panel. We colour each 5-year segment to indicate the total numb… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The top panel shows average decline lengths (calculated by divid￾ing the percent of time in decline by the decline frequency) for each of the RCB stars (purple circles; Classes 0–7) and DY Per stars (peach squares; Class 8). The average decline length is plotted versus the HdC class, with a horizontal dashed grey line denoting the median of all points (0.88 years). The outlined markers show the mean of each HdC clas… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The upper panel shows the R CrB AAVSO light curve separated into 5 year segments and lower panel shows the percent of time each of those segments is spent in decline. The colored points show the logarithm of the number of data points in each of the 5 year segments as d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured hydrogen abundance versus the average time between declines in log(days) for all RCB stars where these data are available. Note that the vertical axis is reversed, so stars with strong H abundances are lower in the plot. Peach points with arrows represent lowe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of the decline depths. The upper panel shows the decline depths in magnitudes, and the lower panel in percentage of total stellar flux at maximum light. The vertical dashed grey lines in both panels denote the median decline depth in magnitudes (4.64 mag). T…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Four declines of R CrB (black points) with models (red lines and triangle markers) for the recovery to maximum light after the decline. The models assume that the dust is moving radially away from the star at 400 km s−1 following Equation 1. t0 denotes the time of the …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The waiting time distribution (see e.g. Wheatland 2000) for 3 RCB stars (R CrB, SU Tau, and RY Sgr) in purple markers compared to a Poisson distribution (dashed grey line) where the Poisson rates are adopted as the decline frequency calculated in Section 4, rather tha…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alcock C., et al., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321369 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554..298A 554, 298

    work page doi:10.1086/321369 2001

  2. [2]

    L., Rao N

    Asplund M., Gustafsson B., Lambert D. L., Rao N. K., 2000, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&A...353..287A 353, 287

    2000

  3. [3]

    Astropy Collaboration 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  5. [5]

    Bauer F., de Kat J., 1997, @doi [Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A] 10.1016/S0168-9002(96)01009-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997NIMPA.387..286B 387, 286

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(96)01009-1 1997

  6. [6]

    Bergeat J., Lefevre J., Kandel R., Lunel M., Sibille F., 1976, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976A&A....52..245B 52, 245

    1976

  7. [7]

    M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..140B 854, 140

    Bhowmick A., Pandey G., Joshi V., Ashok N. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...854..140B 854, 140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae4 2018

  8. [8]

    E., Luck R

    Bond H. E., Luck R. E., Newman M. J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157382 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...233..205B 233, 205

    work page doi:10.1086/157382 1979

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    C., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108..225C 108, 225

    Clayton G. C., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133715 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108..225C 108, 225

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1206.3448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JAVSO..40..539C 40, 539

    Clayton G. C., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1206.3448 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JAVSO..40..539C 40, 539

    2012 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    C., Whitney B

    Clayton G. C., Whitney B. A., Stanford S. A., Drilling J. S., Judge P. G., 1992a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/186253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...384L..19C 384, L19

    doi

  4. [12]

    C., Whitney B

    Clayton G. C., Whitney B. A., Stanford S. A., Drilling J. S., 1992b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/171821 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...397..652C 397, 652

    doi

  5. [13]

    C., Whitney B

    Clayton G. C., Whitney B. A., Mattei J. A., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133240 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PASP..105..832C 105, 832

    1993 doi

  6. [15]

    C., Lawson W

    Clayton G. C., Lawson W. A., Cottrell P. L., Whitney B. A., Stanford S. A., de Ruyter F., 1994b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/174616 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...432..785C 432, 785

    doi

  7. [16]

    C., Bjorkman K

    Clayton G. C., Bjorkman K. S., Nordsieck K. H., Zellner N. E. B., Schulte-Ladbeck R. E., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/303666 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...476..870C 476, 870

    1997 doi

  8. [17]

    C., Geballe T

    Clayton G. C., Geballe T. R., Zhang W., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/23 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...23C 146, 23

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    L., Lambert D

    Cottrell P. L., Lambert D. L., 1982, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Obs...102..149C 102, 149

    1982

  10. [20]

    L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.1674C 521, 1674

    Crawford C. L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521.1674C 521, 1674

    2023 doi

  11. [21]

    L., Nikultsev N., Clayton G

    Crawford C. L., Nikultsev N., Clayton G. C., Tisserand P., Soon J., Pedersen M. G., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2149 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.1018C 534, 1018

    2024 doi

  12. [22]

    J., 1963, PhD thesis, -

    Danziger I. J., 1963, PhD thesis, -

    1963

  13. [23]

    C., Herwig F., Pollacco D

    De Marco O., Clayton G. C., Herwig F., Pollacco D. L., Clark J. S., Kilkenny D., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340569 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AJ....123.3387D 123, 3387

    2002 doi

  14. [24]

    W., 1986, IAU Colloq

    Feast M. W., 1986, IAU Colloq. 87, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ASSL..128..151F 128, p. 151

    1986

  15. [25]

    W., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.2.339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..339F 285, 339

    Feast M. W., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.2.339 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..339F 285, 339

    1997 doi

  16. [26]

    W., Carter B

    Feast M. W., Carter B. S., Roberts G., Marang F., Catchpole R. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.2.317 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..317F 285, 317

    1997 doi

  17. [27]

    W., Whitelock P

    Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., Marang F., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07136.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003MNRAS.346..878F 346, 878

    2003

  18. [28]

    W., Griffin R

    Feast M. W., Griffin R. F., Herbig G. H., Whitelock P. A., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.482.4174F 482, 4174

    2019 doi

  19. [29]

    Freytag B., H \"o fner S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244992 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...669A.155F 669, A155

    2023 doi

  20. [30]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...674A...1G 674, A1

    2023 doi

  21. [31]

    P., Sedlmayr E., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984A&A...132..163G 132, 163

    Gail H. P., Sedlmayr E., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984A&A...132..163G 132, 163

    1984

  22. [32]

    A., Rao N

    Garc \' a-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Rao N. K., Lambert D. L., Eriksson K., Reddy A. B. S., Masseron T., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acc574 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...948...15G 948, 15

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    A., Jiang Y.-F., Bildsten L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929..156G 929, 156

    Goldberg J. A., Jiang Y.-F., Bildsten L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5ab3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...929..156G 929, 156

    2022 doi

  24. [34]

    285, New Horizons in Time Domain Astronomy

    Grindlay J., Tang S., Los E., Servillat M., 2012, in Griffin E., Hanisch R., Seaman R., eds, IAU Symposium Vol. 285, New Horizons in Time Domain Astronomy. pp 29--34 ( @eprint arXiv 1211.1051 ), @doi 10.1017/S1743921312000166

    2012 arXiv

  25. [35]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  26. [36]

    P., Pandey G., Kamath D., Kameswara Rao N., Lambert D., Woolf V

    Hema B. P., Pandey G., Kamath D., Kameswara Rao N., Lambert D., Woolf V. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aa7f25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017PASP..129j4202H 129, 104202

    2017 doi

  27. [37]

    D., 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90

    2007

  28. [38]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    2019 doi

  29. [39]

    Jayasinghe T., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty838 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.477.3145J 477, 3145

    2018 doi

  30. [40]

    Jayasinghe T., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz844 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.1907J 486, 1907

    2019 doi

  31. [41]

    Jurcsik J., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996AcA....46..325J 46, 325

    1996

  32. [42]

    M., Kulkarni P

    Kameswara Rao I., Ashok N. M., Kulkarni P. V., 1980, @doi [Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy] 10.1007/BF02727951 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980JApA....1...71K 1, 71

    1980 doi

  33. [43]

    L., Woolf V

    Kameswara Rao N., Lambert D. L., Woolf V. M., Hema B. P., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1086/678129 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014PASP..126..813K 126, 813

    2014 doi

  34. [44]

    R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910..132K 910, 132

    Karambelkar V. R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe5aa , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910..132K 910, 132

    2021 doi

  35. [45]

    M., Tisserand P., Clayton G

    Karambelkar V., Kasliwal M. M., Tisserand P., Clayton G. C., Crawford C. L., Anand S. G., Geballe T. R., Montiel E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142918 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..84K 667, A84

    2022 doi

  36. [46]

    R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136h4201K 136, 084201

    Karambelkar V. R., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/ad6210 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASP..136h4201K 136, 084201

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    Kim S.-L., et al., 2016, @doi [Journal of Korean Astronomical Society] 10.5303/JKAS.2016.49.1.37 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JKAS...49...37K 49, 37

    2016 doi

  38. [48]

    G., 2005, Baltic Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005BaltA..14..215K 14, 215

    Kipper T., Klochkova V. G., 2005, Baltic Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005BaltA..14..215K 14, 215

    2005

  39. [49]

    G., 2008, in Werner A., Rauch T., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol

    Kipper T., Klochkova V. G., 2008, in Werner A., Rauch T., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 391, Hydrogen-Deficient Stars. p. 43

    2008

  40. [51]

    Kloppenborg B., 2023, https://www.aavso.org

    2023

  41. [52]

    A., Cottrell P

    Lawson W. A., Cottrell P. L., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/285.2.266 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.285..266L 285, 266

    1997 doi

  42. [53]

    A., Cottrell P

    Lawson W. A., Cottrell P. L., Clark M., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/251.4.687 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991MNRAS.251..687L 251, 687

    1991 doi

  43. [54]

    A., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117.3007L 117, 3007

    Lawson W. A., et al., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/300897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999AJ....117.3007L 117, 3007

    1999 doi

  44. [55]

    M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H

    Lee C.-U., Kim S.-L., Cha S.-M., Lee Y., Kim D.-J., Park B.-G., 2014, in Stepp L. M., Gilmozzi R., Hall H. J., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 9145, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V. p. 91453T, @doi 10.1117/12.2055571

    2014 doi

  45. [56]

    Loreta E., 1935, Astronomische Nachrichten, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1935AN....254..151L 254, 151

    1935

  46. [57]

    A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..552M 203, 552

    Marsh K. A., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1086/154111 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976ApJ...203..552M 203, 552

    1976 doi

  47. [58]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , 131, 018003

    Masci F. J., et al., 2018, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac , 131, 018003

    2018 doi

  48. [59]

    McNaught R., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUC.4245....2M 4245, 2

    1986

  49. [60]

    H., Dawes G., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUC.4233....3M 4233, 3

    McNaught R. H., Dawes G., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUC.4233....3M 4233, 3

    1986

  50. [61]

    J., Clayton G

    Montiel E. J., Clayton G. C., Sugerman B. E. K., Evans A., Garcia-Hern \'a ndez D. A., Kameswara Rao N., Matsuura M., Tisserand P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aad772 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..148M 156, 148

    2018 doi

  51. [62]

    A., 1939, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939ApJ....90..294O 90, 294

    O'Keefe J. A., 1939, @doi [ ] 10.1086/144107 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1939ApJ....90..294O 90, 294

    1939 doi

  52. [63]

    H., 1928, Harvard College Observatory Bulletin, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1928BHarO.861...11P 861, 11

    Payne C. H., 1928, Harvard College Observatory Bulletin, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1928BHarO.861...11P 861, 11

    1928

  53. [64]

    R., Dembski K

    Percy J. R., Dembski K. H., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.1809.04484 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JAVSO..46..127P 46, 127

    2018 doi arXiv

  54. [65]

    R., Bandara K., Fernie J

    Percy J. R., Bandara K., Fernie J. D., Cottrell P. L., Skuljan L., 2004, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JAVSO..33...27P 33, 27

    2004

  55. [66]

    C., 1797, Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions Series I, 87, 133

    Pigott E., Englefield H. C., 1797, Royal Society of London Philosophical Transactions Series I, 87, 133

  56. [67]

    Pojmanski G., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9712146 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AcA....47..467P 47, 467

    1997 doi arXiv

  57. [68]

    F., 1977, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977IBVS.1277....1P 1277, 1

    Pugach A. F., 1977, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977IBVS.1277....1P 1277, 1

    1977

  58. [69]

    K., Lambert D

    Rao N. K., Lambert D. L., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379205 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PASP..115.1304R 115, 1304

    2003 doi

  59. [70]

    Rauer H., et al., 2014, @doi [Experimental Astronomy] 10.1007/s10686-014-9383-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ExA....38..249R 38, 249

    2014 doi

  60. [71]

    arXiv:2406.05447

    Rauer H., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2406.05447 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240605447R p. arXiv:2406.05447

    2024 doi arXiv

  61. [72]

    J., Ferrario L., Belczynski K., Seitenzahl I

    Ruiter A. J., Ferrario L., Belczynski K., Seitenzahl I. R., Crocker R. M., Karakas A. I., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz001 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.484..698R 484, 698

    2019 doi

  62. [73]

    E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1233S 460, 1233

    Schaefer B. E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1065 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.1233S 460, 1233

    2016 doi

  63. [74]

    E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.9274S 527, 9274

    Schaefer B. E., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad3760 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.527.9274S 527, 9274

    2024 doi

  64. [75]

    Schwarzschild M., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153313 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195..137S 195, 137

    1975 doi

  65. [76]

    Tisserand P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117874 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...539A..51T 539, A51

    2012 doi

  66. [77]

    Tisserand P., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200911808 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...501..985T 501, 985

    2009 doi

  67. [78]

    C., Welch D

    Tisserand P., Clayton G. C., Welch D. L., Pilecki B., Wyrzykowski L., Kilkenny D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220713 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...551A..77T 551, A77

    2013 doi

  68. [79]

    Tisserand P., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201834410 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...635A..14T 635, A14

    2020 doi

  69. [80]

    Tisserand P., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142916 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...667A..83T 667, A83

    2022 doi

  70. [81]

    L., Soon J., Clayton G

    Tisserand P., Crawford C. L., Soon J., Clayton G. C., Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2024a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.130T 684, A130

    doi

  71. [82]

    L., Soon J., Clayton G

    Tisserand P., Crawford C. L., Soon J., Clayton G. C., Ruiter A. J., Seitenzahl I. R., 2024b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202348005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A&A...684A.131T 684, A131

    doi

  72. [83]

    L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4505T 130, 064505

    Tonry J. L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASP..130f4505T 130, 064505

    2018 doi

  73. [84]

    Udalski A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.48550/arXiv.0810.2244 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AcA....58..187U 58, 187

    2008 doi arXiv

  74. [85]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  75. [86]

    H., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUC.4241....2W 4241, 2

    Wenzel W., Hoffmeister C., McNaught R. H., 1986, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986IAUC.4241....2W 4241, 2

    1986

  76. [87]

    S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536L.109W 536, L109

    Wheatland M. S., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/312739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...536L.109W 536, L109

    2000 doi

  77. [88]

    A., Feast M

    Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., Marang F., Overbeek M. D., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/288.2.512 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.288..512W 288, 512

    1997 doi

  78. [89]

    A., Feast M

    Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., Marang F., Groenewegen M. A. T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10322.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.369..751W 369, 751

    2006

  79. [90]

    A., Clayton G

    Whitney B. A., Clayton G. C., Schulte-Ladbeck R. E., Meade M. R., 1992, @doi [ ] 10.1086/116180 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992AJ....103.1652W 103, 1652

    1992 doi

  80. [91]

    A., Balm S

    Whitney B. A., Balm S. P., Clayton G. C., 1993, in Sasselov D. D., ed., Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 45, Luminous High-Latitude Stars. p. 115

    1993

  81. [92]

    Woitke P., Goeres A., Sedlmayr E., 1996, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...313..217W 313, 217

    1996

  82. [93]

    A., Pugach A

    Yakovina L. A., Pugach A. F., Pavlenko Y. V., 2009, @doi [Astronomy Reports] 10.1134/S1063772909030019 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ARep...53..187Y 53, 187

    2009 doi

  83. [94]

    Yuin C., 1948, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145028 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1948ApJ...107..413Y 107, 413

    1948 doi

  84. [95]

    P., Pugach A

    Za c s L., Mondal S., Chen W. P., Pugach A. F., Musaev F. A., Alksnis O., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066923 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...472..247Z 472, 247

    2007 doi

  85. [96]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

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