Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Gaia parallax discrepancy for the cluster Pismis 19, and separating $\delta$ Scutis from Cepheids

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a near-infrared red clump distance of $2.90 \pm 0.15$ kpc places Pismis 19 closer than Gaia DR3 parallaxes indicate, and that the 0.292-day variable OGLE GD-CEP-1864 is a delta Scuti rather than a Cepheid.

desk verdict Useful red clump distance and plausible Delta Scuti reclassification, but the Gaia zero-point claim is only ~1.4 sigma and should not be asserted as a detection. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06930 v1 pith:2T7JHBUZ submitted 2025-02-10 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Daniel Majaess , Charles J. Bonatto , David G. Turner , Roberto K. Saito , Dante Minniti , Christian Moni Bidin , Danilo González-Díaz , Javier Alonso-Garcia
show 5 more authors
Giuseppe Bono Vittorio F. Braga Maria G. Navarro Giovanni Carraro Matias Gomez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords openclusterdistancesGaiazero-pointredclumpPismis19OGLEGD-CEP-1864deltaScutistarsCepheidclassificationWesenheitLeavittLaw
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to settle two linked disputes: how far away the open cluster Pismis 19 actually is, and whether a nearby 0.29-day variable star is a classical Cepheid or a shorter-period pulsator called a delta Scuti. Measuring the cluster's red clump in 2MASS and VVV near-infrared photometry yields a distance of $2.90 \pm 0.15$ kpc, which agrees with pre-Gaia values near 2.4–2.5 kpc but is several hundred parsecs closer than the 3.5–3.9 kpc distances inferred from Gaia parallaxes. That gap is presented as evidence that Gaia parallaxes for these stars are systematically too small. The same data place OGLE GD-CEP-1864 in the cluster near the turnoff, and the authors argue that its period, color-magnitude position, and location shortward of a $\simeq 0.5$-day break in the Wesenheit Leavitt Law make it a likely first-overtone delta Scuti, not a Cepheid. Getting the classification right matters because cluster Cepheids are used as calibrators for stellar evolution and the cosmic distance scale.

What carries the argument

The distance argument runs through the near-infrared red clump, a compact group of helium-burning giants whose 2MASS $JK_s$ colors and magnitudes become a distance once absolute magnitudes are assumed ($M_J = -0.984 \pm 0.014$, $M_{K_s} = -1.613 \pm 0.015$) and an infrared extinction law is adopted. Membership and evolutionary state come from Gaia DR3 astrometry plus Padova scaled-solar isochrones ($\log \tau = 8.80 \pm 0.15$), which show OGLE GD-CEP-1864 near the tip of the turnoff and outside the canonical blue loop. The classification argument is carried by the break in the Wesenheit Leavitt Law near $P \simeq 0.5$ days, used here to separate first-overtone delta Scutis from first-overtone classical Cepheids.

What would settle it

Measure Pismis 19's distance with a method that does not use the red clump calibration, such as main-sequence fitting to the turnoff from deep near-infrared photometry or asteroseismic parallaxes of member red giants; if the result is near 3.5 kpc rather than 2.9 kpc, the claimed Gaia zero-point discrepancy is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Pismis 19 lies at $2.90 \pm 0.15$ kpc, as measured from 2MASS and VVV red clump stars, and that this is incompatible with the Gaia DR3/EDR3 parallax distances of $3.5$–$3.9$ kpc, implying the parallaxes are too small and need zero-point corrections beyond the standard prescription. The paper also claims that OGLE GD-CEP-1864 is a member of the cluster, based on DR3 proper motions ($\mu_\alpha, \mu_\delta = -5.59 \pm 0.03, -3.30 \pm 0.04$ mas/yr), and that its $0.2919180$-day pulsation, its position in the color-magnitude diagram near the turnoff, and the behavior of the Wesenheit Leavitt Law near $0.5$ days mean it is a first-overtone delta Scuti rather than a classical Cepheid. A companion claim is that the $\simeq 0.5$-day break in that law is the dividing line between the two classes, with delta Scutis shortward of the break and first-overtone Cepheids beyond it.

Load-bearing premise

The distance argument rests on the assumed near-infrared red clump brightness and extinction law for Pismis 19; a bias in either would shift the distance enough to erase the claimed gap with Gaia.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pismis 19's distance is $2.90 \pm 0.15$ kpc, in agreement with pre-Gaia measurements and about 0.6–1.0 kpc nearer than Gaia DR2/EDR3 parallax distances.
  • Gaia DR3 parallaxes for the cluster's members are too small, and adding the standard zero-point correction does not fully remove the discrepancy.
  • OGLE GD-CEP-1864 is a member of Pismis 19, so its properties can constrain the cluster's age and turnoff, but it should not be used as a shortest-period Cepheid calibrator.
  • The variable is likely a first-overtone delta Scuti, indicated by its position relative to the $\simeq 0.5$-day break in the Wesenheit Leavitt Law and by scaled-solar isochrones whose blue loops do not reach its temperature.
  • The $0.5$-day Wesenheit break is a practical division: stars just shortward are delta Scutis, while stars just beyond are first-overtone Cepheids mostly during later blue-loop crossings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the red clump distance is right, the same Gaia zero-point shortfall should appear in other open clusters; a systematic comparison of red clump distances with DR3 parallaxes across many clusters would test how general the bias is.
  • The $0.5$-day boundary predicts that some variables currently cataloged as first-overtone Cepheids with periods between about $0.24$ and $0.5$ days should be reclassifiable as delta Scutis from their Fourier parameters alone.
  • Removing OGLE GD-CEP-1864 from the Cepheid roster weakens the empirical constraint on the shortest-period cluster Cepheids, so the minimum mass for the blue loop at solar metallicity will have to be set by other variables or by models.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a near-infrared red clump distance for the open cluster Pismis 19 from Gaia DR3-selected 2MASS photometry, obtaining d = 2.90 ± 0.15 kpc with the Laney et al. (2012) calibration and d = 2.80 ± 0.16 kpc with the Majaess et al. calibration, plus a separate red-clump derivation by one author (R.K.S.) using Ruiz-Dern et al. (2018) absolute magnitudes that gives a consistent but less precise distance. It uses Gaia DR3 proper motions and radial velocities to argue that OGLE GD-CEP-1864 is a member of Pismis 19, and it proposes, from the variable's 0.292 day period relative to a Wesenheit period break near 0.5 days and from its position against Padova blue-loop isochrones, that the object is a first-overtone delta Scuti rather than a first-overtone classical Cepheid. The paper concludes that the DR3 parallaxes of Pismis 19 members are too small and may require a zero-point correction beyond the Lindegren et al. (2021) prescription.

Significance. The paper contains useful and partly independent new measurements: a red clump distance for Pismis 19 built on external calibrations, a second derivation by a different author with different calibrations, and membership evidence for OGLE GD-CEP-1864 based on both proper motions and radial velocities. If the distance and membership results are robust, they provide a data point for testing Gaia zero-point corrections in this cluster and a potentially interesting cluster delta Scuti candidate. The strengths are the use of external red clump absolute magnitudes, the attempt to reduce human bias with an independent author-led derivation, and Monte Carlo propagation of random uncertainties. However, the headline claim of a Gaia discrepancy is not supported at the paper's own quoted significance: the favored red clump distance differs from the corrected Gaia distance by about 1.4 sigma. The delta Scuti classification also depends on stellar-model assumptions that need a more explicit sensitivity treatment. The manuscript would be substantially improved by reframing the Gaia comparison as a consistency check and by quantifying the model and calibration systematics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Section 2.1] The central claim that DR3 parallaxes for Pismis 19 members are 'too small' is not supported by the paper's own numbers. The favored red clump distance is 2.90 ± 0.15 kpc, while the corrected DR3 distance quoted in Section 2.1 is about 3.1 kpc (Bailer-Jones et al. 2021: 3.16 ± 0.10 kpc). The offset is 0.26 kpc with a propagated uncertainty of about 0.18 kpc, i.e. about 1.4 sigma, which is formally consistent with no residual zero-point problem. The statement in Section 3 that a correction 'beyond the prescription detailed by Lindegren et al. (2021)' may be required therefore overstates the evidence. The comparison should be reported with its confidence level and presented as a consistency check, or the central claim should be reduced accordingly. Table 1 should also include the paper's own Gaia-derived distance (about 3.1-3.2 kpc) rather than only the older values of 3.5 and 3.9 kpc, since the table as printed makes the discrepancy look larger than the paper's own analysis indicates.
  2. [Section 2.1] The red clump distance inherits systematic uncertainty from the adopted absolute magnitude calibration and extinction law that is not captured by the reported Monte Carlo errors. An error of 0.1 mag in MKs shifts the distance by roughly 5 percent (about 0.14 kpc), and removing the full 0.26 kpc offset would require a calibration shift of about 0.19 mag, a plausible systematic range for red clump absolute magnitudes in a cluster that may be subsolar (as noted in Section 2.1). The independent R.K.S. derivation with Ruiz-Dern et al. (2018) and different extinction laws gives mu0 = 12.331 ± 0.204, corresponding to about 2.93 ± 0.28 kpc, so it does not reduce the systematic error. The authors should provide the full uncertainty budget for the red clump distance, state how the red clump color and absolute magnitude depend on age and metallicity, and quantify what calibration shift would be needed to make the Gaia and red clump distances consistent.
  3. [Section 2.2, Figure 5] The reclassification of OGLE GD-CEP-1864 as a delta Scuti depends on the Padova scaled-solar isochrones (log tau = 8.80 ± 0.15) not producing a blue loop that reaches the variable's position. Blue-loop extension is sensitive to metallicity, mass loss, and convective overshoot, and the paper itself notes that Pismis 19 may be marginally subsolar. As presented, Figures 3 and 5 do not demonstrate that a blue-loop classical Cepheid interpretation is excluded for reasonable model variations. The authors should quote the minimum metallicity or model change that would place the variable on the blue loop, or add independent diagnostics such as Fourier decomposition or comparison with predicted instability-strip edges, before presenting the delta Scuti classification as more than tentative.
  4. [Section 2.2] The period-break criterion itself is adopted from Majaess et al. (2011b) and is not independently calibrated against a sample of spectroscopically or asteroseismically confirmed delta Scutis and Cepheids on both sides of the 0.5 day divide. The paper's use of Ripepi et al. (2022) blue-loop-crossing arguments is weakened by the fact, acknowledged in the text, that Ripepi et al. treated stars on both sides of the break as classical Cepheids. There is therefore a degree of circularity in using that same break to reclassify this particular object. The authors should either provide an external validation sample of confirmed variables straddling the break or explicitly label the delta Scuti classification as contingent on the adopted period-break convention.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The photometric-band entries 'P98 BV Ic' and 'C11 U BV RIc' should be expanded (e.g., Johnson-Cousins filters) and the C20 and P21 entries should carry their published uncertainties if available.
  2. [Figure 1] The axis label ' & (mas yr 1)' should be typeset as 'pmra, pmdec (mas yr^-1)' or similar; the current label is incomplete.
  3. [Section 2.2] The phrase 'a Wesenheit Leavitt law tied to OGLE V ILMC and Galactic photometry' appears to be a typographical error for 'OGLE V/I LMC and Galactic photometry'; please clarify.
  4. [Section 2.1] The computation of the red clump distance is described only in words; adding the explicit equation d = 10^{(Ks - MKs + 5 - A_Ks)/5} (or the equivalent distance-modulus equation) and a table of the Monte Carlo input distributions would make the result reproducible.
  5. [Section 2.1] The independent R.K.S. derivation is reported only as mu0 = 12.331 ± 0.204; tabulating its adopted red clump color, absolute magnitude, extinction law, and sample selection would let readers assess how independent this second distance really is.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the red clump distance rests on external calibrations and the period-break criterion is independently corroborated.

full rationale

The paper's central distance claim for Pismis 19 is derived from 2MASS red clump photometry combined with external absolute magnitudes (Laney et al. 2012; Ruiz-Dern et al. 2018) and extinction laws (Majaess et al. 2016; Sanders et al. 2022; Minniti et al. 2018). The preferred 2.90 ± 0.15 kpc result is cross-checked by a separate author using independent calibrations, and the manuscript explicitly acknowledges and attempts to mitigate author bias. The comparison with Gaia parallaxes is a comparison of independent distance indicators, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The delta Scuti reclassification of OGLE GD-CEP-1864 does use the 0.5-day Wesenheit break cited to Majaess et al. (2011b), a self-citation, but the paper immediately cites Soszyński et al. (2023) as independently reaffirming the same break, and Ripepi et al. (2022) for related evidence; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing. The isochrone analysis uses the red clump distance as an input, so the subsequent blue-loop argument and the Wesenheit-law distance of ~2.8 kpc are consistency checks rather than independent derivations of the distance, but they are not used to derive the red clump distance. The weak statistical significance of the claimed Gaia discrepancy (~1.4σ with respect to the corrected Gaia distance) is a correctness/significance concern, not a circularity, and is therefore not counted here. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or defining equation is imported from the authors' prior work to force the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central distance claim rests on external red clump absolute magnitude calibrations and a fixed extinction law; the classification claim rests on Padova isochrone models whose age and reddening are fitted. No new physical entities are introduced. The proposed period-break criterion is an interpretive reanalysis of existing data rather than a newly invented mechanism.

free parameters (2)
  • Cluster age (log tau) = 8.80 ± 0.15
    Chosen to fit the 2MASS/VVV color-magnitude diagram, partly constrained by red clump stars; used in the blue loop argument that excludes a Cepheid classification for OGLE GD-CEP-1864.
  • Reddening E(J-H) = 0.40 ± 0.02
    Adopted to fit the isochrone to the observed CMD; affects the inferred turnoff position and hence the evolutionary-state argument.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Laney et al. (2012) and Ruiz-Dern et al. (2018) red clump absolute magnitudes are valid for Pismis 19's red clump population.
    The red clump distance is computed by comparing observed Ks = 10.97 ± 0.11 to these absolute magnitudes; a metallicity or age dependent offset would shift the distance and alter the Gaia discrepancy.
  • domain assumption The adopted near-IR extinction law (AKs/E(J-Ks) = 0.448-0.484) is correct for this sightline.
    Extinction corrections use Majaess et al. (2016), Sanders et al. (2022), and Minniti et al. (2018); errors here translate directly into distance and CMD position errors.
  • domain assumption Padova scaled-solar isochrones (Z=0.019) correctly describe the cluster's main sequence, turnoff, and blue loop extent.
    The classification of OGLE GD-CEP-1864 as a delta Scuti depends on the blue loop not extending to its position in Fig. 5; if the models are wrong or the metallicity is subsolar (as Piatti et al. 1998 suggested), the star could be a Cepheid.
  • standard math Standard Monte Carlo error propagation and Gaia DR3 astrometric quality cuts are valid.
    Used to compute distance uncertainties and select cluster members.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gaia parallax discrepancy for the cluster Pismis 19, and separating $\delta$ Scutis from Cepheids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2T7JHBUZ

@misc{pith2026250206930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gaia parallax discrepancy for the cluster Pismis 19, and separating $\delta$ Scutis from Cepheids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2T7JHBUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06930}
}
abstract

Pre-Gaia distances for the open cluster Pismis 19 disagree with Gaia parallaxes. A 2MASS $JK_s$ red clump distance was therefore established for Pismis 19 ($2.90\pm0.15$ kpc), which reaffirms that zero-point corrections for Gaia are required (e.g., Lindegren et al.~2021). OGLE GD-CEP-1864 is confirmed as a member of Pismis 19 on the basis of DR3 proper motions, and its 2MASS+VVV color-magnitude position near the tip of the turnoff. That $0^{\rm d}.3$ variable star is likely a $\delta$ Scuti rather than a classical Cepheid. The case revealed a pertinent criterion to segregate those two populations in tandem with the break in the Wesenheit Leavitt Law ($\simeq 0^{\rm d}.5$). Just shortward of that period discontinuity are $\delta$ Scutis, whereas beyond the break lie first overtone classical Cepheids mostly observed beyond the first crossing of the instability strip.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06930 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DR3 astrometry for stars within ≲ 0.5 ′ of the cluster center (Pismis 19). The overdensi￾ties represent probable cluster members (µα is blue, while µδ is orange). the following proper motion: µα, µδ = −5.48 ± 0.11, −3.37 ± 0.12 mas/yr, where the uncer￾tainty is the median absolute deviation (i.e., to reduce the impact of outliers). The paral￾lax is π = 0.31 ± 0.06 mas (d ≃ 3.23 kpc), and places the cluster closer th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Probable cluster members (Gaia￾cleaned) possessing AAA 2MASS photometry and uncertainties. The red clump stars are encom￾passed by a red circle. The magenta datum rep￾resents OGLE GD-CEP-1864. tions overlap with the red clump results within the uncertainties. 2.2. OGLE GD-CEP-1864 OGLE GD-CEP-1864 was issued a prelimi￾nary classification on the basis of its light curve, which is conducive to a first overtone classi￾… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VVV (black, r ≲ 0.5 ′ ) + Gaia-cleaned 2MASS (blue, r ≲ 1.25′ ) color-magnitude diagram for stars along the Pismis 19 sightline. A solar isochrone (log τ = 8.80 ± 0.15) was applied using parameters inferred from the cluster’s red clump stars. et al. 2010 δ Scuti photometry).3 Soszy´nski et al. (2023) revised their earlier interpreta￾tion after examining new observations, and reaf￾firmed the aforementioned break near… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: I-band lightcurve for OGLE GD-CEP￾1864 from Soszy´nski et al. (2020). The data were repeated beyond phase > 1. as a δ Scuti variable.4 Shell hydrogen burning first crossing classical Cepheids are rare (e.g., Polaris, Turner 2009), and Turner et al. (2006, their [PITH_…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The potential broader complex linked to the key Cepheid SV Vul

    astro-ph.SR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SV Vul and its host cluster Alicante 13 lie at 2.30 ± 0.13 kpc and may share a common origin with the nearby cluster Liu-Pang 1738.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    I., Saio, H., Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G

    Anderson, R. I., Saio, H., Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., & Meynet, G. 2016, A&A, 591, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201528031

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201528031 2016

  2. [2]

    M., & Frandsen, S

    Freyhammer, L. M., & Frandsen, S. 2005, PASP, 117, 601, doi: 10.1086/430115

    work page doi:10.1086/430115 2005

  3. [3]

    2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd806

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd806 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, MNRAS, 483, 2758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3291

    Bonatto, C. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 2758, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3291

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3291 2019

  5. [5]

    2004, A&A, 415, 571, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034638 8

    Bonatto, C., Bica, E., & Girardi, L. 2004, A&A, 415, 571, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20034638 8

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034638 2004

  6. [6]

    F., & Pietrinferni, A

    Bono, G., Braga, V. F., & Pietrinferni, A. 2024, A&A Rv, 32, 4, doi: 10.1007/s00159-024-00153-0

    doi:10.1007/s00159-024-00153-0 2024

  7. [7]

    1997, ApJ, 477, 346, doi: 10.1086/303710 —

    Bono, G., Caputo, F., Cassisi, S., et al. 1997, ApJ, 477, 346, doi: 10.1086/303710 —. 2000, ApJ, 543, 955, doi: 10.1086/317156

    work page doi:10.1086/303710 1997

  8. [8]

    2005, ApJ, 621, 966, doi: 10.1086/427744

    Bono, G., Marconi, M., Cassisi, S., et al. 2005, ApJ, 621, 966, doi: 10.1086/427744

    doi:10.1086/427744 2005

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038192

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2011, A&A, 536, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117238

    Carraro, G. 2011, A&A, 536, A101, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117238

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    2013, A&A, 555, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321421

    Carraro, G., Turner, D., Majaess, D., & Baume, G. 2013, A&A, 555, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321421

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00191, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00191

    Chaussidon, E., de Mattia, A., Y` eche, C., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.00191, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.00191

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+ 2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: 2003yCat.2246....0C

    2003

  6. [14]

    Fernie, J. D. 1992, AJ, 103, 1647, doi: 10.1086/116179

    1992 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Madore, B

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Jang, I. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.06153. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06153 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Guzik, J. A. 2021, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 8, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2021.653558

    2021

  9. [17]

    D., Joner, M

    Laney, C. D., Joner, M. D., & Pietrzy´ nski, G. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1637, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19826.x

    2012

  10. [18]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039653

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, A&A, 593, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628763

    Majaess, D., Turner, D., D´ ek´ any, I., Minniti, D., & Gieren, W. 2016, A&A, 593, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628763

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Alonso-Garcia, J., & Saito, R. K. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 136, 094202, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad7405

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    G., & Usenko, I

    Majaess, D., Turner, D. G., & Usenko, I. 2024, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 205, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/ad7139

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    2011a, ApJL, 741, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L27 —

    Majaess, D., Turner, D., Moni Bidin, C., et al. 2011a, ApJL, 741, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/L27 —. 2012, A&A, 537, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118614

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    A., & Krajci, T

    Henden, A. A., & Krajci, T. 2011b, JAA VSO, 39, 122, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1007.2300

    doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2011c, JAA VSO, 39, 219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1102.1705

    Krajci, T. 2011c, JAA VSO, 39, 219, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1102.1705

    doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    K., Gonzalez, O

    Minniti, D., Saito, R. K., Gonzalez, O. A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732099

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Lee, A. J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac479e

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    1998, AJ, 116, 801, doi: 10.1086/300443

    Minniti, D. 1998, AJ, 116, 801, doi: 10.1086/300443

    1998 doi

  20. [28]

    2021, A&A, 651, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    Poggio, E., Drimmel, R., Cantat-Gaudin, T., et al. 2021, A&A, 651, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140687

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    2010, AcA, 60, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1004.0950

    Poleski, R., Soszy´ nski, I., Udalski, A., et al. 2010, AcA, 60, 1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1004.0950

    2010 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    C., & Anderson, R

    Reyes, M. C., & Anderson, R. I. 2023, A&A, 672, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244775

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    G., Scolnic, D., Anand, G

    Riess, A. G., Scolnic, D., Anand, G. S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.11770, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11770

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac595

    Ripepi, V., Chemin, L., Molinaro, R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 563, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac595

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2023, A&A, 674, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243990

    Ripepi, V., Clementini, G., Molinaro, R., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243990

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, A&A, 609, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731572

    Ruiz-Dern, L., Babusiaux, C., Arenou, F., Turon, C., & Lallement, R. 2018, A&A, 609, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201731572

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    K., Hempel, M., Minniti, D., et al

    Saito, R. K., Hempel, M., Minniti, D., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A107, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201118407

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    2000, A&A, 361, 1023, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007388 9

    Salasnich, B., Girardi, L., Weiss, A., & Chiosi, C. 2000, A&A, 361, 1023, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0007388 9

    2000 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    A., Vivas, A

    Salinas, R., Pajkos, M. A., Vivas, A. K., Strader, J., & Contreras Ramos, R. 2018, AJ, 155, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab551

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    2022, MNRAS, 514, 2407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1367 Soszy´ nski, I., Poleski, R., Udalski, A., et al

    Lucas, P., & Minniti, D. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2407, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1367 Soszy´ nski, I., Poleski, R., Udalski, A., et al. 2008, AcA, 58, 163, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0808.2210 Soszy´ nski, I., Udalski, A., Szyma´ nski, M. K., et al. 2020, AcA, 70, 101, doi: 10.32023/0001-5237...

    2022 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2020, AJ, 160, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abafba

    Steer, I. 2020, AJ, 160, 199, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abafba

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Tsvetkov, T. G. 1985, Ap&SS, 117, 227, doi: 10.1007/BF00650149

    1985 doi

  33. [41]

    Turner, D. G. 2009, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1170, Stellar Pulsation: Challenges for Theory and Observation, ed. J. A. Guzik & P. A. Bradley (AIP), 59–68, doi: 10.1063/1.3246569

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    Turner, D. G. 2012a, JAA VSO, 40, 502 —. 2012b, Ap&SS, 337, 303, doi: 10.1007/s10509-011-0833-4

    doi

  35. [43]

    Berdnikov, L. N. 2006, PASP, 118, 410, doi: 10.1086/499501

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    Y., & Li, Y

    Xu, H. Y., & Li, Y. 2004, A&A, 418, 213, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20040024

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    2017, in Second BRITE-Constellation Science Conference: Small Satellites - Big Science, ed

    Zwintz, K. 2017, in Second BRITE-Constellation Science Conference: Small Satellites - Big Science, ed. K. Zwintz & E. Poretti, Vol. 5, 228–235, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1611.04917

    2017 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    2011, A&A, 533, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117272

    Zwintz, K., Lenz, P., Breger, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 533, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117272

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.