Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 83 references

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

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simultaneous 11-band Bayesian fits turn δ Scuti pulsators into distance and interstellar-dust probes, with reddening recovered on stars excluded from the fit.

desk verdict Solid 11-band δ Scuti P-L calibration from 1,864 TMTS stars, but the 'independent' dust-extinction validation is anchored to the same DUSTMAPS priors used in training and so cannot detect dust-map systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19656 v1 pith:3K4APGM2 submitted 2025-04-28 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Fangzhou Guo , Joshua S. Bloom , Xiaofeng Wang , Liyang Chen , Jie Lin , Xiaodian Chen , Jun Mo , Jicheng Zhang
show 7 more authors
Shengyu Yan Qichun Liu Haowei Peng Xiaojun Jiang Xiaoran Ma Danfeng Xiang Wenxiong Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords deltaScutistarsperiod-luminosityrelationsBayesianhierarchicalmodeldistanceindicatorsinterstellardust3Dmapmultibandphotometrystellarpulsation
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

δ Scuti stars are the most numerous pulsators in the classical instability strip, but their short periods and small amplitudes have kept their period-luminosity relations poorly exploited for distance work. The paper claims that fitting these relations across 11 optical-to-mid-infrared bands at once, with parallax and reddening treated as Bayesian priors, yields precise slopes and zero points while sharply reducing the posterior uncertainties in distance modulus and color excess. It further claims that the calibrated relations, applied to stars left out of the fit and with no reddening prior, recover $E(B-V)$ values that track a modern three-dimensional dust map. If this holds, δ Scuti stars become practical distance and dust tracers that keep working where Gaia parallaxes are weak, and the same machinery transfers to Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars. A linear metallicity term is also tested and is consistent with zero within about $2\sigma$, with the apparent long-wavelength scatter reduction staying below $3\sigma$ significance.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the sparse design-matrix regression of Equation 6, written as $m = X \cdot b$, where $X$ has 16,781 rows of photometric measurements and 3,750 columns of unknown parameters: 1,864 distance moduli, 1,864 color excesses, and 11 slopes plus 11 zero points for the P-L relations. Each row of $X$ encodes the CCM extinction coefficients $(a_j R_V + b_j)$, so one star's reddening is constrained by all of its observed bands, and one band's P-L relation is constrained by all stars at once. Priors are Gaussian on the Gaia-parallax distance modulus and the 3-D dust-map reddening (nonnegative), with broad normals on $\alpha_j$ and $M_{0,j}$ plus a per-band intrinsic scatter $\sigma_{\mathrm{intrinsic},j}$ that absorbs mode contamination and model imperfection; the posterior is sampled by Markov-chain Monte Carlo until convergence diagnostics reach 1. This joint structure is what converts individually noisy magnitudes into tight global constraints on distances, reddenings, and the Leavitt-law parameters.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to apply the published P-L relations to δ Scuti stars in well-studied open clusters with spectroscopically measured $E(B-V)$, compare the inferred reddenings with the cluster values, and check whether any residual correlates with the 3-D dust map used for the priors; a correlation would show that the 'independent' dust estimates carry the map's systematics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 1,864 fundamental-mode δ Scuti stars from a high-cadence survey, the paper simultaneously determines period-luminosity relations in the Pan-STARRS $g, r, i, z, y$ bands, the 2MASS $J, H, K_s$ bands, and the WISE $W1, W2, W3$ bands. The model writes every apparent magnitude as $m_{i,j} = \mu_i + M_{0,j} + \alpha_j \log_{10}(P_i/P_0) + E(B-V)_i(a_j R_V + b_j) + \epsilon_{i,j}$, with $P_0 = 2.23$ h, $\mu_i$ and $E(B-V)_i$ the per-star distance modulus and reddening, $\alpha_j$ and $M_{0,j}$ the slope and zero point in band $j$, and $(a_j, b_j, R_V)$ from the CCM extinction law. The fitted slopes steepen from $-2.88 \pm 0.05$ in g to about $-3.39$ in Ks, W1, and W2, with intrinsic scatter near $0.14$-$0.20$ mag in most bands and $0.30$ mag in W3. The simultaneous fit shrinks posterior uncertainties in distance modulus and $E(B-V)$ relative to the Gaia and dust-map priors, and posterior distances follow the expected trend set by a separate Galactic-distance catalog. When the fitted relations are applied to a held-out 30% of the sample with a uniform $E(B-V)$ prior, the inferred reddenings track the 3-D dust map without obvious bias; the authors take this as evidence that δ Scuti P-L relations can independently probe distance and interstellar dust.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis assumes the dust map used to seed the reddening priors is correct on average across these stars' distances and directions; if that map is biased, the fitted period-luminosity relations and the supposedly independent dust measurements inherit the bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Slope and zero-point uncertainties shrink to a few hundredths of a magnitude in most bands, with measured slopes from $-2.88$ (g) to about $-3.39$ (Ks, W1, W2) at $P_0 = 2.23$ h.
  • Posterior distance moduli and $E(B-V)$ values carry smaller uncertainties than their Gaia and dust-map priors, with the largest gains where priors were least precise.
  • Held-out stars with nine or more photometric bands recover $E(B-V)$ from the P-L relations alone, under a uniform reddening prior, in agreement with the 3-D dust map.
  • Sources with weak or missing parallaxes can still receive improved distance and reddening estimates, as demonstrated on a star with $\varpi/\sigma_\varpi \approx 7$.
  • The metallicity term is not required by the data: all $\beta_j$ stay within $2\sigma$ of zero, and the slight scatter reduction at long wavelengths is below $3\sigma$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Left implicit is that Cepheids and RR Lyrae stars, whose P-L relations are tighter, should produce even stronger joint distance-reddening constraints under the same design; applying this scheme to the large catalogs already available could extend dust mapping beyond the several-kiloparsec limit of reliable Gaia parallaxes.
  • A testable extension is to use the per-band intrinsic scatter posterior as a diagnostic of mode misclassification: if overtone pulsators contaminate the fundamental-mode sample, $\sigma_{\mathrm{intrinsic},j}$ should inflate in the most contaminated bands, and removing stars flagged by period ratios should reduce it.
  • The sub-$3\sigma$ metallicity trend could be arbitrated by splitting stars into [Fe/H] bins at fixed period and temperature, rather than adding one linear coefficient; with LSST-scale samples such a split would decide whether the long-wavelength scatter reduction is physical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper calibrates 11-band period-luminosity (P-L) relations for 1,864 fundamental-mode delta Scuti stars from the TMTS catalog using a single Bayesian hierarchical model. The model (Eq. 6) jointly fits distance moduli, color excesses, and band-by-band slopes and zero points, with Gaia DR3 parallax and DUSTMAPS bayestar19 reddening as priors (Eq. 8). The authors report fitted parameters in Table 2, show consistency with earlier Galactic calibrations (Fig. 8), and quantify posterior uncertainty reduction for distances and reddenings (Figs. 10-12). They then apply the fitted relations to a held-out subset with a uniform reddening prior (Eq. 11) and compare the resulting E(B-V) estimates with DUSTMAPS (Fig. 13), claiming an independent estimation route to 3-D dust mapping. A LAMOST subsample of 494 stars is used to test metallicity terms, with the conclusion that metallicity effects are not significant at the 3-sigma level.

Significance. If the calibration is correct, this is a valuable application of a large homogeneous sample of delta Scuti stars: the simultaneous Bayesian treatment propagates parallax and photometric uncertainties in a principled way, the 11-band consistency and agreement with earlier work in Figure 8 are encouraging, and the paper is honest about the non-detection of metallicity effects. The PyMC implementation is clearly specified and reproducible in principle. The main value would be the proposed path to dust and distance inference, but that claim is weaker than presented: the Section 4 validation is circular because the P-L zero points are calibrated with the same dust map used for comparison, and the R_V and Gaia zero-point details needed for reproducibility are missing. These issues are fixable with revision, but they affect the paper's headline contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (10), Figure 13] The held-out validation does not establish an independent E(B-V) estimate. In Eq. 6, the per-star reddening E_i and the zero points M0,j have a global degeneracy: shifting M0,j by k (a_j R_V + b_j) and shifting every E_i by -k leaves the predicted magnitudes unchanged. That degeneracy is broken in Section 3 only by the DUSTMAPS priors in Eq. 8. The training-set zero points therefore carry bayestar19 systematics into Eq. 10; comparing the test-set E(B-V) posteriors with the same bayestar19 values on the x-axis of Figure 13 is an internal-consistency check, not an independent measurement. Figure 16 has the same issue, since Green et al. (2019) is used as both prior and reference. Please either reframe Section 4 as a consistency check or anchor the calibration with an independent reddening source (for example, stars with spectroscopically known E(B-V) or a comparison map not used as a prior), and include a sensitivity test with shifted prior means.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The numerical value of R_V used in Eq. (4) is never stated. Because A_j = E(B-V)(a_j R_V + b_j) enters every linear model fit in Eq. 6 and every E(B-V) posterior in Section 4, an unstated or incorrect R_V propagates directly into the zero points M0,j and into all inferred color excesses. Please state the adopted R_V and the source of the CCM coefficients a_j and b_j, and discuss sensitivity to plausible R_V variations (for example, R_V = 2.5-4.0).
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (8), Figures 10-12] The claim of 'greatly improved constraints' on distance moduli and E(B-V) is demonstrated only as posterior shrinkage relative to the priors, which is an expected property of any hierarchical Bayesian fit and is not by itself evidence of accuracy. The comparison with Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) in Figure 11 is not independent, because those distances are derived from the same Gaia parallaxes with a different prior, so the agreement mainly shows that the posterior tracks the input parallax information. An external accuracy check (for example, benchmark open-cluster members, spectroscopic distances, or agreement with a reddening map not used as a prior) is needed to support the inference claims. In addition, if the sigma_dustmaps values obtained from the 'sample' mode of DUSTMAPS are overestimated, the apparent shrinkage is inflated; please justify the adopted sigma_dustmaps against an independent error estimate.
  4. [Section 2.2, Eq. (8)] The Gaia DR3 parallax zero-point correction is not described. The distance-modulus priors in Eq. 8 are based on parallaxes with measured over error at least 10, but known Gaia DR3 parallax zero-point offsets, if uncorrected, bias the distance moduli and hence the absolute-magnitude zero points M0,j at the roughly 0.05-0.10 mag level for the typical parallax of about 0.7 mas in this sample. This is larger than the quoted zero-point uncertainties in Table 2. Please state whether a parallax zero-point correction was applied, or quantify the impact of an uncorrected offset on the fitted P-L relations.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1] The table header contains 'ware derived'; this should be 'were derived'.
  2. [Section 2.1] The classification threshold at a perpendicular distance of -0.146 mag is chosen from the bimodal distribution of the same data that are subsequently fit; please state how sensitive the Table 2 slopes and intercepts are to reasonable variations of this threshold, for example plus or minus 0.02 mag.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (6)] The error term epsilon includes observed photometric error and a per-band intrinsic scatter added in quadrature; please state explicitly that the intrinsic scatter is assumed constant per band across all sources, and check whether this term partially absorbs distance or reddening systematics.
  4. [Figures 10-12] The residuals shown in the lower panels of Figures 10 and 11 are not defined in the text; please specify whether they are posterior minus prior means or posterior minus prior divided by the prior uncertainty.
  5. [Section 3, convergence] The text states that all variables yielded R-hat = 1; reporting exactly 1 for all 3,750 parameters is suspicious, and the authors should report the maximum R-hat with decimal precision and the number of effective samples.
  6. [Section 4, Figure 16] Using point size to encode distance, with larger points for closer sources, is counterintuitive; a color scale may be clearer.
  7. [General text] There are typographical issues such as 'o ffers' in Section 4 and 'the the CSST project' in the acknowledgements.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Held-out E(B−V) validation is anchored to the same DUSTMAPS map used to calibrate the P-L zero points.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq. (8); Section 4, Eqs. (10)-(11), Fig. 13 (and Fig. 16)]
    "E(B− V)i,Prior∼N (E(B− V)dustmaps,σ2dustmaps) (Eq. 8); 'To avoid overlap between the dataset used to derive the P-L relation parameters and that used to predict the color excess, we randomly divided our dataset into a training set (70%) and a test set (30%).' 'Figure 13 compares the posterior distribution of E(B− V) with the values obtained from DUSTMAPS... showing a close alignment between the two. This shows that we are able to estimate E(B− V) independently without clear bias.'"

    bayestar19 is used twice: as the prior mean for every training-source E(B−V) in Eq. (8) and as the reference for validating the 'independent' test-source E(B−V) in Fig. 13 (and Fig. 16). In Eq. (10), m_ij − µ_i − M0_j − α_j log10(P_i/P0) = E(B−V)_i(a_j R_V + b_j), the zero points M0_j were fitted with those DUSTMAPS priors; a systematic offset δ between bayestar19 and true extinction shifts M0_j by about −c_j δ (c_j = a_j R_V + b_j) and is absorbed into the calibration. The held-out split and the uniform prior in Eq. (11) remove only the individual test star's prior, not the map systematics already encoded in M0_j and α_j. Agreement in Fig. 13 is an internal-consistency check with the input map, not an independent dust measurement.

full rationale

The central P-L calibration is not circular: the fitted slopes/intercepts are benchmarked against seven independent Galactic δ Scuti studies (Fig. 8), and the distances are cross-checked against Bailer-Jones (2021) (Fig. 11). The circularity is confined to the dust-inference application in Section 4: the same Green et al. (2019) bayestar19 map supplies the E(B−V) priors used to fit M0_j and alpha_j, and the reference values against which the 'independent' test E(B−V) estimates are judged. Therefore, agreement in Fig. 13 cannot detect systematic errors in that map; it only shows that the calibration transfers internally to held-out stars. The paper's caveat that the resulting dust estimates may be less precise than Green et al. (2019) does not mitigate this shared-anchor issue. Separately, R_V in Eq. (4) is never stated, which affects absolute zero points, but that is a correctness concern rather than circularity. Overall: meaningful but partial circularity, with the externally benchmarked P-L relations anchoring the score at 5 rather than higher.

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

The central calibration rests on 11 fitted slopes, 11 intercepts, 11 intrinsic scatters, and 1,864+1,864 per-star latent distance and reddening parameters, plus a hand-chosen mode-classification threshold. No new physical entities are introduced. The key external inputs, Gaia parallaxes, DUSTMAPS reddening, the CCM law, and the quality cuts, are taken as unbiased, which is the main upstream risk.

free parameters (7)
  • P-L slope alpha_j per band (11 values) = Table 2: -2.8834 to -3.3903 mag per dex
    Fitted to the TMTS fundamental-mode sample in each band; this is the central calibration result.
  • P-L intercept M0,j per band (11 values) = Table 2: 0.8964 to 1.9464 mag
    Fitted zero points at P0 = 2.23 hours; comparison with previous work appears in Figure 8.
  • Intrinsic scatter sigma_intrinsic,j per band (11 values) = Table 2: 0.139 to 0.298 mag
    Free parameters that absorb mode contamination, rotation, and unmodeled systematics.
  • Per-star distance modulus mu_i (1,864 values) = Posterior distributions
    Latent variables with Gaia DR3 parallax priors; the multiband photometry constrains them.
  • Per-star color excess E(B-V)_i (1,864 values) = Posterior distributions
    Latent variables with DUSTMAPS priors and a non-negativity constraint.
  • Mode classification threshold in WJK = -0.146 mag
    Boundary between fundamental and overtone peaks chosen from the bimodal perpendicular-distance distribution in Figure 2; it determines which stars enter the fit.
  • Metallicity coefficient beta_j per band (11 values) = Table 3: 0.006 to 0.075 mag per dex
    Fitted in the P-L-Z relation; all values are consistent with zero within 2 sigma.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Fundamental-mode delta Scuti stars obey a single linear P-L relation in log10 period with Gaussian scatter.
    Equation 5 and the intrinsic scatter term in Equation 6 assume this; multimode pulsation and rotation are folded into sigma_intrinsic.
  • domain assumption The CCM extinction law with one fixed R_V applies to all sightlines.
    Equation 4 converts E(B-V) to each band using a_j R_V + b_j; the paper never states the adopted R_V value or fits it.
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax-based distance modulus priors are unbiased.
    The prior in Equation 8 uses mu_gaia from Gaian parallax; Figure 11 shows a systematic offset relative to Bailer-Jones et al. (2021), interpreted as prior behavior rather than parallax bias.
  • domain assumption DUSTMAPS bayestar19 mean E(B-V) values are unbiased, with sigma estimated from samples.
    Equation 8 uses E(B-V) from Green et al. (2019) with sigma from sample mode; the validation in Section 4 compares against the same map.
  • domain assumption Single-epoch or few-epoch survey magnitudes represent pulsation mean magnitudes.
    Section 2.2 argues that small peak-to-peak amplitudes make single-epoch 2MASS and WISE magnitudes adequate; this is required for Equation 6 to hold.
  • ad hoc to paper The bimodal perpendicular-distance split at -0.146 mag cleanly separates fundamental and overtone pulsators.
    Section 2.1 chooses the threshold from the distribution in Figure 2 and acknowledges overtone invaders, making this an ad hoc modeling choice that affects sample membership.
  • domain assumption The quality cuts (LSP > 10 sigma, parallax SNR >= 10, more than four photometric bands) produce an unbiased sample.
    Section 2.1 introduces these cuts; they could bias the sample against low-amplitude or distant stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Period-Luminosity Relations of delta Scuti Stars: A Pathway to Distance and 3-D Dust Map Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3K4APGM2

@misc{pith2026250419656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Period-Luminosity Relations of delta Scuti Stars: A Pathway to Distance and 3-D Dust Map Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3K4APGM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19656}
}
read the original abstract

While delta Scuti stars are the most numerous class of kappa-mechanism pulsators in the instability strip, the short periods and small peak-to-peak amplitudes have left them understudied and underutilized. Recently, large-scale time-domain surveys have significantly increased the number of identified delta Scuti stars. Notably, the Tsinghua University-Ma Huateng Telescopes for Survey (TMTS), with its high-cadence observations at 1-minute intervals, has identified thousands of delta Scuti stars, greatly expanding the sample of these short-period pulsating variables. Using the delta Scuti stars from the TMTS catalogs of Periodic Variable Stars, we cross-matched the dataset with Pan-STARRS1, 2MASS, and WISE to obtain photometric measurements across optical and infrared bands. Parallax data, used as Bayesian priors, were retrieved from Gaia DR3, and line-of-sight dust extinction priors were estimated from a three-dimensional dust map. Using PyMC, we performed a simultaneous determination of the 11-band P-L relations of delta Scuti stars, which not only yields precise measurements of these relations, but also greatly improves constraints on the distance moduli and color excesses, as evidenced by the reduced uncertainties in the posterior distributions. Furthermore, our methodology enables an independent estimation of the color excess through the P-L relations, offering a potential complement to existing 3-D dust maps. Moreover, by cross-matching with LAMOST DR7, we investigated the influence of metallicity on the P-L relations. Our analysis reveals that incorporating metallicity might reduce the intrinsic scatter at longer wavelengths. However, this result does not achieve 3 sigma significance, leaving open the possibility that the observed reduction is attributable to statistical fluctuations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Allison, J., Anderson, S

    Abell, P. A., Allison, J., Anderson, S. F., et al. 2009

    2009

  2. [2]

    2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, 9

    Abril-Pla, O., Andreani, V ., Carroll, C., et al. 2023, PeerJ Computer Science, 9, 9

    2023

  3. [3]

    & Mantegazza, L

    Antonello, E. & Mantegazza, L. 1997, Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 327, p. 240-244, 327, 327

    1997

  4. [4]

    2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1352, 1352

    Bailer-Jones, C., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1352, 1352

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    & Kippenhahn, R

    Baker, N. & Kippenhahn, R. 1965, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 142, p. 868, 142, 142

    work page 1965

  6. [6]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 459

    Balona, L. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 459, 459

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    R., Murphy, S

    Barac, N., Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., & Hey, D. R. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 516

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, 919

    Bialy, S., Zucker, C., Goodman, A., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 919, 919

    work page 2021

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 425, 425

    Bournaud, F., Duc, P.-A., Amram, P., Combes, F., & Gach, J.-L. 2004, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 425, 425

    2004

  2. [10]

    Bowman, D. M. 2017, Amplitude modulation of pulsation modes in delta Scuti stars (Springer)

    2017

  3. [11]

    F., Dall’Ora, M., Bono, G., et al

    Braga, V . F., Dall’Ora, M., Bono, G., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 799, 799

    2015

  4. [12]

    1979, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 91, 91

    Breger, M. 1979, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 91, 91

    1979

  5. [13]

    2000, in Delta Scuti and Related Stars, V ol

    Breger, M. 2000, in Delta Scuti and Related Stars, V ol. 210, 3

    2000

  6. [14]

    & Clementini, G

    Cacciari, C. & Clementini, G. 2003, in Stellar Candles for the Extragalactic Distance Scale (Springer), 105–122

    2003

  7. [15]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 345, Oct. 1, 1989, p. 245-256., 345, 345

    1989

  8. [16]

    C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    2013, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 145

    Chang, S.-W., Protopapas, P., Kim, D.-W., & Byun, Y .-I. 2013, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 145

    2013

  10. [18]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 249

    Chen, X., Wang, S., Deng, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 249, 249

    2020

  11. [19]

    1971, Astronomy and Astrophysics, V ol

    Chevalier, C. 1971, Astronomy and Astrophysics, V ol. 14, p. 24-31, 14, 14

    1971

  12. [20]

    & Ménard, B

    Chiang, Y .-K. & Ménard, B. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 870, 870

    2019

  13. [21]

    Cohen, R. E. & Sarajedini, A. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 419, 419

    2012

  14. [22]

    2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog

    Cutri, R., Skrutskie, M., Van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Catalog

    2003

  15. [23]

    e., Wright, E., Conrow, T., et al

    Cutri, R. e., Wright, E., Conrow, T., et al. 2021, VizieR Online Data Catalog

    2021

  16. [24]

    2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 439 De Somma, G., Marconi, M., Molinaro, R., et al

    Dambis, A., Rastorguev, A., & Zabolotskikh, M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 439, 439 De Somma, G., Marconi, M., Molinaro, R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 262

    2014

  17. [25]

    2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, 658

    Dharmawardena, T., Bailer-Jones, C., Fouesneau, M., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 658, 658

    2022

  18. [26]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, 685

    Edenhofer, G., Zucker, C., Frank, P., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, 685

    2024

  19. [27]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 476, 476

    Fouque, P., Arriagada, P., Storm, J., et al. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 476, 476

    2007

  20. [28]

    & Rubin, D

    Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statistical science, 7, 7

    1992

  21. [29]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 972

    Gootkin, K., Hon, M., Huber, D., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 972, 972

    2024

  22. [30]

    Green, G. M. 2018, Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 3

    2018

  23. [31]

    M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E., Zucker, C., Speagle, J. S., & Finkbeiner, D. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 887

    2019

  24. [32]

    M., Schlafly, E

    Green, G. M., Schlafly, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, 783

    2014

  25. [33]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 528

    Guo, F., Lin, J., Wang, X., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528, 528

    2024

  26. [34]

    A., Garcia, J

    Guzik, J. A., Garcia, J. A., & Jackiewicz, J. 2019, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 6, 6

    2019

  27. [35]

    & Burkert, A

    Hozumi, S. & Burkert, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 446 Ivezi´c, Ž., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 873

    2015

  28. [36]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 493

    Jayasinghe, T., Stanek, K., Kochanek, C., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 493

    2020

  29. [37]

    E., et al

    Kaiser, N., Aussel, H., Burke, B. E., et al. 2002, in Survey and Other Telescope Technologies and Discoveries, V ol. 4836, SPIE, 154–164

    2002

  30. [38]

    R., Bailer-Jones, C

    Kh, S. R., Bailer-Jones, C. A., Hogg, D. W., & Schultheis, M. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 618, 618

    2018

  31. [39]

    Klein, C. R. & Bloom, J. S. 2014, arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.4870

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A., Scowen, P., Veach, T., et al

    Knierman, K. A., Scowen, P., Veach, T., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 774

    2013

  33. [41]

    & Kinman, T

    Lafler, J. & Kinman, T. 1965, Astrophysical Journal Supplement, vol. 11, p. 216 (1965), 11, 11

    1965

  34. [42]

    2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 661, 661

    Lallement, R., Vergely, J., Babusiaux, C., & Cox, N. 2022, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 661, 661

    2022

  35. [43]

    2002, in International Astronomical Union Colloquium, V ol

    Laney, C., Joner, M., & Schwendiman, L. 2002, in International Astronomical Union Colloquium, V ol. 185, Cambridge University Press, 112–115

    2002

  36. [44]

    Leavitt, H. S. & Pickering, E. C. 1912, Harvard College Observatory Circular, vol. 173, pp. 1-3, 173, 173

    1912

  37. [45]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, 616

    Lebzelter, T., Mowlavi, N., Marigo, P., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, 616

    2018

  38. [46]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 639, 639

    Leike, R., Glatzle, M., & Enßlin, T. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 639, 639

    2020

  39. [47]

    2008, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 478, 478

    Lenz, P., Pamyatnykh, A., Breger, M., & Antoci, V . 2008, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 478, 478

    2008

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12601

    Lin, J., Wang, T., Cai, M., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12601

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 523

    Lin, J., Wang, X., Mo, J., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 523

    2023

  42. [50]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Astrophysics and space science, 39, 39

    1976

  43. [51]

    Madore, B. F. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 253, Feb. 15, 1982, p. 575-579. Research supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, University of Toronto, and Science Research Council of England., 253, 253

    1982

  44. [52]

    Madore, B. F. & Freedman, W. L. 1991, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 103, 103

    1991

  45. [53]

    F., Hoffman, D., Freedman, W

    Madore, B. F., Hoffman, D., Freedman, W. L., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 776, 776 Martínez-Vázquez, C., Salinas, R., Vivas, A., & Catelan, M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 940, 940

    2013

  46. [54]

    1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 109

    McNamara, D. 1997, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 109, 109

    1997

  47. [55]

    2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 142 Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., et al

    McNamara, D. 2011, The Astronomical Journal, 142, 142 Montalbán, J., Miglio, A., et al. 2008, COMMUNICATIONS IN ASTEROSEIS- MOLOGY , 157, 157

    2011

  48. [56]

    1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 335, 335

    Mowlavi, N., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Schaerer, D., & Charbonnel, C. 1998, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 335, 335

    1998

  49. [57]

    R., & El-Badry, K

    Nagarajan, P., Weisz, D. R., & El-Badry, K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 932

    2022

  50. [58]

    M., Mateo, M., Burke, M., & Olszewski, E

    Nemec, J. M., Mateo, M., Burke, M., & Olszewski, E. W. 1995, Astronomical Journal v. 110, p. 1186, 110, 110

    1995

  51. [59]

    Patil, A., Huard, D., & Fonnesbeck, C. J. 2010, Journal of statistical software, 35, 35

    2010

  52. [60]

    F., Krzemi´nski, W., et al

    Persson, S., Madore, B. F., Krzemi´nski, W., et al. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 128

    2004

  53. [61]

    J., Welch, D

    Pierce, M. J., Welch, D. L., McClure, R. D., et al. 1994, Nature, 371, 371

    1994

  54. [62]

    2006, Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, v

    Pigulski, A., Kolaczkowski, Z., Ramza, T., & Narwid, A. 2006, Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana, v. 77, p. 223 (2006), 77, 77

    2006

  55. [63]

    J., Harzandjadidi, R., et al

    Poro, A., Jafarzadeh, S. J., Harzandjadidi, R., et al. 2024, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 24, 24

    2024

  56. [64]

    2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 133, 133

    Poro, A., Paki, E., Mazhari, G., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 133, 133

    2021

  57. [65]

    2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, 595

    Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 595, 595

    2016

  58. [66]

    G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al

    Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 861, 861

    2018

  59. [67]

    G., Filippenko, A

    Riess, A. G., Filippenko, A. V ., Challis, P., et al. 1998, The astronomical journal, 116, 116

    1998

  60. [68]

    G., Strolger, L.-G., Tonry, J., et al

    Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., Tonry, J., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 607, 607 Rodríguez, E. & Breger, M. 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 366, 366

    2004

  61. [69]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 263, Dec. 15, 1982, p. 835-853., 263, 263

    1982

  62. [70]

    2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 566, 566

    Schultheis, M., Chen, B., Jiang, B., et al. 2014, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 566, 566

    2014

  63. [71]

    M., et al

    Sesar, B., Fouesneau, M., Price-Whelan, A. M., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 838, 838

    2017

  64. [72]

    2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 131

    Skrutskie, M., Cutri, R., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 131, 131

    2006

  65. [73]

    2021, ACTA ASTRONOMICA, 71, 71 Soszy´nski, I., Pietrukowicz, P., Udalski, A., et al

    Soszynski, I., Pietrukowicz, P., Skowron, J., et al. 2021, ACTA ASTRONOMICA, 71, 71 Soszy´nski, I., Pietrukowicz, P., Udalski, A., et al. 2023, Acta Astronomica, 73, 73 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., et al. 2005, Acta Astronomica, 55, 55 Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., ...

    2021

  66. [74]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, 656

    Trahin, B., Breuval, L., Kervella, P., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, 656

    2021

  67. [75]

    2018, Acta Astronomica, 68, 68

    Udalski, A., Soszy´nski, I., Pietrukowicz, P., et al. 2018, Acta Astronomica, 68, 68

    2018

  68. [76]

    2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 534, 534

    Uytterhoeven, K., Moya, A., Grigahcène, A., et al. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 534, 534

    2011

  69. [77]

    G., Prusti, T., et al

    Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G., Prusti, T., et al. 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 674, 674 Article number, page 16 Guo et al.: Investigating the P-L Relations ofδ Scuti Stars

    2023

  70. [78]

    K., Martínez-Vázquez, C

    Vivas, A. K., Martínez-Vázquez, C. E., Walker, A. R., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 926

    2022

  71. [79]

    L., Henden, A

    Watson, C. L., Henden, A. A., & Price, A. 2006, in The Society for Astronomical Sciences 25th Annual Symposium on Telescope Science. Held May 23-25, 2006, at Big Bear, CA. Published by the Society for Astronomical Sciences., p. 47, V ol. 25, 47

    2006

  72. [80]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 140, 140

    2010

  73. [81]

    P., Green, G

    Zasowski, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., Green, G. M., et al. 2019, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 51, 51

    2019

  74. [82]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 132

    Zhang, J.-C., Wang, X.-F., Mo, J., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 132

    2020

  75. [83]

    R., Murphy, S

    Ziaali, E., Bedding, T. R., Murphy, S. J., Van Reeth, T., & Hey, D. R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 486 Article number, page 17

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.