Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 99 references

Unveiling the Cosmic Dance of Repeated Nuclear Transient ASASSN-14ko: Insights from Multiwavelength Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Repeated early bumps and rebrightenings in the periodic nuclear transient ASASSN-14ko are fading over successive outbursts, which the paper attributes to stream debris striking an expanding accretion disk in a repeated partial tidal…

desk verdict Valuable multi-epoch dataset on a repeating TDE, but the diminishing-energy trend and QPE analogy outrun the currently quantified evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15039 v1 pith:DFN2QBTD submitted 2025-06-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Shifeng Huang , Tinggui Wang , Ning Jiang , Rong-Feng Shen , Zhaohao Chen , Yuanming Wang , Jiazheng Zhu , Yibo Wang
show 10 more authors
Yunguo Jiang Xinwen Shu Hucheng Ding Xiongjun Fang Yifan Wang Jie Lin Jingran Xu Xu Chen Zheyu Lin Zhengfeng Sheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords tidaldisruptioneventsrepeatingpartialASASSN-14koquasiperiodiceruptionssupermassiveblackholesmultiwavelengthlightcurvesstream-diskinteractionaccretiondisks
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

This paper reports high-cadence, multiwavelength monitoring of ASASSN-14ko, a nuclear transient that erupts roughly every 115 days. The new light curves reveal repeated early bumps and rebrightenings in the UV/optical bands, and the energy in these features decreases from outburst to outburst. The authors argue these features are caused by the star's stripped debris streams colliding with an accretion disk that has expanded over many partial disruptions. The X-ray emission varies inversely with the UV/optical light, and within each outburst the blackbody temperature and radius rise together with luminosity, an evolutionary pattern the paper compares to X-ray quasiperiodic eruptions. If correct, the picture links repeated partial tidal disruption events to quasiperiodic eruptions, and makes ASASSN-14ko a predictable laboratory for studying the early phases of tidal disruption.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a repeated partial tidal disruption event (rpTDE): a star on an eccentric orbit grazes a supermassive black hole every ~115 days, shedding debris streams that collide with an accretion disk whose outer radius grows as mass accumulates over many cycles. The identity that carries the quantitative argument is Eq. (1), the fallback-time difference between the leading and trailing streams, $\Delta t_{\rm fb} = \frac{3}{2}\frac{2\Delta E}{|E_*|}P$, equated to the observed bump-to-rebrightening interval (about one third of the orbital period). Inserting the adopted black hole mass and period yields $R_p/a \approx 0.02$, so the timing fixes the pericenter-to-semimajor-axis ratio of the debris orbit. The blackbody fits to the UV/optical photometry deliver the luminosity, temperature, and radius whose joint rise and fall in a counterclockwise loop is the feature the paper uses to align ASASSN-14ko with quasiperiodic eruptions.

What would settle it

Observe the next predicted ASASSN-14ko outbursts in the UV/optical: the model requires the bump-to-rebrightening interval to stay near one third of the 115.2-day period, changing only on the precession timescale of Eq. (3). A future outburst that shows a clear early bump with no following rebrightening, or a rebrightening arriving at an interval different from the predicted value by more than the measurement uncertainties while the photospheric expansion velocity is unchanged, would falsify the stream-debris timing interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the repeating transient ASASSN-14ko does not simply repeat a smooth flare: high-cadence UV/optical monitoring shows each recent outburst contains an early bump followed by a rebrightening, and the energy of both diminishes over the epochs observed (the bump energy falls from 1.55e50 erg in epoch 9 to 4.11e49 erg in epoch 13). The paper interprets this as stream debris from a repeated partial tidal disruption crashing into an outer accretion disk that swells as mass accumulates: the leading stream produces the bump, the trailing stream produces the rebrightening, and general-relativistic precession of the impact site moves the collisions outward, lowering the collision velocity and the released energy. The X-ray band behaves oppositely, flaring when the UV/optical is faint, and the blackbody temperature and radius in every outburst grow with luminosity, a counterclockwise loop in the luminosity-temperature plane that the paper says matches X-ray quasiperiodic eruptions and sets ASASSN-14ko apart from ordinary tidal disruption events.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed gap between each early bump and the following rebrightening is set by the difference in arrival times of the leading and trailing debris streams at the disk, so the derived orbit ($R_p/a \approx 0.02$) describes real stream-disk collisions; if the bump-rebrightening pairs are instead produced by variable disk accretion or a disk instability, the diminishing-energy interpretation and the quasiperiodic-eruption analogy lose their support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The debris orbit is quantified: with the adopted black hole mass and period, the timing yields $R_p/a \approx 0.02$, and future bump-rebrightening intervals should keep tracking about one third of the 115.2-day orbital period.
  • The systematically diminishing bump and rebrightening energies trace the impact site moving outward under relativistic precession; the paper predicts the features should strengthen again when the precessing stream returns to smaller radii.
  • The counterclockwise $L$-$T$ and $L$-$R$ loops put ASASSN-14ko's UV/optical behavior in the same class as X-ray quasiperiodic eruptions, implying the same underlying engine can produce both repeating X-ray and repeating UV/optical transients.
  • Because the outbursts are predictable, this source becomes a schedulable testbed for early-phase tidal disruption, including the disk-assisted circularization that shortens the rise time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the X-ray flaring is the same collision engine seen through a different band, then the X-ray flares should be delayed relative to the UV/optical bumps by a physical timescale such as disk sound crossing or viscous inflow rather than by a fixed phase, and that delay is directly measurable in the stacked epoch light curves.
  • Editorial inference: the precession interpretation implies the bump arrival times themselves should drift over the next several orbits with a period set by Eq. (3); timing the bumps across roughly 40 orbits would separate Lense-Thirring precession from a disk that changes radius, which is a cleaner test than the current energy trend alone.
  • Editorial inference: if ASASSN-14ko really is a UV/optical member of the QPE class, then archival light curves of other repeating partial tidal disruption candidates should also contain early bumps whose intervals scale with their orbital periods as in Eq. (1), making the prediction testable on a small sample.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents new high-cadence Swift, Chandra, ATLAS, ASAS-SN, and ASKAP observations of the repeating nuclear transient ASASSN-14ko across 15 outburst epochs. The authors report repeated early bumps and rebrightenings in the UV/optical light curves, claim that the energies of these features show a diminishing trend, and interpret them as interactions between stream debris and an expanded accretion disk in a repeated partial tidal disruption event. They also report sporadic X-ray variability with a claimed inverse relation to the UV/optical bands, WWZ-detected X-ray periodicities near 54 and 105 days at only >2σ significance, and blackbody temperature and radius evolution that they argue resembles X-ray quasi-periodic eruptions rather than typical tidal disruption events. Section 4.2 uses the observed time interval between bumps and rebrightenings to constrain the orbital parameters of the debris streams, deriving Rp/a ≈ 0.02.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide rare multi-epoch, multiwavelength evidence linking repeated partial TDEs to QPE-like behavior and would constrain the stream-disk interaction geometry in a repeating transient. The observational campaign is substantial: 172 Swift ToO observations, resolved Chandra spectra separating the nearby AGN, host-subtracted UV/optical light curves, and radio monitoring. The authors are also transparent about the low significance of the X-ray periodicities in the conclusions. However, the main physical interpretation rests on the reality and quantification of the bump and rebrightening features, which are currently identified visually and characterized without propagated uncertainties. The value of the dataset is real, but the headline claims need stronger statistical support before they can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 and Figure 4] The claim of a diminishing trend in bump and rebrightening energies, which appears in the abstract and drives the stream-disk interaction interpretation in Section 4.1, is not quantitatively supported as presented. Figure 4 shows point values of Ebump and Ereb without error bars, and the text gives no uncertainty estimates for the integrated energies. Moreover, Ereb increases from 1.06×10^50 erg in epoch 9 to 1.39×10^50 erg in epoch 10 before decreasing to 8.39×10^49 erg in epoch 13, so the 'diminishing trend' is not uniformly supported by the reported numbers. The authors should provide an objective, reproducible algorithm for identifying bumps and rebrightenings, propagate photometric and SuperBol fitting uncertainties into the energy integrals, and test the significance of the trend against stochastic variability or fitting artifacts.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (1)] The derivation of Rp/a ≈ 0.02 is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The observed time interval treb − tbump, approximately one third of the orbital period, is used as the input Δtfb in Eq. (1), and the paper then states that 'the calculation is consistent with the results of our observations.' This is circular if the same interval is both input and validation. The authors should reframe this as a parameter derivation with stated assumptions, or identify an independent observable (for example, the amplitude of the energy decline or the variation of treb − tbump between epochs) that can test the model.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Section 3.6] The X-ray quasi-periodicities and the claimed inverse UV/optical–X-ray pattern are both presented with weak statistical support. The WWZ analysis reports periods of 54 and 105 days with significance 'exceeding 2σ,' but the paper does not state whether this is trial-corrected for the two periods or for the entire period grid, and the Monte Carlo procedure is only cited rather than described. The inverse pattern in Section 3.6 is shown visually in Figures 7 and C1 but is not quantified with a correlation coefficient or a significance test. Given that the conclusion already concedes the >2σ level, the abstract's statement that the X-ray light curve 'exhibits an inverse pattern' is stronger than the evidence presented.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Figure 5] The QPE analogy based on the Lbb–Tbb and Lbb–Rbb evolution is drawn from visual inspection of the loops in Figure 5 and the comparison in Figure B1, without a quantitative measure of the correlation or a test that distinguishes this behavior from typical TDE constant-temperature evolution. The expansion velocities derived from the blackbody radius are also quoted without uncertainties. A quantitative characterization, such as the slope or direction of the loops in the L–T plane with error bars, would strengthen the claim that ASASSN-14ko's blackbody evolution resembles QPEs and differs from standard TDEs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains an apparent typo: 'T ransient' should be 'Transient'.
  2. [Section 2.2] In the Chandra reduction text, 'chandra repro' and 'runningspecextract' should be 'chandra_repro' and 'running specextract' for clarity, though the intended commands are understandable.
  3. [Section 3.3] The word 'rebightenings' appears in the text; it should be 'rebrightenings.'
  4. [Section 4.2] The spelling 'Schwarzchild' should be 'Schwarzschild.'
  5. [Figure 4] The figure would benefit from labeled panels or a caption explicitly defining the symbols for Ebump and Ereb, and from error bars if available.
  6. [Section 4.3] The sentence about the disk/corona recovery time of 'just a few days' being much faster than a comparable source is vague; naming the comparable source and giving its recovery timescale would improve the discussion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One ancillary tautology in the orbital-parameter consistency check; the central empirical findings and external QPE comparison are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eq. (1), sentence following the derivation of Rp/a≈0.02]
    "The time interval between bump and rebrightening in every UV/optical outburst refers to ∆tfb, which is approximately 1/3 of the stellar orbital period. The calculation is consistent with the results of our observations (Figure 4)."

    The observed interval treb−tbump≈P/3 is inserted into Eq. (1) to solve for Rp/a≈0.02; the subsequent claim that the calculation is 'consistent with the results of our observations' is therefore true by construction rather than an independent test. The model does not predict the ~1/3 period offset from first principles; it absorbs that offset into the fitted pericenter-to-semi-major-axis ratio. Consequently the orbital-parameter consistency check is tautological, though it is an ancillary step and not the central new result.

full rationale

The paper's main claims—recurrent bumps and rebrightenings, diminishing released energies, inverse X-ray behavior, and Tbb–Rbb–Lbb evolution resembling QPEs—are observational results from new multiwavelength data, not derived from the model. The stream-disk interaction interpretation is taken from Huang et al. (2023b) with overlapping authors, but it is used as a plausible explanation against external alternatives (star-disk collisions are explicitly ruled out by energy arguments), and the new data are independent of that model; this is normal self-citation, not load-bearing circularity. The QPE comparison in Figure B1 uses publicly available external measurements. The one genuinely circular step is in Section 4.2: the observed bump-to-rebrightening interval is used in Eq. (1) to derive Rp/a≈0.02, and then 'consistent with observations' is asserted; that consistency is by construction. This is a minor fitted-input-as-check issue, not a central prediction, so the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard blackbody fitting, a prior stream-disk interaction model with overlapping authorship, and literature values for black hole mass and period. The main free parameter is the stellar mass, which is set implicitly to match the observed timing; the blackbody temperature and radius are fitted outputs that carry the QPE comparison claim.

free parameters (2)
  • stellar mass m* = implicitly about 0.7 M_sun
    In Section 4.2, (Rp/a)_crit = 2.2e-3 (m*/M8)^(1/3) and the observed Delta_t_fb/P of about 1/3 force Rp/a about 0.02, which for M8 about 0.7 requires m* near 0.7 M_sun. The stellar mass is not directly measured and is chosen to match the timing.
  • per-epoch blackbody temperature and radius = values in Figures 5 and A1
    Tbb and Rbb are fitted to the UV/optical SED with SuperBol. They are derived quantities rather than physical model parameters, but the QPE-resemblance claim depends on them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UV/optical emission is thermal blackbody emission from a photosphere.
    Used in Section 3.3 and Appendix A to derive Lbb, Tbb, Rbb via SuperBol fits.
  • domain assumption The bumps and rebrightenings are produced by stream debris impacting an expanded accretion disk, following Huang et al. (2023b).
    Section 4.1 adopts this model to interpret the observed light curve features.
  • domain assumption The time delay between bump and rebrightening equals the fallback timescale difference between leading and trailing streams (Eq. 1).
    Section 4.2 uses this to derive Rp/a from the observed time interval; this is load-bearing for the orbital parameter estimate.
  • domain assumption Black hole mass of 10^7.85-10^7.86 M_sun and orbital period of 115.2 days from Payne et al. (2021, 2023).
    Used in Section 4.2 for orbital parameter derivation, taken from prior literature.
  • domain assumption Emission after a stream-disk collision is promptly released because the stripped mass is negligible relative to the black hole mass.
    Stated in Section 4.2: 'it is reasonable to assume that the emissions resulting from the stream-disk collision are promptly released'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling the Cosmic Dance of Repeated Nuclear Transient ASASSN-14ko: Insights from Multiwavelength Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DFN2QBTD

@misc{pith2026250615039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling the Cosmic Dance of Repeated Nuclear Transient ASASSN-14ko: Insights from Multiwavelength Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DFN2QBTD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15039}
}
read the original abstract

ASASSN-14ko is a periodically repeating nuclear transient. We conducted high-cadence, multiwavelength observations of this source, revealing several recurrent early bumps and rebrightenings in its UV/optical light curves. The energy released during these bumps and rebrightenings shows a diminishing trend in recent UV/optical outbursts, which we monitored through multiwavelength observations. These features can be ascribed to the interaction between stream debris and the expanded disk in the repeated partial tidal disruption event. The X-ray light curve exhibits an inverse pattern compared to the UV/optical bands, displaying sporadic outbursts. Furthermore, our observations demonstrate that the blackbody temperature and radius in each outburst increase with the UV/optical luminosity, and such evolution resembles that observed in X-ray quasiperiodic eruptions, whereas distinguishing it from typical tidal disruption events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multiwavelength light curves of ASASSN-14ko. The X-ray light curve, hardness ratio, UV/optical and radio light curves are plotted from the top to the bottom panel. All UV/optical light curves are host-subtracted. Triangles represent the 3σ upper limits. Although Chandra can resolve the nearby source, Swift/XRT cannot. Therefore, we present only the observed X-ray light curve and hardness ratio without subtracting th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spectral fitting results for the X-ray spectra. The Swift/XRT spectra were obtained by the high and low states, respectively. The Chandra spec￾tra were derived in the low state for both the central of the nuclear transient and the nearby object. The XRT spectra were fitted with tbabs*zashift*powerlaw + tbabs*zashift*zxipcf*(powerlaw+gaussian), the combined Chandra spectrum of ASASSN-14ko with tbabs*zashift*power… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The correlation between HR and luminosity at 0.3–2.0 keV. The contribution from the nearby source has been subtracted. We define the HR by (H-S)/(H+S), in which H denotes the count rate in the hard X-ray band (2.0– 10.0 keV) and S denotes the count rate in the soft X-ray band (0.3–2.0 keV). cts/s in the 2.0–10.0 keV band. After subtracting this contribution, we derived the corrected X-ray light curve and HR, as show… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a): Evolution of blackbody luminosity with temperature and time in different epochs. (b): Evolution of blackbody luminosity with blackbody radius and time in different epochs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: WWZ results of X-ray light curve. As depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of Lx/LUV/opt in different epochs. In epochs 10–13, high-cadence, and continued multiwavelength observations were performed. Epochs 14 and 15 lack enriched multiwavelength data but nevertheless show a similar overall evolution tendency. of the BH spin. Theref…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2014, , 793, 38, 10.1088/0004-637X/793/1/38

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

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

  2. [2]

    2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    Arcodia , R., Merloni , A., Nandra , K., et al. 2021, , 592, 704, 10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6

    doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03394-6 2021

  3. [3]

    2024 a , , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    Arcodia , R., Liu , Z., Merloni , A., et al. 2024 a , , 684, A64, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348881

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348881 2024

  4. [4]

    2024 b , , 690, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    Arcodia , R., Linial , I., Miniutti , G., et al. 2024 b , , 690, A80, 10.1051/0004-6361/202451218

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451218 2024

  5. [5]

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

    1996

  6. [6]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Lim , P

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Lim , P. L., et al. 2022, , 935, 167, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    R., Nixon , C

    Bandopadhyay , A., Coughlin , E. R., Nixon , C. J., & Pasham , D. R. 2024, , 974, 80, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6a5a

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    2024, , 977, 279, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9246

    Bao , D.-W., Guo , W.-J., Zhang , Z.-X., et al. 2024, , 977, 279, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9246

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    N., Hill , J

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

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    D., & Duffell , P

    Calder \'o n , D., Pejcha , O., Metzger , B. D., & Duffell , P. C. 2024, , 528, 2568, 10.1093/mnras/stae194

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    2023, , 526, 2331, 10.1093/mnras/stad2877

    Cao , X., You , B., & Wei , X. 2023, , 526, 2331, 10.1093/mnras/stad2877

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245, 10.1086/167900

    1989 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, , 965, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    Chakraborty , J., Arcodia , R., Kara , E., et al. 2024, , 965, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2941

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19013, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19013

    Chakraborty , J., Kara , E., Arcodia , R., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.19013, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.19013

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    2023, , 673, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    Charalampopoulos , P., Pursiainen , M., Leloudas , G., et al. 2023, , 673, A95, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245065

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    2022, , 928, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558d

    Chen , J.-H., Dou , L.-M., & Shen , R.-F. 2022, , 928, 63, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac558d

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    2023, , 947, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    Chen , J.-H., Shen , R.-F., & Liu , S.-F. 2023, , 947, 32, 10.3847/1538-4357/acbfb6

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    2024, , 689, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347593

    Chen , Z.-H., & Jiang , Y. 2024, , 689, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347593

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    R., & Nixon , C

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

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    J., Gopakumar , A., et al

    Dey , L., Valtonen , M. J., Gopakumar , A., et al. 2018, , 866, 11, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd95

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Nixon , C

    Evans , P. A., Nixon , C. J., Campana , S., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 1368, 10.1038/s41550-023-02073-y

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    2024, , 969, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72

    Faris , S., Arcavi , I., Makrygianni , L., et al. 2024, , 969, 104, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a72

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    1996, , 112, 1709, 10.1086/118137

    Foster , G. 1996, , 112, 1709, 10.1086/118137

    1996 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    Gezari , S. 2021, , 59, 21, 10.1146/annurev-astro-111720-030029

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., & Saxton , R. D. 2020, , 636, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037610

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    2024, , 692, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    Giustini , M., Miniutti , G., Arcodia , R., et al. 2024, , 692, A15, 10.1051/0004-6361/202450861

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    R., Zaja c ek , M., et al

    Guolo , M., Pasham , D. R., Zaja c ek , M., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 347, 10.1038/s41550-023-02178-4

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A

    Hale , C. L., McConnell , D., Thomson , A. J. M., et al. 2021, , 38, e058, 10.1017/pasa.2021.47

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    2023, , 942, 9, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca283

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

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116, 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    T., Auchettl , K., Hoogendam , W

    Hinkle , J. T., Auchettl , K., Hoogendam , W. B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.15326, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.15326

    2024 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Holoien , T. W. S., Kiyota , S., Brimacombe , J., et al. 2014, The Astronomer's Telegram, 6732, 1

    2014

  27. [35]

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

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    2023 a , , 525, 4057, 10.1093/mnras/stad2541

    Huang , S., Jiang , N., Lin , Z., Zhu , J., & Wang , T. 2023 a , , 525, 4057, 10.1093/mnras/stad2541

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2023 b , , 956, L46, 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5

    Huang , S., Jiang , N., Shen , R.-F., Wang , T., & Sheng , Z. 2023 b , , 956, L46, 10.3847/2041-8213/acffc5

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, , 964, L22, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad319f

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

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    Hunter , J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  32. [40]

    2019, , 871, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    Jiang , N., Wang , T., Mou , G., et al. 2019, , 871, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6b2

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    2021, , 252, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    Jiang , N., Wang , T., Dou , L., et al. 2021, , 252, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/abd1dc

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    2010, , 714, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/155

    Kasen , D., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2010, , 714, 155, 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/155

    2010 doi

  35. [43]

    2023, wwz: Weighted wavelet z-transform code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2310.003

    Kiehlmann , S., Max-Moerbeck , W., & King , O. 2023, wwz: Weighted wavelet z-transform code , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2310.003. 2310.003

    2023

  36. [44]

    2023, , 520, L63, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad006

    King , A. 2023, , 520, L63, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad006

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    S., Shappee , B

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

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    J., & Valtonen , M

    Lehto , H. J., & Valtonen , M. J. 1996, , 460, 207, 10.1086/176962

    1996 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Ricci , C., et al

    Li , R., Ho , L. C., Ricci , C., et al. 2022, , 933, 70, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac714a

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, , 971, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    Lin , Z., Jiang , N., Wang , T., et al. 2024, , 971, L26, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad638e

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    2024, , 527, 4317, 10.1093/mnras/stad3470

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

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    2023 a , , 944, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe1

    Liu , C., Mockler , B., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., et al. 2023 a , , 944, 184, 10.3847/1538-4357/acafe1

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2025, , 979, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    Liu , C., Yarza , R., & Ramirez-Ruiz , E. 2025, , 979, 40, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9b0b

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    2023 b , , 669, A75, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244805

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

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    J., et al

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

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 178, 1

    Llamas Lanza , M., Quintin , E., Russeil , E., et al. 2024, Transient Name Server AstroNote, 178, 1

    2024

  47. [55]

    2023, , 520, 3549, 10.1093/mnras/stad022

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

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    2022, , 934, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c0

    Masterson , M., Kara , E., Ricci , C., et al. 2022, , 934, 35, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac76c0

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    L., Lenc , E., et al

    McConnell , D., Hale , C. L., Lenc , E., et al. 2020, , 37, e048, 10.1017/pasa.2020.41

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    D., Stone , N

    Metzger , B. D., Stone , N. C., & Gilbaum , S. 2022, , 926, 101, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3ee1

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    2023, , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    Miniutti , G., Giustini , M., Arcodia , R., et al. 2023, , 670, A93, 10.1051/0004-6361/202244512

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    D., Giustini , M., et al

    Miniutti , G., Saxton , R. D., Giustini , M., et al. 2019, , 573, 381, 10.1038/s41586-019-1556-x

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    L., Stewart , A

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

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004

    Nasa High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (Heasarc) . 2014, HEAsoft: Unified Release of FTOOLS and XANADU , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1408.004. 1408.004

    2014

  55. [63]

    2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    Nicholl , M. 2018, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 2, 230, 10.3847/2515-5172/aaf799

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    R., Mummery , A., et al

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

    2024 doi

  57. [65]

    R., Guolo , M., et al

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

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    V., Shappee , B

    Payne , A. V., Shappee , B. J., Hinkle , J. T., et al. 2021, , 910, 125, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe38d

    2021 doi

  59. [67]

    2022, , 926, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac480c

    ---. 2022, , 926, 142, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac480c

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    V., Auchettl , K., Shappee , B

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

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    2020, , 898, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab91a1

    Ricci , C., Kara , E., Loewenstein , M., et al. 2020, , 898, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab91a1

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

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

    2005 doi

  63. [71]

    2024, , 965, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3946

    Ryu , T., Perna , R., & Cantiello , M. 2024, , 965, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad3946

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    F., & Finkbeiner , D

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

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    J., Prieto , J

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

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    2019, , 871, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aafc64

    Shen , R.-F. 2019, , 871, L17, 10.3847/2041-8213/aafc64

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    2021, , 920, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    Sheng , Z., Wang , T., Ferland , G., et al. 2021, , 920, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2251

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    W., Wang , S

    Shu , X. W., Wang , S. S., Dou , L. M., et al. 2018, , 857, L16, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaba17

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

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

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  70. [78]

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

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01824, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01824

    Sun , J., Guo , H., Gu , M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.01824, 10.48550/arXiv.2501.01824

    2025 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    2013, , 768, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    Sun , L., Shu , X., & Wang , T. 2013, , 768, 167, 10.1088/0004-637X/768/2/167

    2013 doi

  73. [81]

    2024, , 692, A262, 10.1051/0004-6361/202452380

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

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    L., Denneau , L., Heinze , A

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

    2018 doi

  75. [83]

    A., Shappee , B

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

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    J., Lehto , H

    Valtonen , M. J., Lehto , H. J., Nilsson , K., et al. 2008, , 452, 851, 10.1038/nature06896

    2008 doi

  77. [85]

    J., Zola , S., Ciprini , S., et al

    Valtonen , M. J., Zola , S., Ciprini , S., et al. 2016, , 819, L37, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L37

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    van Velzen , S., Holoien , T. W. S., Onori , F., Hung , T., & Arcavi , I. 2020, , 216, 124, 10.1007/s11214-020-00753-z

    2020 doi

  79. [87]

    C., Metzger , B

    van Velzen , S., Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2019, , 878, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1844

    2019 doi

  80. [88]

    2021, , 908, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    van Velzen , S., Gezari , S., Hammerstein , E., et al. 2021, , 908, 4, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc258

    2021 doi

  81. [89]

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

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

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    2022, , 930, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670

    Wang , Y., Jiang , N., Wang , T., et al. 2022, , 930, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6670

    2022 doi

  83. [91]

    D., del Palacio , S., et al

    Wang , Y., Baldi , R. D., del Palacio , S., et al. 2023, , 520, 2417, 10.1093/mnras/stad101

    2023 doi

  84. [92]

    2024, , 966, 136, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2ae4

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

    2024 doi

  85. [93]

    R., Pasham , D

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

    2023 doi

  86. [94]

    2012, , 29, 371, 10.1071/AS12028

    Whiting , M., & Humphreys , B. 2012, , 29, 371, 10.1071/AS12028

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    2019, , 482, 2872, 10.1093/mnras/sty2809

    Yalinewich , A., Guillochon , J., Sari , R., & Loeb , A. 2019, , 482, 2872, 10.1093/mnras/sty2809

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    Yao , Y., Ravi , V., Gezari , S., et al. 2023, , 955, L6, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf216

    2023 doi

  89. [97]

    2021, , 217, 54, 10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4

    Zabludoff , A., Arcavi , I., LaMassa , S., et al. 2021, , 217, 54, 10.1007/s11214-021-00829-4

    2021 doi

  90. [98]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12549, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12549

    Zhong , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12549, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12549

    2024 doi arXiv

  91. [99]

    2023, , 952, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace625

    Zhu , J., Jiang , N., Wang , T., et al. 2023, , 952, L35, 10.3847/2041-8213/ace625

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.