Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

AutoWISP: Automated Processing of Wide-Field Color Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An automated pipeline converts ordinary DSLR color snapshots into sub-percent-precision three-color light curves of stars.

desk verdict Useful open-source pipeline, but the sub-percent precision headline rests on in-sample detrending and needs a holdout check before it will convince. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15830 v1 pith:LDZNAJJ5 submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.IM

Angel E. Romero , Kaloyan Penev , S. Javad Jafarzadeh , Zoltan Csubry , Joel D. Hartman , Gaspar A. Bakos This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords DSLRphotometrycitizensciencethree-colorlightcurvesaperturetrendfilteringeclipsingbinariesautomatedpipeline
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

AutoWISP is an automated software pipeline that takes raw color images from consumer DSLR cameras and turns them into high-precision light curves in three separate color channels. The paper's central claim is that this pipeline, built on the earlier AstroWISP photometry engine, achieves sub-percent photometric precision on wide-field citizen-science-style observations, demonstrated with a Sony α7R II camera attached to a HATNet telescope mount. The case study covers 19,210 object images across three fields, and after magnitude fitting, external-parameter decorrelation, and trend filtering, bright stars reach median absolute deviations near or below about 10 millimagnitudes in the combined channels. The same data recover the shapes, periods, and wavelength-dependent eclipse depths of five known eclipsing binaries, showing that simultaneous three-color photometry from a single consumer camera is scientifically usable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a photometry model that accounts for sub-pixel sensitivity—including the Bayer mask that makes each DSLR super-pixel a 2×2 arrangement of red, two green, and blue filters—and integrates it into both PSF/PRF fitting and aperture photometry. On top of that sits an iterative ensemble magnitude-fitting step that calibrates each frame against a master reference built from the previous iteration, and then EPD and TFA remove trends correlated with external parameters or common to many stars. The paper's own finding that PSF modeling was counterproductive on this dataset makes the sub-pixel-sensitivity-aware aperture photometry, rather than the PSF model, the component that actually carries the precision.

What would settle it

Take a set of raw DSLR frames from several amateur observers at different sites, run AutoWISP exactly as released with no manual frame rejection, and measure the combined-channel MAD for stars with Gaia G between 6 and 9; if the bright-star MAD exceeds roughly 10 millimagnitudes, or if the recovered eclipse phases of known binaries mismatch their published ephemerides, the claim of sub-percent precision for citizen-science data would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that a fully automated processing chain—calibration with per-pixel error tracking, Gaia-based astrometric registration, sub-pixel-sensitivity-aware aperture photometry, iterative ensemble magnitude fitting, external parameter decorrelation (EPD), and trend filtering (TFA)—can extract light curves from consumer color camera images that are precise enough for real science. On the Sony α7R II dataset, they report that the pipeline achieves sub-percent photometric precision in the combined color channels for bright stars, with the D26 dither pattern performing slightly better than D25. They also show that modeling the point-spread function did not help: the best photometry came from treating each pixel's illumination as uniform, which they attribute to the short 30-second exposures and a dithering pattern designed for three-minute exposures causing the PSF/PRF to vary from image to image. The method recovers the shapes, periods, and color-dependent eclipse depths of five known eclipsing binaries, thereby demonstrating that simultaneous three-color photometry from a single DSLR is a viable observational tool.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sub-percent precision measured on this one hand-curated Sony α7R II dataset, where the authors manually checked every night's images to remove cloudy or smeared frames, will also appear in typical citizen-science observations that arrive without such careful screening.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same pipeline can be adopted by Project PANOPTES, which the paper states will use AutoWISP to produce fully processed light curves across its network of low-cost robotic telescopes.
  • Because the light curves are produced separately in red, green, and blue channels, any observed variability carries color information, which can help distinguish astrophysical effects like eclipse-depth wavelength dependence from instrumental systematics.
  • The pipeline's per-pixel error tracking and self-documenting HDF5 files mean results are reproducible without re-running the processing.
  • If the precision generalizes, citizen scientists could contribute photometric follow-up of exoplanet transit candidates and variable stars, extending time baselines beyond what single surveys like TESS can cover.
  • The authors find that aperture photometry with a flat illumination assumption beat PSF/PRF fitting, implying that for short-exposure DSLR data, avoiding PSF modeling may be the more robust choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete testable extension would be to run AutoWISP on a multi-site civilian dataset without manual frame selection and compare the bright-star MAD to the roughly 10 millimagnitude benchmark; if the automated quality-control steps cannot replace the hand curation, the pipeline may need a robust frame-selection module.
  • The absence of a detected transit in this dataset is not evidence against the pipeline, since the authors note signals were either too weak or transits did not occur during the observations; a dedicated test on a known transiting exoplanet with a predicted ephemeris would directly probe transit-depth sensitivity.
  • If sub-percent precision holds broadly, then color light curves from DSLRs could serve as a low-cost complement to space-based photometry, especially for temperature and atmospheric studies of eclipsing binaries where the wavelength dependence is the signal.
  • The PSF modeling failure hints that pixel-level sensitivity correction may matter more than the point-spread model in short-exposure untracked data; an interesting follow-up is to test whether improved guiding restores a benefit to PSF/PRF fitting.
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. AutoWISP is a Python pipeline for automated reduction of wide-field DSLR color images into three-color light curves, extending the authors' earlier AstroWISP tool. The pipeline performs calibration, Gaia-based astrometry, PSF/PRF and aperture photometry, iterative ensemble magnitude fitting, light-curve construction, and EPD/TFA post-processing. The case study uses a Sony α7R II camera with a 135 mm f/2 lens on the HAT10 telescope, covering three fields with two dither patterns and about 19,000 object images. The paper reports per-channel and combined-channel median absolute deviation (MAD) as a function of Gaia G magnitude, claims sub-percent photometric precision, and shows phase-folded light curves of five eclipsing binaries, including color-dependent eclipse depths for TX UMa and GW UMa. The manuscript is primarily a technical description of the software and its validation on a single dataset.

Significance. AutoWISP addresses a real gap: an open, cross-platform, automated pipeline for citizen-science DSLR photometry that handles Bayer masks and yields simultaneous three-color light curves. The paper's strengths include publicly available code on GitHub/PyPI/Zenodo, self-describing HDF5 intermediate products, a modular design that preserves photometry at each processing stage, and a case study that recovers known eclipsing-binary signals, including a color-dependent system. If the sub-percent precision claim survives out-of-sample validation, the tool would be a useful contribution to exoplanet follow-up and stellar variability studies with consumer cameras. However, the precision evidence in the current manuscript is computed on the same data used to fit the detrending models, and the dataset is manually curated and from a single camera/lens combination; the headline claim is therefore not yet established as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figures 5-8] The central precision claim is computed on the same light curves used to fit the detrending models. Magnitude fitting (§2.5) builds the reference from the same frames, EPD (§2.7.1) fits polynomials to each light curve, TFA (§2.7.2) derives templates from the same field, and the channel-combining weights in §4.2 are chosen to minimize the MAD on the same light curves. The MAD values in Figures 5-8 are therefore in-sample residuals; they do not by themselves demonstrate that the pipeline reaches sub-percent precision on unseen or new observations. Please provide a holdout or cross-validation test, such as fitting EPD/TFA on one subset and evaluating MAD on an independent subset, or injecting synthetic signals and checking the recovered amplitude and scatter, and quote the resulting MAD with error bars.
  2. [Section 2.7.2] The TFA description does not state whether the target star is excluded from the template set or how the number of templates compares with the number of epochs. If a star contributes to its own template basis, its post-TFA residual is artificially suppressed; even without self-inclusion, a template set that is large relative to the number of epochs can absorb photon noise and slow astrophysical variability. Please specify the template-selection rule, the maximum number of templates used per light curve, and any safeguard that ensures the target is held out.
  3. [Sections 4.1 and 5.2] The quoted precision is derived from one camera/lens combination on one mount, with frames manually curated each night (Section 4.1: 'We manually checked each night's images to determine which frames were worthy of processing'), and with the best configuration found to ignore the PSF/PRF model because the PSF was highly variable. This makes it difficult to assess whether sub-percent precision generalizes to typical citizen-science observations. Please quantify the effect of the manual frame selection, for example by reporting what fraction of frames was rejected and how the MAD changes under a less stringent selection, and state the number of nights, frames per field, and stars per magnitude bin that enter each MAD point.
  4. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The abstract's 'sub-percent photometric precision' is unqualified. The figures show MAD for a limited magnitude range, with combined-channel MAD near 10 mmag for bright stars in some fields but not all; the precision floor is not characterized, and the scintillation-limit estimate in Section 4.2 is explicitly approximate. Please state explicitly the magnitude range and the per-field/per-dither conditions under which sub-percent precision (MAD < 10 mmag) is achieved, and provide an uncertainty estimate for each MAD value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains several typographical errors, including 'recieve' in Section 2.1.2 and inconsistent citation formatting for the AAVSO reference ('AAV 2023' in Section 1.1).
  2. [Figures 9-13 and text] Period values differ between the text and figure captions for GG Dra (2.2695484 d versus 2.269548 d) and for TX UMa (3.06333(2) d in the text versus 3.063337 d in the caption); please harmonize these values.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption states that yellow points show 'before EPD (only magnitude-fitting)', but the colors are defined only in the caption; adding a legend or labels directly in the figure would improve readability.
  4. [Section 4.3] The paper does not state how many eclipsing binaries were found in the catalog cross-match or how the five presented systems were selected; a sentence on the search completeness and selection criteria would help.
  5. [References] Several references are incomplete or non-standard, such as 'AAV 2023', 'mission team', and the HDF Group entry; these should be formatted consistently with the journal style.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Sub-percent precision is an in-sample optimum: combination weights and detrending models are fit to the same MAD being reported as the demonstrated precision.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Results]
    "Combining the channel scatters was done by incorporating a weighted average of each channel, with weights chosen to minimize the scatter (MAD)."

    The reported combined MAD is the value of the objective function that the weights were chosen to minimize. Because the weights are fitted to the very residuals whose scatter is then reported as the pipeline's precision, the number is an in-sample optimum. No holdout, cross-validation, or injected-signal test is provided to show that these weights would produce the same scatter on independent data, so the 'demonstrated' precision is partly forced by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2, Challenges]
    "We tested different modeling procedures, such as changing the smoothing penalty function, the grid used to represent the PSF/PRF, the terms in the PSF/PRF shape parameter dependence, and many other tunable parameters. Our final analysis determined that not accounting for the PSF —i.e., approximating the illumination over each pixel as uniform— yielded the best photometry (highest precision)."

    The pipeline configuration that defines the reported results was selected by comparing precision on the same dataset and keeping the configuration with the smallest scatter. Reporting that scatter as the achieved precision discounts the selection over many tunable choices; the quoted number is the best of a set of in-sample trials, not an unbiased estimate of the pipeline's performance. The paper's own passage acknowledges the PSF/PRF model was highly variable, making this configuration choice particularly fragile.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sections 2.7.2 and 4.2]
    "TF A removes these similar systematic effects across many stars by selecting a representative set of stars, template stars, for all possible systematics. Then, from each star, the linear least squares fit of the template light curves and that star's light curve are subtracted."

    The MAD precision figures in Figures 5-7 are computed after magnitude fitting, EPD, and TFA. EPD fits polynomials that explain the most variance in each light curve, and TFA subtracts a least-squares fit of templates drawn from the same field, so the residual scatter used as the precision metric is a training-set residual. If a target is included in its own template set (the paper does not state that it is excluded), its residual is forced near zero; even without that, template richness is not bounded relative to the number of epochs, allowing overfitting and a biased-low MAD. No out-of-sample validation is reported.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is not circular through a self-citation chain: the core photometry is delegated to AstroWISP (same group, submitted), but the present contribution is the automation wrapper and the case study, and the recovered light-curve shapes and periods are checked against TESS and literature. However, the headline claim of sub-percent photometric precision is computed on the same data used to fit the detrending models. Section 4.2 explicitly sets the combination weights by minimizing the very MAD that is then reported; Section 5.2 selects the pipeline configuration by highest precision on the same dataset; and EPD/TFA are least-squares fits to the same light curves whose residuals become the precision metric. These are in-sample optima, so the reported scatter partly measures how well the pipeline fits its own data rather than an unbiased estimate of achieved precision. The recovery of five known eclipsing binaries with periods agreeing with TESS/literature provides independent evidence that the pipeline preserves known signals, which prevents the paper from being entirely circular, but the quantitative sub-percent precision claim would require holdout cross-validation or injected-signal tests to be fully supported.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline's central claim rests on standard photometric practice and the availability of external catalogs, plus a domain assumption that the precision measured on a curated single dataset transfers to uncurated citizen-science data.

free parameters (5)
  • Combining weights for color channels = not reported (weights chosen to minimize scatter)
    Section 4.2: 'Combining the channel scatters was done by incorporating a weighted average of each channel, with weights chosen to minimize the scatter (MAD).' These weights are fit to the same data used to report precision, so the precision estimate is partly a fitted quantity.
  • EPD decorrelation parameter set and polynomial orders
    Section 2.7.1: EPD fits polynomials of user-specified parameters (temperature, airmass, subpixel position, PSF width S, elongation D/K) to each light curve. The choice of parameters and order is user-specified and tuned; precision is reported after this step.
  • TFA template set
    Section 2.7.2: TFA selects a representative set of template stars from the same field and subtracts common trends. The templates are derived from the data being analyzed.
  • Magnitude fitting polynomial coefficients
    Section 2.5: A weighted polynomial fit of magnitude differences as a function of position, brightness, color, background, etc., is performed per frame. The coefficients are fit to the frames and used to calibrate them, affecting final precision.
  • Saturation threshold = 14000 ADU
    Section 4.2: Saturation limit determined by setting threshold at 14000 ADU. This is a hand-chosen value.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gaia catalogue positions, magnitudes, and variability flags are sufficiently accurate and complete for astrometric calibration and reference photometry.
    Section 2.3 uses Gaia to project source positions; Section 4.2 uses Gaia G magnitudes for binning. If Gaia is incomplete or has systematics in these fields, the astrometry and precision estimates are affected.
  • domain assumption The ensemble magnitude fitting procedure does not suppress real astrophysical variability in the target stars.
    Section 2.5 excludes stars with significant variability from the fit, but this assumes the exclusion criterion does not remove targets or introduce bias. If a target is also variable, it may be excluded, making the target's light curve less calibrated.
  • domain assumption The reference frame built by stacking corrected frames is stable and representative.
    Section 2.5 uses an iterative master reference frame built from the data itself. This assumes the average of many frames is a valid photometric reference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AutoWISP: Automated Processing of Wide-Field Color Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDZNAJJ5

@misc{pith2026250715830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AutoWISP: Automated Processing of Wide-Field Color Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDZNAJJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15830}
}
read the original abstract

We have developed a software pipeline, AutoWISP, for extracting high-precision photometry from citizen scientists' observations made with consumer-grade color digital cameras (digital single-lens reflex, or DSLR, cameras), based on our previously developed tool, AstroWISP. The new pipeline is designed to convert these observations, including color images, into high-precision light curves of stars. We outline the individual steps of the pipeline and present a case study using a Sony-alpha 7R II DSLR camera, demonstrating sub-percent photometric precision, and highlighting the benefits of three-color photometry of stars. Project PANOPTES will adopt this photometric pipeline and, we hope, be used by citizen scientists worldwide. Our aim is for AutoWISP to pave the way for potentially transformative contributions from citizen scientists with access to observing equipment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The image processing pipeline steps and their products. The arrows indicate the products of each step and where they will be used. the methodology of AutoWISP. Section 3 the implemen￾tation of AutoWISP. Section 4 is a case study of our pipeline, demonstrating the capabilities of AutoWISP when applied to observations obtained with a Sony-α7R DSLR Camera. Finally, Section 5 describes the future of AutoWISP. 2. METHODO… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The source extraction versus catalogue projec￾tions of our astrometry step placed on top of the correspond￾ing FITS image, where blue squares are the catalogues pro￾jected sources and red squares are the extracted sources from our astrometry exist, most notably Astrometry.net (Lang et al. 2010). However, Astrometry.net uses only a few stars for its solutions, making it unusable for high-order transfor￾mations. Since… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Arrangement of pixels sensitive to different colors in super-pixels (highlighted area) in a DSLR detector Type Quantity Bias 922 Dark 30 Flat 1003 Object 19210 Pointing 537 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The different bandpasses used by (a.) TESS (image credit: (Ricker et al. 2015)) and (b.) the Sony-α7R II (ILCE￾7RM2) DSLR camera (image credit: (SATO et al. 2016)) (a.) Here, we show the ”TESS spectral response function (black line), defined as the product of the long-…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The scatter (median absolute deviation from the median (MAD)) of the individual channel light curves vs. GAIA G magnitude before EPD (only magnitude-fitting) (indicated by yellow points), after EPD but before TFA (indicated by purple points), and after TFA (indicated b…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The scatter (median absolute deviation from the median (MAD)) of the individual channel completely processed (i.e, after performing magnitude fitting, EPD, and TFA steps) light curves vs. GAIA G magnitude (indicated by their corresponding channel color (i.e., B (blue),…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The scatter (median absolute deviation from the median (MAD)) of the combined channel completely processed (i.e, after performing magnitude fitting, EPD, and TFA steps) light curves vs. GAIA G magnitude (black points) for fields G262 (a,b), G111 (c,d), and G139 (e,f) f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The change in magnitude versus phase plot of GQ Dra (GDR3 1415133175038821888). We determined its period to be 0.765901 days from combining TESS and our data. (a.) Our combined light curve points (teal) are binned (circle teal points) and folded by the period. The corr…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The change in magnitude versus phase plot of GG Dra (GDR3 1425033869225305728, Gaia G magnitude 8.6141). We determined its period to be 2.2695484 days from combining TESS and our data. (a.) Our light curve points (teal) are binned (circle teal points) and folded by th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The change in magnitude versus phase plot of V0551 Dra (GDR3 1431129011933593088, Gaia G magnitude 11.5235). We determined its period to be 0.329331 days from combining TESS and our data. (a.) Our light curve points (teal) are binned (circle teal points) and folded by…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The change in magnitude versus phase plot of TX Ursae Majoris (TX UMa) (GDR3 829685534384441344, Gaia G magnitude 6.9229). We determined its period to be 3.0633368 days from combining TESS and our data. (a.) Our light curve points (corresponding to each color channel …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The change in magnitude versus phase plot of GW Ursae Majoris (GW UMa) (GDR3 829393545336090368, Gaia G magnitude 9.6529). We determined its period to be 0.203194 days from combining TESS and our data. Our light curve points (corresponding to each color channel (i.e.,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [4]

    2023, American Association of Variable Star Observers , http://www.aavso.org/dslr-photometry

    work page 2023

  4. [5]

    2023, AIP4WIN , http://www.willbell.com/aip4win/aip.htm

    work page 2023

  5. [6]

    2023, MaxIm DL , http://diffractionlimited.com/product/maxim-dl/

    work page 2023

  6. [7]

    2023, Aperture Photometry Tool User-Friendly Software for Aperture Photometry , http://www.aperturephotometry.org/

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    2023, IRIS An Astronomical Image Processing Software , http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/iris-software.html

    work page 2023

  8. [9]

    2023, The HDF Group , https://support.hdfgroup.org/HDF5

    work page 2023

Show all 77 references
  1. [10]

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

    1998 doi

  2. [11]

    P., Tollerud , E

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

    2013 doi

  3. [12]

    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

    2018 doi

  4. [13]

    M., Lim , P

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

    2022 doi

  5. [14]

    M., Koksal , S., & Saygac , A

    Atay , E., Alis , S., Keskin , M. M., Koksal , S., & Saygac , A. T. 2000, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 4988, 1

    2000

  6. [15]

    W., Kov \'a cs , G., et al

    Bakos , G., Noyes , R. W., Kov \'a cs , G., et al. 2004, , 116, 266, 10.1086/382735

    2004 doi

  7. [16]

    D., et al

    Bakos , G., Jord \'a n , A., Hartman , J. D., et al. 2023, The HATPI Project , https://www.hatpi.org/

    2023

  8. [17]

    \'A ., L \'a z \'a r, J., Papp, I., S \'a ri, P., & Green, E

    Bakos, G. \'A ., L \'a z \'a r, J., Papp, I., S \'a ri, P., & Green, E. M. 2002, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114, 974, 10.1086/342382

    2002 doi

  9. [18]

    \'A ., Torres , G., P \'a l , A., et al

    Bakos , G. \'A ., Torres , G., P \'a l , A., et al. 2010, , 710, 1724, 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/1724

    2010 doi

  10. [19]

    \'A ., Csubry , Z., Penev , K., et al

    Bakos , G. \'A ., Csubry , Z., Penev , K., et al. 2013, , 125, 154, 10.1086/669529

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    A., Abe , F., Dodd , R

    Bond , I. A., Abe , F., Dodd , R. J., et al. 2001, , 327, 868, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04776.x

    2001

  12. [21]

    2017, astropy/photutils: v0.4, 10.5281/zenodo.1039309, 10.5281/zenodo.1039309

    Bradley, L., Sipocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2017, astropy/photutils: v0.4, 10.5281/zenodo.1039309, 10.5281/zenodo.1039309

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    M., Latham , D

    Brown , T. M., Latham , D. W., Everett , M. E., & Esquerdo , G. A. 2011, , 142, 112, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/112

    2011 doi

  14. [23]

    1977, , 61, 469

    Cester , B., Fedel , B., Giuricin , G., Mardirossian , F., & Pucillo , M. 1977, , 61, 469

    1977

  15. [24]

    2022, , 512, 1244, 10.1093/mnras/stac534

    Christopoulou , P.-E., Lalounta , E., Papageorgiou , A., et al. 2022, , 512, 1244, 10.1093/mnras/stac534

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    A., Kielkopf , J

    Collins , K. A., Kielkopf , J. F., Stassun , K. G., & Hessman , F. V. 2016, ArXiv e-prints. 1601.02622

    2016 arXiv

  17. [26]

    L., Sz \'e kely , P., et al

    Derekas , A., Kiss , L. L., Sz \'e kely , P., et al. 2003, , 402, 733, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030291

    2003 doi

  18. [27]

    1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol

    ESA , ed. 1997, ESA Special Publication, Vol. 1200, The HIPPARCOS and TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission

    1997

  19. [28]

    M., Avsar , A., Peluso , D

    Esposito , T. M., Avsar , A., Peluso , D. O., et al. 2021, in Posters from the TESS Science Conference II (TSC2), 155, 10.5281/zenodo.5131297

    2021 doi

  20. [29]

    2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04153

    Gaia Collaboration , et al. 2016, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04153

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    , Brown, A

    Gaia Collaboration , Vallenari, A. , Brown, A. G. A. , et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    M., Brasseur , C

    Ginsburg , A., Sip o cz , B. M., Brasseur , C. E., et al. 2019, , 157, 98, 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  23. [33]

    1991, , 185, 189, 10.1007/BF00643187

    Grygar , J., Hric , L., Komzik , R., & Sima , Z. 1991, , 185, 189, 10.1007/BF00643187

    1991 doi

  24. [34]

    2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Guyon , O., Walawender , J., JovaFebic , N., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, , 91453V, 10.1117/12.2057288

    2014 doi

  25. [35]

    R., Collier Cameron , A., et al

    Hellier , C., Anderson , D. R., Collier Cameron , A., et al. 2011, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 11, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 1004, 10.1051/epjconf/20101101004

    2011

  26. [36]

    A., & Kaitchuck , R

    Henden , A. A., & Kaitchuck , R. H. 1982, Astronomical photometry

    1982

  27. [37]

    Hiltner , W. A. 1945, , 101, 108, 10.1086/144693

    1945 doi

  28. [38]

    G., Bush , T

    Hintz , E. G., Bush , T. C., & Rose , M. B. 2005, , 130, 2876, 10.1086/497392

    2005 doi

  29. [39]

    B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al

    Howell , S. B., Sobeck , C., Haas , M., et al. 2014, , 126, 398, 10.1086/676406

    2014 doi

  30. [40]

    X., Penev , K., Hartman , J

    Huang , C. X., Penev , K., Hartman , J. D., et al. 2015, , 454, 4159, 10.1093/mnras/stv2257

    2015 doi

  31. [41]

    2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol

    Kim , S.-L., Park , B.-G., Lee , C.-U., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 7733, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 3, 10.1117/12.856833

    2010 doi

  32. [42]

    2016, , 151, 68, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    Kirk , B., Conroy , K., Pr s a , A., et al. 2016, , 151, 68, 10.3847/0004-6256/151/3/68

    2016 doi

  33. [43]

    P., Popov , V

    Kjurkchieva , D. P., Popov , V. A., Lyubenova Vasileva , D., & Petrov , N. I. 2018, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 18, 046, 10.1088/1674-4527/18/4/46

    2018 doi

  34. [44]

    G., Borucki, W

    Koch, D. G., Borucki, W. J., Basri, G., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 713, L79, 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79

    2010 doi

  35. [45]

    1992, , 198, 149, 10.1007/BF00644309

    Komzik , R., Hric , L., & Grygar , J. 1992, , 198, 149, 10.1007/BF00644309

    1992 doi

  36. [46]

    Kov \'a cs , G., Bakos , G., & Noyes , R. W. 2005, , 356, 557, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08479.x

    2005

  37. [47]

    M., & Tremko , J

    Kreiner , J. M., & Tremko , J. 1980, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 31, 343

    1980

  38. [48]

    R., Gorjian , V., Rebull , L

    Laher , R. R., Gorjian , V., Rebull , L. M., et al. 2012, , 124, 737, 10.1086/666883

    2012 doi

  39. [49]

    W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S

    Lang , D., Hogg , D. W., Mierle , K., Blanton , M., & Roweis , S. 2010, , 139, 1782, 10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/1782

    2010 doi

  40. [50]

    M., Fors , O., Ratzloff , J., et al

    Law , N. M., Fors , O., Ratzloff , J., et al. 2015, , 127, 234, 10.1086/680521

    2015 doi

  41. [51]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 1181, 10.1093/mnras/stw2756

    Liakos, A., & Niarchos, P. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 465, 1181, 10.1093/mnras/stw2756

    2016 doi

  42. [52]

    Malkov , O. Y. 2020, , 491, 5489, 10.1093/mnras/stz3363

    2020 doi

  43. [53]

    mission team, N. O.-R. 2023, Target Asteroids , http://www.asteroidmission.org/get-involved/target-asteroids/

    2023

  44. [54]

    2023, , 674, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330

    Mowlavi , N., Holl , B., Lecoeur-Ta \" bi , I., et al. 2023, , 674, A16, 10.1051/0004-6361/202245330

    2023 doi

  45. [55]

    Newberry, M. V. 1991, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 103, 122, 10.1086/132801

    1991 doi

  46. [56]

    2008, , 120, 317, 10.1086/533420

    Nutzman , P., & Charbonneau , D. 2008, , 120, 317, 10.1086/533420

    2008 doi

  47. [57]

    S., & Wilson, R

    Osborn, J., Föhring, D., Dhillon, V. S., & Wilson, R. W. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 1707–1716, 10.1093/mnras/stv1400

    2015 doi

  48. [58]

    2012, , 421, 1825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19813.x

    P \'a l , A. 2012, , 421, 1825, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19813.x

    2012

  49. [59]

    J., et al

    Penev , K., Romero , A., Jafarzadeh , S. J., et al. 2025, Submitted to

    2025

  50. [60]

    B., Siverd , R., James , D., & Stassun , K

    Pepper , J., Kuhn , R. B., Siverd , R., James , D., & Stassun , K. 2012, , 124, 230, 10.1086/665044

    2012 doi

  51. [61]

    W., DePoy , D

    Pepper , J., Pogge , R. W., DePoy , D. L., et al. 2007, , 119, 923, 10.1086/521836

    2007 doi

  52. [62]

    1960, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 11, 197

    Plavec , M. 1960, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 11, 197

    1960

  53. [63]

    L., Skillen , I., Collier Cameron , A., et al

    Pollacco , D. L., Skillen , I., Collier Cameron , A., et al. 2006, , 118, 1407, 10.1086/508556

    2006 doi

  54. [64]

    W., et al

    Pr s a , A., Batalha , N., Slawson , R. W., et al. 2011, , 141, 83, 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83

    2011 doi

  55. [65]

    2009, Tools for discovering and characterizing extrasolar planets

    Pál, A. 2009, Tools for discovering and characterizing extrasolar planets. 0906.3486

    2009 arXiv

  56. [66]

    2001, , 122, 2686, 10.1086/323455

    Qian , S. 2001, , 122, 2686, 10.1086/323455

    2001 doi

  57. [67]

    2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 163, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/163

    Qian , S.-B., Zhu , L.-Y., Liu , L., et al. 2020, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20, 163, 10.1088/1674-4527/20/10/163

    2020 doi

  58. [68]

    2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 193, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/193

    Qian, S.-B., Zhou, X., Zhu, L.-Y., et al. 2015, The Astronomical Journal, 150, 193, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/6/193

    2015 doi

  59. [69]

    2024, The PLATO Mission

    Rauer, H., Aerts, C., Cabrera, J., et al. 2024, The PLATO Mission. 2406.05447

    2024 arXiv

  60. [70]

    R., Latham , D

    Ricker , G. R., Latham , D. W., Vanderspek , R. K., et al. 2009, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 41, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#213, \#403.01

    2009

  61. [71]

    R., Winn , J

    Ricker , G. R., Winn , J. N., Vanderspek , R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    2015 doi

  62. [72]

    2016, Journal of The Remote Sensing Society of Japan, 36, 131, 10.11440/rssj.36.131

    SATO, K., SHIMADA, S., SEKIYAMA, A., et al. 2016, Journal of The Remote Sensing Society of Japan, 36, 131, 10.11440/rssj.36.131

    2016 doi

  63. [73]

    2002, , 52, 1

    Udalski , A., Paczynski , B., Zebrun , K., et al. 2002, , 52, 1

    2002

  64. [74]

    2020, , 70, 219, 10.32023/0001-5237/70.3.4

    Ula s , B., Gazeas , K., Liakos , A., et al. 2020, , 70, 219, 10.32023/0001-5237/70.3.4

    2020 doi

  65. [75]

    C., Greisen , E

    Wells , D. C., Greisen , E. W., & Harten , R. H. 1981, , 44, 363

    1981

  66. [76]

    Young , A. T. 1967, , 72, 747, 10.1086/110303

    1967 doi

  67. [77]

    R., et al

    Zellem , R., Biferno , A., Ciardi , D. R., et al. 2019, , 51, 416. 1903.07716

    2019 arXiv

  68. [78]

    T., Pearson , K

    Zellem , R. T., Pearson , K. A., Blaser , E., et al. 2020, , 132, 054401, 10.1088/1538-3873/ab7ee7

    2020 doi

  69. [79]

    \'A ., Penev , K., et al

    Zhang , M., Bakos , G. \'A ., Penev , K., et al. 2016, , 128, 035001, 10.1088/1538-3873/128/961/035001

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.