Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting the Classics: On the Optical Colours of Novae as Standard Crayons

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nova colours are standard enough to act as reddening crayons: a single photometric colour gives E(B-V) to 0.2–0.3 mag, and with 3D dust maps a distance without luminosity assumptions.

desk verdict A solid, honest recalibration of nova colour loci with DIB-based reddening; fix the peak-colour sign typo and state the DIB calibration-transfer caveat before this becomes a public recipe. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15108 v3 pith:AIVMZGDX submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

Peter Craig , Elias Aydi , Laura Chomiuk , Jay Strader , Ashley Stone , Kirill V. Sokolovsky , Koji Mukai , Adam Kawash
show 4 more authors
Joan Guarro Fló Christophe Boussin Stéphane Charbonnel Olivier Garde
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords novaeinterstellarreddeningdiffusebandsintrinsiccoloursstandardcrayonsdistancedetermination3Ddustmapsphotometriccalibration
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 sets out to show that classical novae have sufficiently reproducible optical colours that photometry alone can replace spectroscopy for estimating interstellar reddening. Using 25 recent Galactic novae with reddenings from diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) or 3D dust maps, the authors find a mean intrinsic $(B-V)_0$ of $0.20 \pm 0.06$ (standard deviation $0.31$) at optical peak and $-0.03 \pm 0.04$ (standard deviation $0.19$) at $t_2$, when the light curve has faded by two magnitudes. If these averages hold, one epoch of broad-band photometry gives $E(B-V)$ to 0.2--0.3 mag, and coupling that with a three-dimensional dust map yields a distance to a Galactic nova without assuming any peak luminosity. That matters because nova distances are often scarce, imprecise, or tied to brightness-versus-decline calibrations of limited reliability.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two empirical calibrations and one distance-inference scheme. Diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs) are broad, unidentified interstellar absorption features whose strengths track dust; the paper converts their measured equivalent widths into $E(B-V)$ using a published field-star calibration, and where spectra are absent it takes $E(B-V)$ from 3D dust maps tied to parallax distances. An adopted extinction law converts $E(B-V)$ into $E(R-I)$ and $E(V-R)$. The distance step compares the photometrically derived $E(B-V)$ with the run of extinction along the line of sight in a 3D dust map, weighted by a Galactic stellar-mass model as a prior, so no luminosity assumption enters.

What would settle it

Take a nova with a precisely known distance, measure its DIB-based $E(B-V)$, and compare that with an independent reddening from the colour excess of background stars along the same line of sight; a systematic offset larger than roughly $0.3$ mag on low-latitude sightlines would break the standard-crayon claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that novae are standard crayons: their intrinsic $(B-V)_0$ colour is reproducible enough to serve as a reddening indicator. From 25 novae with reddenings measured via DIBs or 3D dust maps, the paper finds $(B-V)_0 = 0.20$ with a standard deviation of $0.31$ at $V$-band peak, and for 27 novae at $t_2$, $(B-V)_0 = -0.03$ with a standard deviation of $0.19$. The $(R-I)_0$ and $(V-R)_0$ colours show similar behaviour, except that $(V-R)_0$ grows redder after peak as line emission contaminates the filters. No statistically significant correlations appear between colour and $t_2$, peak absolute magnitude, or GeV gamma-ray luminosity. The paper therefore concludes that a nova at a known phase gives $E(B-V)$ with 0.2--0.3 mag uncertainty from photometry, and that a Bayesian combination with 3D dust maps and a Milky Way stellar-mass prior provides distances free of luminosity assumptions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the field-star calibration linking diffuse-interstellar-band strength to $E(B-V)$ stays accurate on the dense, complex lines of sight toward novae, so that the reddening corrections do not share a systematic bias that mimics a universal nova colour.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-epoch $(B-V)$ measurement of a nova near peak or at $t_2$ yields $E(B-V)$ to about 0.2--0.3 mag without any spectroscopy.
  • Combined with 3D dust maps, these reddenings give distances to Galactic novae that do not assume a peak luminosity, avoiding the circularity of luminosity-based methods.
  • Reddening estimates become possible for novae with sparse or purely photometric coverage, including data from archival and amateur light curves.
  • The $t_2$ colour is more tightly distributed than the peak colour, so reddening estimates may be most reliable for novae observed after the peak.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the DIB-to-dust ratio varies with environment, the 0.2--0.3 mag precision is optimistic on dense low-latitude sightlines; the paper's own Na I D comparison shows how badly line-based reddening can fail there, and DIBs are assumed immune.
  • Editorial inference: the framework suggests a testable programme—obtain high-resolution spectra for a larger sample of faint novae and check whether the scatter at $t_2$ shrinks toward the measurement-noise floor, as the Monte Carlo analysis predicts.
  • Editorial inference: the phased-colour approach could be extended to redder photometric bands or to other eruptive transients, provided the peak time or an equivalent phase marker can be identified.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compiles BVRI photometry for 61 Galactic novae from AAVSO and SMARTS, determines interstellar reddening predominantly from DIB equivalent widths (supplemented by 3D and 2D dust maps), and derives intrinsic colours at V-band peak and at t2. For the 'silver' sample with DIB or 3D-map reddenings, the average (B−V)0 is 0.20 ± 0.06 (s.d. 0.31, N=25) at peak and −0.03 ± 0.04 (s.d. 0.19, N=27) at t2. Similar distributions are presented for (R−I)0 and (V−R)0, and correlation searches with t2, absolute magnitude, and gamma-ray luminosity yield no significant trends. The paper advocates using nova colours as 'standard crayons' for photometric reddening estimation and presents a Bayesian distance method that combines extinction measurements with 3D dust maps and a Milky Way stellar mass model, deliberately avoiding luminosity-based distances.

Significance. If the intrinsic colour calibration is accurate, the paper delivers a practical tool: single-epoch BV photometry near peak or t2 would give E(B−V) to roughly 0.2–0.3 mag without spectroscopy, a substantial simplification for the many novae lacking high-resolution spectra. The distance technique in §5.4 is a useful luminosity-independent addition. The paper is careful to avoid the circularity it criticizes: DIB-based reddenings come from an external calibration, and the distances do not use assumed luminosities. The analysis is reproducible: the DIB measurement code is public, and the Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis (§5.1.1) is clearly described. The main quantitative claims (Table 1) are internally consistent, aside from the sign error in the conclusions. The load-bearing weakness is the unvalidated transfer of the Friedman et al. (2011) DIB calibration to nova sightlines; a systematic offset would shift every intrinsic colour and bias the crayon.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6 (Conclusions)] In §6, the recommended peak colour is given as (B−V)0 = −0.2 ± 0.3, which is inconsistent with the fiducial silver-sample value of +0.20 ± 0.06 (Table 1) and with the abstract. This is not a mere typo: a reader following the conclusion would compute E(B−V) = (B−V) − (−0.2), producing values 0.4 mag larger than intended. Either the conclusions should be corrected to +0.2, or the text should explicitly flag the inconsistency if the negative value is intentional.
  2. [§3.1 and §5.1] The entire intrinsic colour calibration rests on the assumption that the Friedman et al. (2011) DIB–E(B−V) relation, calibrated on 133 field stars, transfers to nova sightlines without a systematic offset. This assumption is not validated on the sample: the 3D dust map sources (§3.3) do not overlap the DIB subsample, the 2D dust maps are only upper limits, and the correlation test in Figure 7 is insensitive to a constant offset. A constant offset δ in E(B−V) would shift all derived (B−V)0 by −δ and, when the crayon is applied to a new nova, would bias the inferred E(B−V) by +δ. The claimed 0.2–0.3 mag precision describes random scatter; the systematic accuracy is unquantified. I recommend adding an independent reddening check for the same lines of sight (e.g., X-ray absorbing columns from Swift/XRT or XMM, or 3D dust map values evaluated at the Gaia parallax distances), or at least an explicit estimate of the systematic uncertainty and a statement of how it propagates into the crayon.
  3. [§5.1.1] The Monte Carlo analysis reports that the probability of observing a standard deviation ≥0.3 at peak is 6%, and on this basis concludes that there is intrinsic variability at peak. 6% is above the conventional 5% significance level; the evidence is marginal. The text should either present a posterior probability or use a more appropriate threshold, and should temper the conclusion accordingly. This does not affect the central colour calibration, but it matters for the interpretation of the observed spread.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] Some entries lack a leading zero (e.g., '(R−I)0 t2 Silver' shows 0.1 instead of 0.10) and the column header 'Mean +/- Mean' is ambiguous; please format consistently.
  2. [§3.3] The statement that the 3D dust map uncertainty (0.15 mag) is 'based on the comparison between 3D dust map E(B−V) and DIB measurements' is unclear because the five 3D map sources in Table A1 have no DIB measurements; please specify the comparison sample.
  3. [Figure 3] Figure 3's axis labels contain placeholders (e.g., 'E(B □ V )'); ensure the final figures render the minus sign correctly.
  4. [Table A1] The paper would benefit from a table or appendix listing the Gaia parallax distances used for the 3D map novae, since only ranges are given in Table A1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: reddening anchors are external (DIB calibration, 3D dust maps, Gaia parallaxes) and luminosity is deliberately excluded from distance estimates.

full rationale

The paper's intrinsic-colour calibration is built from observed colours minus E(B-V) values that come from DIB equivalent widths calibrated by Friedman et al. (2011) on 133 field stars with independent stellar-colour reddenings, or from 3D dust maps tied to Gaia parallaxes. These anchors are external to the nova photometry, so the derived intrinsic colours are not defined in terms of the target quantity. The paper explicitly avoids the circularity it criticizes in earlier work: Section 5.4 states that distances derived under assumptions about luminosity are 'in danger of circular reasoning', and therefore only extinction-based distances are used. The self-citations that appear (Kawash et al. 2022 for the Milky Way mass model, Craig et al. 2025 for peak-time and gamma-ray measurements) are inputs or companion analyses, not results derived from the nova colours themselves; the distance method is independently checked against Gaia parallaxes in Figure 14. Applying the calibrated colour distribution to estimate reddening for new novae is a standard calibration use, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, because the scatter quoted is the intrinsic spread measured from external reddening anchors. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction, so no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central calibration rests on external benchmarks the paper did not pay for: the Friedman et al. (2011) DIB-to-E(B-V) relation, the Wang & Chen (2019) extinction law, 3D dust maps, and the Robin et al. (2003) mass model via Kawash et al. (2022). No new physical entities are postulated; the 'crayons' framing is a metaphor. The measured color means and the adopted uncertainty terms (0.125 mag observer offset, 0.15 mag dust-map systematic) are the fitted or assumed inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • peak (B-V)0 calibration anchor = 0.20 (silver sample; Section 6 text incorrectly says -0.2)
    The measured mean intrinsic color is the value users apply as the standard crayon calibration; the sign typo in the recommendation makes this a practical hazard.
  • t2 (B-V)0 calibration anchor = -0.03 (silver sample)
    Measured mean intrinsic color at t2, the second calibration anchor for reddening estimation.
  • AAVSO inter-observer photometric systematic = 0.125 mag
    Adopted uncertainty component from comparing photometry between observers, added in quadrature to reddening uncertainties; chosen by hand (Section 4).
  • 3D dust map E(B-V) systematic uncertainty = 0.15 mag
    Adopted based on comparison between 3D dust map and DIB-based E(B-V), then combined with distance-induced uncertainty (Section 3.3).
  • bronze sample outlier rejection threshold = 3 sigma, iterated until no outliers remain
    Post-hoc iterative clipping applied only to the non-fiducial bronze sample (Section 5.1); the silver sample, used for headline results, has no such cut.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DIB equivalent width to E(B-V) relations of Friedman et al. (2011), calibrated on 133 field stars, hold along nova sightlines
    Section 3.1: this calibration is the backbone of silver-sample E(B-V) values. A systematic change in the DIB-carrier-to-dust ratio in dense Galactic-plane sightlines would shift all intrinsic colors.
  • domain assumption The Wang & Chen (2019) extinction law converts E(B-V) to E(R-I) = 0.75 E(B-V) and E(V-R) = 0.66 E(B-V)
    Section 3: this conversion is applied to all R-I and V-R colors; an incorrect reddening-law ratio would bias those two calibrations.
  • domain assumption 3D dust maps (Green et al. 2019, Marshall et al. 2006, Drimmel et al. 2003, Chen et al. 2019) faithfully trace foreground extinction toward novae
    Sections 3.3 and 5.4: used to assign E(B-V) for five sample novae and for all distance estimates. Failures are noted for V5667 Sgr and V3666 Oph in Figure 14.
  • domain assumption Galactic nova spatial distribution traces stellar mass in the Robin et al. (2003) Milky Way model, via Kawash et al. (2022)
    Section 5.4: the 10^7 simulated nova population prior assumes novae follow stellar mass. The spiral-arm distance clumping in Figure 13 is acknowledged as an artefact of this prior combined with dust.
  • domain assumption Peak absolute magnitude distribution M_V = -7.2 with sigma 0.8, truncated, used only to simulate the population
    Section 5.4: used in the simulation of the nova population, explicitly not used in the distance posterior, avoiding luminosity-based circularity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Classics: On the Optical Colours of Novae as Standard Crayons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIVMZGDX

@misc{pith2026241215108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Classics: On the Optical Colours of Novae as Standard Crayons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIVMZGDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15108}
}
abstract

We present a systematic study of the $BVRI$ colours of novae over the course of their eruptions. Where possible, interstellar reddening was measured using the equivalent widths of Diffuse Interstellar Bands (DIBs). Some novae lack spectra with sufficient resolution and signal-to-noise ratios; therefore, we supplement as necessary with 3D and 2D dust maps. Utilising only novae with DIB- or 3D-map-based $E(B-V)$, we find an average intrinsic $(B-V)_0$ colour of novae at $V$-band light curve peak of 0.20 with a standard deviation of 0.31, based on 25 novae. When the light curve has declined by 2 magnitudes ($t_2$), we find an average $(B-V)_0 = -0.03$ with a standard deviation of 0.19. These average colours are consistent with previous findings, although the spreads are larger than previously found due to more accurate reddening estimates. We also examined the intrinsic $(R-I)_0$ and $(V-R)_0$ colours across our sample. These colours behave similarly to $(B-V)_0$, except that the $(V-R)_0$ colour gets redder after peak, likely due to the contributions of emission line flux. We searched for correlations between nova colours and $t_2$, peak $V$-band absolute magnitude, and GeV $\gamma$-ray luminosity, but find no statistically significant correlations. Nova colours can therefore be used as standard ``crayons" to estimate interstellar reddening from photometry alone, with 0.2--0.3 mag uncertainty. We present a novel Bayesian strategy for estimating distances to Galactic novae based on these $E(B-V)$ measurements, independent of assumptions about luminosity, built using 3D dust maps and a stellar mass model of the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15108 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Normalized spectra with filter curves overlaid for the nova FM Cir. Both spectra are SMARTS Chiron spectra, the first (top panel) taken near the nova peak on 2018-01-28 and the second (bottom panel) taken near 𝑡2 for this nova on 2018-06-15. column densities of H than with 𝐸(𝐵 − 𝑉) (Friedman et al. 2011). Calibration accuracy depends on the consistency of the ratio between the unknown DIB carriers and the ISM dust. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) values predicted by DIB measurements plotted against 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) estimated with the Na i D doublet. The solid line indicates where the two values are equal. The orange triangles represent sources with greatly overestimated 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) from the Na i measurements. V408 Lup has an Na i D 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) of 9.25, V613 Sct’s estimate is at 608, and V612 Sct is at 17.4. Generally, we find approximate agreement between the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) values predicted by DIB measurements plotted against those estimated with dust maps. The points marked as an x use 3D dust maps, while the remaining sources are based on integrated dust maps. Along the solid line, the two values are equal. The black points show novae within 1.5 degree of the plane of the MW, orange points are between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees and blue points are farther than 3.5 degrees. calcula… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Histograms here display the distributions of (𝑅 − 𝐼)0 colours for our three samples. The top panel displays the colour at peak, while the bottom panel shows the colour at 𝑡2. The green bars show the novae belonging to the gold sample, the blue bars for the silver sampl…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The top panel displays the peak (𝐵−𝑉)0 plotted against the estimated 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) values. The bottom panel is similar, but displays the colours at 𝑡2. The black line displays a linear best fit line made to the silver sample in each case. Orange triangles in these figures …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Monte Carlo simulation results displaying the expected standard deviation of (𝐵 − 𝑉)0 for our silver sample. This is the result of five million random samples across our photometric and reddening uncertainties. The dashed red line indicates the standard deviation of ou…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The top panel displays the peak (𝐵 − 𝑉)0 plotted against the nova’s GeV 𝛾-ray luminosity (or upper limit on luminosity). The black line displays a line of best fit made to the novae in the silver sample that have 𝛾-ray detections. The bottom panel is similar, but disp…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the nova colours during eruption, plotted in units of 𝑡2. The left column shows the average colour (with error bars set as the standard error on the mean) for the three colours that we monitor. The right column displays the standard deviations for the sam…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Locations of our nova sample plotted over an artist’s image of the MW (R. Hurt: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SSC). The novae are colour coded based on their 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) values, and have distances derived using their measured 𝐸 (𝐵 − 𝑉) combined with 3D dust maps, coupled with their …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Distances measured using our extinction values and 3D dust maps, plotted against Gaia parallax distance measurements. All of the parallaxes are for novae with > 3𝜎 parallax measurements. The solid line is a unity line where the distances are equivalent. direction). Fo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Century of Novae in the Large Magellanic Cloud

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

    LMC novae have higher average white-dwarf masses and expansion velocities than M31 novae, yielding a ~21% recurrent-nova eruption fraction versus ~6% in M31.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Ackermann M., et al., 2014, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1253947 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Sci...345..554A 345, 554

    doi:10.1126/science.1253947 2014

  4. [4]

    C., 1956, @doi [ ] 10.1086/107284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AJ.....61...15A 61, 15

    Arp H. C., 1956, @doi [ ] 10.1086/107284 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956AJ.....61...15A 61, 15

    doi:10.1086/107284 1956

  5. [5]

    Aydi E., et al., 2020a, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020NatAs...4..776A 4, 776

    doi:10.1038/s41550-020-1070-y

  6. [6]

    Aydi E., et al., 2020b, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...905...62A 905, 62

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abc3bb

  7. [7]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...58B 156, 58

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 2018

  8. [8]

    I., et al., 2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II

    Barnes S. I., et al., 2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II. p. 70140K, @doi 10.1117/12.788219

    doi:10.1117/12.788219 2008

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    F., Evans A., 2008, Classical Novae

    Bode M. F., Evans A., 2008, Classical Novae . Cambridge Astrophysics Series Vol. 43, Cambridge University press, @doi 10.1017/CBO9780511536168

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    M., Schlafly E

    Bovy J., Rix H.-W., Green G. M., Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/130 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..130B 818, 130

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    G., et al., 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III

    Bramall D. G., et al., 2010, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III. p. 77354F, @doi 10.1117/12.856382

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    G., et al., 2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV

    Bramall D. G., et al., 2012, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV. p. 84460A, @doi 10.1117/12.925935

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    Buckley D. A. H., Swart G. P., Meiring J. G., 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. p. 62670Z, @doi 10.1117/12.673750

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Buscombe W., de Vaucouleurs G., 1955, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955Obs....75..170B 75, 170

    1955

  7. [15]

    K., Holz M., Gerlich D., Maier J

    Campbell E. K., Holz M., Gerlich D., Maier J. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature14566 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Natur.523..322C 523, 322

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    Q., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4277C 483, 4277

    Chen B. Q., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3341 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.4277C 483, 4277

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..142C 826, 142

    Cheung C. C., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/142 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...826..142C 826, 142

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    D., Shen K

    Chomiuk L., Metzger B. D., Shen K. J., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-114502 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..391C 59, 391

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    G., Hornoch K., Shafter A

    Clark J. G., Hornoch K., Shafter A. W., Ku c \'a kov \'a H., Vra s til J., Ku s nir \'a k P., Wolf M., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad3c39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..272...28C 272, 28

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    A., et al., 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V

    Crause L. A., et al., 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V. p. 91476T, @doi 10.1117/12.2055635

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    V., Araudo A., Suzuki-Vidal F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A.104D 660, A104

    del Valle M. V., Araudo A., Suzuki-Vidal F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202142017 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...660A.104D 660, A104

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Drimmel R., Cabrera-Lavers A., L \'o pez-Corredoira M., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031070 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..205D 409, 205

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809..160F 809, 160

    Finzell T., Chomiuk L., Munari U., Walter F. M., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809..160F 809, 160

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    C., Buson S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A.120F 609, A120

    Franckowiak A., Jean P., Wood M., Cheung C. C., Buson S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731516 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...609A.120F 609, A120

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...33F 727, 33

    Friedman S. D., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/727/1/33 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...727...33F 727, 33

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...595A...1G 595, A1

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

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

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    S., Starrfield S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.001131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ARA&A..16..171G 16, 171

    Gallagher J. S., Starrfield S., 1978, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.001131 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ARA&A..16..171G 16, 171

    1978

  21. [29]

    Gaposchkin C. H. P., 1957, The Galactic Novae

    1957

  22. [30]

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

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Hachisu I., Kato M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/97 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...785...97H 785, 97

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Hachisu I., Kato M., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..223...21H 223, 21

    2016 doi

  25. [33]

    L., 1922, @doi [Lick Observatory Bulletin] 10.5479/ADS/bib/1922LicOB.10.141H , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922LicOB..10..141H 10, 141

    Heger M. L., 1922, @doi [Lick Observatory Bulletin] 10.5479/ADS/bib/1922LicOB.10.141H , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1922LicOB..10..141H 10, 141

    1922 doi

  26. [34]

    H., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.000315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33...19H 33, 19

    Herbig G. H., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.33.090195.000315 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ARA&A..33...19H 33, 19

    1995

  27. [35]

    Izzo L., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.1601I 478, 1601

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Kawash A., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abe53d , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...910..120K 910, 120

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Kawash A., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d5e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...937...64K 937, 64

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    K., 2023, Observations from the AAVSO International Database, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13731....1P https://www.aavso.org

    Kloppenborg B. K., 2023, Observations from the AAVSO International Database, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ATel13731....1P https://www.aavso.org

    2023

  31. [39]

    Lan T.-W., M \'e nard B., Zhu G., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1519 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.452.3629L 452, 3629

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Li K.-L., et al., 2017, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatAs...1..697L 1, 697

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Robin A

    Marshall D. J., Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Schultheis M., Picaud S., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...453..635M 453, 635

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    Martin P., Dubus G., Jean P., Tatischeff V., Dosne C., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201731692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...612A..38M 612, A38

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    B., 1944, Popular Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1944PA.....52..109M 52, 109

    McLaughlin D. B., 1944, Popular Astronomy, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1944PA.....52..109M 52, 109

    1944

  36. [44]

    W., Wilson O

    Merrill P. W., Wilson O. C., 1938, @doi [ ] 10.1086/143897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1938ApJ....87....9M 87, 9

    1938 doi

  37. [45]

    Munari U., Zwitter T., 1997, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997A&A...318..269M 318, 269

    1997

  38. [46]

    J., Frigo A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4341M 469, 4341

    Munari U., Hambsch F. J., Frigo A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx1116 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.4341M 469, 4341

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    O'Donoghue D., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10834.x , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2006MNRAS.372..151O 372, 151

    2006

  40. [48]

    O zd \"o nmez A., G \

    \"O zd \"o nmez A., G \"u ver T., Cabrera-Lavers A., Ak T., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.461.1177O 461, 1177

    2016 doi

  41. [49]

    O zd \"o nmez A., Ege E., G \

    \"O zd \"o nmez A., Ege E., G \"u ver T., Ak T., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty432 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.476.4162O 476, 4162

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    H., 1895, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1895Obs....18..436P 18, 436

    Pickering W. H., 1895, The Observatory, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1895Obs....18..436P 18, 436

  43. [51]

    M., Filippenko A

    Poznanski D., Ganeshalingam M., Silverman J. M., Filippenko A. V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2011.01084.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415L..81P 415, L81

    2011

  44. [52]

    X., Bloom J

    Poznanski D., Prochaska J. X., Bloom J. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21796.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.426.1465P 426, 1465

    2012

  45. [53]

    C., Reyl \'e C., Derri \`e re S., Picaud S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..523R 409, 523

    Robin A. C., Reyl \'e C., Derri \`e re S., Picaud S., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20031117 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A&A...409..523R 409, 523

    2003 doi

  46. [54]

    E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3033S 481, 3033

    Schaefer B. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.3033S 481, 3033

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.6150S 517, 6150

    Schaefer B. E., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2900 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.6150S 517, 6150

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    F., Finkbeiner D

    Schlafly E. F., Finkbeiner D. P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/2/103 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737..103S 737, 103

    2011 doi

  49. [57]

    Schmidt T., 1957, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1957ZA.....41..182S 41, 182

    1957

  50. [58]

    W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..196S 834, 196

    Shafter A. W., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/196 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...834..196S 834, 196

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    W., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...12S 734, 12

    Shafter A. W., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/734/1/12 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...734...12S 734, 12

    2011 doi

  52. [60]

    M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839..109S 839, 109

    Shara M. M., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa65cd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...839..109S 839, 109

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    N., Augusteijn T., Ederoclite A., Uthas H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...533L...8S 533, L8

    Shore S. N., Augusteijn T., Ederoclite A., Uthas H., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201117721 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...533L...8S 533, L8

    2011 doi

  54. [62]

    P., McCall B

    Snow T. P., McCall B. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.astro.43.072103.150624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ARA&A..44..367S 44, 367

    2006 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J., Schaefer B

    Strope R. J., Schaefer B. E., Henden A. A., 2010, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/34 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AJ....140...34S 140, 34

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Teyssier F., 2019, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate Pleso, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019CoSka..49..217T 49, 217

    2019

  57. [65]

    F., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&AS...70..125V 70, 125

    van den Bergh S., Younger P. F., 1987, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987A&AS...70..125V 70, 125

    1987

  58. [66]

    van der Velden E., 2020, @doi [The Journal of Open Source Software] 10.21105/joss.02004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JOSS....5.2004V 5, 2004

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Vollmann K., Eversberg T., 2006, @doi [Astronomische Nachrichten] 10.1002/asna.200610645 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AN....327..862V 327, 862

    2006 doi

  60. [68]

    Vos D. A. I., Cox N. L. J., Kaper L., Spaans M., Ehrenfreund P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200809746 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011A&A...533A.129V 533, A129

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    Walker G. A. H., Bohlender D. A., Maier J. P., Campbell E. K., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/2041-8205/812/1/L8 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...812L...8W 812, L8

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    M., Battisti A., Towers S

    Walter F. M., Battisti A., Towers S. E., Bond H. E., Stringfellow G. S., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1086/668404 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASP..124.1057W 124, 1057

    2012 doi

  63. [71]

    Wang S., Chen X., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1c61 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877..116W 877, 116

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Weston J. H. S., et al., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1161 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.460.2687W 460, 2687

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    E., Hamuy M., Phillips M

    Williams R. E., Hamuy M., Phillips M. M., Heathcote S. R., Wells L., Navarrete M., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170319 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..721W 376, 721

    1991 doi

Pith tools

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