Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Sporadic Dips from Extended Debris Transiting the Metal-Rich White Dwarf SBSS 1232+563

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A long-quiet white dwarf was occulted by debris for roughly eight months, dimming by more than 40 percent, with a candidate 14.842-hour debris orbital period detected afterward.

desk verdict Strong observational discovery of sporadic deep debris transits at a polluted white dwarf; the headline '8-month transit' is an assumption through a solar occultation gap rather than a measured continuous duration. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02050 v1 pith:WSZ7ZCAS submitted 2025-01-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.EP

J. J. Hermes , Joseph A. Guidry , Zachary P. Vanderbosch , Mariona Badenas-Agusti , Siyi Xu , Malia L. Kao , Antonio C. Rodriguez , Keith Hawkins This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.EP
keywords whitedwarfstarsdebristransitsdiskspolluteddwarfsstellarvariabilityplanetarySBSS1232+563
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that SBSS 1232+563, a white dwarf already known to be accreting disrupted planetary debris, also transits: roughly 25 years of survey photometry show occasional dimmings, the largest being an event that began around 2023 April and lasted about eight months, during which the star lost more than 40 percent of its flux. The authors argue that these occultations come from an extended, inhomogeneous cloud of debris, and that TESS photometry taken just after the event reveals a candidate 14.842-hour debris orbital period along with shorter periodic signals. In-transit high-speed photometry shows minutes-to-hours variability that is absent out of transit, while six low-resolution spectra spread over two decades show no significant changes in the photospheric metal abundances. The concluding claim is that debris transits around white dwarfs can be sporadic, with many years of inactivity before large-amplitude dimming events.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is occultation by an extended, inhomogeneous debris cloud orbiting the white dwarf. The load-bearing evidence is a 25-year multi-survey photometric baseline that places the 2023 event in context and exposes years of quiescence. TESS photometry supplies a candidate 14.842-hour orbital period through a harmonic-rich periodogram whose non-sinusoidal shape is read as the signature of transiting debris rather than a stellar spot. Color measurements in and out of transit favor gray, wavelength-independent extinction, and in-transit minutes-long variability indicates clumpy structure within the cloud.

What would settle it

Continuous, high-cadence photometry during and after the next deep dimming, or archival observations that cover the solar gap of the 2023 event, would settle whether the star stayed dim for the full eight months; detecting a dip that recurs at 14.842 hours would confirm the candidate debris orbital period, while its absence across many orbits would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core, the paper establishes that the metal-polluted white dwarf SBSS 1232+563 is a transiting debris system rather than merely a candidate one. The evidence is a 25-year relative-flux light curve assembled from archival surveys: after more than five years within a few percent of constant flux, the star entered what the paper interprets as a roughly eight-month dimming in 2023 that reached greater than 40 percent depth, and smaller extended dips are visible around 2010 and 2016. TESS sector 75 photometry shows a coherent 14.842-hour fundamental with at least five harmonics, which the paper identifies as the likely dominant debris orbital period, plus a non-harmonic 95.8416-minute signal; sector 76 shows an 8.57-minute signal of uncertain origin. High-speed ground-based photometry taken inside the 2023 transit shows more than three times more short-timescale variability than out-of-transit runs, and spectra taken at different transit depths over two decades show no significant abundance changes. The paper therefore concludes that debris transits around white dwarfs can be sporadic, with years of quiescence between large-amplitude transits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the star remained in transit throughout the solar gap, because the data cannot distinguish one 8-month event from two shorter dips separated by an unseen recovery.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Transit occurrence rates for white-dwarf debris inferred from short-baseline surveys will be underestimates, because this system can sit at constant flux for more than five years between deep events.
  • If the 14.842-hour TESS signal is the debris orbital period, it becomes the fifth measured orbital period for transiting debris at a white dwarf, spanning from about 4.5 hours to about 107 days.
  • The duration and depth of the 2023 event imply an extremely extended occulting structure, most naturally a debris cloud on a highly eccentric orbit with a large apastron.
  • The enhanced minutes-to-hours variability observed only during transit indicates that the debris is inhomogeneous, with clumps that block the stellar disk unevenly.
  • The long quiescence motivates continued all-sky monitoring and suggests that new wide-field surveys with decade-long baselines should find more such systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 8-month duration is not directly observed through the solar gap; if the star left transit while unobservable, the 2023 event would split into two separate deep dips and the extremely extended debris inference would weaken.
  • Editorial inference: reconciling a coherent 14.842-hour periodicity with a dimming that lasts many months is not automatic; a single clump on a 14.8-hour orbit cannot block the star for eight months, so the structure must be a large, possibly radially or azimuthally extended debris complex, and a dynamical model of such a structure is a natural next test.
  • Editorial inference: the stability of the photospheric abundances across transit depths, if it holds under higher-resolution in-transit spectroscopy, would argue that the transiting material is not adding significant fresh metal absorption and is consistent with gray, optically thin debris rather than dense circumstellar gas.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes roughly 25 years of survey and targeted photometry of the metal-polluted white dwarf SBSS 1232+563, reporting sporadic deep dips, most notably a >40% dimming around 2023 that the authors interpret as an 8-month-long transit by extended debris. It adds high-speed photometry from McDonald Observatory showing enhanced short-term variability in transit, TESS photometry revealing a candidate 14.842-hr periodic signal with harmonics, and six epochs of low-resolution spectroscopy showing no abundance changes. The paper concludes that debris transits at white dwarfs can be sporadic, with many years of inactivity before large-amplitude dimming events.

Significance. If the duration of the 2023 event holds, this is the longest and deepest debris transit observed at a white dwarf and provides strong evidence that such transits can be sporadic after multi-year quiescent intervals. The observational case is built on multiple independent surveys and multicolor follow-up, and the paper is appropriately cautious in its interpretation of the TESS periodicities. The main caveat is that the continuous 8-month duration is an assumption across a solar-occultation gap, which weakens the headline claim unless explicitly acknowledged.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; Section 5, first paragraph; Figure 1 caption] The headline '8-months-long' event is presented as a measured property in the Abstract and in Section 5 ('roughly 8-months-long, nearly 50% deep transit'), but the photometry only brackets the event: a deep state is seen in 2023 April–May and again in August, with a solar-occultation gap in between. Figure 1's own caption states the duration 'assuming the object remained in transit while it was not visible behind the Sun.' If the source left transit during the gap, the event could split into two or more shorter dips, and the inference of an extremely extended debris structure in Section 5 loses its quantitative support. Please rewrite the Abstract and Section 5 to state the duration explicitly as a lower limit or as contingent on an unverified continuity assumption, and reconcile the depth claim ('>40%' in the Abstract versus 'nearly 50%' in Section 5) with the actual deepest measured points.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, CRTS paragraph] In the CRTS paragraph, the median is computed from only the 20 epochs after MJD 56100 because earlier epochs 'appear to be taken in transit,' and those earlier epochs are then used as evidence of dips. Since the choice of baseline makes dips appear by construction, this is partly circular. Please report the number of pre-56100 epochs and demonstrate that the dips are not an artifact of the chosen baseline, ideally by comparing with an absolute flux reference.
  2. [Section 5, paragraph on recurrence] The statement that these events 'recur roughly every 6-8 years' is weakly supported by the sparse PS1 and Gaia epochs in Figure 5; please quantify the number of in-dip epochs and their significance relative to the photometric scatter.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The depth of the 2023 event is given as both '>40% drop' (Abstract) and 'nearly 50% deep' (Section 5). Please use a single consistent value or explicitly state the range of measured depths.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Abstract] The 14.842-hr TESS signal is detected in only one of six TESS sectors and is not seen in earlier TESS, ZTF, ATLAS, or McDonald data. While the paper acknowledges this later in Section 3.2, the Abstract's phrase 'suggests a coherent 14.842-hr signal' could be read as a persistent period. Please clarify in the Abstract that this is a candidate, possibly transient signal.
  5. [Section 4, final paragraph] The conclusion that abundances show 'no evidence of significant changes' rests in part on the low-S/N DBSP spectrum taken in transit (S/N = 17.9 with many upper limits in Table 4). Consider rephrasing to 'no significant changes detected within the sensitivity of the available spectra.'
  6. [Figure 1] The figure would benefit from a shaded or labeled region marking the solar-occultation gap between the 2023 April–May and August observations, so that the assumed nature of the continuous transit is immediately visible to the reader.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential CRTS baseline selection; the central sporadic-transit detection is otherwise independent and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, CRTS paragraph]
    "We only include the 20 epochs after 56100 MJD to calculate the median CRTS magnitude, as most of the previous epochs appear to be taken in transit."

    The CRTS evidence for early dimming is displayed relative to a median computed only from epochs selected because they were judged not to be in transit. The pre-selected 'in-transit' epochs are therefore faint relative to a baseline that was defined by excluding them, so the depth of those older dips is partly constructed by the same classification the figure is used to demonstrate. The effect is local to the CRTS panel and is not load-bearing for the central claim: the 2023 >40% event and the PS1 2010/Gaia 2016 dips are normalized to their own survey medians, and the ZTF/ATLAS baseline independently establishes years of quiescence.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a direct observational measurement: survey photometry shows deep, sporadic dimming, with the strongest 2023 event visible in ZTF, ATLAS, LCOGT, and McDonald data. No fitted model parameter is fed back to generate the transit claim; the TESS 14.842-hr signal is found with a periodogram, bootstrap false-alarm levels, and TESS-localize source association, not by assuming the transit period. Numerous author-team citations (Hermes 2018, Guidry 2021/2024, Steen 2024, Badenas-Agusti 2024) supply methods, candidate selection, or supporting disk variability, but the discovery claim rests on independent public photometry (ZTF, ATLAS, PS1, Gaia, TESS) and new follow-up. The one mildly self-referential step is the CRTS median constructed from post-MJD-56100 epochs after earlier epochs were labeled in transit; this can inflate the displayed depth of those older dips, but it does not affect the independently corroborated 2023 event or the PS1/Gaia dips. The 8-month continuous duration is an assumption across a solar-occultation gap, explicitly stated in the Figure 1 caption; that is a robustness/interpretation caveat, not a circular derivation. Accordingly the paper shows no significant circularity beyond the minor baseline-selection issue.

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

The central claim is observational and does not rest on fitted physical parameters. Analysis thresholds used in the paper (S/N > 5 for ZTF, S/N > 3 for ATLAS, 1-day ATLAS binning, 0.1% false-alarm probability, 0.20 dex detection threshold, 3-sigma WISE clipping) are stated, standard choices that do not enter any derivation; none is fitted to make the claim work. The adopted Teff and log g are taken from Coutu et al. (2019), and the paper itself warns these may carry extra uncertainty from the variable photometry. No new entities (particles, mediators, dimensions) are postulated; the 'extended cloud' is an interpretation of the dimming and of the previously known dusty disk, and the 14.842-hr, 95.84-min, and 8.57-min signals are measured periodicities rather than invented quantities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The adopted atmospheric parameters for SBSS 1232+563 (Teff = 11,787 K, log g = 8.30, from Coutu et al. 2019) are accurate enough that abundance determinations are unbiased.
    Invoked in Section 4 to run all cecilia fits with fixed parameters; the paper itself cautions these 'likely have extra uncertainty due to the variable photometry of the system.'
  • domain assumption The star remained in continuous transit during the unobserved solar-occultation gap of the 2023 event.
    Figure 1 caption: 'assuming the object remained in transit while it was not visible behind the Sun'; if false, the '8-months-long event' splits into two separate dips.
  • domain assumption The dimming mechanism is occultation or extinction by debris rather than intrinsic luminosity variability of the white dwarf.
    Section 5 argues against a spot origin for the 14.842-hr signal based on harmonic structure, but intrinsic mechanisms for the deep, months-long dips are not directly tested; the interpretation relies on prior IR-excess and metal-pollution evidence.
  • domain assumption The TESS Sector 75 periodicities are intrinsic to SBSS 1232+563 and are transient in nature, which would explain their absence from ZTF, ATLAS, and McDonald data.
    Section 3.2: 'That we cannot see the high-amplitude signals... in other datasets challenges that these are intrinsic astrophysical variability... It is possible these signals are transient and only manifest in transit.'
  • standard math Lomb-Scargle periodograms with 10,000-shuffle bootstrap false-alarm probabilities and TESS-localize vetting correctly model the noise statistics.
    Section 3.2; the TESS-localize p-values for f1 (0.0445) and f2 (0.055) are near the conventional 0.05 threshold, so significance claims are modestly supported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sporadic Dips from Extended Debris Transiting the Metal-Rich White Dwarf SBSS 1232+563." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSZ7ZCAS

@misc{pith2026250102050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sporadic Dips from Extended Debris Transiting the Metal-Rich White Dwarf SBSS 1232+563},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSZ7ZCAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02050}
}
read the original abstract

We present the discovery of deep but sporadic transits in the flux of SBSS 1232+563, a metal-rich white dwarf polluted by disrupted exoplanetary debris. Nearly 25 years of photometry from multiple sky surveys reveal evidence of occasional dimming of the white dwarf, most notably evident in an 8-months-long event in 2023 that caused a >40% drop in flux from the star. In-transit follow-up shows additional short-timescale (minutes- to hours-long) dimming events. TESS photometry suggests a coherent 14.842-hr signal that could represent the dominant orbital period of debris. Six low-resolution spectra collected at various transit depths over two decades show no evidence of significant changes in the observed elemental abundances. SBSS 1232+563 demonstrates that debris transits around white dwarfs can be sporadic, with many years of inactivity before large-amplitude dimming events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The top panel shows survey photometry for SBSS 1232+563, detailed in Section 2, spanning 2000 to 2024 shows sporadic, deep dips. Low-resolution optical spectroscopy coincides with vertical dashed red lines, including a spectrum in 2023 collected in transit (see Section 4). The bottom panel shows a zoom in from 2018 to mid-2024. The deepest dip began in roughly 2023 April and extended until roughly 2024 January (more… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The first 1.4 hr for five separate nights of high-speed photometry of SBSS 1232+563 from the ProEM instrument on the 2.1-meter Otto Struve Telescope at McDonald Observatory. The left four panels were all collected out of transit and are representative for our five other epochs from 2018–2019, while the right panel was collected in 2023 August in deep transit and shows considerably more short-term variability. All da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The top panel shows 180 phase bins of the light curve of SBSS 1232+563 from TESS Sector 75 folded at 14.842 hr. The pan￾els below show Lomb-Scargle periodograms of various TESS data. The second panel shows a periodogram of 20-s data from Sector 75, the highest-quality TESS data, where we detect significant signals at 14.842 hr (18.7 µHz), the second harmonic at 7.421 hr, and a (likely) non-harmonic signal at 95.8416… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Six epochs of low-resolution spectroscopy collected on SBSS 1232+563, at epochs denoted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Survey photometry for SBSS 1232+563 centered around additional transits around 55300 MJD (2010 April) detected in PanSTARRS (PS1) in the left panel and 57410 MJD (2016 January) detected in Gaia in the right panel. All points have uncertainties; some error bars are smal…

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 ZTF Search for Circumstellar Debris Transits in White Dwarfs: Six New Candidates, one with Gas Disk Emission, identified in a Novel Metric Space

    astro-ph.SR 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Six new white dwarf debris-transit candidates are reported, including WD J1013-0427, the first with reddening during transit and with both a dusty and a gaseous debris disk.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.05569, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.05569

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.05569 2019

  2. [2]

    J., & Palle, E

    Alonso, R., Rappaport, S., Deeg, H. J., & Palle, E. 2016, A&A, 589, L6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628511 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628511 2016

  3. [3]

    T., Dhillon, V

    Aungwerojwit, A., G¨ansicke, B. T., Dhillon, V . S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 117, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae750

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae750 2024

  4. [4]

    2024, MNRAS, 529, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae421

    Badenas-Agusti, M., Via˜na, J., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 1688, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae421

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae421 2024

  5. [5]

    D., Kilic, M., Brown, W

    Barber, S. D., Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., & Gianninas, A. 2014, ApJ, 786, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/786/2/77

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/2/77 2014

  6. [6]

    J., C´orsico, A

    Bell, K. J., C´orsico, A. H., Bischoff-Kim, A., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936340

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936340 2019

  7. [7]

    G., & Wallace, J

    Bhatti, W., Bouma, L. G., & Wallace, J. 2018,Astrobase, 0.3.8, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1185231

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.1185231 2018

  8. [8]

    D., Stepanian, J

    Bicay, M. D., Stepanian, J. A., Chavushyan, V . H., et al. 2000, A&AS, 147, 169, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000295

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:2000295 2000

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    S., Schlegel, D

    Bolton, A. S., Schlegel, D. J., Aubourg, ´E., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 144, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/144/5/144

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Bonsor, A., & Malamud, U

    Brouwers, M. G., Bonsor, A., & Malamud, U. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2404, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3009

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    G., Buchan, A

    Brouwers, M. G., Buchan, A. M., Bonsor, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 2663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3317

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    W., Farihi, J., Redfield, S., et al

    Cauley, P. W., Farihi, J., Redfield, S., et al. 2018, ApJL, 852, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa3d9

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1612.05560

    2016 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    Coutu, S., Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab46b9

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    H., Hoard, D

    Debes, J. H., Hoard, D. W., Wachter, S., Leisawitz, D. T., & Cohen, M. 2011, ApJS, 197, 38, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/38

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    J., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Mahabal, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 870, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S

    Drake, A. J., Catelan, M., Djorgovski, S. G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/1/32

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    2012, ApJ, 749, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/6

    Dufour, P., Kilic, M., Fontaine, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 6, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/6

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Liebert, J., Harris, H

    Eisenstein, D. J., Liebert, J., Harris, H. C., et al. 2006, ApJS, 167, 40, doi: 10.1086/507110

    2006 doi

  12. [20]

    2023, A&A, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    Eyer, L., Audard, M., Holl, B., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244242

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    2016, NewAR, 71, 9, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2016.03.001

    Farihi, J. 2016, NewAR, 71, 9, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2016.03.001

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    T., & Koester, D

    Farihi, J., G¨ansicke, B. T., & Koester, D. 2013, Science, 342, 218, doi: 10.1126/science.1239447

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    J., Marsh, T

    Farihi, J., Hermes, J. J., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 1647, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3475

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    M., Brasseur, C

    Ginsburg, A., Sip˝ocz, B. M., Brasseur, C. E., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 98, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aafc33

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Hermes, J

    Guidry, J. A., Hermes, J. J., De, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 972, 126, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5be7

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    A., Vanderbosch, Z

    Guidry, J. A., Vanderbosch, Z. P., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2021, ApJ, 912, 125, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abee68

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Han, T., & Brandt, T. D. 2023, AJ, 165, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acaaa7

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    2021, ApJ, 911, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe9bd

    Hawkins, K., Zeimann, G., Sneden, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 911, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe9bd

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Boudreaux, E

    Hermes, J., Corcoran, K. A., Boudreaux, E. M., et al. 2018, A Method to Select Variable White Dwarfs from Gaia DR2, 21st European White Dwarf Workshop, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4088554

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    J., Kawaler, S

    Hermes, J. J., Kawaler, S. D., Bischoff-Kim, A., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 835, 277, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/277

    doi

  24. [32]

    J., G¨ansicke, B

    Hermes, J. J., G¨ansicke, B. T., Kawaler, S. D., et al. 2017b, ApJS, 232, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aa8bb5

    doi

  25. [33]

    E., & Bell, K

    Higgins, M. E., & Bell, K. J. 2023, AJ, 165, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acb20c

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    J., Gebhardt, K., Komatsu, E., et al

    Hill, G. J., Gebhardt, K., Komatsu, E., et al. 2008, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 399, Panoramic Views of Galaxy Formation and Evolution, ed. T. Kodama, T. Yamada, & K. Aoki, 115, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.0806.0183

    2008 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    A., Kiker, T

    Hillenbrand, L. A., Kiker, T. J., Gee, M., et al. 2022, AJ, 163, 263, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac62d8

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c TRANSITS OF THE WHITE DWARF SBSS 1232+563 13

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    T., et al

    Izquierdo, P., Rodr´ıguez-Gil, P., G¨ansicke, B. T., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2315

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    M., Twicken, J

    Jenkins, J. M., Twicken, J. D., McCauliff, S., et al. 2016, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2016

  31. [39]

    9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV , ed

    Series, V ol. 9913, Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy IV , ed. G. Chiozzi & J. C. Guzman, 99133E, doi: 10.1117/12.2233418

    doi

  32. [40]

    O., & Winget, D

    Kanaan, A., Kepler, S. O., & Winget, D. E. 2002, A&A, 389, 896, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020485

    2002 doi

  33. [41]

    2010, ApJ, 709, 950, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/950

    Klein, B., Jura, M., Koester, D., Zuckerman, B., & Melis, C. 2010, ApJ, 709, 950, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/709/2/950

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53, doi: 10.1553/cia146s53

    Lenz, P., & Breger, M. 2005, Communications in Asteroseismology, 146, 53, doi: 10.1553/cia146s53

    2005 doi

  35. [43]

    M., et al

    Mainzer, A., Bauer, J., Cutri, R. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/30

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    J., G¨ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ansicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 4467, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2603

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    J., G¨ansicke, B

    Manser, C. J., G¨ansicke, B. T., Eggl, S., et al. 2019, Science, 364, 66, doi: 10.1126/science.aat5330

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    M., Caselden, D., Schlafly, E

    Meisner, A. M., Caselden, D., Schlafly, E. F., & Kiwy, F. 2023, AJ, 165, 36, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aca2ab

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    B., & Ingargiola, A

    Newville, M., Stensitzki, T., Allen, D. B., & Ingargiola, A. 2014, LMFIT: Non-Linear Least-Square Minimization and Curve-Fitting for Python, 0.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.11813

    2014 doi

  41. [49]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1982, PASP, 94, 586, doi: 10.1086/131027

    1982 doi

  42. [50]

    B., Cohen, J

    Oke, J. B., Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375, doi: 10.1086/133562 pandas development team, T. 2020, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, latest, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    1995 doi

  43. [51]

    1986, ApJS, 61, 177, doi: 10.1086/191111

    Paquette, C., Pelletier, C., Fontaine, G., & Michaud, G. 1986, ApJS, 61, 177, doi: 10.1086/191111

    1986 doi

  44. [52]

    Perley, D. A. 2019, PASP, 131, 084503, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab215d

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    Prochaska, J., Hennawi, J., Westfall, K., et al. 2020, The Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2308, doi: 10.21105/joss.02308

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    T., Koester, D., et al

    Raddi, R., G¨ansicke, B. T., Koester, D., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2083, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv701

    2015 doi

  47. [55]

    R., Winn, J

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

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, MNRAS, 533, 1756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1859

    Robert, A., Farihi, J., Van Eylen, V ., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1756, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1859

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

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

    Rockosi, C., Stover, R., Kibrick, R., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference

    2010

  50. [58]

    7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed

    Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 77350R, doi: 10.1117/12.856818

    doi

  51. [59]

    M., Tucker, M

    Rowan, D. M., Tucker, M. A., Shappee, B. J., & Hermes, J. J. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 4574, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1116 Schr¨oder, K. P., & Smith, R. C. 2008, MNRAS, 386, 155, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13022.x

    2019

  52. [60]

    J., Guidry, J

    Steen, M., Hermes, J. J., Guidry, J. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 967, 166, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e60

    2024 doi

  53. [61]

    Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953, doi: 10.1086/156444

    1978 doi

  54. [62]

    G., & Parsons, S

    Swan, A., Farihi, J., Wilson, T. G., & Parsons, S. G. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 5233, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1688

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    J., Farihi, J., et al

    Swan, A., Kenyon, S. J., Farihi, J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 432, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1738

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    W., Lemson, G., et al

    Taghizadeh-Popp, M., Kim, J. W., Lemson, G., et al. 2020, Astronomy and Computing, 33, 100412, doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2020.100412

    2020

  57. [65]

    E., & Mullally, F

    Thompson, S. E., & Mullally, F. 2009, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, V ol. 172, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012081, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/172/1/012081

    2009 doi

  58. [66]

    L., Stubbs, C

    Tonry, J. L., Stubbs, C. W., Lykke, K. R., et al. 2012, ApJ, 750, 99, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/99

    2012 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A

    Tonry, J. L., Denneau, L., Heinze, A. N., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 064505, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aabadf van Sluijs, L., & Van Eylen, V . 2018, MNRAS, 474, 4603, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3068

    2018 doi

  60. [68]

    2023, zvanderbosch/phot2lc: phot2lc v1.7.8 release, v1.7.8, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8169807

    Vanderbosch, Z. 2023, zvanderbosch/phot2lc: phot2lc v1.7.8 release, v1.7.8, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8169807

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    J., Dennihy, E., et al

    Vanderbosch, Z., Hermes, J. J., Dennihy, E., et al. 2020, ApJ, 897, 171, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9649

    2020 doi

  62. [70]

    P., Rappaport, S., Guidry, J

    Vanderbosch, Z. P., Rappaport, S., Guidry, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 917, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0822

    2021 doi

  63. [71]

    A., Rappaport, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 546, doi: 10.1038/nature15527

    2015 doi

  64. [72]

    2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150571, doi: 10.1098/rsos.150571

    Veras, D. 2016, Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150571, doi: 10.1098/rsos.150571

    2016 doi

  65. [73]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Hermes, J

    Wilson, D. J., Hermes, J. J., & G¨ansicke, B. T. 2020, ApJL, 897, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9d7b

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2019, AJ, 158, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4cee

    Xu, S., Dufour, P., Klein, B., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 242, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab4cee

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.