adsabs/AstroCLIMB huggingface dataset:
Paper: The Hubble Space Telescope Survey of M31 Satellite Galaxies. I. RR Lyrae–based Distances and Refined 3D Geometric Structure
Authors: Alessandro Savino, Daniel R. Weisz, Evan D. Skillman, Andrew Dolphin, Nitya Kallivayalil, Andrew Wetzel, Jay Anderson, Gurtina Besla, Michael Boylan-Kolchin, James S. Bullock, Andrew A. Cole, Michelle L. M. Collins, M. C. Cooper, Alis J. Deason, Aaron L. Dotter, Mark Fardal, Annette M. N. Ferguson, Tobias K. Fritz, Marla C. Geha, Karoline M. Gilbert, Puragra Guhathakurta, Rodrigo Ibata, Michael J. Irwin, Myoungwon Jeon, Evan Kirby, Geraint F. Lewis, Dougal Mackey, Steven R. Majewski, Nicolas Martin, Alan McConnachie, Ekta Patel, R. Michael Rich, Joshua D. Simon, Sangmo Tony Sohn, Erik J. Tollerud, Roeland P. van der Marel
Figure caption: Empirical correction (from Equation (3)) to the distance obtained with the Marconi et al. (2015) PWZ, shown as function of period and metallicity, assuming a linear correlation between color and period. For RRab stars (logP > −0.35), distances anchored to Gaia eDR3 parallaxes are 0.02–0.1 mag closer than those on the original Marconi et al. (2015) distance scale.
Paper: The Hubble Space Telescope Survey of M31 Satellite Galaxies. I. RR Lyrae–based Distances and Refined 3D Geometric Structure
Authors: Alessandro Savino, Daniel R. Weisz, Evan D. Skillman, Andrew Dolphin, Nitya Kallivayalil, Andrew Wetzel, Jay Anderson, Gurtina Besla, Michael Boylan-Kolchin, James S. Bullock, Andrew A. Cole, Michelle L. M. Collins, M. C. Cooper, Alis J. Deason, Aaron L. Dotter, Mark Fardal, Annette M. N. Ferguson, Tobias K. Fritz, Marla C. Geha, Karoline M. Gilbert, Puragra Guhathakurta, Rodrigo Ibata, Michael J. Irwin, Myoungwon Jeon, Evan Kirby, Geraint F. Lewis, Dougal Mackey, Steven R. Majewski, Nicolas Martin, Alan McConnachie, Ekta Patel, R. Michael Rich, Joshua D. Simon, Sangmo Tony Sohn, Erik J. Tollerud, Roeland P. van der Marel
Figure caption: Example CMDs for three targets (And VII, And XV, and And XI) of our sample, zoomed in on the HB. These examples illustrate the range of galaxy stellar mass, RR Lyrae population, and data quality across our sample. Confirmed RR Lyrae stars are represented as purple circles (RRab) and cyan diamonds (RRc). The error bars in the upper-right corner show the median photometric uncertainties at the level of the HB.
Paper: Jet–ISM Interaction in NGC 1167/B2 0258+35, an LINER with an AGN Past
Authors: G. Fabbiano, A. Paggi, R. Morganti, M. Baloković, M. Elvis, D. Mukherjee, M. Meenakshi, A. Siemiginowska, S. M. Murthy, T. A. Oosterloo, A. Y. Wagner, G. Bicknell
Figure caption: High-contrast, adaptively smoothed image of the 0.3–3.0 keV X-ray surface brightness, with the 22 GHz radio contours. As in Figure 2, the radio core position has been matched to that of the hard X-ray centroid (white cross).
Paper: Greater Climate Sensitivity and Variability on TRAPPIST-1e than Earth
Authors: Assaf Hochman, Paolo De Luca, Thaddeus D. Komacek
Figure caption: Climatology of (a, c, e) maximum temperature (T max in °C) and (b, d, f) total precipitation (Prec in mm d−1) for TRAPPIST-1e. The climatology is computed using the mean of 80 yr ExoCAM simulations with varying pCO2. The different pCO2 scenarios are described in Section 3.1 and are referred to as “Low” (10−2 Bar), “Mid” (10−1 Bar), and “High” (1 Bar). In panel (a) the subregions used in Figures 7–10 and 12 are marked with gray rectangles. The subregions considered are global (−90–90N, 0–360E), mid-latitude antistellar (30-60N, 345-15E), mid-latitude substellar (30-60N, 165-195E), equatorial antistellar (−15-15N, 345-15E), equatorial substellar (−15-15N, 165-195E), equatorial west-terminator (−15-15N, 75-105E), and equatorial east-terminator (−15-15N, 255-285E).
Paper: Greater Climate Sensitivity and Variability on TRAPPIST-1e than Earth
Authors: Assaf Hochman, Paolo De Luca, Thaddeus D. Komacek
Figure caption: Means of extreme maximum temperatures (T max in °C) for (a, c, e) TRAPPIST-1e, (b, d, f) Earth analog, and (g) ERA5 reanalysis. Extremes are daily values exceeding the 95th percentile of the whole distribution. The different pCO2 scenarios are described in Section 3.1 and are referred to as “Low” (10−2 Bar), “Mid” (10−1 Bar), and “High” (1 Bar). Black lines represent isolines of T max extremes. White regions represent areas without extremes.
Paper: Disentangling Multiple Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Sources in PTA Data Sets
Authors: Andrew R. Kaiser, Nihan S. Pol, Maura A. McLaughlin, Siyuan Chen, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Joseph Simon, Stephen R. Taylor, Sarah J. Vigeland, Caitlin A. Witt
Figure caption: Comparison of medians and 95% CIs in terms of the logarithmic GWB delay (Equation (8)) of three models for 50 realizations: the free spectrum (blue dots and lines) in both panels, the BPL in the left panel, with its median (solid orange line) and 95% CI (vertically striped orange shaded region), and the EBPL in the right panel, with its median (dashed red line) and 95% CI (horizontally striped red shaded region). We compare each model to the injected SMBHB GWB (α = − 2/3, γ = 13/3) at our nominal amplitude of 2 × 10−15 at f ref = 1/yr in the dotted gray line and the injected PGW GWB (α = −1, γ = 5) of density ratio ΩPGW/ΩSMBHB = 0.25 in the black dashed–dotted line.
Paper: Disentangling Multiple Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Sources in PTA Data Sets
Authors: Andrew R. Kaiser, Nihan S. Pol, Maura A. McLaughlin, Siyuan Chen, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Joseph Simon, Stephen R. Taylor, Sarah J. Vigeland, Caitlin A. Witt
Figure caption: Comparison of medians and 95% CIs of the logarithmic GWB delay of three models for 50 realizations as they evolve over time: the free spectrum (blue dots and lines), the BPL median (solid orange line) and 95% CI (vertically striped orange shaded region), and the EBPL median (dashed red line) and 95% CI (horizontally striped red shaded region). We compare each model to the injected PGW GWB (α = −1, γ = 5) of amplitude A PGW = 1 × 10−15 at f ref = 1/yr in the black dashed–dotted line.
Paper: Greater Climate Sensitivity and Variability on TRAPPIST-1e than Earth
Authors: Assaf Hochman, Paolo De Luca, Thaddeus D. Komacek
Figure caption: Schematic representation of the dynamical systems metrics on made-up atmospheric states. The local dimension (d) is related to the number of possible atmospheric patterns preceding and following the state being analyzed (in this case d = 2), and θ is the inverse of the persistence. If the pattern persists for 3 days (green ellipse), then θ = 1/3. If the patterns change at each time step (purple ellipse), then θ = 1. Inspired by a figure from Rodrigues et al. (2018).
Paper: Disentangling Multiple Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Sources in PTA Data Sets
Authors: Andrew R. Kaiser, Nihan S. Pol, Maura A. McLaughlin, Siyuan Chen, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Joseph Simon, Stephen R. Taylor, Sarah J. Vigeland, Caitlin A. Witt
Figure caption: Hypermodel A on an injected density ratio of ΩPGW/ΩSMBHB = 0.5 corresponding to an SMBHB GWB (α = − 2/3, γ = 13/3) at an amplitude of A SMBHB,Inj = 2 × 10−15 and a PGW GWB (α = −1/2, γ = 4) at A PGW,Inj = 1.4 × 10−15 both at f ref = 1/yr. All parameter amplitude panels corresponding to the re-parameterized posteriors in terms of a lower reference frequency of f ref = 1/(10 yr). The second-from-the-top plot more closely examines the narrow region of the fixed-PL-only signal model shown in the top panel.
Paper: Disentangling Multiple Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Sources in PTA Data Sets
Authors: Andrew R. Kaiser, Nihan S. Pol, Maura A. McLaughlin, Siyuan Chen, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Joseph Simon, Stephen R. Taylor, Sarah J. Vigeland, Caitlin A. Witt
Figure caption: Medians (blue lines) and distributions of ﹩{\mathrm{log}}_{10}﹩ BFs for 50 realizations of a hypermodel A analysis versus the timing baseline of the PTA. Only a PGW GWB at an amplitude of A PGW = 1 × 10−15 and spectral index α = −1 (γ = 5) has been injected in this data set, and thus these BFs represent the odds of a separate free PL on top of a fixed PL, or just the fixed PL to show the robustness of our previous analyses in the presence of only a PGW GWB.
Paper: Disentangling Multiple Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Sources in PTA Data Sets
Authors: Andrew R. Kaiser, Nihan S. Pol, Maura A. McLaughlin, Siyuan Chen, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Joseph Simon, Stephen R. Taylor, Sarah J. Vigeland, Caitlin A. Witt
Figure caption: Hypermodel A on a single injection in this data set with an amplitude of A PGW,Inj = 1 × 10−15 at f ref = 1/yr with a spectral index of α = −1 (γ = 5). All parameter amplitude panels corresponding to the re-parameterized posteriors in terms of a lower reference frequency of f ref = 1/(10 yr). The second-from-the-top plot more closely examines the narrow region of the fixed-PL-only signal model shown in the top panel.
Paper: Milky Way Zero-point Calibration of the JAGB Method: Using Thermally Pulsing AGB Stars in Galactic Open Clusters
Authors: Barry F. Madore, Wendy L. Freedman, Abigail J. Lee, Kayla Owens
Figure caption: The NIR J vs. (J–K) CMD for AGB stars in Milky Way open clusters, as given in Table 1 of Marigo et al. (2022). Blue-circled points (TP-AGB stars, according to Marigo et al.) are almost all within the JAGB region (WN01); open circles are her “early” asymptotic giant branch (E-AGB) stars, and are photometrically within the oxygen-rich AGB plume called “Region G” (WN01). The circled letters (E, G, J & K) each correspond to the same lettered regions given in Figure 1 of WN01. Red arrows bounding “Region K” are reddening trajectories in the J–(J–K) plane.
Paper: The Stellar-mass Function of Long Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies
Authors: Guang-Xuan Lan, Jun-Jie Wei, Ye Li, Hou-Dun Zeng, Xue-Feng Wu
Figure caption: Distributions of redshift (top panel), isotropic-equivalent energy (middle panel), and host galaxy mass (bottom panel) of 109 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) in the SHOALS sample (data points, with the number of detections in each corresponding bin indicated by a solid point with Possion error bars). Different curves show the expected distributions from different best-fitting models: no evolution model (purple dashed lines), energy evolution model (blue dotted–dashed lines), density evolution model (green dotted lines), and mass evolution model (black solid lines).
Paper: The Stellar-mass Function of Long Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies
Authors: Guang-Xuan Lan, Jun-Jie Wei, Ye Li, Hou-Dun Zeng, Xue-Feng Wu
Figure caption: Left panel: the stellar-mass–redshift distribution of 109 gamma-ray burst (GRB) host galaxies in the SHOALS sample. The inverted triangles represent the hosts with stellar-mass upper limits. The dotted line represents the stellar-mass threshold adopted in our calculations (corresponding to an apparent-magnitude limit m obs = 25.5 mag; see text and Equations (9) and (10)). Right panel: stellar mass as a function of the absolute magnitude at a wavelength of 3.6/(1 + z) μm for 79 GRB host galaxies with measured stellar mass and redshift. The best-fitting curve is parameterized in Equation (10).
Paper: Milky Way Zero-point Calibration of the JAGB Method: Using Thermally Pulsing AGB Stars in Galactic Open Clusters
Authors: Barry F. Madore, Wendy L. Freedman, Abigail J. Lee, Kayla Owens
Figure caption: The absolute J-band magnitude of each AGB star found in an open cluster as a function of the main-sequence turn-off mass of the host open cluster. TP-AGB stars are shown as circled blue dots. E-AGB stars are black circles, and extreme (dusty) carbon stars are shown as circled red dots. The 17 color-selected JAGB stars from Figure 1 are shown as doubly circled blue dots. The increase in M(J) with turn-off mass for the JAGB stars, between M(TO) = 1.16 and 3.33 M ☉, is shown by the solid line of slope −0.55 (±0.12) mag/M ☉, which is flanked by 2σ (broken) lines, where σ = 0.21 mag.
Paper: The Stellar-mass Function of Long Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies
Authors: Guang-Xuan Lan, Jun-Jie Wei, Ye Li, Hou-Dun Zeng, Xue-Feng Wu
Figure caption: Same as Figure 2, but for the refined sample of 109 gamma-ray burst (GRB) hosts (including 79 hosts with known stellar masses, 26 with mock stellar masses, and four with stellar-mass upper limits). Model results are shown as in Table 2.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Time evolution of heat flux at CMB, F CMB, for planets with 1 M ⊕ (left column), 3 M ⊕ (right column), CMF = 0.326 (top row), and CMF = 0.7 (bottom row). Blue, red, and violet curves indicate cases with a T eq of 255 K, 1350 K, and 2500 K. Dashed, dotted, and dashed–dotted curves are the conductive heat flux along the core adiabat calculated with k  c  = 40 Wm−1 K−1 (the fiducial choice), 80Wm−1 K−1, and 160 Wm−1 K−1, which we adopt as the threshold flux for the liquid core to be convecting. The 255 K (blue curves) and 1350 K evolution tracks (red curves) almost overlap each other and T eq has almost no influence on the cooling history of the iron core for cases with the low and intermediate T eq. In contrast, increasing T eq to 2500 K suppresses the cooling rate of the iron core.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Evolution of the potential dynamo source regions in the liquid outer core for all 12 cases. The three columns are for cases with T eq = 255 K, 1350 K, and 2500 K. The four rows are for cases with different combinations of M pl and CMF. The red shaded area indicates the dynamo source region in the liquid iron core (for the fiducial thermal conductivity of liquid iron of 40 Wm−1 K−1). Two darker red shadings indicates areas wherein the liquid outer core would still be convecting even if it had higher thermal conductivities of 80 Wm−1 K−1 and 160 Wm−1 K−1. Solid and dashed lines indicate radii of the iron core and the solid inner core, which are also the upper and lower boundaries of the dynamo source region in the liquid outer core.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Evolution of the potential dynamo source regions in the magma ocean for all 12 cases. The three columns are for cases with T eq = 255 K, 1350 K, and 2500 K. The four rows are for cases with different combinations of M pl and CMF. The shaded area indicates the dynamo source region in the magma ocean. Solid and dashed lines indicate the upper and lower boundaries of the dynamo source region in the magma ocean. Dotted and dashed–dotted lines indicate radii of the planet and the iron core.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Evolution of (a) surface heat flow, (b) radial temperature distribution, (c) heat flux at the CMB, and (d) radius of the solid inner core for a 1 M ⊕ planet with CMF = 0.326 and a pure iron core/pure Mg silicate mantle composition. The dotted curve in (b) represents the melting curve of the silicate mantle. The dashed curve in (c) shows the conductive flux along the core adiabat with k  c  = 40 Wm−1 K−1. In order for the liquid core to be convective and thus to be a potential dynamo source region, F CMB needs to exceed the conductive flux. The iron core fully solidifies at ∼5 Gyr, and the shorter age of the liquid core compared to the validation case (Figure 3) is caused by the high melting temperature of pure iron without impurities.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Time evolution of the solid inner core size for planets with 1 M ⊕ (left column), 3 M ⊕ (right column), CMF = 0.326 (top row), and CMF = 0.7 (bottom row). Blue, red, and violet curves indicate cases with a T eq of 255 K, 1350 K, and 2500 K.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Evolution of mantle cooling rate, Q mantle (Equation (47)), with 1 M ⊕ (left column), 3 M ⊕ (right column), CMF = 0.326 (top row), and CMF = 0.7 (bottom row). This plot shows the zoomed in portion between 10 Myr and 10 Gyr to emphasize the behavior of Q mantle during this stage. Blue, red, and violet curves indicate cases with T eq of 255 K, 1350 K, and 2500 K, respectively. Dashed curves in panel (d) indicates a negative Q mantle (i.e., the mantle heats up). In cases where T eq = 2500 K, the mantle reaches a steady state where the Q mantle approaches a zero level in less than a few Gyr. The vertical blue curve near 100 Myr in panel (d) indicates the mantle switching from heating up to cooling down.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: The convective heat flow (a) and the viscosity profiles (b) in the mantles of planets with 1 M ⊕, T eq = 255 K, and two values of the CMF at an age of 1 Gyr. The viscosity is several orders of magnitude greater in the lower-CMF case compared to the higher-CMF case, due to the higher pressures encountered in the mantle. This results in a lower convective heat flux and a suppressed efficiency of heat transport through the mantle in the case of CMF = 0.326, compared to CMF = 0.7.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Evolution of the mass-averaged mantle temperature of planets with 1 M ⊕ (left column), 3 M ⊕ (right column), CMF = 0.326 (top row), and CMF = 0.7 (bottom row). Blue, red, and violet curves indicate cases with T eq of 255 K, 1350 K, and 2500 K, respectively. In cases where T eq = 2500 K, the mantle reaches a steady state after ∼1000 yr and hardly cools in the next ∼10 Gyr.
Paper: Thermal Evolution and Magnetic History of Rocky Planets
Authors: Jisheng Zhang, Leslie A. Rogers
Figure caption: Time evolution of the surface heat flux of a 1 M ⊕ planet with CMF = 0.326 and (a) T eq = 255 K, (b) 1350 K, and (c) 2500 K.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: For the same sample of LRNe from Figure 11, here we show (top left panel) ejecta mass M ej estimated from light-curve observables {L 90, t 90} vs. donor mass from pretransient imaging, M ⋆. Circles show M ej calculated from our light-curve model assuming hydrogen recombination as the only energy source (Equation (21)), while squares show M ej calculated from Equation (16) assuming that the mean ejecta speed equals that observed spectroscopically, ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}={v}_{\mathrm{obs}};﹩ triangles and diamonds are the same as circles and squares but for events without donor-mass constraints (horizontal lines denote the corresponding mass estimates for an event). For comparison, lines of constant η = M ej/M ⋆ = 0.01, 0.1, and 1 are shown as solid black lines. (Top right panel) Ejecta velocity estimated from light-curve observables (Equation (22)) vs. spectroscopic velocity, v obs (circles). Squares show the case when the estimated velocity is exactly the same as v obs. (Bottom left panel) Various radii vs. donor mass. Circles show the mass ejection radius R 0 estimated by equating the mean velocity ﹩{\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩ inferred light-curve modeling to the local escape speed ﹩{v}_{\mathrm{esc}}={(2{{GM}}_{\star }/{R}_{0})}^{1/2}﹩ (Equation (23)), while squares show R 0 calculated assuming v esc = v obs (Equation (24)). Stars show the radius of the donor progenitor star, R ⋆, inferred from pretransient imaging.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: Same as Figure 9 but showing the ratios of the transient luminosity and duration from our numerical calculations to the analytic formulae for SNe II (Equations (25) and (26); Popov 1993; Sukhbold et al. 2016). Along the gray dashed line the radiation pressure is equal to the gas pressure at the time of ejection for the shell with ﹩v={\bar{v}}_{{\rm{E}}}﹩. The assumption of radiation-dominated ejecta (e.g., Popov 1993) is violated to the left of this line.
Paper: Light-curve Model for Luminous Red Novae and Inferences about the Ejecta of Stellar Mergers
Authors: Tatsuya Matsumoto, Brian D. Metzger
Figure caption: For the same sample of LRNe in Figure 12, here we compare the ejecta masses and launching radii inferred from our light-curve model M ej/R 0 on the vertical axis (using the two methods described in Figure 12 with the same symbol notation) to those obtained using the Popov (1993) SN light-curve formulae on the horizontal axis (Equations (27) and (28)).
Paper: A 31.3 day Transient Quasiperiodic Oscillation in Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar S5 0716+714
Authors: Junping Chen, Tingfeng Yi, Yunlu Gong, Xing Yang, Zhihui Chen, Xin Chang, Lisheng Mao
Figure caption: AIC distribution plot of the ARIMA model and SARIMA model. (a) AIC plot of the ARIMA(p, d, q) model. Although the minimum occurs at ARIMA(4, 1, 3) (the box marked with a green square), the global minimum when SARIMA is considered occurs at SARIMA(4, 0, 1) × (6, 1, 2) (the box marked with blue square). (b) AIC plot of SARIMA(4, 0, 1) × (P, 1, Q), considering a period (30 days); at SARIMA(4, 0, 1) × (6, 1, 2) we observe a global minimum. AIC values are provided in the boxes. (For boxes that are not colored and where no AIC value is given, either the fit is not converging, or the AIC is greater than the set threshold.) (c) AIC values for different periods. We see a global minimum AIC value at s = 30 days. The red solid line and the blue dashed line represent the ARIMA(4, 1, 3) model AIC value and the 99.994% confidence level line, respectively.
Paper: A 31.3 day Transient Quasiperiodic Oscillation in Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar S5 0716+714
Authors: Junping Chen, Tingfeng Yi, Yunlu Gong, Xing Yang, Zhihui Chen, Xin Chang, Lisheng Mao
Figure caption: Left panel: WWZ map of the S5 0716+714 light curve in MJD 55593−56312. Middle panel: Enlarged map (MJD 55918−56137) of the left panel. Right panel: The black solid line shows the time-averaged WWZ. The blue and green dashed lines are the 3σ and 4σ significance curves, respectively. A QPO signal of 31.3 ± 1.8 days is detected in the period with a confidence level of 4.1σ.
Paper: A 31.3 day Transient Quasiperiodic Oscillation in Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar S5 0716+714
Authors: Junping Chen, Tingfeng Yi, Yunlu Gong, Xing Yang, Zhihui Chen, Xin Chang, Lisheng Mao
Figure caption: Top panel: The light curve of Fermi–LAT, with 5 day time bins (TS > 25) of S5 0716+714 in MJD 55593−56312. Bottom panel: Enlarged shaded section (MJD 57693−57903) of the top panel. The blue dashed line represents the average value of flux, the green dotted line is the result of fitting the sine function, and the red arrows indicate the peak positions for each cycle.
Paper: A 31.3 day Transient Quasiperiodic Oscillation in Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar S5 0716+714
Authors: Junping Chen, Tingfeng Yi, Yunlu Gong, Xing Yang, Zhihui Chen, Xin Chang, Lisheng Mao
Figure caption: LSP power (black solid line) of light curve during MJD 55918−56137. The blue dash, red dash, and dotted lines indicate the 3σ, 4σ, and FAP (4σ), respectively.
Paper: A 31.3 day Transient Quasiperiodic Oscillation in Gamma-ray Emission from Blazar S5 0716+714
Authors: Junping Chen, Tingfeng Yi, Yunlu Gong, Xing Yang, Zhihui Chen, Xin Chang, Lisheng Mao
Figure caption: Results of the periodicity analysis by REDFIT. The black solid line is a bias-corrected power spectrum. Dashed curves starting from the bottom are the theoretical red-noise spectrum (olive green dashed line), 90% (cyan dashed line), 95% (violet dashed line), and 99% (purple dashed line) significance levels, respectively.