How long can luminous blue variables sleep? A long-term photometric variability and spectral study of the Galactic candidate luminous blue variable MN 112
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Luminous blue variables (LBVs) are massive stars that show strong spectral and photometric variability. The questions of what evolutionary stages they represent and what exactly drives their instability are still open, and thus it is important to understand whether LBVs without significant ongoing activity exist, and for how long such dormant LBVs may ‘sleep’. In this paper we investigate the long-term variability properties of the LBV candidate MN 112, by combining its optical and infrared spectral data covering 12 years with photometric data covering nearly a century, as acquired from both modern time-domain sky surveys and historical photographic plates. We analyse the spectra, derive the physical properties of the star by modelling its atmosphere, and use a new distance estimate from Gaia data release 3 (DR3) to determine the position of MN 112 both inside the Galaxy and in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. The distance estimation has almost doubled in comparison with Gaia DR2. Because of this, MN 112 moved to upper part of the diagram, and according to our modelling it lies on an evolutionary track for a star with initial mass $M_*=70~\rm M_\odot$ near the Humphreys–Davidson limit. Given the absence of any significant variability, we conclude that the star is a dormant LBV that has now been inactive for at least a century.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".