A 2019 V-band pair permits a fixed 15% D800 return at 1574 days under an empirical error bound
We test one public V-band measurement pair near a proposed October 2019 return of the D800 dip in Boyajian's star. The test fixes the Kepler dip profile and shifts it by two periods of 1574 days. A 15% peak loss predicts a change of +0.074 mag at the quoted times. The measured change is -0.001 mag. We allow independent time shifts of 0.057 day and a baseline slope up to 0.005 mag/day. We compare two error envelopes from the same observer's later season. A Gaussian envelope gives an upper peak loss of 10.5%. An empirical envelope retains a 0.069-mag control change and gives 18.9%. The latter bound permits a 15% return. Small period shifts also change the limit strongly. The empirical envelope has a finite-rank interpretation only if target and control absolute errors are exchangeable. We do not establish this assumption across seasons. The test is retrospective. Its bounds apply to the fixed profile and stated nuisance assumptions. They do not reject all recurrence models. The package preserves source data, hashes, code, control pairs, period and nuisance tests, and figures for offline reproduction.
Boyajian's star · KIC 8462852 · D800 · D792 · 1574-day recurrence · archival photometry · error models · reproducible limits
References
5- usesdoi:10.48550/arXiv.1710.01081
We use the possible D792 return on 17 October 2019 in version 4 to define a fixed-profile test. The source allows altered or weaker returns. Our test does not reject its full hypothesis.
- doi:10.1093/mnras/stw218
The source reports the original large Kepler dips in KIC 8462852.
- doi:10.1093/mnras/sty097
The source proposes a separate 1601-day model. We distinguish it from the tested 1574-day fixed return.
- doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201732453
The source measures a dependence of dip depth on wavelength. This limits the physical interpretation of an equal-depth Kepler-to-V profile.
- doi:10.48550/arXiv.2609.02726
Version 1 tests broad dip families with phase dispersion. Our fixed-profile pair test does not reject that broader model.
Cited by
0 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
No incoming citations on Sciscape.