pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.20413 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR

Cyclic light variations and accretion disk evolution in the LMC eclipsing binary OGLE-LMC-DPV-062

R.E. Mennickent , G. Djura\v{s}evi\'c , J.A. Rosales , J. Garc\'es , J. Petrovi\'c , D.R. G. Schleicher , I. Soszy\'nski This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 06:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR
keywords accretion diskseclipsing binariesLMCmass transferphotometric cyclesbinary evolutiondisk variability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Changes in accretion disk height, not radius or temperature, drive the long photometric cycle in this LMC binary.

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

The study fits multi-band light curves of OGLE-LMC-DPV-062 across 32 years to a model where the accretion disk geometry varies over the 230-day long cycle while the stars and orbit remain fixed. The dominant change is a 69 percent standard deviation in the vertical height at the inner disk edge, which increases at minimum brightness and obscures more of the central star; outer radius and temperature shift only 7 and 5 percent. The normalized mass-transfer rate tracks the long cycle and peaks when the system is faintest. Stellar evolution calculations place the components in a post-mass-transfer stage consistent with the observed period ratio under a magnetic dynamo picture.

Core claim

The long cycle of 229.7 days arises from cyclic changes in the accretion disk, with the inner-disk vertical thickness varying by a standard deviation of 69 percent of its mean value while the outer radius and temperature change by only 7 and 5 percent. At minimum light the inner edge thickens, the normalized mass-transfer rate reaches its maximum, and a larger fraction of the gainer star is obscured. The orbital period of 6.904858 days remains stable, and the orbital-to-long-period ratio matches expectations from the magnetic dynamo hypothesis.

What carries the argument

A parameterized accretion-disk model whose inner height, outer radius, and temperature are varied across 20 phases of the long cycle and fitted to I, V, BM, and RM photometry with an optimized simplex algorithm.

If this is right

  • Mass-transfer rate varies in phase with the long cycle and reaches its peak when the disk is thickest.
  • Obscuration of the gainer star by the thickened inner disk edge is the main cause of the observed brightness minimum.
  • The observed orbital-to-long-period ratio is consistent with the magnetic dynamo mechanism for disk warping or precession.
  • MESA evolutionary tracks indicate the system is in a post-mass-transfer phase with the donor star having lost significant mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar long-cycle behavior in other DPV systems may be testable by checking whether their mass-transfer indicators also peak at minimum light.
  • If vertical disk changes dominate, high-cadence spectroscopy could reveal periodic changes in line profiles tied to the 230-day cycle.
  • The model implies that future observations of X-ray or UV excess should also modulate with the long cycle if accretion rate is the driver.

Load-bearing premise

That the entire long-cycle light signal can be produced by adjusting only disk geometry while holding the stars and orbital elements completely fixed.

What would settle it

A spectroscopic or interferometric measurement at minimum light that shows the inner-disk height is not larger than at maximum light would contradict the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.20413 by D.R. G. Schleicher, G. Djura\v{s}evi\'c, I. Soszy\'nski, J.A. Rosales, J. Garc\'es, J. Petrovi\'c, R.E. Mennickent.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Section of the OGLE I-band light curve of OGLE-LMC-DPV-062. Colors indicate different orbital phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: WWZ transform showing a strong signal around 230 days. The orbital period was removed before the analysis. characteristic temperatures, neglecting detailed radiative trans￾fer. Nonetheless, the model accounts for reflection effects, limb darkening, and gravity darkening of the stars. The accretion disk is described by its radius Rd, its vertical semi-thicknesses at the center and outer edge (dc and de, res… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Orbital light curve colored with the long-term cycle phase of the data. Magnitudes subtracting the minimum magnitude of the respective dataset are shown in the graph below. Djuraševic 2013; Lomax et al. 2012; Mourard et al. 2018). While ´ the hot spot is naturally associated with the stream–disk inter￾action, the bright spot may arise from gas that has crossed the stream–disk shock/discontinuity region (th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: I-band magnitudes taken at orbital phases [0.2-0.3; up] and [0.9- 1.1; down] phased with the long-term cycle phase.                [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MACHO BM-RM color versus orbital and long-term cycle phases. produce vertical oscillations and secondary thickened regions at other azimuths, providing a plausible physical origin for the bright spot (Kaigorodov, Bisikalo, & Kurbatov 2017). Each spot is characterized by a relative temperature, Ahs ≡ Ths/Td for the hot spot and Abs ≡ Tbs/Td for the bright spot, their angular extents (θhs and θbs), and azimu… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dereddened colors and effective temperatures for giant (red dots) and dwarfs (black dots). The best 3th order polynomial fit along with 95% confidence and prediction bands are shown by dashed and dashed￾light areas, respectively. We show the observed colors of OGLE-LMC￾DPV-062 during main eclipse in five long-cycle phases as vertical lines, while the solid dashed line shows the average color and the horizo… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Parameter S = Σ (O-C)2 for the fits done to the light curve of dataset 1, as a function of mass ratio. The best 4th order polynomial fit is also shown along with a vertical line showing the minimum at q = 0.261. lation between the disk’s inner edge thickness and the system brightness. Interestingly, the positions of the main and secondary eclipses, measured with gaussian fits, follow systematic tenden￾cies… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Radial position and angular extension of hot spot (solid circles) and bright spot (squares) at different long-cycle phases. Colors indicate the normalized mass transfer rate. 0. 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 1 . 0 0. 47 0. 48 0. 49 0. 50 0. 51 0. 97 0. 98 0. 99 1 . 00 1 . 01 0. 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4 0. 5 0. 6 0. 7 0. 8 0. 9 1 . 0 30 40 50 60 70 300 31 0 320 330 340 O r bi tal p h a s e sec… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Up: Minima of gaussian fits to the main and secondary eclipses for datasets of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: mass-transfer rate and evolution of the donor star mass. Bottom: evolution of the theoretical value of Pcycle/Porb considering γ = 0.27 ± 0.01 (blue region), together with the estimated dynamo number. The horizontal line shows the observed relation Plong/Porb = 33.2. In both panels, the vertical line indicates the age, according to the best MESA evolutionary model, at which the system reaches an orbi… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Up: Evolutionary tracks for the best quasi-conservative model. Blue dots with error bars are the observed values and triangles the model’s values. Labels correspond to the evolutive stages given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Many intermediate-mass close binaries exhibit photometric cycles longer than their orbital periods, likely related to accretion-disk variability. Previous studies indicate that historical light curves (LC) provide key constraints on disk evolution and may help trace mass-transfer changes in these systems. We investigate the short- and long-term variability of the eclipsing system OGLE-LMC-DPV-062, with special emphasis on the long cycle. Our aims are to clarify the role of the accretion disk in these modulations, particularly on timescales of hundreds of days, and to determine the evolutionary state of the system in order to better understand its stellar components. We analyzed 32.3 years of photometric time series from OGLE in the I and V bands, and from MACHO in the BM and RM bands. Using data from multiple epochs, we modeled the accretion disk at 20 equally spaced phases of the long cycle. To solve the inverse problem, we applied an optimized simplex algorithm to derive the best-fitting parameters of the stars, orbit, and disk. The MESA code was used to assess the evolutionary stage of the system and predict its past and future evolution. We find an orbital period of 6.904858(15) d and a long cycle of 229.7 d. The orbital solutions reproduce the LC, but the quasi-conservative mass-transfer scenario yields rates too high to be compatible with the observed orbital-period stability. We find consistency with the observed orbital-to-long-period ratio under the magnetic dynamo hypothesis. The normalized mass-transfer rate follows the long cycle, reaching a maximum at minimum brightness. At that phase, the inner disk edge thickens, obscuring a larger fraction of the gainer star. Disk variability occurs mainly in its vertical extent, with a standard deviation of 69% of the mean value at the inner border, whereas changes in outer radius and temperature are smaller, 7% and 5%, respectively.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 32.3 years of OGLE and MACHO photometry for the LMC eclipsing binary OGLE-LMC-DPV-062, deriving P_orb = 6.904858(15) d and a long cycle of 229.7 d. Using an optimized simplex algorithm, the authors solve the inverse problem for the accretion disk at 20 equally spaced phases of the long cycle while holding stellar radii, temperatures, and orbital elements fixed; they report that disk variability is dominated by changes in inner-edge vertical thickness (std = 69% of mean), with smaller variations in outer radius (7%) and temperature (5%). The normalized mass-transfer rate is found to track the long cycle, peaking at minimum brightness, and MESA tracks are used to assess the evolutionary state and orbital-period stability, yielding consistency with the magnetic-dynamo hypothesis for the observed period ratio.

Significance. If the modeling is robust, the work supplies quantitative evidence that long photometric cycles in intermediate-mass binaries are driven primarily by accretion-disk geometry changes, particularly vertical structure at the inner edge, rather than radius or temperature. The linkage of mass-transfer rate to the cycle and the evolutionary context via MESA add value for understanding mass transfer and disk evolution in such systems.

major comments (4)
  1. Light-curve modeling section: the headline result that inner-disk vertical thickness varies with std = 69% of the mean (versus 7% radius and 5% temperature) is obtained from simplex fits at 20 phases, yet no uncertainties, covariance estimates, or Monte-Carlo error bars are reported on either the individual parameters or the derived standard deviations, so the statistical significance of the claimed dominance of vertical variability cannot be assessed.
  2. Inverse-problem description: no goodness-of-fit statistics (reduced chi-squared, residuals, or rms) are supplied for the 20 phase-specific models, nor is there any validation against synthetic light curves with injected disk variations; without these, it is impossible to judge whether the fits are unique or whether the 69% inner-height variation absorbs unmodeled signals.
  3. Modeling assumptions (fixed stellar/orbital elements): the entire long-cycle signal is attributed to disk geometry by construction, with no alternative models tested that include cool spots on the gainer, donor pulsations, or circumstellar material; if even 10-20% of the 229.7 d amplitude arises from such sources, the simplex solution will trade it into the inner-height parameter, inflating the reported 69% std dev.
  4. Mass-transfer-rate claim: the statement that the normalized mass-transfer rate follows the long cycle and reaches a maximum at minimum brightness is presented without specifying the normalization reference, the exact mapping from fitted disk parameters to mass-transfer rate, or any uncertainty on the derived values.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the quasi-conservative mass-transfer scenario yields rates too high for the observed orbital-period stability, but no numerical values or direct comparison to the observed dP/dt upper limit are given in the text.
  2. Notation for the long-cycle phases and the 20 sampled points should be clarified with an explicit table or figure caption listing the phase values used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the recommendation for major revision. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments, indicating where we will revise the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Light-curve modeling section: the headline result that inner-disk vertical thickness varies with std = 69% of the mean (versus 7% radius and 5% temperature) is obtained from simplex fits at 20 phases, yet no uncertainties, covariance estimates, or Monte-Carlo error bars are reported on either the individual parameters or the derived standard deviations, so the statistical significance of the claimed dominance of vertical variability cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative uncertainties are required to assess the significance of the reported variability. In the revised manuscript we will add Monte-Carlo error estimates (derived from 1000 synthetic light-curve realizations per phase) for every disk parameter at each of the 20 phases and for the resulting standard deviations. These will be tabulated and used to confirm that the 69 % variation in inner-edge height remains statistically larger than the 7 % and 5 % changes in radius and temperature. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Inverse-problem description: no goodness-of-fit statistics (reduced chi-squared, residuals, or rms) are supplied for the 20 phase-specific models, nor is there any validation against synthetic light curves with injected disk variations; without these, it is impossible to judge whether the fits are unique or whether the 69% inner-height variation absorbs unmodeled signals.

    Authors: We will include, for each of the 20 models, the reduced chi-squared, rms residual, and a representative residual plot. In addition, we will insert a validation subsection that describes recovery tests performed on synthetic light curves containing known disk-height, radius, and temperature variations; these tests demonstrate that the simplex algorithm recovers the injected inner-height changes to within the Monte-Carlo uncertainties and does not systematically trade other signals into the height parameter. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Modeling assumptions (fixed stellar/orbital elements): the entire long-cycle signal is attributed to disk geometry by construction, with no alternative models tested that include cool spots on the gainer, donor pulsations, or circumstellar material; if even 10-20% of the 229.7 d amplitude arises from such sources, the simplex solution will trade it into the inner-height parameter, inflating the reported 69% std dev.

    Authors: Fixing the stellar and orbital elements was a deliberate choice to isolate the disk contribution, which is the central aim of the study. We nevertheless recognize that unmodeled surface or circumstellar effects could be partially absorbed by the disk parameters. In the revision we will add an explicit limitations subsection that quantifies the possible contribution of cool spots and pulsations (using amplitude estimates from similar systems) and shows that even a 15 % non-disk contribution would reduce the inner-height std dev only to ~55 % of the mean—still the dominant term. We will also note that full exploration of alternative models lies beyond the scope of the present work. revision: partial

  4. Referee: Mass-transfer-rate claim: the statement that the normalized mass-transfer rate follows the long cycle and reaches a maximum at minimum brightness is presented without specifying the normalization reference, the exact mapping from fitted disk parameters to mass-transfer rate, or any uncertainty on the derived values.

    Authors: We will revise the relevant paragraph to state that the mass-transfer rate is normalized to its cycle-averaged value, that it is mapped from the fitted inner-disk height and radius via the fraction of the gainer that is obscured at each phase, and that uncertainties are propagated from the Monte-Carlo parameter errors. A new figure will show the normalized rate with error bars phased on the 229.7 d cycle. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central results obtained from direct fitting to multi-band photometry.

full rationale

The paper derives disk variability statistics by solving the inverse problem at 20 equally spaced long-cycle phases using an optimized simplex algorithm applied to OGLE I/V and MACHO BM/RM light curves, with stellar radii, temperatures, and orbital elements held fixed. The reported 69% standard deviation in inner-disk vertical extent (versus 7% outer radius and 5% temperature) is computed directly from the sequence of fitted disk parameters. The statement that normalized mass-transfer rate follows the long cycle is presented as an output of this modeling. Consistency with the magnetic-dynamo hypothesis is a ratio comparison to the observed 229.7 d / 6.9 d period ratio, not a derivation that reduces to fitted quantities. Evolutionary assessment uses the independent MESA code. No quoted step equates a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction, nor relies on load-bearing self-citation or smuggled ansatz; the chain remains self-contained against the external photometric time series.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitting a large set of disk geometry and mass-transfer parameters to the light curves at 20 phases; the evolutionary conclusions depend on standard binary-evolution assumptions in MESA.

free parameters (4)
  • inner-disk vertical thickness at each of 20 phases
    Fitted to reproduce the long-cycle light variations; reported standard deviation of 69 % of mean value.
  • outer-disk radius at each phase
    Fitted parameter showing only 7 % variation.
  • disk temperature at each phase
    Fitted parameter showing only 5 % variation.
  • normalized mass-transfer rate
    Derived from the disk model and stated to peak at minimum brightness.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Photometric variations over the long cycle are produced exclusively by changes in accretion-disk geometry and temperature.
    Invoked when the inverse problem is solved by varying only disk parameters while holding stellar and orbital elements fixed.
  • domain assumption MESA binary-evolution tracks with quasi-conservative mass transfer accurately represent the system's past and future.
    Used to compare predicted mass-transfer rates against the observed orbital-period stability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1584 out tokens · 55628 ms · 2026-05-15T06:51:22.904172+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Alves D., Axelrod T

    Alcock C., Allsman R. A., Alves D., Axelrod T. S., Becker A. C., Bennett D. P., Cook K. H., et al., 1997, ApJ, 486,

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    A., Alves D

    Alcock C., Allsman R. A., Alves D. R., Axelrod T. S., Becker A. C., Bennett D. P., Cook K. H., et al., 1999, PASP, 111,

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    E., Richards M

    Albright G. E., Richards M. T., 1996, ApJ, 459, L99. Atwood-Stone C., Miller B. P., Richards M. T., Budaj J., Peters G. J., 2012, ApJ, 760,

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    L., Nesme-Ribes E., SokoloffD., Soon W

    Baliunas S. L., Nesme-Ribes E., SokoloffD., Soon W. H., 1996, ApJ, 460,

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    V ., Harmanec P., Boyarchuk A

    Bisikalo D. V ., Harmanec P., Boyarchuk A. A., Kuznetsov O. A., Hadrava P., 2000, A&A, 353,

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Celedón L., Mennickent R

    Brož M., Mourard D., Budaj J., et al., 2021, A&A, 645, A51. Celedón L., Mennickent R. E., Barría D., Garcés J., Jurkovi ´c M., 2025, A&A, 700, A217. Claret A., 2000, A&A, 363, 1081 Dennis, J.E.,Torczon, V ., 1991, Direct search methods on parallel machines, in SIAM Journal on Optimization, V ol.1, Issue 4, pages 448-474 Djuraševi´c G., 1992, Ap&SS, 196,

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    1996, Ap&SS, 240,

    Djuraševi´c, G. 1996, Ap&SS, 240,

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    2008, AJ, 136,

    Djuraševi´c, G., Vince, I., & Atanackovi´c, O. 2008, AJ, 136,

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    Djuraševi´c G., Latkovi´c O., Vince I., Cséki A., 2010, MNRAS, 409,

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    P., 1983, ApJ, 268,

    Eggleton P. P., 1983, ApJ, 268,

    work page 1983

  11. [11]

    Eggleton P., Evolutionary Processes in Binary and Multiple Stars, by Peter Eggleton, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,

    Eggenberger P., Ekström S., Georgy C., Martinet S., Pezzotti C., Nandal D., Meynet G., et al., 2021, A&A, 652, A137. Eggleton P., Evolutionary Processes in Binary and Multiple Stars, by Peter Eggleton, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Foster G., 1996, AJ, 112,

    work page 1996

  13. [13]

    Gaposchkin S., 1944, ApJ, 100,

    work page 1944

  14. [14]

    E., Djuraševi ´c G., Poleski R., Soszy ´nski I., 2018, MNRAS, 477, L11

    Garcés L J., Mennickent R. E., Djuraševi ´c G., Poleski R., Soszy ´nski I., 2018, MNRAS, 477, L11. Garcés J., Mennickent R. E., Petrovíc J., Barría D., Celedón L., Cortés C. C., Djuraševi´c G., et al., 2025, A&A, 701, A90. Głowacki M., Soszy´nski I., Udalski A., Szyma´nski M. K., Skowron J., Skowron D. M., Mróz P., et al., 2024, AcA, 74,

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    K., Kubiak M., et al., 2011, AcA, 61,

    Graczyk D., Soszy ´nski I., Poleski R., Pietrzy ´nski G., Udalski A., Szyma ´nski M. K., Kubiak M., et al., 2011, AcA, 61,

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    F., 1989, SSRv, 50,

    Guinan E. F., 1989, SSRv, 50,

    work page 1989

  17. [17]

    Harmanec P., 1988, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institute of Czechoslovakia, 39,

    work page 1988

  18. [18]

    aa59115-26 Harmanec P., Morand F., Bonneau D., Jiang Y ., Yang S., Guinan E

    Article number, page 11 of 18 A&A proofs:manuscript no. aa59115-26 Harmanec P., Morand F., Bonneau D., Jiang Y ., Yang S., Guinan E. F., Hall D. S., et al., 1996, A&A, 312, 879 Hill G., Harmanec P., Pavlovski K., Bozic H., Hadrava P., Koubsky P., Ziznovsky J., 1997, A&A, 324,

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    Huang S.-S., 1963, ApJ, 138,

    work page 1963

  20. [20]

    Iwanek P., Soszy´nski I., Kozłowski S., 2021, ApJ, 919,

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    V ., Bisikalo D

    Kaigorodov P. V ., Bisikalo D. V ., Kurbatov E. P., 2017, Astronomy Reports, 61,

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    R., Ziznovsky J., Huang L., Richards M

    Koubsky P., Harmanec P., Bozic H., Rercy J. R., Ziznovsky J., Huang L., Richards M. T., et al., 1998, Hvar Observatory Bulletin, 22,

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    Lang, K., 1993, Astronomy, vol. 21, no. 2, p

    work page 1993

  24. [24]

    E., Valli R., Rubio A

    Lechien T., de Mink S. E., Valli R., Rubio A. C., van Son L. A. C., Klement R., Jin H., et al., 2025, ApJL, 990, L51. Lomax J. R., Hoffman J. L., Elias N. M., Bastien F. A., Holenstein B. D., 2012, ApJ, 750,

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Lorenzi L., 1980, A&A, 85,

    work page 1980

  26. [26]

    H., Shu F

    Lubow S. H., Shu F. H., 1975, ApJ, 198,

    work page 1975

  27. [27]

    Marchant P., Bodensteiner J., 2024, ARA&A, 62,

    Magic Z., Weiss A., Asplund M., 2015, A&A, 573, A89. Marchant P., Bodensteiner J., 2024, ARA&A, 62,

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    E., 2017, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 194,

    Mennickent, R. E., 2017, Serbian Astronomical Journal, 194,

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    E., Pietrzy´nski, G., Diaz, M., Gieren, W., 2003, A&A, 399,

    Mennickent, R. E., Pietrzy´nski, G., Diaz, M., Gieren, W., 2003, A&A, 399,

    work page 2003

  30. [30]

    E., Kołaczkowski Z., Michalska G., Pietrzy´nski G., Gallardo R., Cidale L., Granada A., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 389,

    Mennickent R. E., Kołaczkowski Z., Michalska G., Pietrzy´nski G., Gallardo R., Cidale L., Granada A., et al., 2008, MNRAS, 389,

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    E., Kołaczkowski Z., Djurasevic G., Niemczura E., Diaz M., Curé M., Araya I., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427,

    Mennickent R. E., Kołaczkowski Z., Djurasevic G., Niemczura E., Diaz M., Curé M., Araya I., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 427,

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    E., Djuraševi´c G., 2013, MNRAS, 432,

    Mennickent R. E., Djuraševi´c G., 2013, MNRAS, 432,

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    E., Otero, S., Kołaczkowski, Z

    Mennickent, R. E., Otero, S., Kołaczkowski, Z. 2016, MNRAS, 455,

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    E., Garcés J., Djuraševi´c, G., et al., 2020a, A&A, 641, A91

    Mennickent R. E., Garcés J., Djuraševi´c, G., et al., 2020a, A&A, 641, A91. Mennickent R. E., Djuraševi´c G., Vince I., et al., 2020b, A&A, 642, A211. Mennickent R. E., Djuraševi´c G., 2021, A&A, 653, A89. Mennickent R. E., Djuraševi ´c G., Petrovi ´c J., Gorrini P., Burgos F., Jurkovic M. I., Magalhaes A. M., et al., 2022, A&A, 666, A51. Mennickent R. E....

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Pawlak, M., Graczyk, D., Soszy´nski, I., et al., 2013, Acta Astronomika, 63,

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    K., Wyrzykowski Ł., Ulaczyk K., Poleski R., et al., 2016, Acta Astronomika, 66,

    Pawlak M., Soszy ´nski I., Udalski A., Szyma ´nski M. K., Wyrzykowski Ł., Ulaczyk K., Poleski R., et al., 2016, Acta Astronomika, 66,

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Paxton B., Bildsten L., Dotter A., Herwig F., Lesaffre P., Timmes F., 2011, ApJS, 192,

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    B., Bildsten L., Cantiello M., Dessart L., et al., 2015, ApJS, 220,

    Paxton B., Marchant P., Schwab J., Bauer E. B., Bildsten L., Cantiello M., Dessart L., et al., 2015, ApJS, 220,

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Poleski R., Soszy´nski, I., Udalski, A., et al., 2010, Acta Astronomika, 60,

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    Rojas García G., Mennickent R., Iwanek P., Gorrini P., Garcés J., Soszy ´nski I., Astudillo-Defru N., 2021, ApJ, 922,

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    A., Mennickent R

    Rosales Guzmán J. A., Mennickent R. E., Djuraševi ´c G., Araya I., Curé M., 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3039 Rosales J. A., Mennickent R. E., Schleicher D. R. G., Senhadji A. A., 2019, MNRAS, 483,

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    A., Petrovi´c J., Mennickent R

    Rosales J. A., Petrovi´c J., Mennickent R. E., Schleicher D. R. G., Djuraševi´c G., Leigh N. W. C., 2024, A&A, 689, A154. San Martín-Pérez R. I., Schleicher D. R. G., Mennickent R. E., Rosales J. A., 2019, Boletín de la Asociación Argentina de Astronomía, 61,

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Scherbak P., Lu W., Fuller J., 2025, ApJ, 990,

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Schleicher, D. R. G., & Mennickent, R. E. 2017, A&A, 602, A109. Skowron D. M., Skowron J., Udalski A., Szyma ´nski M. K., Soszy ´nski I., Wyrzykowski Ł., Ulaczyk K., et al., 2021, ApJS, 252,

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    F., 1978, ApJ, 224,

    Stellingwerf R. F., 1978, ApJ, 224,

    work page 1978

  46. [46]

    H., Baliunas S

    Soon W. H., Baliunas S. L., Zhang Q., 1993, ApJL, 414, L33. Terrell D., Wilson R. E., 2005, Ap&SS, 296,

    work page 1993

  47. [47]

    Udalski A., Szyma´nski M. K. & Szyma´nski G.2015, Acta Astronomika, 65,

    work page 2015

  48. [48]

    von Zeipel H., 1924, MNRAS, 84,

    work page 1924

  49. [49]

    Wilson R

    Warner B., 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, 28, ISBN: 9780511586491. Wilson R. E., Devinney E. J., 1971, ApJ, 166,

    work page 1995

  50. [50]

    Zechmeister M., Kürster M., 2009, A&A, 496,

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    M1 +M 2 (A.6) Assuming the relative error is similar for both stars, we can write: ∆a a = 1 3 4 α ∆T T (A.7) Forα >3.5: ∆a a < 1.14 3 ∆T T ≈0.38 ∆T T (A.8) From the above equations, and assuming a temperature un- certainty of 10%, we get masses with uncertainty of less than 11% and orbital separation with uncertainty of less than 4%. To calculate the erro...

    work page arXiv 1935