Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Internal Shocks from Variable Outflows in Classical Novae

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the multi-peaked light curves, correlated gamma-ray and optical flares, and lagging photosphere expansion seen in classical novae can all be produced by repeated internal radiative shocks from a fast outflow…

desk verdict A professionally executed 1D radiative-hydro study that makes a plausible case for multiple outflow transitions in novae, but several headline agreements are built into the input assumptions rather than independently predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01700 v2 pith:YCVAIDV4 submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.HE

Elad Steinberg , Brian D. Metzger This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords classicalnovaeinternalshocksradiativeoutflowvariabilitygamma-rayemissionopticallightcurvesX-rayradiosynchrotron
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 argues that classical novae do not necessarily eject their outflow in one smooth acceleration, but can oscillate between fast and slow outflow modes, producing a train of internal radiative shocks. These repeated collisions sweep gas into thin, dense shells that collide and merge, and the shock power, absorbed and re-emitted by the ejecta, powers much of the optical continuum. The authors show with one-dimensional radiative hydrodynamics that this multiple-transition scenario naturally produces multi-peaked light curves, correlated gamma-ray and optical flaring, photospheric expansion that lags the luminosity peak by about a day, and complex accelerating, decelerating, and merging line components. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a single mechanism tying together several puzzling nova observations that the traditional single-shock picture cannot match.

What carries the argument

The central object is the internal forward-reverse shock structure formed where the fast outflow catches the slow outflow, with post-shock gas cooling efficiently as a radiative shock to about $10^4$ K and compressing by a factor roughly $\mathcal{M}^2$, where $\mathcal{M}$ is the shock Mach number. The calculations are one-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations with radiative losses, run for a single-transition model, a multiple-transition model, and a bumpy-medium model that varies the mass and homogeneity of the pre-existing slow outflow. The key identity is the thin-shell photosphere-crossing timescale $t_{\rm thin} \approx \dot{M}\kappa_{\rm opt}/(4\pi v_f v_s)$, which determines whether a shock releases most of its energy below or above the optical photosphere, and therefore whether the reprocessed emission appears in the continuum or in emission lines.

What would settle it

Search for a multi-peaked nova whose keV X-ray or 10 GHz radio emission turns on during the same epoch as its gamma-ray and optical flares: the model places those bands behind large absorbing columns for weeks to months, with keV X-rays emerging only when the external column drops below $\tau \simeq 1$, so an early coincident bright radio or keV X-ray flare would rule out the embedded-shock timing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that repeated transitions between slow (about 200 km/s) and fast (about 1400 km/s) outflow modes generate internal radiative shocks whose energy, reprocessed by the opaque ejecta, can explain the observed variability of nova optical, gamma-ray, X-ray, and radio emission. In the multiple-transition model, each switch back to the fast flow creates a forward-reverse shock pair bounding a cool, dense shell; these shells later merge pairwise into a monolithic shell whose forward shock eventually breaks through the slow, pre-existing outflow. The paper concludes that the multiple-transition scenario is favored by the gamma-ray and optical variability of novae, while a single monotonic transition predicts smooth light curves and cannot easily reproduce the correlated photospheric behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that a slow, equatorially concentrated outflow is already present around the binary when the fast wind starts, with a specific density profile, and that the nova can switch between fast and slow outflow modes repeatedly; if that pre-existing outflow is weaker or the switching does not happen, the predicted flares, delays, and radio and X-ray onsets change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, multi-peaked nova light curves are not necessarily separate mass ejections but the visible signatures of repeated fast-slow collisions and the later merging of the cold shells they create.
  • Gamma-ray and optical flares are predicted to track one another closely, because both follow the instantaneous shock power with little delay, once the shock is above the gamma-ray photosphere.
  • Photospheric radius maxima should lag luminosity maxima by roughly the time a shock-bounded shell takes to reach the photosphere, about 0.5 to 2.3 days for the fiducial parameters.
  • Spectral line evolution should show accelerating, decelerating, and merging velocity components, with the slow unshocked medium producing narrow absorption features.
  • KeV X-ray and roughly 10 GHz synchrotron radio emission should be delayed for weeks to months, appearing only after the forward shock of the outermost merged shell reaches a sufficiently low external column.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if outflow switching timescales are systematically shorter than about a day, most shock energy is deposited beneath the photosphere and flares should appear primarily in the optical continuum, whereas longer switching intervals should push the emission into lines; this yields a testable relation between variability timescale and flare spectrum.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper does not identify the mechanism behind fast-slow mode switching, so the predicted variability is only as physical as the assumed switch sequence; coupling the shock hydrodynamics to models of the white-dwarf envelope is a natural next step.
  • Beyond the paper: multi-dimensional thin-shell instabilities would broaden the cool shells and likely weaken the bright second-generation collision flares, so the most extreme observed flare amplitudes may require a higher fast/slow velocity contrast than the fiducial 1400/200 km/s values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses one-dimensional moving-mesh hydrodynamical simulations with radiative cooling to model internal shocks in classical nova outflows, comparing a single slow-to-fast transition with a 'multiple transition' scenario in which the outflow alternates between slow and fast modes several times on timescales of hours to days. The authors argue that the multiple-transition model can simultaneously explain observed multi-peaked optical light curves, correlated optical and gamma-ray flares, photospheric expansion that lags the flare maximum, complex accelerating/decelerating/merging spectral line components, and the delayed onset of keV X-ray and radio synchrotron emission from the merged outer shell. They also compute thermal X-ray, gamma-ray, and radio light curves under different assumptions about the pre-existing slow outflow and abundance, and discuss dust formation in the clumpy post-shock gas.

Significance. The paper is a serious and mostly clearly presented exploratory study of a plausible mechanism. Its strengths include a detailed numerical method (RICH moving-mesh hydrodynamics with CLOUDY cooling, an exact Riemann solver, and explicit thin-shell resolution), a systematic comparison of several model variants, and a set of concrete, in principle falsifiable predictions—e.g., the 0.5–2.3 day lag between Ltot and Rph maxima in the multiple-transition model, the early suppression of soft X-rays by the external medium, and the dependence of the radio synchrotron peak on the radius r0 of the initial slow outflow. The paper is also honest about many of its own limitations, including the 1D geometry, the neglect of multidimensional thin-shell instabilities, and the absence of a model for the physical trigger of the fast/slow transitions. However, the evidential weight placed on agreement with the observed gamma-ray/optical variability is overstated because that correlation is in large part built into the model by construction, and several key inputs are chosen to match the very phenomena being explained.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.3 and 4] The gamma-ray light curves are computed as L_gamma = epsilon_gamma L_sh with a constant epsilon_gamma = 3e-3 (Section 3.3), while the reprocessed optical luminosity shown in Fig. 6 also tracks L_sh by construction. The correlation between optical and gamma-ray flares displayed in Figs. 6 and 10–11 is therefore partly built in, so it cannot independently support the conclusion in Section 4 that the Multiple Transition scenario is 'clearly favored' by the gamma-ray/optical variability. Please either compute gamma-ray emission from a time-dependent particle-acceleration/cooling model that can decorrelate it from L_sh, or explicitly treat this comparison as a consistency check and add a test (e.g., relative flare amplitudes or time lags) that is not predetermined by the common shock-power variable.
  2. [2 (Fig. 2) and 4] The sequence of fast/slow mode switches is imposed by hand, with transition intervals delta_t chosen on phenomenological grounds to be hours-to-days so that the resulting collisions match observed flare timescales (Section 2). The paper also explicitly states that it does not address the physical origin of the abrupt and frequent transitions (Section 4). Under these conditions, the multi-peaked optical light curves and the accelerating, decelerating, and merging line components in Figs. 6 and 8 follow directly from the injected pulse train and are demonstrations of consistency, not independent predictions. The conclusion should be reworded accordingly, and ideally the authors should identify a diagnostic that can test the prescribed-transition model against alternative mechanisms such as episodic mass ejection or clumpy ejecta.
  3. [2 (bottom panel) and 3.4–3.5] The predicted delays and luminosities of keV X-rays and radio synchrotron emission depend sensitively on the assumed pre-existing slow outflow, parameterized by r0 and the adopted rho propto r^-2 / r^-4 density profile (Fig. 2). The Fiducial versus Low Mass comparison shows order-of-magnitude changes in the radio synchrotron peak and in the X-ray luminosity, and the paper acknowledges that these predictions depend on the mass, radial distribution, and composition of the external medium. Because these are among the paper's most concrete observational predictions, the authors should either provide a physically motivated derivation of the external density profile or explicitly characterize these predictions as illustrative and state which observations would empirically determine r0.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 12] The caption assigns 'blue lines' to synchrotron emission and 'red lines' to thermal free-free emission, whereas Section 3.5 describes the blue lines as thermal emission and the red lines as synchrotron emission; please make the text and caption consistent.
  2. [Abstract and 3.6] There are typos: 'occurence' in the abstract should be 'occurrence', and 'line of site' in Section 3.6 should be 'line of sight'.
  3. [2 and 3] A table summarizing all input parameters (Mdot_f, v_f, Mdot_s, v_s, r0, delta_t, L_wd, epsilon_gamma, epsilon_B, epsilon_e, p, kappa_opt) and their adopted values would greatly improve reproducibility; the parameters are currently scattered through Sections 2 and 3 and introduced with the phrase 'somewhat arbitrarily'.
  4. [3.4 and Figs. 10–11] The caveat that the 1D models overestimate the thermal X-ray luminosity because of multidimensional radiative-shock effects is stated in the text, but it would be helpful to print the approximate suppression factor in the figure captions of Figs. 10 and 11 as well.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the gamma-ray/optical correlation is built in by definition and the flare timescale is an input boundary condition, so the 'clearly favored' variability verdict is a consistency check; photospheric lag and X-ray/radio delay remain genuine dynamics.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 'Description of Numerical Model' (boundary condition, near Eqs. 1–3); Section 4 'Conclusions']
    "Local maxima (“flares”) are observed in classical nova light curves on timescales ranging from hours to weeks (e.g. Strope et al. 2010; Walter et al. 2012; Henze et al. 2018; Aydi et al. 2019). To generate collisions on approximately this timescale, we impose transitions between the slow to the fast mode on a characteristic time interval δt≈ hours−days and with delays between the transitions of a day to a week."

    The flare timescale is not derived from the model; it is inserted as an input boundary condition specifically to match the observed range of nova flare timescales. The multi-peaked optical light curve and the associated variability are the hydrodynamic response to that imposed pulse train, so the agreement with observed variability is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The paper's conclusion that 'The Multiple Transition scenario is clearly favored by the gamma-ray/optical variability of novae' therefore rests on an input chosen to produce variability, and the paper itself concedes it 'does not address the physical origin of the abrupt and frequent transitions.'

  2. self definitional [Section 3.3 'Gamma-Ray Emission' (Figs. 10–11); Section 4 'Conclusions']
    "we expect the observed gamma-ray emission to approximately track the instantaneous power of the shock, much as with the reprocessed optical emission ... The gamma-ray light curves in Figs. 10, 11 were calculated by multiplying the kinetic power of the shocks from the simulation by a constant value εγ = 3×10−3."

    The gamma-ray/optical correlation is constructed, not predicted. The plotted optical luminosity is Ltot = Lsh(t) + Lwd with Lwd taken constant, while the gamma-ray luminosity is defined as Lγ = εγ Lsh with constant εγ. Hence Lγ is a fixed linear function of the shock contribution to Lopt, and both outputs 'track the shock power' by definition. Claiming correlated optical and gamma-ray flares as a 'natural prediction' of the model is therefore equivalent to the way the two light curves were computed; it cannot independently test the model. The observed correlations (Li et al. 2017; Aydi et al.) are external evidence, but the model's prediction adds no new constraint beyond the adopted proportionality.

full rationale

Two load-bearing steps are partially circular. First, the outflow variability that produces the flares is an imposed boundary condition: δt ≈ hours–days was chosen specifically to match observed flare timescales, so the resulting multi-peaked light curve and the claim that the multiple-transition scenario is 'clearly favored' by variability are a consistency check, not an independent prediction. Second, the predicted optical/gamma-ray correlation is definitional: the optical light curve includes the shock power Lsh (plus a constant Lwd), and the gamma-ray light curve is defined as Lγ = εγ Lsh with constant εγ, so the two output light curves track the same quantity by construction. The remaining content—photospheric radius lag, shell merging, delayed X-ray and radio emergence—is a genuine hydrodynamical consequence, but it depends on the adopted pre-existing slow outflow profile (r0, ρ ∝ r^-2 inside r0 and r^-4 outside) and on the same imposed δt values. The paper itself explicitly concedes that it 'does not address the physical origin of the abrupt and frequent transitions' and states that self-consistent multi-dimensional models are needed 'to advance to the stage of being truly predictive.' The frequent citations to Steinberg & Metzger (2018) are used for sub-grid corrections and caveats, not as a uniqueness theorem or as the central justification, and so are not treated as load-bearing self-citation. Overall, the variability and gamma-ray/optical correlation claims are partly forced by inputs, giving a circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on several chosen parameters, including mass-loss rates, outflow velocities, r0, transition intervals, and microphysical efficiencies. It also assumes a pre-existing slow outflow with a specific density profile. No new physical entities are introduced, so the invented_entities list is empty.

free parameters (10)
  • fast mode mass-loss rate Mdot_f = 1e-5 M_sun/week
    Assumed in Eq. (1), chosen as representative of nova mass-loss; not derived from first principles.
  • fast mode velocity v_f = 1400 km/s
    Eq. (1), chosen to match typical nova ejecta velocities.
  • slow mode mass-loss rate Mdot_s = 5e-6 M_sun/week
    Eq. (2), chosen as representative of a slower equatorial outflow.
  • slow mode velocity v_s = 200 km/s
    Eq. (2), consistent with observed slow, equatorially focused outflows.
  • initial slow outflow radius r0 = 6e13 cm (Fiducial) or 2e13 cm (Low Mass)
    Adopted to set the total ejecta mass to the observed range; affects all breakout timescales.
  • transition interval delta_t = hours to days/weeks
    Imposed explicitly to produce collisions on timescales matching observed flare intervals (Section 2).
  • central white dwarf luminosity L_wd = 1e38 erg/s
    Held constant in time as a simple approximation for the nuclear burning luminosity.
  • gamma-ray efficiency epsilon_gamma = 3e-3
    Set to match observed Fermi LAT gamma-ray luminosities; not derived from particle acceleration theory.
  • radio microphysical parameters epsilon_B, epsilon_e, p = 1e-2, 1e-2, 2.5
    Standard assumed values for magnetic field and electron energy fractions and electron index (Section 3.5).
  • optical opacity kappa_opt = 0.03 cm^2/g
    Estimated effective opacity of the ejecta to optical continuum (Section 3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The outflow is treated as spherically symmetric in 1D, with the slow equatorial component approximated as spherical with an effective solid-angle fraction.
    Section 2: the simulation models the equatorial interaction in spherical symmetry; real geometry is bipolar, which the authors acknowledge.
  • domain assumption Radiative cooling is optically thin and computed in collisional ionization equilibrium.
    Section 2: they justify this by noting short photon diffusion times, but it remains an approximation that affects shock structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial slow outflow has density profile rho proportional to r^-2 inside r0 and rho proportional to r^-4 outside.
    Bottom panel of Fig. 2: chosen to mimic a steady wind plus a pre-existing external medium; not derived from observations or theory.
  • domain assumption Thermal reprocessing of shock UV/X-ray luminosity into optical is instantaneous.
    Section 3.1: diffusion time is short compared with expansion time, so the reprocessed emission emerges promptly.
  • domain assumption A slow outflow pre-exists around the binary before the fast outflow begins.
    Section 2: motivated by observed narrow absorption lines, but the origin of this material is debated.
  • standard math Standard hydrodynamics with an ideal gas equation of state and gamma = 5/3.
    Appendix A: baseline numerical method, validated against standard test problems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Internal Shocks from Variable Outflows in Classical Novae." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCVAIDV4

@misc{pith2026190801700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Internal Shocks from Variable Outflows in Classical Novae},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCVAIDV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01700}
}
abstract

We present one-dimensional hydrodynamical simulations including radiative losses, of internal shocks in the outflows from classical novae, to explore the role of shocks in powering multi-wavelength emission from radio to gamma-ray wavelengths. Observations support a picture in which the initial phases of some novae generate a slow, equatorially-focused outflow (directly from the outer Lagrange point, or from a circumbinary disk), which then transitions to, or is overtaken by, a faster more isotropic outflow from the white dwarf which collides and shocks the slower flow, powering gamma-ray and optical emission through reprocessing by the ejecta. However, the common occurence of multiple peaks in nova light curves suggests that the outflow's acceleration need not be monotonic, but instead can involve successive transitions between "fast" and "slow" modes. Such a time-fluctuating outflow velocity naturally can reproduce several observed properties of nova, such as correlated gamma-ray and optical flares, expansion of the photosphere coincident with (though lagging slightly) the peak flare luminosity, and complex time-evolution of spectral lines (including accelerating, decelerating, and merging velocity components). While the shocks are still deeply embedded during the gamma-ray emission, the onset of $\sim$ keV X-ray and $\sim 10$ GHz radio synchrotron emission is typically delayed until the forward shock of the outermost monolithic shell (created by merger of multiple internal shock-generated shells) reaches a sufficiently low column through the dense external medium generated by the earliest phase of the outburst.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01700 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of time-variable outflows and internal shocks in classical novae, as viewed through the binary equatorial plane. Our 1D hydrodynamical calculations model the interaction between a time-variable fast outflow from the white dwarf (velocity vf), with a slow outflow (velocity vs) concentrated in the binary plane. Each time the outflow mode switches from the slow to fast mode, the resulting collisi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Time evolution of the mass-loss rate MÛ and ve￾locity vw of the nova outflow in our two fiducial models. The be￾ginning of the simulation (t = 0) coincides with the first transition to a fast outflow. In the “single transition” model (solid lines), the nova outflow increases from a slow (vw = vs) to a fast (vw = vf) outflow only once. In the “multiple transition” model the outflow transitions to the fast compon… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ratio of the radiative cooling time of the immediate post-shock gas, tcool, to the radial expansion time, texp = r/vsh, of the outermost forward shock as a function of time. We show results separately for the single- and multiple-transition models. All models shown here assume solar metallicity for the ejecta composition. processing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solid lines show the total optical luminosity, Ltot = Lsh(t)+ Lwd, which includes contributions from the shocks Lsh and the central white dwarf Lwd = 1038 erg s−1 , which for simplicity we have taken to be constant in time. Dotted lines show just the portion of the sho…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radiated luminosity of the shock-heated gas as func￾tion of time and radial column depth ahead of the shocks, in units of erg s−1/(· cm2 ), for the single-transition (Top) and multiple￾transition (Bottom) models. Horizontal dashed lines show the ap￾proximate columns be…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Shock luminosity as a function of time, now broken down by the radial velocity of the emitting gas, for the single￾transition (top) and multiple-transition (bottom) models. The units on the color scale are erg s−1/(km s−1 ). the emitting gas is being pushed by their re…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Correlated evolution (with a modest time lag) of the total luminosity Ltot (blue) and photosphere radius Rph (green) in the multiple-transition model. Because each shock starts beneath the photosphere, the maxima in Ltot (which effectively instanta￾neously tracks the s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Total shock-powered gamma-ray luminosity and νLν thermal X-ray luminosity (at various photon energies as labeled by the line color) in the single-transition (Top) and multiple￾transition (Bottom) models. Here we assume solar abundances in calculating the gas cooling a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the 10 GHz radio light curves (top panel) and synchrotron brightness temperatures (bottom panel) for the multiple-transition model. We show results separately for the Fiducial (r0 = 6 × 1013 cm) and Low Mass (r0 = 2×1013 cm) cases. In both models, the thermal em…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same as the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Schematic spectra energy distribution, νLν , at two snapshots t = 20 days (Top) and t = 291 days (Bottom) in the Multiple-Transition Low External Mass model. Red lines show thermal emission components, including (1) X-ray emission which escapes directly from the shock…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  3. [3]

    2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1253947 Science , 345, 554

    Ackermann , M., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1253947 Science , 345, 554

    doi:10.1126/science.1253947 2014

  4. [4]

    2019, arXiv e-prints , http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09232 arXiv:1903.09232 [astro-ph.HE]

    Aydi , E., Chomiuk , L., Strader , J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints , http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.09232 arXiv:1903.09232 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    F., & Evans , A

    Bode , M. F., & Evans , A. 2008, Classical Novae

    2008

  6. [6]

    2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91 , 783, 91

    Caprioli , D., & Spitkovsky , A. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/91 , 783, 91

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/91 2014

  7. [7]

    Casanova , J., Jos \'e , J., & Shore , S. N. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833422 , 619, A121

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833422 2018

  8. [8]

    Cassatella , A., Lamers , H. J. G. L. M., Rossi , C., Altamore , A., & Gonz \'a lez-Riestra , R. 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20034102 , 420, 571

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034102 2004

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    C., Jean , P., Shore , S

    Cheung , C. C., Jean , P., Shore , S. N., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/142 , 826, 142

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Imamura , J

    Chevalier , R. A., & Imamura , J. N. 1982, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/160364 , 261, 543

    1982 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Yang , J., et al

    Chomiuk , L., Linford , J. D., Yang , J., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13773 , 514, 339

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    L., Retter , A., Jacob , A., & Kaspi , S

    Cs \'a k , B., Kiss , L. L., Retter , A., Jacob , A., & Kaspi , S. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20035751 , 429, 599

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    M., & Bildsten , L

    Cunningham , T., Wolf , W. M., & Bildsten , L. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/803/2/76 , 803, 76

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Metzger , B

    Derdzinski , A. M., Metzger , B. D., & Lazzati , D. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx829 , 469, 1314

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    H., Smith , O., et al

    Evans , A., Tyne , V. H., Smith , O., et al. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09146.x , 360, 1483

    2005

  8. [16]

    Evans , A., Banerjee , D. P. K., Gehrz , R. D., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw3334 , 466, 4221

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Korista , K

    Ferland , G. J., Korista , K. T., Verner , D. A., et al. 1998, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/316190 , 110, 761

    1998 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al

    Ferland , G. J., Chatzikos , M., Guzm \'a n , F., et al. 2017, Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica , 53, 385

    2017

  11. [19]

    D., et al

    Finzell , T., Chomiuk , L., Metzger , B. D., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa12a , 852, 108

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    C., & Buson , S

    Franckowiak , A., Jean , P., Wood , M., Cheung , C. C., & Buson , S. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731516 , 609, A120

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    S., & Starrfield , S

    Gallagher , J. S., & Starrfield , S. 1978, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.aa.16.090178.001131 , 16, 171

    1978

  14. [22]

    D., Truran , J

    Gehrz , R. D., Truran , J. W., Williams , R. E., & Starrfield , S. 1998, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/316107 , 110, 3

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    D., & O'Brien , T

    Gill , C. D., & O'Brien , T. J. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03342.x , 314, 175

    2000

  16. [24]

    2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/509786 , 168, 213

    Gnat , O., & Sternberg , A. 2007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/509786 , 168, 213

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    J., & O'Brien , T

    Harman , D. J., & O'Brien , T. J. 2003, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06906.x , 344, 1219

    2003

  18. [26]

    J., Redman , M

    Harvey , E. J., Redman , M. P., Darnley , M. J., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731741 , 611, A3

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    J., et al

    Henze , M., Ness , J.-U., Darnley , M. J., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423410 , 563, L8

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Williams , S

    Henze , M., Darnley , M. J., Williams , S. C., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab6a6 , 857, 68

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Neill , J

    Hillman , Y., Prialnik , D., Kovetz , A., Shara , M. M., & Neill , J. D. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2027 , 437, 1962

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Wade , C

    Hjellming , R. M., Wade , C. M., Vandenberg , N. R., & Newell , R. T. 1979, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/112585 , 84, 1619

    1979 doi

  23. [31]

    Jack , D., Robles P \'e rez , J. d. J., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asna.201613217 Astronomische Nachrichten , 338, 91

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    1991, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/170081 , 373, 620

    Kato , M., & Hachisu , I. 1991, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/170081 , 373, 620

    1991 doi

  25. [33]

    1994, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/175041 , 437, 802

    ---. 1994, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/175041 , 437, 802

    1994 doi

  26. [34]

    2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1293 , 699, 1293

    ---. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1293 , 699, 1293

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/157 , 743, 157

    ---. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/157 , 743, 157

    2011 doi

  28. [36]

    D., Owocki , S., & ud-Doula , A

    Kee , N. D., Owocki , S., & ud-Doula , A. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt2475 , 438, 3557

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    I., Chomiuk , L., Rupen , M., et al

    Krauss , M. I., Chomiuk , L., Rupen , M., et al. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/739/1/L6 , 739, L6

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1 Nature Astronomy , 1, 697

    Li , K.-L., et al. 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0222-1 Nature Astronomy , 1, 697

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    D., Ribeiro , V

    Linford , J. D., Ribeiro , V. A. R. M., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/136 , 805, 136

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Livio , M., Shankar , A., Burkert , A., & Truran , J. W. 1990, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/168836 , 356, 250

    1990 doi

  33. [41]

    M., O'Brien , T

    Lloyd , H. M., O'Brien , T. J., & Bode , M. F. 1997, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/284.1.137 , 284, 137

    1997 doi

  34. [42]

    2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220289 , 551, A37

    Martin , P., & Dubus , G. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201220289 , 551, A37

    2013 doi

  35. [43]

    2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731692 , 612, A38

    Martin , P., Dubus , G., Jean , P., Tatischeff , V., & Dosne , C. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731692 , 612, A38

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al

    Mason , E., Shore , S. N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., et al. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa247 , 853, 27

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    D., Caprioli , D., Vurm , I., et al

    Metzger , B. D., Caprioli , D., Vurm , I., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw123 , 457, 1786

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    D., Finzell , T., Vurm , I., et al

    Metzger , B. D., Finzell , T., Vurm , I., et al. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv742 , 450, 2739

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    D., Hasco \"e t , R., Vurm , I., et al

    Metzger , B. D., Hasco \"e t , R., Vurm , I., et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu844 , 442, 713

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    J., & Rupen , M

    Mioduszewski , A. J., & Rupen , M. P. 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/424376 , 615, 432

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/320220 , 551, 1024

    Mukai , K., & Ishida , M. 2001, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/320220 , 551, 1024

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2945023 in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Mukai , K., Orio , M., & Della Valle , M. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2945023 in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 1010, A Population Explosion: The Nature & Evolution of X-ray Binaries in Diverse Environments, ed. R. M. Bandyopadhyay , S. Wachter , D...

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6d , 872, 86

    Nelson , T., Mukai , K., Li , K.-L., et al. 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aafb6d , 872, 86

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Lloyd , H

    O'Brien , T. J., Lloyd , H. M., & Bode , M. F. 1994, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/271.1.155 , 271, 155

    1994 doi

  45. [53]

    2001 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20010537 , 373, 542

    Orio , M., Covington , J., & \"O gelman , H. 2001 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20010537 , 373, 542

    2001 doi

  46. [54]

    2001 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04448.x , 326, L13

    Orio , M., Parmar , A., Benjamin , R., et al. 2001 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04448.x , 326, L13

    2001

  47. [55]

    E., & Ferland , G

    Osterbrock , D. E., & Ferland , G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    2006

  48. [56]

    D., & Tomida , K

    Pejcha , O., Metzger , B. D., & Tomida , K. 2016 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1481 , 461, 2527

    2016 doi

  49. [57]

    2016 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2592 , 455, 4351

    ---. 2016 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv2592 , 455, 4351

    2016 doi

  50. [58]

    A., & Eastman , R

    Pinto , P. A., & Eastman , R. G. 2000, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/308380 , 530, 757

    2000 doi

  51. [59]

    Pontefract , M., & Rawlings , J. M. C. 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07330.x , 347, 1294

    2004

  52. [60]

    1986, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/164677 , 310, 222

    Prialnik , D. 1986, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/164677 , 310, 222

    1986 doi

  53. [61]

    2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw365 , 458, 1214

    Quataert , E., Fern \'a ndez , R., Kasen , D., Klion , H., & Paxton , B. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw365 , 458, 1214

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    Ribeiro , V. A. R. M., Munari , U., & Valisa , P. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/49 , 768, 49

    2013 doi

  55. [64]

    2014 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/57 , 792, 57

    ---. 2014 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/792/1/57 , 792, 57

    2014 doi

  56. [65]

    L., et al

    Roy , N., Chomiuk , L., Sokoloski , J. L., et al. 2012, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India , 40, 293

    2012

  57. [66]

    B., & Lightman , A

    Rybicki , G. B., & Lightman , A. P. 1979, Radiative processes in astrophysics

    1979

  58. [67]

    J., Ness , J.-U., Osborne , J

    Schwarz , G. J., Ness , J.-U., Osborne , J. P., et al. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/31 , 197, 31

    2011 doi

  59. [68]

    Shankar , A., Livio , M., & Truran , J. W. 1991, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/170148 , 374, 623

    1991 doi

  60. [69]

    Shore , S. N. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201322470 , 559, L7

    2013 doi

  61. [70]

    N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., Schwarz , G

    Shore , S. N., De Gennaro Aquino , I., Schwarz , G. J., et al. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321095 , 553, A123

    2013 doi

  62. [71]

    L., Rupen , M

    Sokoloski , J. L., Rupen , M. P., & Mioduszewski , A. J. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/592602 , 685, L137

    2008 doi

  63. [72]

    Starrfield , S., Iliadis , C., & Hix , W. R. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/128/963/051001 , 128, 051001

    2016 doi

  64. [73]

    W., Sparks , W

    Starrfield , S., Truran , J. W., Sparks , W. M., & Kutter , G. S. 1972, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/151619 , 176, 169

    1972 doi

  65. [74]

    Steinberg , E., & Metzger , B. D. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1641 , 479, 687

    2018 doi

  66. [75]

    J., Schaefer , B

    Strope , R. J., Schaefer , B. E., & Henden , A. A. 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/140/1/34 , 140, 34

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    2011 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/63.1.159 , 63, 159

    Tanaka , J., Nogami , D., Fujii , M., Ayani , K., & Kato , T. 2011 a , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/63.1.159 , 63, 159

    2011 doi

  68. [77]

    2011 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/63.4.911 , 63, 911

    Tanaka , J., Nogami , D., Fujii , M., et al. 2011 b , http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pasj/63.4.911 , 63, 911

    2011 doi

  69. [78]

    Townsend , R. H. D. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/391 , 181, 391

    2009 doi

  70. [79]

    Vishniac , E. T. 1994, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/174231 , 428, 186

    1994 doi

  71. [80]

    Vlasov , A., Vurm , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1949 , 463, 394

    2016 doi

  72. [81]

    Vurm , I., & Metzger , B. D. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa9c4a , 852, 62

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    M., Battisti , A., Towers , S

    Walter , F. M., Battisti , A., Towers , S. E., Bond , H. E., & Stringfellow , G. S. 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/668404 , 124, 1057

    2012 doi

  74. [83]

    Weston , J. H. S., Sokoloski , J. L., Chomiuk , L., et al. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1161 , 460, 2687

    2016 doi

  75. [84]

    2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/590056 , 685, 451

    Williams , R., Mason , E., Della Valle , M., & Ederoclite , A. 2008, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/590056 , 685, 451

    2008 doi

  76. [85]

    M., Bildsten , L., Brooks , J., & Paxton , B

    Wolf , W. M., Bildsten , L., Brooks , J., & Paxton , B. 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/136 , 777, 136

    2013 doi

  77. [86]

    A., Steeghs , D., Karovska , M., et al

    Woudt , P. A., Steeghs , D., Karovska , M., et al. 2009, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/706/1/738 , 706, 738

    2009 doi

  78. [87]

    2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/35 , 216, 35

    Yalinewich , A., Steinberg , E., & Sari , R. 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/216/2/35 , 216, 35

    2015 doi

  79. [88]

    M., & Kovetz , A

    Yaron , O., Prialnik , D., Shara , M. M., & Kovetz , A. 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/428435 , 623, 398

    2005 doi

  80. [89]

    A., & Svensson , R

    Zdziarski , A. A., & Svensson , R. 1989, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/167826 , 344, 551

    1989 doi

  81. [90]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "]" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty pages empty not booktitle empty not or or ""...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.