Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

XMM-Newton observations of the symbiotic recurrent nova T CrB: evolution of X-ray emission during the active phase

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 recurrent symbiotic nova T CrB shows a 6000-6500 s periodic modulation in its soft X-ray emission, which the authors interpret as the rotation period of the accreting white dwarf.

desk verdict Solid spectral evolution study with a promising but statistically underproven rotation period claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07722 v1 pith:73I5OK4X submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.HE

Svetozar A. Zhekov , Toma V. Tomov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords symbioticstarsrecurrentnovaeTCrBX-raybinarieswhitedwarfrotationaccretiondiskboundarylayervariabilityLomb-Scargleperiodogram
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 claims that XMM-Newton caught T CrB in its active phase with an X-ray spectrum split into two evolving components: a soft (0.2-0.6 keV) black-body component whose luminosity dropped by more than an order of magnitude between 2017 and 2018, and a heavily absorbed hard (2-10 keV) plasma component that brightened at the same time. It also claims to have found, for the first time, a 6000-6500 s periodic modulation in the soft X-ray light curve, present in observations taken nearly a year apart with periods of 6036 s (2018) and 6496 s (2017). The authors associate this period with the white dwarf's rotation, making T CrB a system where the spin of an accreting white dwarf can be tracked through a nova-like active phase. If this holds, the soft component becomes a direct probe of material deposited on the white dwarf surface, and the hard component tracks the rebuilding of the accretion-disk boundary layer toward quiescence.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on a two-component spectral decomposition: black-body emission for the soft band, an optically thin plasma model with partial-covering absorption for the hard band, and a Gaussian component for the Fe K line. The periodicity search uses the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, a spectral analysis method for unevenly sampled time series, applied to the EPIC-pn light curves, with phase folding and phase-resolved spectral fits as cross-checks. The proposed physical mechanism is that accretion-disk boundary-layer instabilities dump material onto the white dwarf surface, where it radiates as the black-body soft component; the 6000-6500 s modulation is then the white dwarf's rotation carrying this bright surface region in and out of view.

What would settle it

Simulate many red-noise light curves with the observed flickering power spectrum, run the same Lomb-Scargle search, and count how often a 6000-6500 s peak of equal height arises by chance; if that fraction is above a few percent, the periodicity is not established. A direct observational test is a longer, higher-count X-ray observation during the same active phase: the ~1.7 h peak should reappear at a consistent period and phase if it is real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

During the active phase that began in 2014-2015, T CrB's X-ray spectrum consists of a soft black-body component (0.2-0.6 keV) unique to the active phase and a heavily absorbed optically thin plasma component (2-10 keV) that persists in both phases but is roughly an order of magnitude stronger and about twice as hot ($kT \approx 16$ keV) in quiescence. Between 2017 February and 2018 January, the soft component's luminosity dropped by more than an order of magnitude while its temperature rose by about 28%, and the hard component's flux roughly doubled. The soft X-ray light curve contains a periodic signal at 6036 s (2018) and 6496 s (2017), with false-alarm probabilities below $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-8}$; folded light curves and phase-resolved spectroscopy confirm the modulation, which the authors interpret as the rotation period of the white dwarf.

Load-bearing premise

The 6000-6500 s signal is a genuine periodic modulation of T CrB's soft X-ray emission rather than a chance product of flickering, and the 6036 s and 6496 s periods measured a year apart are the same underlying clock.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The soft X-ray component can serve as a phase marker: its presence signals an active phase, and its decay over time traces how fast the deposited surface material is processed or dispersed.
  • The hard component tracks the rebuilding of the accretion-disk boundary layer; continued monitoring should show its flux and temperature climbing back toward quiescent values as the active phase ends.
  • If the 6000-6500 s modulation is white-dwarf rotation, future X-ray observations can measure spin stability or spin-up from accretion torques, turning T CrB into a laboratory for accretion onto white dwarfs.
  • The X-ray-derived upper limit on the M-giant wind mass-loss rate (less than about $5\times10^{-10}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$) is more stringent than the radio-based limit, constraining wind-fed accretion in the binary.
  • The near-unity partial-covering factor and the weak 0.6-2 keV emission require a special geometry, such as a clumpy disk wind or a sight line over the disk edge, which future multi-wavelength observations could test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the rotation identification holds, phase-resolved X-ray spectroscopy across many cycles could map the surface hotspot geometry of the white dwarf, in the spirit of what is done for magnetic cataclysmic variables; the paper does not attempt such a map.
  • The same two-component behavior - a soft black body appearing and decaying during an active phase while the hard boundary-layer component weakens - might be a general signature of disk instabilities in symbiotic recurrent novae, and other members of the delta X-ray class could be searched for analogous soft periodicity.
  • A natural test of the interpretation is to check whether the period drifts between the current active phase and the next one: if the white dwarf is being spun up by accreted material, even a small period change would distinguish rotation from a disk or wind oscillation; this test is not made in the paper.
  • The paper's suggestion that the soft component's gravitational energy could imply a much higher accretion rate (up to about $10^{-7}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$) has implications for the nova recurrence timescale; if the soft component is powered by surface burning, the recurrence interval could be shorter than the 80-year estimate.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents XMM-Newton EPIC and OM observations of the symbiotic recurrent nova T CrB obtained on 2017 February 23 and 2018 January 30 during its active phase. The authors fit the 0.2-10 keV spectra with a partly covered blackbody plus hot plasma model, compare the results with Suzaku and Swift data from the quiescent phase, and report that the soft (0.2-0.6 keV) component faded while the hard (2-10 keV) component brightened between the two epochs. They confirm strong stochastic variability (flickering) in both X-ray and UV light curves, and claim the detection of a periodic modulation of 6000-6500 s in the soft X-ray light curves, which they interpret as the white-dwarf rotational period.

Significance. If the periodicity is real, it is a valuable new constraint on the spin and accretion geometry of the white dwarf in T CrB, and it is the first such periodic signal reported in the active-phase X-ray emission. The comparison of active and quiescent X-ray properties, including the long-term light curve and the tentative Ni overabundance, provides useful context for the ongoing activity of this recurrent nova. The spectral modeling is standard and carefully executed, and the authors are appropriately cautious about the qualitative nature of their physical interpretation and the statistical weakness of the Ni abundance result.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Fig. 5] The claimed detection of 6000-6500 s periodicity in the soft X-ray light curves rests on Lomb-Scargle false-alarm probabilities computed under white-noise assumptions, while the authors themselves state that flickering is present in all light curves and can create false periodogram signals. No red-noise model is fitted or simulated, so the quoted FAPs (<1e-5 in 2018, <1e-8 in 2017) likely overstate the significance. Because the periodicity is the central new claim, this is a load-bearing weakness; the authors should estimate significance under a realistic red-noise model (e.g., by fitting a power-law or quasi-periodic process to the periodogram, or by Monte Carlo simulations with red-noise light curves) and quote the resulting FAPs.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 5] The two epochs yield periods of 6036 s and 6496 s, a ~7.6% difference, which the paper describes as repeatability because the values "differ by less than 10%". The paper does not quantify whether this difference is consistent with the expected peak width or frequency resolution; for the 2018 observation the formal frequency resolution (~1/20.1 ks) corresponds to a period uncertainty of roughly a thousand seconds at 6000 s, so the difference is not obviously significant, but without a stated uncertainty budget the claim of repeatability is not established. The folded light curves and time-resolved spectroscopy also use the same data and the same period, so they are consistency checks rather than independent confirmations. The authors should quantify the period uncertainties and address the probability that two independent red-noise realizations would produce peaks this close.
  3. [§3.3, fourth row of Fig. 5] The time-resolved spectroscopy shows flux modulation consistent with the period, but because the period and phase bins are derived from the same observations, this check does not independently rule out a stochastic or quasi-periodic alternative. The text in Section 3.3 presents this as part of the "accumulative evidence" for periodicity; the authors should explicitly acknowledge that the phase-folded and time-resolved checks are not independent tests, and should base the detection claim primarily on a red-noise-corrected significance estimate.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and misspellings (e.g., "Febuary" in Section 2, "peioric" and "Lomb-Sargle" in Section 3.3, "sold sign" in the conclusions, "forth row" in the Fig. 5 caption, "berfore" and "qiiescent" in Appendix A, "veloicity" and "cosiderably" in Section 4); a careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states that the dashed lines mark false-alarm probability levels of 10^-5 (2018) and 10^-8 (2017), but the lines are not labeled inside the panels; adding the values directly on the periodogram panels would improve readability.
  3. [§3.3] The sentence "the light curves folded with the suggested period do confirm its presence" is grammatically awkward ("do confirm"); rephrasing would clarify the meaning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 6000-6500 s periodicity is measured directly from the light curves, and the white-dwarf rotation association is a post-hoc interpretation.

full rationale

The central new claim, the 6000-6500 s periodic variability in the soft X-ray emission, is derived directly from the XMM-Newton pn light curves using the Lomb-Scargle periodogram, phase folding, and phase-resolved spectroscopy. The period is not set by any model or by the white-dwarf rotation interpretation; the rotation is introduced only after the detection, in the statement 'We associate this periodic variability with the rotational period of the white dwarf in this symbiotic binary.' The spectral decomposition (Section 3.2, Table 1) uses standard XSPEC models (black-body plus absorbed optically-thin plasma), with parameters fitted to the data, and none of the paper's main conclusions is defined in terms of a fitted parameter. The 2017 and 2018 observations are independent data sets, and the repeatability of the period across them is presented as supporting evidence, not as a consequence of the analysis setup. The authors explicitly acknowledge the red-noise caveat ('presence of flickering may result in suggesting some false signals from periodogram analysis'), which is a statistical-significance concern rather than a circular reduction. The citations to Luna et al. (2018) are for the earlier detection of the soft component in the same 2017 observation and for a partial-covering spectral model; they are not load-bearing for the periodicity claim. No self-definitional step, no fitted input presented as a prediction, and no uniqueness-imported-from-authors argument is present. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central observational claims rest on standard X-ray spectral models and prior determinations of the distance and WD parameters. The paper fits a multi-component absorbed spectral model to derive the soft and hard fluxes, and applies Lomb-Scargle period search to the soft-band light curve. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • N_H,1 (interstellar absorption column) = 5.19e20 cm^-2 (2017); 5.27e20 cm^-2 (2018)
    Fitted as part of the absorbed spectral model; affects the soft component transmission.
  • CF (partial-covering factor) = 0.997 (2017); 0.995 (2018)
    Fitted to allow a small leak of hard X-rays into the 0.6-2 keV band.
  • N_H,2 (local absorption column) = 4.33e23 cm^-2 (2017); 3.31e23 cm^-2 (2018)
    Fitted heavy local absorption applied to the hard component.
  • kT_BB (black-body temperature) = 0.035 keV (2017); 0.045 keV (2018)
    Fitted temperature of the soft component.
  • R_BB (black-body radius) = 2285 km (2017); 281 km (2018)
    Fitted normalization of the black-body component; strong evolution between epochs.
  • kT (plasma temperature of hard component) = 7.53 keV (linked in Model D); 8.26 keV (Model C 2018)
    Fitted temperature of the optically-thin plasma component.
  • EM (emission measure) = 1.18-2.35e55 cm^-3 depending on model/epoch
    Fitted normalization of the plasma component; scales the hard X-ray flux.
  • Fe and Ni abundances = Fe ~0.8-0.97, Ni ~3.8-4.6 (solar units)
    Fitted to improve the line ratios in the CCD spectra.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math XSPEC models (wabs, partial covering, bbodyrad, vapec/vmcflow) correctly describe interstellar absorption and thermal plasma emission.
    Standard, widely validated models.
  • domain assumption The soft component is optically-thick black-body emission from the white dwarf surface, and the hard component is optically-thin plasma in the accretion disk boundary layer.
    Adopted physical picture, not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption The partial-covering absorption geometry with CF ~0.995 is the correct description of the 0.6-2 keV emission.
    Needed to reproduce the intermediate-energy excess; geometry is speculative.
  • domain assumption Distance to T CrB is 806 pc (Bailer-Jones et al. 2018) and WD mass/radius are M=1.2 M_sun, R=5000 km (Belczynski & Mikolajewska 1998; Luna et al. 2018).
    Adopted from prior literature; luminosities and rotation velocity depend on these values.
  • domain assumption Solar abundances (Anders & Grevesse 1989) with free Fe and Ni.
    Standard choice, but Ni overabundance is a 2-sigma result from a single line.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of XMM-Newton observations of the symbiotic recurrent nova T CrB: evolution of X-ray emission during the active phase." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73I5OK4X

@misc{pith2026190807722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: XMM-Newton observations of the symbiotic recurrent nova T CrB: evolution of X-ray emission during the active phase},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73I5OK4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07722}
}
read the original abstract

We present an analysis of the XMM-Newton observations of the symbiotic recurrent nova T CrB, obtained during its active phase that started in 2015. The XMM-Newton spectra of T CrB have two prominent components: a soft one (0.2 - 0.6 keV), well represented by black-body emission, and a heavily absorbed hard component (2 - 10 keV), well matched by optically-thin plasma emission with high temperature (kT ~ 8 keV). The XMM-Newton observations reveal evolution of the X-ray emission from T CrB in its active phase. Namely, the soft component in its spectrum is decreasing with time while the opposite is true for the hard component. Comparison with data obtained in the quiescent phase shows that the soft component is typical only for the active phase, while the hard component is present in both phases but it is considerably stronger in the quiescent phase. Presence of stochastic variability (flickering) on time-scales of minutes and hours is confirmed both in X-rays and UV (UVM2 filter of the XMM-Newton optical monitor). On the other hand, periodic variability of 6000-6500 s is found for the first time in the soft X-ray emission (0.2 - 0.6 keV) from T CrB. We associate this periodic variability with the rotational period of the white dwarf in this symbiotic binary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The raw EPIC-pn image of T CrB in the (0.2 - 10 keV) energy band with the spectral extraction regions. The source spec￾trum was extracted from the central circle, while the background spectrum was extracted from adjacent annulus. The circled plus sign gives the optical position of T CrB (SIMBAD). Newton observations of T CrB, carried out during its current active phase. In Section 2, we review the observational data… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The background-subtracted pn spectra of T CrB (left panel): the model fits are shown with the solid line (see text; Section 3.2). Emission lines of thermal origin are seen in the high-energy region (5 - 8 keV; right panel): marked are the K-shell fluorescent Fe lines at ∼ 6.4 keV (Fe K); the iron He-like triplet at ∼ 6.7 keV (Fe XXV); the Fe XXVI Lα at ∼ 6.97 keV (Fe XXVI) and the nickel He-like triplet at ∼ 7.8 keV… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The background-subtracted spectra of T CrB from the XMM-Newton observations in 2018 (left panel) and 2017 (right panel) overlaid with a two-component thermal model (Model D; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The UV light curves of T CrB from the XMM￾Newton OM (optical monitor) observations in 2018 January. The LCs were binned at 60 s. The dashed line denotes the constant (mean) flux. 3.3 Variability Previous studies of T CrB showed that it possess strong stochastic variabi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: XMM-Newton light curves of T CrB. The LCs with a 100-s time bin are shown in the first row (slightly re-binned for presentation). The Lomb-Scargle power spectra are shown in the second row: the dashed line marks to the false-alarm probability level of 10−5 (2018) and 1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The long-term light curve of T CrB from observations with some X-ray observatories. Left panel: the observed flux in the 1.5 - 10 keV energy range. The dotted lines mark the 1σ-confidence range on the Swift flux, while that for the Suzaku and XMM-Newton fluxes is withi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When will T Coronae Borealis next erupt as a nova? Constraints from recurrence, orbital phase, and accretion-state evolution

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    T CrB's next eruption is not uniquely predictable; conditional scenarios point to a possible 2026 December eruption if the current decline mimics 1946, or a lower limit near 2029 May if the recent high state left an a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anders E., Grevesse N., 1989, @doi [ ] 10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-X , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989GeCoA..53..197A 53, 197

    doi:10.1016/0016-7037(89)90286-x 1989

  2. [2]

    A., 1996, in Jacoby G

    Arnaud K. A., 1996, in Jacoby G. H., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V. p. 17

    1996

  3. [3]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Rybizki J., Fouesneau M., Mantelet G., Andrae R., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156...58B 156, 58

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacb21 2018

  4. [4]

    Belczynski K., Mikolajewska J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01301.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.296...77B 296, 77

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    N., Zuckerman B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053340 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    Berger L., Koester D., Napiwotzki R., Reid I. N., Zuckerman B., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20053340 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053340 2005

  6. [6]

    A., Hameury J.-M., Lasota J.-P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2555 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5422B 481, 5422

    Bollimpalli D. A., Hameury J.-M., Lasota J.-P., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2555 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.5422B 481, 5422

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2555 2018

  7. [7]

    A., Mason K

    Cordova F. A., Mason K. O., Nelson J. E., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158836 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...245..609C 245, 609

    doi:10.1086/158836 1981

  8. [8]

    M., Lockman F

    Dickey J. M., Lockman F. J., 1990, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.28.090190.001243 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ARA

    arXiv 1990

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    C., Joyce R

    Fekel F. C., Joyce R. R., Hinkle K. H., Skrutskie M. F., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/301260 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000AJ....119.1375F 119, 1375

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    V., Feigelson E

    Getman K. V., Feigelson E. D., Grosso N., McCaughrean M. J., Micela G., Broos P., Garmire G., Townsley L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/432097 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJS..160..353G 160, 353

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Gorenstein P., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/153579 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...198...95G 198, 95

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    I kiewicz K., Miko ajewska J., Stoyanov K., Manousakis A., Miszalski B., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw1837 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.462.2695I 462, 2695

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Kalberla P. M. W., Burton W. B., Hartmann D., Arnal E. M., Bajaja E., Morras R., P \"o ppel W. G. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041864 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Napiwotzki R., Heber U., Dreizler S., Koester D., Reid I

    Karl C. A., Napiwotzki R., Heber U., Dreizler S., Koester D., Reid I. N., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20041437 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Mukai K., Sokoloski J

    Kennea J. A., Mukai K., Sokoloski J. L., Luna G. J. M., Tueller J., Markwardt C. B., Burrows D. N., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1992 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...701.1992K 701, 1992

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap

    Lomb N. R., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00648343 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap

    1976 doi

  9. [17]

    Luna G. J. M., Sokoloski J. L., Mukai K., 2008, in Evans A., Bode M. F., O'Brien T. J., Darnley M. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 401, RS Ophiuchi (2006) and the Recurrent Nova Phenomenon. p. 342

    2006

  10. [18]

    Luna G. J. M., Sokoloski J. L., Mukai K., Nelson T., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220792 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Luna G. J. M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833747 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Luna G. J. M., Nelson T., Mukai K., Sokoloski J. L., 2019, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190604770L p. arXiv:1906.04770

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Munari U., Dallaporta S., Cherini G., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2016.01.002 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016NewA...47....7M 47, 7

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..137..473M 137, 473

    M \"u rset U., Schmid H. M., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:1999105 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A&AS..137..473M 137, 473

    1999 doi

  15. [23]

    Nelson T., Mukai K., Orio M., Luna G. J. M., Sokoloski J. L., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/737/1/7 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...737....7N 737, 7

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    V., Zharikov S., Tovmassian G., Shearer A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09423.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362.1472N 362, 1472

    Neustroev V. V., Zharikov S., Tovmassian G., Shearer A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09423.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.362.1472N 362, 1472

    2005

  17. [25]

    H., Teukolsky S

    Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., Vetterling W. T., Flannery B. P., 1992, Numerical recipes in FORTRAN. The art of scientific computing . Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed

    1992

  18. [26]

    D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    Scargle J. D., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1086/160554 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApJ...263..835S 263, 835

    1982 doi

  19. [27]

    R., Krogulec M., Taylor A

    Seaquist E. R., Krogulec M., Taylor A. R., 1993, @doi [ ] 10.1086/172742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...410..260S 410, 260

    1993 doi

  20. [28]

    Stanishev V., Zamanov R., Tomov N., Marziani P., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20034623 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...415..609S 415, 609

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    H., Montmerle T., Grosso N., Feigelson E

    Vuong M. H., Montmerle T., Grosso N., Feigelson E. D., Verstraete L., Ozawa H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20030942 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003A

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Kallman T

    Wheatley P. J., Kallman T. R., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10959.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.372.1602W 372, 1602

    2006

  23. [31]

    F., O'Brien T

    Wynn G., 2008, in Evans A., Bode M. F., O'Brien T. J., Darnley M. J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 401, RS Ophiuchi (2006) and the Recurrent Nova Phenomenon. p. 73

    2006

  24. [32]

    M., Kovetz A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..398Y 623, 398

    Yaron O., Prialnik D., Shara M. M., Kovetz A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/428435 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...623..398Y 623, 398

    2005 doi

Pith tools

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