Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 83 references

V498 Hya, a new candidate for a period bouncer Cataclysmic Variable

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read V498 Hya has evolved past the period minimum and is a 'period bouncer,' with a brown-dwarf donor of 0.043 solar masses.

desk verdict A candid, well-documented single-object study proposing V498 Hya as a period-bouncer candidate—plausible but not robust, because the orbital period is subjectively chosen and the SED mass ratio is not independent of that choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01561 v1 pith:TOT5SSRB submitted 2025-02-03 astro-ph.SR

Gagik Tovmassian , Keith Inight , Anna Francesca Pala , Boris T. Gansicke , Vedant Chandra , Matthew Green , Odette Toloza , Matthias R. Schreiber This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords cataclysmicvariablesperiodbouncerdonorstarmasssuperhumpsgravitationalredshiftspectralenergydistributionWZSgestarsbrowndwarf
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

V498 Hya, a cataclysmic variable first noticed in a single superoutburst, is claimed to be a 'period bouncer' — a binary that has already passed the ~80-minute minimum orbital period and is now evolving back toward longer periods as its degenerate donor star expands. Using new time-resolved spectroscopy, the authors derive an 86.053-minute orbital period from the motion of the hot spot in the H-$\beta$ emission line, and combine it with the known superhump period to get a small mass ratio. A gravitational redshift measurement of the white dwarf's Mg II line and a full spectral energy distribution fit then yield a white dwarf of about 0.89 solar masses and a donor of only $0.043 \pm 0.004\,M_\odot$, a brown dwarf. The paper concludes that these parameters firmly place V498 Hya among the rare, confirmed period bouncers, supporting theories that many more such systems should exist. It acknowledges that the orbital-period measurement is somewhat arbitrary and that an alternative period solution would give a higher, but still low, donor mass.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on three linked measurements. First, the superhump period excess: the known superhump period $P_{\rm sh} = 0.06036\,{\rm d}$ and the new S-wave orbital period $P_{\rm orb} = 86.053\,{\rm min}$ give $\epsilon = P_{\rm sh}/P_{\rm orb} - 1 = 0.010$, which through Kato's (2022) relation yields a mass ratio $q \approx 0.048$, with a range $q = 0.034$ to $0.078$ allowed as a flat prior. Second, the gravitational redshift of the white dwarf's Mg II 4481 absorption line: a measured offset of $62.5\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ translates, via a mass-radius relation, into $M_{\rm WD} \approx 0.89\,M_\odot$. Third, an MCMC spectral energy distribution fit combines tlusty/synspec white dwarf models, BT-SETTL donor models, and an isothermal slab accretion disk model, with the parallax-based distance as a prior, to give the best-fit donor mass of $0.043 \pm 0.004\,M_\odot$.

What would settle it

A high-resolution, time-resolved spectroscopic campaign that resolves the wings of the Balmer lines would measure the true orbital semi-amplitude and period. If the true period is near 88.07 minutes (the $16.35\,{\rm d}^{-1}$ alias), the period excess becomes about 1.8%, and the derived donor mass rises to roughly $0.074\,M_\odot$, straddling the period-bounce boundary and undermining the paper's central classification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that V498 Hya is a period bouncer: its donor star has passed through the period minimum, become degenerate, and the binary is now evolving to longer orbital periods. The evidence is a best-fit donor mass of $0.043 \pm 0.004\,M_\odot$ ($q = 0.048 \pm 0.003$) and a white dwarf mass of about $0.89\,M_\odot$, derived from the combination of the superhump period excess, the gravitational redshift of the Mg II 4481 absorption line, and an MCMC fit to the spectral energy distribution. The paper argues that even when the alternative superhump period is considered, the donor mass remains low enough to keep V498 Hya on the post-bounce side of the period minimum.

Load-bearing premise

The 86.053-minute orbital period is derived from a subset of radial-velocity points chosen by eye to form a smooth sine wave, assumed to trace the hot spot; the paper itself calls this procedure 'somewhat arbitrary' and notes that a 1-day alias would give a different period and a larger donor mass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • V498 Hya joins the small list of confirmed period bouncers, providing a new empirical point for the donor mass at and after the period minimum.
  • The lack of a near-IR excess in the SED is consistent with a brown-dwarf donor, strengthening the post-bounce interpretation.
  • The system's hot white dwarf (18,100 K) and position in the HR diagram place it inside the region previously defined for known period bouncers by SDSS-V.
  • If the adopted orbital period is correct, the donor mass of $0.043\,M_\odot$ is well below the period-bounce boundary of about $0.075\,M_\odot$, making the classification robust to the exact boundary choice.
  • Further high-resolution spectroscopy can refine the orbital period and systemic velocity, and would test whether V498 Hya remains a period bouncer under the alternative period solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the true orbital period is the 1-day alias at 88.07 minutes, the period excess would be about 0.018 and the donor mass derived from $q$ would rise to roughly $0.074\,M_\odot$, near the period-bounce boundary; the classification would then depend on the boundary model.
  • The paper's procedure for selecting hot-spot radial velocities is explicitly 'somewhat arbitrary,' so any individual period-bouncer candidate identified by the same method may need an independent period check before its status is assumed.
  • A direct detection of the donor star's photospheric features in the near-infrared would be a decisive confirmation that the donor is a brown dwarf, and would set a firm lower limit on the white dwarf mass from the mass ratio.
  • The high white dwarf mass ($0.89\,M_\odot$) relative to the typical CV white dwarf may point to an evolutionary history with significant mass accretion; comparing the white dwarf mass distribution of confirmed period bouncers would test whether such high masses are common in post-bounce systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multi-wavelength study of the cataclysmic variable V498 Hya and argues that it is a period bouncer, i.e., a CV that has evolved past the orbital-period minimum. Using time-resolved GTC/OSIRIS spectroscopy, the authors measure a spectroscopic period of 86.053 min from an S-wave component attributed to the hot spot, a systemic velocity of about -13 km/s, and a gravitational redshift of the Mg II 4481 Å line of about 62.5 km/s, leading to a white-dwarf mass of about 0.89 M_sun. They then fit the spectral energy distribution with a model including a white dwarf, an accretion-disk slab, and a donor star, obtaining a mass ratio q = 0.048 ± 0.003 and a donor mass M_donor = 0.043 ± 0.004 M_sun. This donor mass, together with the orbital period, places V498 Hya below the period-bounce boundary, and the authors classify it as a new period-bouncer candidate. The paper is explicit about several limitations, but the abstract and conclusions present the period-bouncer classification as the main result.

Significance. If the classification is correct, V498 Hya would add to the small sample of confirmed period bouncers and would be relevant for testing CV population models, which predict a large fraction of period bouncers that is not yet observed. The paper makes good use of a diverse data set: GTC and SDSS-V spectroscopy, Swift UVOT upper limits, and multi-band photometry, and it applies a physically motivated SED fitting procedure with an MCMC implementation. The authors also provide a candid discussion of the weaknesses in their own measurements, which is valuable. However, the central claim rests on a chain of inferences—orbital period, superhump-period calibration, gravitational redshift, and SED mass ratio—whose weakest links are not quantitatively propagated into the final donor mass. Therefore the significance is conditional: the object is a promising candidate, but the presented analysis does not yet robustly establish its period-bouncer status.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Fig. 6, Table 1] The adopted orbital period is not uniquely determined. The Lomb-Scargle periodogram shows a wide FAP<0.01 peak spanning 16.58 < f < 16.86 d^-1, and Fig. 6 shows only an insignificant difference between the minimum residuals and the maximum amplitude; the selection of the hot-spot RVs is also explicitly described as 'somewhat arbitrary,' with inclusion of the last two RVs on JD 86.235 shifting the period by Δf≈0.02 d^-1. This ambiguity is load-bearing: using the 1 d^-1 alias at f=16.35 d^-1 (from the one-Gaussian fit described in Section 3.2) together with the alternative superhump period P'_sh=89.716 min gives q=0.094 (Table 1) and, for M_wd≈0.89 M_sun, M_donor≈0.084 M_sun, which is above the period-bounce boundary shown in Fig. 13. The paper needs to either exclude the alias with additional data or present a sensitivity analysis of M_donor across the full allowed P_orb range before claiming the period-bouncer classification is robust.
  2. [Section 3.5, Table 3] The SED fit does not independently constrain q. The prior range for q (0.04–0.073 in Table 3, or 0.034–0.078 in the text) is derived from the same superhump-period-excess and orbital-period choices that the fit is supposed to test, so the posterior q=0.048±0.003 cannot be used to validate those choices. This posterior is also formally inconsistent with the superhump-derived q=0.066 for the preferred periods in Table 1 by roughly 6σ, and the donor contribution to the SED (magenta component in Fig. 11) is very small, meaning the quoted M_donor=0.043±0.004 M_sun is prior-dominated rather than data-dominated. The authors should quantify the SED likelihood for q values spanning the full 0.034–0.094 range and explain why the fit prefers q=0.048 when the superhump analysis for the same periods gives q=0.066.
  3. [Section 3.4, Section 3.2] The gravitational-redshift mass measurement is not a firm anchor. The value v_grav=62.5 km/s comes from a single, low-resolution (R=2165) observation of the Mg II 4481 Å line, and the systemic velocity γ=-13 km/s used to correct it is derived from an RV fit that the authors themselves call 'inadequate' (Section 3.2). The formal ±13 km/s uncertainty on ν_obs does not include systematics from the line-profile shape, the choice of γ, or the blend with He I, all of which are mentioned in the text. Since M_wd enters the donor mass linearly through M_donor=q M_wd, the quoted M_wd=0.89±0.07 (Table 3) needs to be accompanied by a propagation that varies γ and v_grav over their full plausible ranges before the conclusion that the period-bouncer status 'remains robust' is justified.
  4. [Section 3.1] The superhump-period calibration is itself uncertain. The preferred superhump period P_sh=0.06036 d was measured during Stage B, and the paper notes that the q–ε relation for Stage B is 'not as reliable' and 'difficult to formulate.' The alternative period P'_sh=89.716 min cannot be conclusively excluded, and the q values in Table 1 differ by a factor of ~1.5 depending on which superhump and orbital periods are combined. A conservative treatment should present the final donor mass as a range across the Stage A/Stage B and P_sh / P'_sh possibilities, rather than a single value with statistical errors only.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption states 'Pbest = 80.0529 [min]'; this should be 86.0529 min.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to 'V489Hya'; this should be 'V498 Hya'.
  3. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'hence the smallest mass q <0.73 ratios' appears to contain a typo; it should likely be 'q < 0.073'.
  4. [Table 3 and Section 3.5] The q prior range is given as 0.04–0.073 in Table 3 but as 0.034–0.078 in the text; please reconcile and state explicitly how this range was derived from Section 3.1.
  5. [References] The entries Patterson (2011a) and Patterson (2011b) have identical journal, volume, and page numbers; please confirm they are distinct works or correct the reference list.
  6. [Section 3.5, Table 3] The best-fit distance is quoted as 768±6 pc, which is extremely precise compared with the Gaia parallax (3.4±1.9 mas) and the distance prior (912+708−454 pc). Please explain how the SED fit achieves this precision and whether the quoted uncertainty includes the parallax systematics.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the SED-fit mass ratio q is assigned a prior derived from the same superhump/orbital-period solution that the period-bouncer conclusion depends on, so the reported donor mass is not an independent measurement.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 (SED fit), Table 3, step (i); Conclusions]
    "To account for the uncertainty of the mass ratio (see Section 3.1), we included it as a free parameter in our fitting procedure and assumed a flat prior in the range q=0.034−0.078. Table 3: 'q ... Free flat prior within the range defined in Section 3.1.' '(i) the mass of the donor is given by M_donor=q M_wd;' Conclusions: 'The inferred donor mass (M_donor = 0.043± 0.004 Msun) supports the classification of V498 Hya as a period bouncer.'"

    The SED q-prior is taken from Section 3.1, where q is derived from the same superhump period excess and the adopted S-wave orbital period (Table 1). Because the donor is not detectable ('Since the donor is not detectable in the spectrum, we have to use an indirect method'), the SED cannot independently measure q; the posterior q=0.048 and the resulting M_donor=q M_wd largely return the prior set by the preferred period solution. The prior excludes the alternative alias combinations (q=0.08–0.094 in Table 1) that would put M_donor above the period-bounce boundary, so the period-bouncer classification is effectively assumed before the fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is mostly self-contained: the superhump period is an external photometric measurement (Kato et al. 2009, re-analysed with Kato's data), the orbital period comes from new GTC radial velocities, the white-dwarf mass comes from the Mg II gravitational redshift, and the SED fit uses SDSS/GTC/UKIDSS photometry. The main circularity concern is the SED mass-ratio q: its flat prior is set by the same superhump-period-excess and period choice that already imply a low q, and since the donor is not detected the SED cannot independently confirm that prior. The reported M_donor=0.043±0.004 is thus partly a restatement of the adopted period solution rather than an independent prediction. The paper is transparent about the arbitrary S-wave selection and the alternative period, and it labels the result tentative, which mitigates the severity. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; Inight et al. (2023b) is used only for a consistency ellipse. Score 4 reflects this partial circularity in the q-prior/donor-mass step while acknowledging that the central claim still has independent observational content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of empirical and theoretical inputs. The most important free parameters are the mass ratio q and the gravitational redshift v_grav, both of which carry large systematic uncertainties not fully propagated into the quoted donor mass. The Kato superhump-excess relation and the white dwarf mass-radius relationship are external calibrations, while the systemic velocity and slab disk model are assumptions specific to this analysis.

free parameters (6)
  • q (mass ratio) = 0.048 ± 0.003
    Free parameter in the SED fit with a flat prior 0.034-0.078 derived from the superhump period excess; directly sets the donor mass via M_donor = q M_wd.
  • v_grav (gravitational redshift velocity) = 62.5 km/s
    Measured from the Mg II line and the systemic velocity; fixed in the SED fit; drives the white dwarf mass via the mass-radius relation.
  • T_wd (white dwarf temperature) = 18100 ± 110 K
    Free parameter in the SED fit; affects the continuum shape and distance scaling.
  • Slab disk parameters (T_slab, pressure, rotational velocity, height) = 6400 K, 140 dyn/cm2, 1000 km/s, 2e8 cm
    Five-parameter isothermal, isobaric slab model approximates the accretion disk; affects the SED fit but not the central mass estimate strongly.
  • d (distance) = 768 ± 6 pc
    Constrained by flux scaling from the white dwarf model and the parallax prior; the reported uncertainty is statistical and does not include the large parallax error.
  • T_donor (donor temperature) = 1818 ± 250 K
    The donor is nearly invisible in the spectrum; this value is poorly constrained.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Kato (2022) relation between superhump period excess and mass ratio
    Used in Section 3.1 to convert epsilon to q; the Stage B relation is noted as less reliable.
  • domain assumption White dwarf mass-radius relationship (La Plata group, Camisassa et al. 2016)
    Used in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 to convert gravitational redshift to mass and radius.
  • domain assumption The Mg II 4481 absorption line originates in the white dwarf photosphere
    Section 3.4; if the line is partly formed elsewhere, the gravitational redshift is biased.
  • domain assumption Systemic velocity gamma = -13 km/s from the double-Gaussian method
    Section 3.2; the RV semi-amplitude was only 8 km/s, inadequate for a reliable period, so gamma may be biased.
  • standard math Roche-lobe geometry and Kepler's laws relating donor radius to orbital separation
    Equations (2) and (3) are standard in CV modeling and used to derive donor radius and disk limits.
  • domain assumption Distance prior from Pala et al. (2020) with an exponentially decreasing volume density and 450 pc scale height
    Section 3.5; needed to convert the low-significance Gaia parallax into a distance prior.
  • domain assumption Isothermal, isobaric pure-hydrogen slab model for the accretion disk
    Section 3.5; this approximation may bias the derived T_wd and q.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of V498 Hya, a new candidate for a period bouncer Cataclysmic Variable." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TOT5SSRB

@misc{pith2026250201561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: V498 Hya, a new candidate for a period bouncer Cataclysmic Variable},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TOT5SSRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01561}
}
read the original abstract

V498 Hya (SDSS J084555.07+033929.2) was identified as a short-period cataclysmic variable (CV) by the Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey (CRTS) in 2008. The superhump period was measured during the detected single superoutburst of V498 Hya. The quiescent spectrum subsequently taken by the \SDSSV\ Milky Way Mapper survey suggested that the CV donor may be a brown dwarf. We present time-resolved follow-up spectroscopy of V498 Hya in quiescence, obtained with the GTC OSIRIS spectrograph, from which we derived the 86.053 min spectroscopic period, systemic radial velocity, and the gravitational redshift of the Mg II line. We also modeled the spectral energy distribution to constrain the system parameters, including the > 0.82 Ms mass of the white dwarf and the best-fit value 0.043 +/- 0.004 Ms of the donor star mass. This combination of parameters implies that V498 Hya has evolved past the period minimum and is a relatively rare ``period bouncer''.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The light curve of V498 Hya spanning over 5000 days from a variety of automatic sky surveys marked in the legend. One definite (multiple mea￾surements) outburst was recorded throughout that time with a peak brightness V=15.62 mag. The object demonstrates large (Δ𝑚 ≃ 1.5 mag) variability in quiescence. Meanwhile, Yamaoka et al. (2008) reported a peak brightness of about 15.4 mag during the outburst and also reported … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. OSIRIS spectra of V498 Hya. The black line shows the average spectrum of the 22 individual exposures. Two white dwarf models are over￾plotted. The initial model with 𝑇wd = 13 000 K and log 𝑔 = 9.0 by Koester (2010) is shown in orange whilst the final model with 𝑇wd = 18 100 K is shown in green. The contribution of the continuum from the disk becomes noticeable with 𝜆 > 5000 Å, and is modeled in Section 3.5. A grey l… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The 22 OSIRIS spectra of V489 Hya after subtracting a white dwarf model are shown in light violet. Each spectrum was fitted using two Gaussians (overplotted in red and blue), and the sum of the two Gaussians is shown in black. 3.2 The Orbital Period The GTC spectra of V498 Hya ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The RV measurements of the two components from the de-blending procedure of the H𝛽 emission line are plotted (red and blue dots) in two panels, each corresponding to one night. Additionally, we marked the points we identified as pertaining to the hot spot with green ci…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The variation of the RV amplitude and the residual from the fit as a function of the chosen orbital frequency. An insignificant difference exists between the minimum residuals and the maximum RV amplitude. Dotted vertical lines mark a narrow range of best-fit frequenci…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The RV measurements (green, large points) of the S-wave compo￾nent of the H𝛽 emission line corresponding to the "hot spot." They were fitted by a sinusoid with a semi-amplitude of 574 km s−1 . Red points are velocities obtained by the double-Gaussian method; the horizo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plot of potential solutions (taking account of uncertainties) for the white dwarf and donor masses where 𝑞 is derived from the period excess and the white dwarf mass from the gravitational redshift. The green area assumes Stage A SHs, and the red area assumes Stage B.…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SDSS (grey) and GTC (black) spectra of V498 Hya along with the best–fit model (red, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Donor masses in short-period CVs versus orbital periods. The green dot with error bars reflects preferred (best-fit) solutions with 𝑃orb = 86.053 min and 𝑀donor = 0.043 ± 0.004 M⊙. The black and grey points represent masses determined by eclipse modeling from McAllist…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 26 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]

    H., Schweitzer A., Alexander D

    Allard F., Guillot T., Ludwig H.-G., Hauschildt P. H., Schweitzer A., Alexander D. R., Ferguson J. W., 2003, Symposium - International Astronomical Union, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003IAUS..211..325A 211, 325

    2003

  3. [3]

    Almeida A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJS..267...44A 267, 44

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acda98 2023

  4. [4]

    L., Pavlenko E., Sosnovskij A., Khokhlov S., Ibraimov M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...58A 918, 58

    Amantayeva A., Zharikov S., Page K. L., Pavlenko E., Sosnovskij A., Khokhlov S., Ibraimov M., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e36 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...918...58A 918, 58

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0e36 2021

  5. [5]

    Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2015, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific] 10.1086/683116 , 127, 994

    doi:10.1086/683116 2015

  6. [6]

    R., 2023, in , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics

    Belloni D., Schreiber M. R., 2023, in , Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics. Edited by Cosimo Bambi and Andrea Santangelo. Springer Nature Singapore, p. 129, @doi 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_98-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0_98-1 2023

  7. [7]

    R., Zorotovic M., I kiewicz K., Hurley J

    Belloni D., Schreiber M. R., Zorotovic M., I kiewicz K., Hurley J. R., Giersz M., Lagos F., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty1421 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.478.5626B 478, 5626

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1421 2018

  8. [8]

    R., Pala A

    Belloni D., Schreiber M. R., Pala A. F., G \"a nsicke B. T., Zorotovic M., Rodrigues C. V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz3413 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.491.5717B 491, 5717

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz3413 2020

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    J., Breeveld A., Roming P

    Brown P. J., Breeveld A., Roming P. W. A., Siegel M., 2016, @doi [VizieR Online Data Catalog] 10.26093/cds/vizier.51520102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016yCat..51520102B p. J/AJ/152/102

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    G., Steffen M., Freytag B., Bonifacio P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-010-9541-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SoPh..268..255C 268, 255

    Caffau E., Ludwig H. G., Steffen M., Freytag B., Bonifacio P., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11207-010-9541-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011SoPh..268..255C 268, 255

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    E., Althaus L

    Camisassa M. E., Althaus L. G., Córsico A. H., Vinyoles N., Serenelli A. M., Isern J., Bertolami M. M. M., García–Berro E., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/823/2/158 , 823, 158

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Casali M., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20066514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A&A...467..777C 467, 777

    2007 doi

  5. [13]

    Cepa J., et al., 2003, in Iye M., Moorwood A. F. M., eds, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 4841, Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. pp 1739--1749, @doi 10.1117/12.460913

    2003 doi

  6. [15]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...10D 145, 10

    Dawson K. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/145/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....145...10D 145, 10

    2013 doi

  7. [16]

    J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..870D 696, 870

    Drake A. J., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/870 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...696..870D 696, 870

    2009 doi

  8. [17]

    Dye S., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx2622 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.473.5113D 473, 5113

    2018 doi

  9. [18]

    Echevarr \' a J., Zharikov S., Mora Zamora I., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2988 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.526.5110E 526, 5110

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  11. [20]

    T., Beuermann K., Thomas H

    G \"a nsicke B. T., Beuermann K., Thomas H. C., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/289.2.388 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997MNRAS.289..388G 289, 388

    1997 doi

  12. [21]

    T., Sion E

    G \"a nsicke B. T., Sion E. M., Beuermann K., Fabian D., Cheng F. H., Krautter J., 1999, , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999A

    1999

  13. [22]

    T., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15126.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.2170G 397, 2170

    G \"a nsicke B. T., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15126.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.397.2170G 397, 2170

    2009

  14. [23]

    Goliasch J., Nelson L., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/80 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...809...80G 809, 80

    2015 doi

  15. [24]

    M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J

    Green G. M., Schlafly E., Zucker C., Speagle J. S., Finkbeiner D., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5362 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...887...93G 887, 93

    2019 doi

  16. [25]

    L., Trimble V., 1967, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967AJ.....72Q.301G 72, 301

    Greenstein J. L., Trimble V., 1967, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967AJ.....72Q.301G 72, 301

    1967

  17. [27]

    N., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f , 156, 241

    Heinze A. N., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/1538-3881/aae47f , 156, 241

    2018 doi

  18. [28]

    S., Tovmassian G., Zharikov S., G \"a nsicke B

    Hern \'a ndez M. S., Tovmassian G., Zharikov S., G \"a nsicke B. T., Steeghs D., Aungwerojwit A., Rodr \' guez-Gil P., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab301 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.1431H 503, 1431

    2021 doi

  19. [29]

    C., Warren S

    Hewett P. C., Warren S. J., Leggett S. K., Hodgkin S. T., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09969.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.367..454H 367, 454

    2006

  20. [30]

    R., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/218.4.761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.218..761H 218, 761

    Horne K., Marsh T. R., 1986, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/218.4.761 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.218..761H 218, 761

    1986 doi

  21. [31]

    Hubeny I., 1988, @doi [ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988CoPhC..52..103H blue CoPhC ] 10.1016/0010-4655(88)90177-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988CoPhC..52..103H 52, 103

    1988 doi

  22. [32]

    Hubeny I., Lanz T., 1995, @doi [ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...439..875H blue ] 10.1086/175226 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...439..875H 439, 875

    1995 doi

  23. [33]

    Inight K., et al., 2023a, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2018 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.4867I 524, 4867

    doi

  24. [34]

    Inight K., et al., 2023b, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad2409 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.525.3597I 525, 3597

    doi

  25. [35]

    Kato T., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psv077 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PASJ...67..108K 67, 108

    2015 doi

  26. [36]

    arXiv:2201.02945

    Kato T., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2201.02945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220102945K p. arXiv:2201.02945

    2022 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    Kato T., Nogami D., Baba H., Matsumoto K., Arimoto J., Tanabe K., Ishikawa K., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/48.2.L21 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASJ...48L..21K 48, L21

    1996 doi

  28. [38]

    Kato T., et al., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/61.sp2.S395 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PASJ...61S.395K 61, S395

    2009 doi

  29. [39]

    Kato T., Maehara H., Uemura M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/64.3.63 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PASJ...64...63K 64, 63

    2012 doi

  30. [40]

    Knigge C., Baraffe I., Patterson J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0067-0049/194/2/28 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJS..194...28K 194, 28

    2011 doi

  31. [41]

    Koester D., 2010, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010MmSAI..81..921K 81, 921

    2010

  32. [42]

    Kolb U., 1993, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993A&A...271..149K 271, 149

    1993

  33. [43]

    Kolb U., Baraffe I., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02926.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.309.1034K 309, 1034

    1999

  34. [44]

    A., et al., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1711.03234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv171103234K p

    Kollmeier J. A., et al., 2017, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.1711.03234 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv171103234K p. arXiv:1711.03234

    2017 doi arXiv

  35. [45]

    Lawrence A., et al., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12040.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.379.1599L 379, 1599

    2007

  36. [46]

    Lenz P., Breger M., 2005, @doi [Communications in Asteroseismology] 10.1553/cia146s53 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005CoAst.146...53L 146, 53

    2005 doi

  37. [47]

    Lindegren L., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039709 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...649A...2L 649, A2

    2021 doi

  38. [48]

    Luri X., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201832964 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018A&A...616A...9L 616, A9

    2018 doi

  39. [49]

    R., Horne K., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/235.1.269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.235..269M 235, 269

    Marsh T. R., Horne K., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/235.1.269 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988MNRAS.235..269M 235, 269

    1988 doi

  40. [50]

    J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1024M 467, 1024

    McAllister M. J., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx253 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.467.1024M 467, 1024

    2017 doi

  41. [51]

    McAllister M., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz976 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.486.5535M 486, 5535

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04487.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..761M 325, 761

    Montgomery M. M., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04487.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001MNRAS.325..761M 325, 761

    2001

  43. [53]

    Muñoz-Giraldo D., Stelzer B., Schwope A., 2024, @doi [Research Notes of the AAS] 10.3847/2515-5172/ad8fad , 8, 279

    2024 doi

  44. [54]

    V., M \"a ntynen I., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6114N 523, 6114

    Neustroev V. V., M \"a ntynen I., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1730 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.523.6114N 523, 6114

    2023 doi

  45. [55]

    V., Zharikov S

    Neustroev V. V., Zharikov S. V., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936597 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.100N 642, A100

    2020 doi

  46. [56]

    Neustroev V., Knigge C., Zharikov S., 2017, in The Golden Age of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects IV. p. 34, @doi 10.22323/1.315.0034

    2017 doi

  47. [57]

    Ochsenbein F., 1996, The VizieR database of astronomical catalogues, @doi 10.26093/CDS/VIZIER , https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr

    1996 doi

  48. [58]

    Ochsenbein F., Bauer P., Marcout J., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1051/aas:2000169 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000A&AS..143...23O 143, 23

    2000 doi

  49. [59]

    Paczynski B., Krzeminski W., 1979, @doi [International Astronomical Union Colloquium] 10.1017/S0252921100076545 , 53, 504–504

    1979 doi

  50. [60]

    F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2855P 466, 2855

    Pala A. F., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw3293 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.466.2855P 466, 2855

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    F., Schmidtobreick L., Tappert C., G \"a nsicke B

    Pala A. F., Schmidtobreick L., Tappert C., G \"a nsicke B. T., Mehner A., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty2434 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018MNRAS.481.2523P 481, 2523

    2018 doi

  52. [62]

    F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1080P 483, 1080

    Pala A. F., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sty3174 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.483.1080P 483, 1080

    2019 doi

  53. [63]

    F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3799P 494, 3799

    Pala A. F., et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020MNRAS.494.3799P 494, 3799

    2020 doi

  54. [64]

    F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.6110P 510, 6110

    Pala A. F., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab3449 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.510.6110P 510, 6110

    2022 doi

  55. [65]

    Patterson J., 1979, @doi [ ] 10.1086/112483 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979AJ.....84..804P 84, 804

    1979 doi

  56. [66]

    Patterson J., 1984, @doi [ ] 10.1086/190940 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984ApJS...54..443P 54, 443

    1984 doi

  57. [67]

    Patterson J., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1086/316233 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PASP..110.1132P 110, 1132

    1998 doi

  58. [69]

    Patterson J., 2011b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17881.x , 411, 2695

    2010

  59. [70]

    T., Coleman L., Africano J

    Patterson J., McGraw J. T., Coleman L., Africano J. L., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159236 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...248.1067P 248, 1067

    1981 doi

  60. [71]

    A., Skillman D

    Patterson J., Augusteijn T., Harvey D. A., Skillman D. R., Abbott T. M. C., Thorstensen J., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/133798 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PASP..108..748P 108, 748

    1996 doi

  61. [72]

    J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10631.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371..235P 371, 235

    Pearson K. J., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10631.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.371..235P 371, 235

    2006

  62. [73]

    Roming P. W. A., et al., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-005-5095-4 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005SSRv..120...95R 120, 95

    2005 doi

  63. [74]

    P., Young P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...238..946S 238, 946

    Schneider D. P., Young P., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158059 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...238..946S 238, 946

    1980 doi

  64. [75]

    R., Belloni D., van Roestel J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679L...8S 679, L8

    Schreiber M. R., Belloni D., van Roestel J., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347766 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...679L...8S 679, L8

    2023 doi

  65. [76]

    J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    Shappee B. J., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/48 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...788...48S 788, 48

    2014 doi

  66. [77]

    A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...32S 146, 32

    Smee S. A., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AJ....146...32S 146, 32

    2013 doi

  67. [78]

    C., 1998, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998astro.ph..6141S pp astro--ph/9806141

    Spruit H. C., 1998, arXiv e-prints, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998astro.ph..6141S pp astro--ph/9806141

    1998

  68. [79]

    C., Rutten R

    Spruit H. C., Rutten R. G. M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01809.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998MNRAS.299..768S 299, 768

    1998

  69. [80]

    Stolz B., Schoembs R., 1984, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984A&A...132..187S 132, 187

    1984

  70. [81]

    Tampo Y., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/psae082 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PASJ..tmp...86T

    2024 doi

  71. [82]

    L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol

    Tody D., 1986, in Crawford D. L., ed., Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series Vol. 627, Instrumentation in astronomy VI. p. 733, @doi 10.1117/12.968154

    1986 doi

  72. [83]

    J., Brissenden R

    Tody D., 1993, in Hanisch R. J., Brissenden R. J. V., Barnes J., eds, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series Vol. 52, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems II. p. 173

    1993

  73. [84]

    F., Hern \'a ndez M

    Tovmassian G., Gonz \'a lez J. F., Hern \'a ndez M. S., Gonz \'a lez Buitrago D., Zharikov S., Hern \'a ndez Santisteban J. V., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaec02 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...869...22T 869, 22

    2018 doi

  74. [85]

    C., Contreras-Quijada A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5668V 502, 5668

    Vogt N., Puebla E. C., Contreras-Quijada A., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staa3711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.502.5668V 502, 5668

    2021 doi

  75. [86]

    A., 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008CBET.1631....1Y 1631, 1

    Yamaoka H., Itagaki K., Miyashita A., Koff R. A., 2008, Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008CBET.1631....1Y 1631, 1

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.