Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Hot donors in cataclysmic variables: The case of EI Psc

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes EI Psc as a 64-minute dwarf nova whose 4440 K donor and 0.70-solar-mass white dwarf trace a rare formation channel from day-scale binary progenitors.

desk verdict Solid observational redetermination of the benchmark hot-donor CV, with a formation-channel conclusion that outruns the MESA evidence presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21865 v1 pith:QJYNKIA6 submitted 2025-05-28 astro-ph.SR

J. Kára , S. Zharikov , M. Wolf , N. Vaidman , A. Agishev , S. Khokhlov , C.E. Chavez This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords cataclysmicvariablesdwarfnovaehotdonorsEIPscshort-periodbinariesbinarystellarevolutionmasstransferaccretiondiscs
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

This paper establishes that the 64-minute dwarf nova EI Psc belongs to a rare class of cataclysmic variables whose donor stars are much warmer than standard evolutionary models allow at such short orbital periods. Combining new time-resolved spectroscopy, space-based and ground-based photometry, the authors determine a 4440 K donor, a 0.70 $M_\odot$ white dwarf, an inclination of 44.5 degrees, and a very low mass-transfer rate of about $4\times10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. Their light-curve model explains the double-humped quiescent variation as the sum of the Roche-lobe-filling hot secondary and a hot spot, with an accretion disc only half the tidal radius. The central evolutionary claim is that these warm-donor systems form from progenitors with a low-mass white dwarf ($\lesssim 0.6\,M_\odot$) and a relatively massive secondary ($1.1$–$1.5\,M_\odot$) on an initial period of days, a channel that should make them much rarer than ordinary cataclysmic variables.

What carries the argument

The chain that carries the argument starts from two measured radial-velocity curves: the He II 4686 line (amplitude $62.6$ km/s) is adopted as the white dwarf's orbital motion, and the absorption-line cross-correlation curve gives the donor's motion, fixing the mass ratio $q = K_{\rm HeII}/K_2 = 0.187(14)$. The Keplerian mass functions turn this ratio into $M_{\rm WD}\sin^3 i = 0.24(1)\,M_\odot$, and a light-curve model—composed of a Roche-lobe-filling hot secondary, a black-body accretion disc, and a hot spot at the stream impact—converts that into the inclination ($44.5^\circ$) and the component masses ($M_{\rm WD}=0.70\,M_\odot$, $M_2=0.13\,M_\odot$). A grid of about 600 binary evolution tracks with non-conservative mass transfer then shows that these masses and the warm donor are reproduced only when the initial white dwarf is $\lesssim 0.6\,M_\odot$ and the initial donor is $1.1$–$1.5\,M_\odot$ with an orbital period of days.

What would settle it

Measure the white dwarf's radial velocity from its photospheric absorption lines in the far ultraviolet; if the resulting $K_{\rm WD}$ differs from the adopted $62.6$ km/s by more than the quoted uncertainty, or an independent geometric inclination near 55 degrees is confirmed, the mass ratio, $M_{\rm WD}=0.70\,M_\odot$, and the claimed low-mass-progenitor channel would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, EI Psc is a hydrogen-rich dwarf nova sitting below the usual CV period minimum, hosting a cool but not cold white dwarf ($T_{\rm eff}=6130$ K, $M_{\rm WD}=0.70(4)\,M_\odot$) and a warm K-type donor ($T_2=4440$ K, $M_2=0.13\,M_\odot$), with the system seen at $i=44.5^\circ$. The argument proceeds from the measured radial-velocity amplitudes: the He II 4686 line is shown to move in anti-phase with the donor's absorption lines and is adopted as the white dwarf's orbital motion, giving $q = K_{\rm HeII}/K_2 = 0.187(14)$ and $M_{\rm WD}\sin^3 i = 0.24(1)\,M_\odot$. A grid of about 600 binary evolution tracks then shows that warm donors at short periods are produced only by non-conservative mass transfer from $1.1$–$1.5\,M_\odot$ secondaries onto white dwarfs initially below about $0.6\,M_\odot$, starting from day-scale orbits; the same tracks reproduce the whole known warm-donor sample.

Load-bearing premise

The derived white dwarf mass and the formation channel both rest on the assumption that the He II 4686 line moves with the white dwarf itself, and on the light-curve inclination of 44.5 degrees; if the line is contaminated by disc or boundary-layer motion, or the true inclination is closer to 55 degrees, the masses shift by tens of percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same evolutionary tracks that reproduce EI Psc also account for the donor temperatures of the five other known warm-donor systems, several of which sit in or near the CV period gap.
  • Successful tracks require non-conservative mass transfer (60–100% of transferred matter lost) and a low initial white dwarf mass, so the system's observed mass ratio is a record of how little mass the white dwarf has retained.
  • The model predicts the disc to be only about half the tidal truncation radius and dominated by line emission and the hot spot, consistent with the very low measured accretion rate of about $4\times10^{-13}\,M_\odot\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$.
  • The formation rate of the requisite $1.1$–$1.5\,M_\odot$ secondaries on day-scale orbits is low, so warm-donor CVs are expected to be significantly rarer than the general CV population.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this formation channel is correct, the other warm-donor systems should show the same CNO-processing signatures seen in EI Psc's ultraviolet spectrum (for example, an anomalous N V/C IV ratio), making that anomaly a class marker rather than a quirk of one object.
  • The scenario implies the donors have an elevated surface helium abundance from pre-RLOF hydrogen burning; high-resolution infrared spectroscopy of their Na I and Ca I line ratios, already noted as unusual in EI Psc, could test this directly.
  • The local space density of the six known warm-donor systems could serve as a census test of the predicted progenitor fraction, since the model makes a definite statement about how rare day-scale, $1.1$–$1.5\,M_\odot$ secondaries around low-mass white dwarfs should be.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents new time-resolved spectroscopy (GTC/OSIRIS, VLT/X-Shooter, LAMOST) and photometry (TESS, OAN SPM, Ondrejov) of the 64-minute dwarf nova EI Psc. The authors measure P_orb = 0.044567(13) d, derive q = 0.187(14) from the ratio K_HeII/K2, fit the quiescent V-band light curve with a multi-component model to obtain i = 44.5(6.5) deg, M_WD = 0.70(4) M_sun, T_WD = 6130 K, and Mdot ~ 4e-13 M_sun/yr, construct Doppler tomograms of the disc and stream, and run a grid of about 600 MESA binary evolution tracks. They conclude that EI Psc and similar warm-donor systems formed from low-mass white dwarfs (M_WD < 0.6 M_sun) and relatively massive secondaries (1.1-1.5 M_sun) on day-scale initial orbits, and that such systems are rarer than normal CVs.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper gives the most detailed observational characterization to date of a member of the rare 'hot donor' short-period CV class and proposes a specific formation channel that can be tested with population synthesis. The paper has real strengths: an independent orbital-period determination, a homogeneous Doppler-tomography analysis with absorption-line subtraction, use of public TESS and survey data, an explicit 600-track MESA grid, and candid caveats about the uncertainties in nova mass-retention physics. The main limitations are that the headline evolutionary conclusion is not uniquely constrained against the standard CV channel, and several central parameters rest on adopted identifications or model assumptions that need quantitative sensitivity checks.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, Fig. 17] The central evolutionary conclusion is not uniquely established. The paper states that systems with M_WD < 0.6 M_sun and non-conservative mass transfer 'perfectly explain the sample,' but it neither reports the selection criteria applied to the 600-track grid nor quantifies how many tracks, and which parts of parameter space, actually fit the observed P_orb, q, and donor temperature. No quantitative comparison is made against the standard alternative: an initially low-mass donor that evolves into the observed short period after the white dwarf is already near its current mass. Because q and P_orb alone may be reproduced by more than one initial configuration, the abstract's progenitor claim needs a falsifiable observable or a likelihood/occupation fraction over the grid, with the assumed beta prescription and its dependence on nova models stated explicitly.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (2)-(3); Section 6, Fig. 15] The mass ratio and all derived masses rest on identifying K_HeII = 62.6 km/s with the orbital motion of the white dwarf. The paper argues, mostly from anti-phasing and from the Doppler map, that He II 4686 originates at the primary, but the map also shows a weak hot-spot component, and the text allows a boundary-layer origin. If He II is partially contaminated by disc or boundary-layer motion, or if the inclination is closer to Harrison et al.'s 55 deg instead of the adopted 44.5 deg, M_WD shifts by tens of percent. Please quantify these systematics, for example by comparing K_HeII with the H-alpha diagnostic-diagram amplitude and by showing the light-curve model and mass functions at i = 55 deg.
  3. [Section 4 and Table 5, Fig. 11] The quoted white-dwarf temperature T_WD = 6130 K with +1500/-4000 K errors is presented as a headline result, but the spectra show no visible WD photospheric contribution (Section 4: 'A visible presence of WD contribution is absent'), and the light-curve model in Fig. 11 finds the WD continuum more than ten times fainter than the secondary and hot spot. This parameter therefore appears effectively unconstrained by the data. I recommend reporting T_WD as a model-dependent upper limit or removing it from the abstract and conclusions, and documenting how the asymmetric uncertainty was derived.
  4. [Section 5, Table 5] The reported uncertainties on i, M_WD, T_WD, and Mdot are described as 1-sigma values from one-dimensional chi-squared approximations with other parameters fixed. With eleven free parameters in the light-curve model and a gradient-descent search, parameter degeneracies are not assessed. In particular, the outer disc radius, disc thickness, and hot-spot parameters may be degenerate with inclination and hence with M_WD. Please provide confidence intervals from a global exploration (for example, an MCMC or grid-based marginalization), or at least show the main correlation plots, before the quoted 1-sigma values are used to support the mass and evolutionary conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 5] The abstract gives the inclination as i = 44.5 deg(7), while Table 5 reports i = 44.5(6.5) deg; please make the uncertainty consistent and indicate clearly that the error is in degrees.
  2. [Fig. 8] The y-axis label reads 'Raidal velocity'; this should be 'Radial velocity'.
  3. [Section 2.2] The heading contains a typo: 'T ransiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite' should be 'Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite', and 'theTransiting' in the same sentence should be separated.
  4. [Section 2.3.2] The abbreviation 'FWHTQE' appears to be a typo for 'FWHM_QE' or 'FWHM of the QE curve'.
  5. [Section 7] The MESA grid description would benefit from a table or appendix listing initial mass ranges, metallicity, mixing-length parameters, and the exact definition of the beta parameter used for each track; the current text gives the ranges in prose but not the full input physics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the system parameters follow from measured radial velocities plus a light-curve fit with externally fixed inputs, and the evolutionary conclusion is a forward MESA grid, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The orbital period comes from a Lomb-Scargle periodogram of independent photometry; K2 comes from cross-correlation of the secondary's absorption lines; K_HeII is measured from Gaussian fits to the He II line and adopted as the white dwarf's RV (Section 4). Equations (2)-(4) then give the mass functions and a sin i directly from Kepler's laws. The light-curve model fixes q = 0.187, T2 = 4440 K, distance, and E(B-V), and fits inclination, M_WD, T_WD, and Mdot; the resulting M_WD = 0.70 is consistent with the spectroscopic mass function at i = 44.5 deg, but it is not the same quantity as the input q. The evolutionary conclusion is a forward grid of about 600 MESA tracks over initial WD mass, donor mass, period, and the mass-retention parameter beta, compared in Fig. 17 with the observed Teff-Porb sample; the claimed progenitor range is a subset of grid conditions that reproduce the sample, not a parameter fitted to the target and then read back. The paper's self-citations (Zharikov et al. 2013; Kára et al. 2021, 2023 for the light-curve/hot-spot model) are methodological references whose equations and assumptions are stated in the text, and they are not the load-bearing justification for the evolutionary conclusion. The main caveats - He II contamination, inclination degeneracy, and possible underdetermination of the MESA channel - are correctness and robustness concerns, not circular reductions. No prediction is equivalent by construction to its input, so no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities; all components (white dwarf, warm donor, disc, hot spot) are standard CV physics. The load is carried by about a dozen fitted parameters (light curve plus hot spot) and by adopted physical relations: the alpha-disc temperature profile, the Nauenberg helium-WD mass-radius relation, Eddington limb darkening, the K4V template, and the time-averaged beta in MESA. The least secure choices are the helium-WD mass-radius relation for a hydrogen-rich system and the assumption that beta absorbs nova feedback.

free parameters (11)
  • Inclination i = 44.5(6.5) deg
    Primary free parameter of the quiescent V-band light curve model (Table 5); drives the deprojection of masses from the mass functions.
  • White dwarf mass M_WD = 0.70(4) M_sun
    Fit parameter in the light curve model; combined with q gives the secondary mass M2 = 0.13 M_sun.
  • White dwarf temperature T_WD = 6130 (+1500 / -4000) K
    Weakly constrained fit parameter; Section 4 notes no visible WD contribution in the spectra, so the temperature rests on the model.
  • Mass accretion rate Mdot = 3.9(6) x 10^-13 M_sun/yr
    Scaled from the model disc luminosity via the standard disc Teff(r) relation (Eq. 6).
  • Outer disc radius Rd,out = 0.134(23) R_sun
    Fit parameter; the result that the disc is about half the tidal truncation radius depends on it.
  • Disc thickness hd,out = 0.003(3) R_sun
    Fit parameter of the disc geometry model.
  • Hot spot angular length = 123(17) deg
    Fit parameter for the stream-disc impact region model described in Kára et al. (2021).
  • Hot spot width = 0.064(14) %
    Fit parameter for the hot spot.
  • Hot spot temperature excess = 4.65(15)
    Ratio T_s,max / T_d,out, a fit parameter.
  • Disc temperature exponent EXP = not reported
    Allowed to deviate from 0.25 following Linnell et al. (2010); the fitted value is not given in Table 5.
  • MESA mass-loss fraction beta = 60-100%, scanned
    Governing parameter of the evolutionary grid; absorbs nova eruptions, winds, and L2/L3 losses in a time-averaged sense.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Steady-state alpha-disc temperature profile Teff(r) = T0 (r/R_WD)^-3 (1 - (R_WD/r)^1/2)^EXP with EXP = 0.25 as standard
    Eq. 6, Section 5. The quiescent light curve model and the inferred Mdot both rest on this profile.
  • domain assumption R_WD follows the Nauenberg (1972) mass-radius relation for a non-rotating helium WD
    Section 5: used to set T0 and R_WD. EI Psc is hydrogen-rich, so a CO WD mass-radius law may be more appropriate; at 0.70 M_sun the choice affects the disc temperature scale.
  • standard math Eddington limb-darkening approximation for the disc and secondary
    Section 5, following Mayo et al. (1980) and Paczynski & Schwarzenberg-Czerny (1980).
  • domain assumption The K4V template from Kesseli et al. (2017) with [Fe/H] = 0 represents the secondary's photospheric absorption
    Section 6: used for absorption subtraction before Doppler tomography; the paper notes residual artifacts from abundance mismatch.
  • ad hoc to paper Time-averaged beta captures nova eruptions, episodic mass loss, and irradiation of the secondary
    Section 7 footnote: explicitly a simplifying assumption; the influence of nova eruptions on the donor and irradiation are not modeled directly.
  • domain assumption The quiescent disc continuum is optically thin with effective temperature about 1500 K and contributes less than 10% of the V-band light
    Section 5: this decomposition of the double-humped light curve into secondary plus hot spot is assumed when converting disc luminosity to Mdot.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hot donors in cataclysmic variables: The case of EI Psc." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QJYNKIA6

@misc{pith2026250521865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hot donors in cataclysmic variables: The case of EI Psc},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QJYNKIA6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21865}
}
abstract

Context: We present results of time-resolved optical spectroscopy and photometry of the short-orbital period dwarf nova EI Psc. Aims: This study aims to determine fundamental system parameters of EI Psc, study properties of accretion structures in the system, and investigate its origin and current evolution state. Methods: We analyse newly obtained time-resolved spectroscopic and photometric observations as well as archival data. We used light curve modelling, Doppler tomography, and MESA evolutionary models to study the characteristics of EI Psc. Results: The system contains a relatively low temperature ($T_{\rm eff} = 6130\,\mathrm{K}$) white dwarf with mass of $M_{\mathrm WD} = 0.70(4)\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. The mass of the warm ($T_2 = 4440\,\mathrm{K}$) secondary is $M_2 = 0.13\,\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. The inclination of the system is $i= 44.5\deg(7)$. The mass accretion rate is $\approx$ $4\times10^{-13}\,\mathrm{M}_\odot\,\mathrm{year}^{-1}$. The long-term light curve of the system shows outbursts and superoutbursts. The quiescence light curve is double-humped and is formed by the combination of radiation from the Roche lobe filling the hot secondary and the hot spot. The radius of the outer disc is about two times smaller than the tidal truncation radius. Most of the disc's emission consists of emission lines and radiation from the hot spot at the stream-disc impact region. Conclusions: These types of systems are formed from progenitors with a low mass WD $\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{WD}} \lesssim 0.6\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and relatively massive secondaries $1.1-1.5\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ with initial orbital periods on a scale of days. The number of similar systems is expected to be significantly lower than the usual CVs due to a lower forming rate of their relatively massive progenitors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21865 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Long-term light curve of EI Psc composed of ASAS-SN, ZTF, Gaia, AAVSO, TESS, SPM, Ondˇrejov observations, and observations published by Skillman et al. (2002). The vertical lines represent the date of spectral observations of LAMOST (brown), ESO (green), and GTC (yellow). The black and red triangles mark the observed outbursts and superoutbursts, respectively. Bottom: Light curve showing the scheduling of diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outbursts observed by TESS mission on September 3, 2022 and October 2, 2023. The brightness change rate is indicated in the upper panels. 4.00 2.00 1.00 0.75 0.50 Period [h] 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Frequency [d 1 ] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Power [10 1 ] f1 = 22.434 d 1 P1 = 1.070 h f2 = 44.876 d 1 P2 = 0.535 h 22.38 22.44 22.50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 44.82 44.88 44.94 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Periodogram of the TESS SPM, and Ondˇrejov data focusing on the orbital period. Only the data obtained in quiescence were used. the maxima at phases 0.25 and 0.75. The light curve was sym￾metric in the optical and infrared data reported by Thorstensen et al. (2002b); Harrison et al. (2009), and in the first two sets of TESS observations. However, the light curve exhibits an asym￾metric shape in the last two sectors … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: TESS and SPM phase-folded light curves in quiescence. Only TESS measurements with an error smaller than 5 e− s −1 . The orange points show the binned light curve with the width of the bins set to 0.02 of the orbital phase. 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 O…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-folded light curves obtained at the Ondˇrejov Observatory in 2023 and 2024 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: LAMOST and X-shooter flux calibrated spectra of EI Psc. we conclude that the He ii 4686 Å line originates at the primary. The RV curve of Hα measured by the DD method is not com￾pletely in anti-phase with the RV curve of the secondary, which could be attributed to the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectra of EI Psc obtained at GTC with grism R2500V (top panels), R2500R (middle panels), and R2500I (bottom panels). The upper panels show averaged spectra in blue and a single spectrum in light blue, single spectra were obtained during the orbital phase φ  0.0. The …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial velocities of absorption lines and Hα and He ii emission lines. The solid lines show the best sinusoidal fits of each set, parameters of the best fits are given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Trailed spectra zoomed in on He ii 4686 Å. The left plot shows raw data and the right one presents the spectra after removing the con￾tribution of the secondary. The geometry of the system is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Geometry of EI Psc. The colour bar corresponds to the effective temperature of the emitting regions. The blue circle shows the disc tidal truncated radius. The cross marks the mass centre of the system. at the position of the secondary in the maps based on H and Ca li…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Absorption-corrected Doppler map of EI Psc based on Hα (top) and Hβ (bottom) observations obtained by GTC. The Roche lobe of the secondary is outlined by solid lines, the tidal limitation radius is outlined by the dashed circle. The plus signs mark the positions of th…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Absorption-corrected Doppler maps and trailed spectra of He i emission lines. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Absorption-corrected Doppler maps and trailed spectra of He ii emission line and Ca ii emission lines. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Accretion disc brightness distribution transformed from Hα (left) and Hβ (right) Doppler maps to the XY plane of the system. in the plot. Increasing the initial mass of the secondary leads to increased temperature at the orbital periods ≈1 h, but increasing the accret…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Evolution tracks of EI Psc. The red circle marks EI Psc po￾sition. The violet circles denote known systems with warm donors for orbital periods ≲ 5 hours (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Left panel: Log of density, log of the temperature, and abundance of H and He in the secondary of EI Psc following mesa model. Right panel: Calculated spectrum of the secondary compared with observed one of EI Psc. thetic donor spectra has a flat continuum after ∼ 460…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Marsh, T

    Ashley, R. P., Marsh, T. R., Breedt, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 149

    2020

  2. [2]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

  3. [3]

    1998, A&A, 339, 518

    Beuermann, K., Baraffe, I., Kolb, U., & Weichhold, M. 1998, A&A, 339, 518

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Birch, K. P. & Downs, M. J. 1994, Metrologia, 31, 315

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    T., Marsh, T

    Breedt, E., Gänsicke, B. T., Marsh, T. R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2548

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    J., Steeghs, D., de Miguel, E., et al

    Carter, P. J., Steeghs, D., de Miguel, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 372

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 2051

    El-Badry, K., Quataert, E., Rix, H.-W., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2051

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    2007, MNRAS, 374, 1449 Gaia Collaboration

    Epelstain, N., Yaron, O., Kovetz, A., & Prialnik, D. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1449 Gaia Collaboration. 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog, I/345 Gänsicke, B. T., Szkody, P., de Martino, D., et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 443

    work page 2007

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    & Bogdán, Á

    Gilfanov, M. & Bogdán, Á. 2010, Nature, 463, 924

    2010

  2. [10]

    J., Marsh, T

    Green, M. J., Marsh, T. R., Carter, P. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1243

    2020

  3. [11]

    2020, PASJ, 72, 76

    Han, Z., Boonrucksar, S., Qian, S., et al. 2020, PASJ, 72, 76

    2020

  4. [12]

    Harrison, T. E. 2016, ApJ, 833, 14

    2016

  5. [13]

    E., Bornak, J., Howell, S

    Harrison, T. E., Bornak, J., Howell, S. B., et al. 2009, AJ, 137, 4061

    2009

  6. [14]

    S., Zharikov, S., Neustroev, V ., & Tovmassian, G

    Hernandez, M. S., Zharikov, S., Neustroev, V ., & Tovmassian, G. 2017, MN- RAS, 470, 1960 Hernandez Santisteban, J. V . 2021, PyDoppler: Wrapper for Doppler tomogra- phy software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2106.003

    2017

  7. [15]

    M., Prialnik, D., & Kovetz, A

    Hillman, Y ., Shara, M. M., Prialnik, D., & Kovetz, A. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 886

    2020

  8. [16]

    Hjellming, M. S. & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794

    1987

  9. [17]

    1998, Shanghai Observatory Annals, 19, 235

    Hu, J., Wei, J., Xu, D., Li, C., & Dong, X. 1998, Shanghai Observatory Annals, 19, 235

    1998

  10. [18]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829 Article number, page 15 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no

    Hubeny, I., Allende Prieto, C., Osorio, Y ., & Lanz, T. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2104.02829 Article number, page 15 of 18 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa53970-25

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    2015, MNRAS, 451, 149 Kára, J., Zharikov, S., Wolf, M., et al

    Just, A., Fuchs, B., Jahreiß, H., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 149 Kára, J., Zharikov, S., Wolf, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 47 Kára, J., Zharikov, S., Wolf, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A49

    2015

  12. [20]

    Y ., West, A

    Kesseli, A. Y ., West, A. A., Veyette, M., et al. 2017, ApJS, 230, 16

    2017

  13. [21]

    Kloppenborg, B. K. 2025, Observations from the AA VSO International Database

    2025

  14. [22]

    2011, ApJS, 194, 28

    Knigge, C., Baraffe, I., & Patterson, J. 2011, ApJS, 194, 28

    2011

  15. [23]

    S., Shappee, B

    Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 104502

    2017

  16. [24]

    & Ritter, H

    Kolb, U. & Ritter, H. 1990, A&A, 236, 385

    1990

  17. [25]

    C., Park, H

    Lee, Y ., Moon, D.-S., Kim, S. C., Park, H. S., & Ni, Y . Q. 2024, ApJ, 964, 186

    2024

  18. [26]

    P., Godon, P., Hubeny, I., Sion, E

    Linnell, A. P., Godon, P., Hubeny, I., Sion, E. M., & Szkody, P. 2010, ApJ, 719, 271

    2010

  19. [27]

    P., Dhillon, V

    Littlefair, S. P., Dhillon, V . S., Marsh, T. R., & Gänsicke, B. T. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1435

    2006

  20. [28]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447

    1976

  21. [29]

    & Loeb, A

    MacLeod, M. & Loeb, A. 2020, ApJ, 895, 29

    2020

  22. [30]

    Marsh, T. R. & Horne, K. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 269

    1988

  23. [31]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  24. [32]

    K., Wickramasinghe, D

    Mayo, S. K., Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Whelan, J. A. J. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 793

    1980

  25. [33]

    Morton, D. C. 2000, ApJS, 130, 403

    2000

  26. [34]

    & Zwitter, T

    Munari, U. & Zwitter, T. 1998, A&AS, 128, 277

    1998

  27. [35]

    1972, ApJ, 175, 417

    Nauenberg, M. 1972, ApJ, 175, 417

    1972

  28. [36]

    2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Nelemans, G. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 330, The Astrophysics of Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, ed. J. M. Hameury & J. P. Lasota, 27

    2005

  29. [37]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 2526

    Otulakowska-Hypka, M., Olech, A., & Patterson, J. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 2526

    2016

  30. [38]

    & Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A

    Paczynski, B. & Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A. 1980, Acta Astron., 30, 127

    1980

  31. [39]

    & Sienkiewicz, R

    Paczynski, B. & Sienkiewicz, R. 1981, ApJ, 248, L27

    1981

  32. [40]

    F., Gänsicke, B

    Pala, A. F., Gänsicke, B. T., Belloni, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 510, 6110

    2022

  33. [41]

    1998, PASP, 110, 1132

    Patterson, J. 1998, PASP, 110, 1132

    1998

  34. [42]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  35. [43]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 4

    2013

  36. [44]

    2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, ApJS, 220, 15

    2015

  37. [45]

    B., et al

    Paxton, B., Schwab, J., Bauer, E. B., et al. 2018, ApJS, 234, 34

    2018

  38. [46]

    2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pichardo Marcano, M., Rivera Sandoval, L

    Paxton, B., Smolec, R., Schwab, J., et al. 2019, ApJS, 243, 10 Pichardo Marcano, M., Rivera Sandoval, L. E., Maccarone, T. J., & Scaringi, S. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3275

    2019

  39. [47]

    Pickles, A. J. 1998, PASP, 110, 863

    1998

  40. [48]

    2004, ApJ, 604, 817

    Politano, M. 2004, ApJ, 604, 817

    2004

  41. [49]

    B., Wood, M

    Ramsay, G., Howell, S. B., Wood, M. A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 789

    2014

  42. [50]

    C., & Webbink, R

    Rappaport, S., Joss, P. C., & Webbink, R. F. 1982, ApJ, 254, 616

    1982

  43. [51]

    G., Copperwheat, C

    Rebassa-Mansergas, A., Parsons, S. G., Copperwheat, C. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 790, 28

    2014

  44. [52]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  45. [53]

    Scargle, J. D. 1982, ApJ, 263, 835

    1982

  46. [54]

    R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T

    Schreiber, M. R., Zorotovic, M., & Wijnen, T. P. G. 2016, MNRAS, 455, L16

    2016

  47. [55]

    2021, A&A, 646, A181

    Schwope, A., Worpel, H., & Traulsen, I. 2021, A&A, 646, A181

    2021

  48. [56]

    W., Szkody, P., & Thorstensen, J

    Shafter, A. W., Szkody, P., & Thorstensen, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 308, 765

    1986

  49. [57]

    J., Prieto, J

    Shappee, B. J., Prieto, J. L., Grupe, D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 48

    2014

  50. [58]

    Shen, K. J. & Quataert, E. 2022, ApJ, 938, 31

    2022

  51. [59]

    R., Krajci, T., Beshore, E., et al

    Skillman, D. R., Krajci, T., Beshore, E., et al. 2002, PASP, 114, 630

    2002

  52. [60]

    Spruit, H. C. 1998, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:astro-ph/9806141]

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    2020, ApJ, 895, 70

    Starrfield, S., Bose, M., Iliadis, C., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 70

    2020

  54. [62]

    2024, ApJ, 962, 191

    Starrfield, S., Bose, M., Iliadis, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 191

    2024

  55. [63]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 1475

    Subebekova, G., Zharikov, S., Tovmassian, G., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 1475

    2020

  56. [64]

    E., Howell, S

    Szkody, P., Everett, M. E., Howell, S. B., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 63

    2014

  57. [65]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 34

    Tang, W.-S., Li, X.-D., & Cui, Z. 2024, ApJ, 977, 34

    2024

  58. [66]

    Thorstensen, J. R. 2013, PASP, 125, 506

    2013

  59. [67]

    Thorstensen, J. R. 2015, PASP, 127, 351

    2015

  60. [68]

    R., Alper, E

    Thorstensen, J. R., Alper, E. H., & Weil, K. E. 2016, AJ, 152, 226

    2016

  61. [69]

    A., Aarseth, S

    Tout, C. A., Aarseth, S. J., Pols, O. R., & Eggleton, P. P. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 732

    1997

  62. [70]

    Truran, J. W. & Livio, M. 1986, ApJ, 308, 721

    1986

  63. [71]

    V ., Fedorova, A

    Tutukov, A. V ., Fedorova, A. V ., Ergma, E. V ., & Yungelson, L. R. 1985, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 11, 52

    1985

  64. [72]

    2001, IAU Circ., 7747, 2

    Uemura, M., Ishioka, R., Kato, T., et al. 2001, IAU Circ., 7747, 2

    2001

  65. [73]

    VanderPlas, J. T. 2018, ApJS, 236, 16

    2018

  66. [74]

    R., Kojiguchi, N., et al

    Wakamatsu, Y ., Thorstensen, J. R., Kojiguchi, N., et al. 2021, PASJ, 73, 1209

    2021

  67. [75]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, V ol

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, V ol. 28 (Cambridge University Press)

    1995

  68. [76]

    2001, Chinese J

    Wei, J.-Y ., Jiang, X.-J., Xu, D.-W., Zhou, A.-Y ., & Hu, J.-Y . 2001, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 1, 483

    2001

  69. [77]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 191

    Williams, R., Ryan, R., & Rudy, R. 2024, ApJ, 975, 191

    2024

  70. [78]

    M., & Kovetz, A

    Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M. M., & Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398

    2005

  71. [79]

    2013, A&A, 549, A77 Article number, page 16 of 18 J

    Zharikov, S., Tovmassian, G., Aviles, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, A77 Article number, page 16 of 18 J. Kára et al.: Hot donors in cataclysmic variables: The case of EI Psc Appendix A: Additional Doppler maps □1200 □600 0 600 1200 vx [km s□1] □1200 □600 0 600 1200 vy [km s□1] He...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.